From 1996-2011, Lidstrom had the 11th most points amongst all players. His 0.77 points per game average was the highest amongst Dmen.
So it's not Bergeron vs Crosby. It's more like Crosby with Bergeron's defensive play vs Crosby.
I've watched Lidstrom plenty. The difference in both players defensively isn't as big as you think. And Lidstrom wasn't exactly mistake-free in his 20s. He did have the benefit of a stacked roster...something Erik hasn't had.
If anything he should have one less.
How many points would Karlsson have to put up to compensate for the defensive handicap he clearly has to Lidstrom? It's well over 100 points considering Lidstrom was good for 80 points. They are both amazing players but Lidstrom didn't have risk in his game.
Remember how good Karlsson was at the Olympics 2014? Lidström was that good for 10 seasons. His constistency is unmatched.
The stacked roster excuse doesn't fly anymore.....Lidstroms defensive game is among the best of all time. EK isn't close to that...stacked or non stacked roster doesn't change that.I've watched Lidstrom plenty. The difference in both players defensively isn't as big as you think. And Lidstrom wasn't exactly mistake-free in his 20s. He did have the benefit of a stacked roster...something Erik hasn't had.
I would love for one time to not hear that ridiculous excuse as to why someone doesn't agree with outlandish statements.You clearly don't understand (or haven't watched?) Karlsson game. The better he plays defensively, the more dangerous he is offensively.
Orr is a generational player. Any era you would put him in, he would dominate. That's why he was seen as the greatest of all time, not the greatest of the 70s.The game is extremely different from when Orr played. It was a crude version of hockey with no systems, goalies that you could beat clean, and players who couldn't skate compared to today.
If a player as good as Orr (the best of all time) played today, he wouldn't be regarded as well as Orr even though he is the same because you just can't dominate based on pure skill like you could in the 70s/80s. The game has changed too much.
I've watched Lidstrom plenty. The difference in both players defensively isn't as big as you think. And Lidstrom wasn't exactly mistake-free in his 20s. He did have the benefit of a stacked roster...something Erik hasn't had.
The stacked roster excuse doesn't fly anymore.....Lidstroms defensive game is among the best of all time. EK isn't close to that...stacked or non stacked roster doesn't change that.
Anyone who actually watched him play saw how well rounded and almost perfect his game was. He was consistent AND dominant.
I would love for one time to not hear that ridiculous excuse as to why someone doesn't agree with outlandish statements.
Saying "You clearly don't watch EK because you don't agree with me." Is hardly a great response and it won't get anyone to take you seriously. I've watched him play plenty and I've seen greatly improve defensively. But this sudden improvement doesn't put him anywhere near the top all time....you know, where Lidstrom has cemented himself.
EK is almost a PPG player with decent defensive game, you really think a 100 point EK would be better defensively? No.
No one said he isn't good defensively, he's just not on Lidstroms level....why that seems to offend people is beyond me. It always seems to be about trying to prove a faulty point, and following it up with. "I know more than you because I'm an EK fan."
You clearly said you would take a 100 point EK over a 60 point Lidstrom based on this idea that EKs defense would be greater with more offense.....Lol I never said that Karlsson was a better defensive player than Lidstrom. So I don't know why you are getting offended about that.
What you don't seem to understand is that Karlsson is going to have better offensive numbers the better he plays defensively. His biggest advantage over the field is that he is the best player in the league at turning defence into offense.
If you have watched him, you simply don't understand karlssons game.
You clearly said you would take a 100 point EK over a 60 point Lidstrom based on this idea that EKs defense would be greater with more offense.....
Soo....
Really? His best season with 82 points in 82 games, he was hardly one of the top defensive defensemen and not close to Lidstrom. Your saying, adding 18 more points and his defense would actually get better....how does that make sense?I said that Karlsson putting up points doesn't come at the cost of his defensive game. In fact it's the opposite, he is a more dangerous offensive player when he is playing elite level defense.
Really? His best season with 82 points in 82 games, he was hardly one of the top defensive defensemen and not close to Lidstrom. Your saying, adding 18 more points and his defense would actually get better....how does that make sense?
EK shows some level of elite defense but it's not consistent and it's still relatively new.
You can't just assume he would be a 100 point Defenseman with elite defense when he hardly had elite defense at 82 points.
Lidstroms well rounded game has already been solidified as valuable to both a team and to himself as an individual. The gap between the two defensively would not be made up for with more offense.
Exactly, he's always flirting with a PPG, while playing non elite defense...and it's not just a few....it's 20-30 points....and your saying if he achieved that, he would be better defensively.Karlsson is always flirting with PPG so I don't really think a few points difference mean that much.
And it's because when Karlsson plays elite defence he has the puck more, he is driving possession more, and his team is spending more time in the other zone.
What we needs is Karlsson to stop injuring his feet. He has come back slow each time, and it seems when he gets into peak form he suffers another serious injury.
Exactly, he's always flirting with a PPG, while playing non elite defense...and it's not just a few....it's 20-30 points....and your saying if he achieved that, he would be better defensively.
That's not elite defense, that's more of his great offensive abilities. If defense was measured by how much you have the puck, then Gretzky is the greatest defensive forward of all time.
EKs offense seems to blind people to how much he actually lacks defensively. And it isn't black and white, he isn't bad defensively, but when comparing to Lidstrom, people will always point to EKs offense to make a point. Defensively, they aren't close....at all.
On a team with Yzerman, Fedorov, and Shanahan, Karlsson would lead his team in points exactly zero times.Where does his ppg rank? What were his league scoring finishes? How many times did he lead his team in scoring? Did he ever lead the league in assists?
0.77 pace is still impressive but the 11th most points is because he was so damn consistent and
Well done.People who think its close are:
1. Too young to have seen Lidstrom play.
2. Stupid/Trolls
3. Havent played, or havent understood the stick work, positioning and ice awareness that made Lidstrom great.
Maybe in stretches, but not as a whole. His offense is his go to and what makes him a distinguished Defenseman....just because he has amazing high level offense for a Defenseman doesn't mean that being "ok" defensively is suddenly warranted to compare him to Lidstrom.He is ppg when he is playing elite defence as well. he's just a really consistent offensive player.
I think the issue with EK is that he is an inconsistent defensive player.
He's gonna have a stretch where he will be a human eraser on defence and the proponents will use that as evidence. but he can also have a stretch where it seems like the focus isnt there, and the detractors will use that as evidence.
It's of my opinion that if Karlsson strings some healthy seasons and plays on a true contender where he doesn't have to be the defensive and offensive player every game. The inconsistencies in his defensive game would vanish.