Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[connormcmuffin]

Sure...Player X was not so great because of the division he played in, so great argument there...

Again you're being glib, I detailed in multiple posts why I put others ahead of Bourque.

You're comparing dominate playoff defensemen and champions against a common denominator of an underachieving team with weak competition.

You're praising a guy whose offense was being a shot monkey to a cartoonish degree. He's simply overrated.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

I'm a guy who falls on the flip a coin side of the lidstrom Bourque argument, theres arguments for both. Things like leading his team in scoring 5 times shouldnt be brought up. Bourque played on a team where that was a possibility, Lidstrom didnt. I would say Bourqie might have a slight offensive edge over Lidstrom but leading his team in scoring isnt it. On the flip side, people will say "well Bourque was on a bad team so his playoff record shouldnt count" which I would counter with Lidstrom being MVP in the playoffs of the best team in the league is still something that should be taken into consideration.

Bourque definitely has the Canadian advantage working in his favour though. Lidstrom should've won the norris in 98 without question but lost it to a tough canadian. If he wins that Norris and has 8, tied for most all time this argument for Bourque is weakened quite a bit.



Thats a lazy argument. Lidstrom is the only dman to not play his career in the 80s and break 1000 points. Lidstrom was the best offensive and defensive dman of his generation. There isnt much of an argument against either statement. Theres a good argument that Bourque is neither the best offensive or defensive dman of his generation. Coffey was better offensively and guys like Langway, Chelios and Stevens (ish) have an argument for better defensively than Bourque.

Like I said, I think its a coin flip and theres good sides to each coin and argument but Bourque can definitely not say he was the best offensively or defensively of his generation while Lidstrom can.

Normal, he didn't have to play against an offensive monster like Coffey unlike Bourque or a defensive monster like Langway. If Bourque played in the same generation than Lidstrom, no doubt he would have been the best offensive and defensive defenseman. Bourque played in the strongest era ever for defensemen and Lidstrom in the weakest one. One could be better offensively (Coffey) and another defensively (Langway), the latter is debatable though, but no doubt Bourque was the top two-way defenseman of his generation. Among all those hall of fame defensemen, he was the best for most years (most Norris trophies of the bunch). If Bourque and Lidstrom played in the same generation, no question he would have been the top defenseman of his generation too over Lidstrom.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Again you're being glib, I detailed in multiple posts why I put others ahead of Bourque.

You're comparing dominate playoff defensemen and champions against a common denominator of an underachieving team with weak competition.

You're praising a guy whose offense was being a shot monkey to a cartoonish degree. He's simply overrated.

Because Bourque was not dominant in playoffs? His stats prove otherwise. Cups are team accomplishments at the end and Bourque was not the reason why he didn't win one in Boston. By the way, Bourque won the Cup so he is a champion too.

You want to talk about an overrated defenseman, talk about Lidstrom. He was lucky enough to play his entire career on powerhouse Wings teams.

 

[newfy]

you cant play that game 1 way.

Lidstrom has a couple Norris wins he shouldnt have as well...like 2011

you can also argue Bourque was robbed of Norris trophies early in his career, specifically Langway's 2 wins. Especially 1984...31-65-96 +51, AS-1 and 5th in Hart.

98 actually doesnt really have a good argument for Blake over Lidstrom except Canadian tough dman bias. 2011 Lidstrom had as good as argument as anyone for that Norris and likely the best one. Lidstrom being compared against previous years Lidstrom is why people think 2011 was weak

 

[connormcmuffin]

Because Bourque was not dominant in playoffs? His stats prove otherwise. Cups are team accomplishments at the end and Bourque was not the reason why he didn't win one in Boston. By the way, Bourque won the Cup so he is a champion too.

You want to talk about an overrated defenseman, talk about Lidstrom. He was lucky enough to play his entire career on powerhouse Wings teams.

They didn't look like a powerhouse post Lidstrom.

Obviously great players are judged by championship performances.

And which is it? If you want to hang your hat on individual stats, Coffey destroys Bourque. Again you're ducking the fact that Bourque is the leader in shots by about a thousand shots. His offense was more quantity than quality.

His resume isn't all time great.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

They didn't look like a powerhouse post Lidstrom.

Obviously great players are judged by championship performances.

And which is it? If you want to hang your hat on individual stats, Coffey destroys Bourque. Again you're ducking the fact that Bourque is the leader in shots by about a thousand shots. His offense was more quantity than quality.

His resume isn't all time great.

Ok so Duncan Keith>>>Bobby Orr based on championships.

And Bourque destroys Lidstrom (most goals/assists/points) so what's your point?

And to the bolded part.

Lidstrom most overrated defenseman ever.

 

[DannyGallivan]

Lidstrom most overrated defenseman ever

People often get "most overrated" confused with "not very good". A great player can be overrated. If Lidstrom is considered the second best defenseman of all time, in my opinion he is indeed overrated. I'd even take prime Larry Robinson or Denis Potvin over prime Nick Lidstrom. Now, that's not saying that Lidstrom wasn't great, and he probably had more "great" seasons than Robinson or Potvin, but at his peak he was not the second best defenseman of all time.

The Lidstrom vs Bourque debate is a great one, with no clear cut winner in my view.

 

[blogofmike]

98 actually doesnt really have a good argument for Blake over Lidstrom except Canadian tough dman bias. 2011 Lidstrom had as good as argument as anyone for that Norris and likely the best one. Lidstrom being compared against previous years Lidstrom is why people think 2011 was weak

Or because people like me would have voted for Shea Weber. In fact, under the 3-vote 5-3-1 points system, Weber would have won the Norris vote.

 

[newfy]

Or because people like me would have voted for Shea Weber. In fact, under the 3-vote 5-3-1 points system, Weber would have won the Norris vote.

And yet he didnt win, and Lidstrom had a very strong argument for winning. You want to talk about voting systems thats fine, but Weber actually had the third most first place votes behind Lidstrom and Chara. Weber barely played the most minutes on his team and had a partner arguably as good as he was, Nashville fans will tell you Suter was just as good a lot of the time. I have a feeling you would've voted for Blake in 98 as well if you vote for Weber in 2011. He was a flashy, big slapshot, big hit, big fight type of player (who was still very good and had a very similar season to Lidstrom) that gets overrated by his flashiness. There was no bias working against a Canadian Olympian who plays that style. If not Lidstrom, I would've given that Norris to Chara myself but Lidstrom was deserving. Neither of those guys had a defensive partner that allowed them the freedom to play a style like Weber. Webers defensive play does not make up for the 14 point advantage Lidstrom had on him, without a partner of Suters calibre. In fact, most of Webers career hes argubaly not been the best defender on his pairing, as soon as he went to the Habs and had to be the stand alone number one guy, he hasnt looked good except for a hot start when he first got there. Obviously age is a factor in that but I think his partners helped him more than people like to admit

In 98 there was 100% bias against a European who played a style that nicknamed him ****less Lidstrom. The fact that the voting was a blowout for Blake shows it. Everyone and their dog knows Lidstrom was better defensively than Blake AND he outscored him. 12 more first place votes for Blake came from him hitting and fighting.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

People often get "most overrated" confused with "not very good". A great player can be overrated. If Lidstrom is considered the second best defenseman of all time, in my opinion he is indeed overrated. I'd even take prime Larry Robinson or Denis Potvin over prime Nick Lidstrom. Now, that's not saying that Lidstrom wasn't great, and he probably had more "great" seasons than Robinson or Potvin, but at his peak he was not the second best defenseman of all time.

The Lidstrom vs Bourque debate is a great one, with no clear cut winner in my view.

Indeed, I agree with you, in my book Lidstrom is a top 5 all-time great defenseman and he is not really overrated excepted when people place Bourque behind him or when someone tells that Bourque's career is overrated and not Lidstrom's.

 

[quoipourquoi]

The fact that the voting was a blowout for Blake shows it. Everyone and their dog knows Lidstrom was better defensively than Blake AND he outscored him. 12 more first place votes for Blake came from him hitting and fighting.

Late season goal-scoring, really.

Lidstrom’s goal-scoring had essentially plateaued at Christmas. 14 in his first 36 games, then just 3 in his final 44 games. Meanwhile Blake saw essentially the inverse occur (16 in his final 38 games) while his sub-.500 team climbed the standings. It was a three-way race that went in the favor of the hot hand. This happens all of the time for basically every trophy.

1997-98 just seems like a funny year to scream anti-European bias with its three European Hart nominees and European 1st Team All-Stars at Center, Right Wing, Defense, and Goal.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Late season goal-scoring, really.

Lidstrom’s goal-scoring had essentially plateaued at Christmas. 14 in his first 36 games, then just 3 in his final 44 games. Meanwhile Blake saw essentially the inverse occur (16 in his final 38 games) while his sub-.500 team climbed the standings. It was a three-way race that went in the favor of the hot hand. This happens all of the time for basically every trophy.

1997-98 just seems like a funny year to scream anti-European bias with its three European Hart nominees and European 1st Team All-Stars at Center, Right Wing, Defense, and Goal.

plus the voters made a Euro the only goalie to ever win more than 1 Hart that season

 

[JackSlater]

Late season goal-scoring, really.

Lidstrom’s goal-scoring had essentially plateaued at Christmas. 14 in his first 36 games, then just 3 in his final 44 games. Meanwhile Blake saw essentially the inverse occur (16 in his final 38 games) while his sub-.500 team climbed the standings. It was a three-way race that went in the favor of the hot hand. This happens all of the time for basically every trophy.

1997-98 just seems like a funny year to scream anti-European bias with its three European Hart nominees and European 1st Team All-Stars at Center, Right Wing, Defense, and Goal.

But bias explains why it is the absolute single only sole questionable decision in Norris history. I don't want to hear context of the season when I know that it was bias. Next you'll be telling me that Lidstrom played for a stronger team or wasn't as good defensively in 1998 as he would later become.

 

[Thenameless]

In 98 there was 100% bias against a European who played a style that nicknamed him ****less Lidstrom. The fact that the voting was a blowout for Blake shows it. Everyone and their dog knows Lidstrom was better defensively than Blake AND he outscored him. 12 more first place votes for Blake came from him hitting and fighting.

I'm okay with the Blake Norris win that year. I recall discussing this with a fellow hockey fan at the time, and while Lidstrom may have had the numbers, Blake did feel more dominant in that particular year - it seemed like everything really came together for him. Remember too that hitting/fighting/intimidation were still more prevalent during that era, so it does count for something.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I'm okay with the Blake Norris win that year. I recall discussing this with a fellow hockey fan at the time, and while Lidstrom may have had the numbers, Blake did feel more dominant in that particular year - it seemed like everything really came together for him. Remember too that hitting/fighting/intimidation were still more prevalent during that era, so it does count for something.

funny thing is by the poster's same logic, if we give Lidstrom the 98 Norris he also needs to take away his 2011 "career achievement award" Norris.

he's also saying that Lidstrom is the only defender in history to not win every award they should've...ignoring that just as strong of "shouldve won" arguments can be made for Bourque and the Norris in different seasons as well.

notably 1984 over Langway. 31-65-96, AS1, 5th in Hart but no Norris

 

[connormcmuffin]

Ok so Duncan Keith>>>Bobby Orr based on championships.

And Bourque destroys Lidstrom (most goals/assists/points) so what's your point?

And to the bolded part.

Lidstrom most overrated defenseman ever.

Ooooooo a gif.... spend much time on the internet?

I never said a thing about Duncan Keith.

So cup rings and playoff dominance are to be overlooked when comparing Bourque to Lidstrom, Coffey, Niedermayer and Pronger? How convenient. What's next? We can only consider people from Quebec?

You think Lidstrom is overrated and you're laughing at me? Good luck dude.

 

[MXD]

Ooooooo a gif.... spend much time on the internet?

I never said a thing about Duncan Keith.

So cup rings and playoff dominance are to be overlooked when comparing Bourque to Lidstrom, Coffey, Niedermayer and Pronger? How convenient. What's next? We can only consider people from Quebec?

You think Lidstrom is overrated and you're laughing at me? Good luck dude.

Comparing Raymond Bourque to Scott Neidermayer is about as useful as comparing Alfred Hitchcock and Michael Bay, so I don't exactly know why somebody would do this.

 

[MXD]

Sure...Player X was not so great because of the division he played in, so great argument there...

Not to mention, a strenght of division wouldn't exactly hinder Ray Bourque...

 

[newfy]

funny thing is by the poster's same logic, if we give Lidstrom the 98 Norris he also needs to take away his 2011 "career achievement award" Norris.

he's also saying that Lidstrom is the only defender in history to not win every award they should've...ignoring that just as strong of "shouldve won" arguments can be made for Bourque and the Norris in different seasons as well.

notably 1984 over Langway. 31-65-96, AS1, 5th in Hart but no Norris

Read the thread. Lidstroms Norris is legit in 2011, make an argument for someone else that year. I literally addressed it a post or two ago so it has nothing to do with my logic. Lidstrom was as good as anyone that 2011 season, Blake won his because he hits and fights more. Although I never really thought about the hot finish aspect of it which might play a part, which is still a biased way of voting. Recency bias, Lidstrom was the best defender start to finish that year. Rob Blake wasnt a defensive dman, he was an offensive dman that hit and fought. This was confused as being good defensively, he wasnt Lidstrom defensively at all and Lidstrom was better offensively the course of that whole season. Lidstrom had arrived defensively at that point, his style of defense just wasnt appreciated.

Whatever, donteven count it, theres still a decisive edge in norris trophies for Lidstrom in this comparison anyways

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Ooooooo a gif.... spend much time on the internet?

I never said a thing about Duncan Keith.

So cup rings and playoff dominance are to be overlooked when comparing Bourque to Lidstrom, Coffey, Niedermayer and Pronger? How convenient. What's next? We can only consider people from Quebec?

You think Lidstrom is overrated and you're laughing at me? Good luck dude.

Yep, ridiculous statements deserve ridiculous gif.

You said great players are judged by championship performances so Keith won three Cups and Orr "only" two so we can say Keith was better than Orr with this thought.

Bourque has great playoff stats too.

You are the one who think that Bourque is overrated and not even an all-time great defenseman so I don't know who's funnier here, good luck yourself to convince people about this.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Yep, ridiculous statements deserve ridiculous gif.

You said great players are judged by championship performances so Keith won three Cups and Orr "only" two so we can say Keith was better than Orr with this thought.

Bourque has great playoff stats too.

You are the one who think Bourque is overrated and not an all-time great defenseman so I don't know who's funnier here, good luck yourself to convince people about this.

Should I bring up the shot leader by a thousand again? How wait, you can't address the point and argue in good faith.

Bourque had great playoff stats with no hardware.

You think Bourque is the 2nd best all time defenseman which is amusing and Lidstrom is massively overrated, just pure insanity.

Again, you're beneath discourse, just a Bourque fanboy, can't make a point to support anything you say, I'm out, this is a waste of my time.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Should I bring up the shot leader by a thousand again? How wait, you can't address the point and argue in good faith.

Bourque had great playoff stats with no hardware.

You think Bourque is the 2nd best all time defenseman which is amusing and Lidstrom is massively overrated, just pure insanity.

Again, you're beneath discourse, just a Bourque fanboy, can't make a point to support anything you say, I'm out, this is a waste of my time.

Do you know what is pure insanity? Thinking that Bourque is overrated and not an all-time great defenseman but you seem to be a Lidstrom fanboy as overrated as him. Shot/volume what a pathetic argument.

 

[Don'tcry4mejanhrdina]

Lidstrom and Bourque are very comparable. I'd rank Bourque slightly ahead as I believe he had a better peak. Not to mention his longevity is insane (as was Lidstrom's).

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

Where's the none of the above option? NO WAY he's a top 20 all-time player

 

[The Panther]

I selected 'Top 20'.

I'm quite surprised to see nearly half of voters have him top-15. I'm stunned that one in five think he's top-10...?!

I'm a huge fan of Bourque's and think he was absolutely amazing, but top-10 is really unrealistic in my opinion.

 

[blogofmike]

And yet he didnt win, and Lidstrom had a very strong argument for winning. You want to talk about voting systems thats fine, but Weber actually had the third most first place votes behind Lidstrom and Chara. Weber barely played the most minutes on his team and had a partner arguably as good as he was, Nashville fans will tell you Suter was just as good a lot of the time. I have a feeling you would've voted for Blake in 98 as well if you vote for Weber in 2011. He was a flashy, big slapshot, big hit, big fight type of player (who was still very good and had a very similar season to Lidstrom) that gets overrated by his flashiness. There was no bias working against a Canadian Olympian who plays that style. If not Lidstrom, I would've given that Norris to Chara myself but Lidstrom was deserving. Neither of those guys had a defensive partner that allowed them the freedom to play a style like Weber. Webers defensive play does not make up for the 14 point advantage Lidstrom had on him, without a partner of Suters calibre. In fact, most of Webers career hes argubaly not been the best defender on his pairing, as soon as he went to the Habs and had to be the stand alone number one guy, he hasnt looked good except for a hot start when he first got there. Obviously age is a factor in that but I think his partners helped him more than people like to admit

In 98 there was 100% bias against a European who played a style that nicknamed him ****less Lidstrom. The fact that the voting was a blowout for Blake shows it. Everyone and their dog knows Lidstrom was better defensively than Blake AND he outscored him. 12 more first place votes for Blake came from him hitting and fighting.

Ryan Suter was good. How good were the 98 Red Wings? Lidstrom played a fair bit with Larry Murphy, who outscored Lidstrom by 50% at even strength.

Blake was playing with Galley and Norstrom.