Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Since when is getting shots on goal viewed as a negative?

 

[connormcmuffin]

Since when is getting shots on goal viewed as a negative?

When you're comparing the Coffey to Bourque

 

[arrbez]

I thought this was a waste of time and you were out?

 

[blogofmike]

Ray Bourque taking a lot of shots isn't really a bad thing. They led to good things at a higher rate than most, and on a team where he was the best offensive player (or at least 1A/1B if Neely was healthy.)

I have more of an issue with Doug Harvey, who was average to above average offensively, but was one of the few defenders who got to play on the PP when 5-forward PP units were the style at the time, and he was playing with a great team.

Small sample size, but in the 20 or so games they miss Bourque in 1988-89, Boston performs notably worse.

Larger sample size, when Norris-winning Doug Harvey goes to the Rangers, the Canadiens score more and allow fewer goals.

 

[MXD]

Ray Bourque taking a lot of shots isn't really a bad thing. They led to good things at a higher rate than most, and on a team where he was the best offensive player (or at least 1A/1B if Neely was healthy.)

I have more of an issue with Doug Harvey, who was average to above average offensively, but was one of the few defenders who got to play on the PP when 5-forward PP units were the style at the time, and he was playing with a great team.

Small sample size, but in the 20 or so games they miss Bourque in 1988-89, Boston performs notably worse.

Larger sample size, when Norris-winning Doug Harvey goes to the Rangers, the Canadiens score more and allow fewer goals.

Doug Harvey was also 37 years old.

 

[blogofmike]

Doug Harvey was also 37 years old.

Very true, but these years are still used as examples of Harvey being great because of the Norrises. And while he was for many purposes, for the purpose of comparison against Bourque I don't think it is as strong as others do.

 

[MXD]

Very true, but these years are still used as examples of Harvey being great because of the Norrises. And while he was for many purposes, for the purpose of comparison against Bourque I don't think it is as strong as others do.

Fair enough.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

When you're comparing the Coffey to Bourque

LOL no comparaison there, Bourque was clearly the better defenseman and no matter how dominant Coffey was offensively.

 

[YEM]

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

he averaged 71 points per season in his career
5 Norris wins, 6 2nd place finishes

 

[The Panther]

I would like to hear an explanation (or would I...?) from those four who who voted Bourque top-5 all time...

Okay, so what you four are saying is either one of two things:

1) The popular-consensus "Big 4" aside, Bourque was the greatest hockey player in the history of the world
or:
2) Bourque was better than one (or more) of Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Doug Harvey was also 37 years old.

You are responding to an extreme misinterpretation of history.

1961-62 season was the only season where Jacques Plante was healthy and did not miss a game.

Offensively, at least seven skaters had career or break through years with the Canadiens, mainly due to extra playing time provided by injuries to Jean Beliveau and Henri Richard. Specifically Ralph Backstrom, Claude Provost, Gilles Tremblay, Bill Hicke, Don Marshall,Jean-Guy Talbot. Bobby Rousseau won the Calder.

1961-62 Montreal Canadiens Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com

Next three seasons scoring was the lowest during the Toe Blake era even with Beliveau and Henri Richard much healthier, avg 215 GF vs 254 GF Harvey's last four seasons.

Conversely 1961-62 Rangers with Harvey as player-coach improved their GA by 41.

 

[MXD]

1) The popular-consensus "Big 4" aside, Bourque was the greatest hockey player in the history of the world
or:
2) Bourque was better than one (or more) of Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr.

Suggesting as the Bourque as the 5th best player of all time is significantly less moronic (and that is the right word) than suggesting he's inferior to Paul Coffey...

 

[TCB]

 

[DannyGallivan]

Suggesting as the Bourque as the 5th best player of all time is significantly less moronic (and that is the right word) than suggesting he's inferior to Paul Coffey...

I wonder what Coffey would do if he was ever on a team where he HAD to concentrate more on defense.

He was clearly a better skater than Bourque, which Coffey used to contribute to his teams' offense. However, in virtually every other category the edge goes to Bourque.

And even if it's "less" moronic to say that Bourque is the fifth greatest player of all time, it's still "moronic". Well, perhaps that's too judgmental and rude of a word. Let's just say that it's "odd".

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

I would like to hear an explanation (or would I...?) from those four who who voted Bourque top-5 all time...

Okay, so what you four are saying is either one of two things:

1) The popular-consensus "Big 4" aside, Bourque was the greatest hockey player in the history of the world
or:
2) Bourque was better than one (or more) of Gretzky, Lemieux, Howe, Orr.

This is where it gets tricky trying to rank d men and goalies among forwards. Besides bobby Orr of course. You can be the second best d men in history but there are still a great number of forwards that one could rank higher. Or you can be the best d man in the league but there can be several forwards that are still better overall in ranking.

 

[weaponomega]

How many cups and finals appearances did Coffey have? And the best defense is a good offense/possession especially on in the 80s/90s

Bourque play on many teams that flat out choked, losing to meh Habs rosters on the back of Roy.

But most significantly Bourque is the all time shots leader by what over a thousand shots? He wasn't making the best play he got points by volume.

Bourque isn't a top ten all time defenseman. He's massively overrated in this thread.

You're not a top five defensemen all time without a conn smythe

The only championship came when he was an add on to an already minted cup winning roster.

Things wrong with this post:

1. Bourque's Bruins never actually lost to Canadiens teams backed by Roy except in 1986 and 1989 when Montreal won the cup and made it to the finals - they actually beat better (1992) Canadien's teams and often the Bruins would finish higher in the standings and beat Montreal in the playoffs.

2. Bourque probably has the best and most accurate point shot in league history. He had an incredible ability to get his shot off under pressue and through traffic and still get it on target to generate rebounds.

3. If you don't think 5 Norris trophies 19 first and second team all star selections, 2 hart runner up, 19 top 5 norris finishes is a top 10 defenseman then you really need to inform yourself. Do some reasearch, watch more classic hockey, read more articles.

4. Top 5 defensemen need to have a conn smythe? Since when?

5. How is one an "add on" when you play on the first defense pairing and second on the team in ice time?

A word of advice - go inform yourself, read up more on defensemen of that era, of the current era, of the past eras. Watch more hockey, understand what you are watching, and then come back with a legitimate argument as to why he is overrated instead of "he takes lots of shots so he sucks and no conn smythe"

 

[MXD]

Things wrong with this post:

(...)

Man, "Everything" would've been sufficient.

You quoted what was probably the most nonsensical post I've seen here.

 

[Gunnersaurus Rex]

he averaged 71 points per season in his career
5 Norris wins, 6 2nd place finishes

I know his stats. Thanks.

 

[VanIslander]

A defenseman like Chelios plays physical and hits forwards off of the puck.

A defenseman like Lidstrom positionally stickhandles pucks away from forwards.

But Bourque has been characterized with having the unique ability to physically check a forward into the boards and seemlessly himself stickhandle the puck away and up ice, leading the transition himself with stunning turnover - to - transition efficiency.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Things wrong with this post:

1. Bourque's Bruins never actually lost to Canadiens teams backed by Roy except in 1986 and 1989 when Montreal won the cup and made it to the finals - they actually beat better (1992) Canadien's teams and often the Bruins would finish higher in the standings and beat Montreal in the playoffs.

2. Bourque probably has the best and most accurate point shot in league history. He had an incredible ability to get his shot off under pressue and through traffic and still get it on target to generate rebounds.

3. If you don't think 5 Norris trophies 19 first and second team all star selections, 2 hart runner up, 19 top 5 norris finishes is a top 10 defenseman then you really need to inform yourself. Do some reasearch, watch more classic hockey, read more articles.

4. Top 5 defensemen need to have a conn smythe? Since when?

5. How is one an "add on" when you play on the first defense pairing and second on the team in ice time?

A word of advice - go inform yourself, read up more on defensemen of that era, of the current era, of the past eras. Watch more hockey, understand what you are watching, and then come back with a legitimate argument as to why he is overrated instead of "he takes lots of shots so he sucks and no conn smythe"

1. No they got swept by nothing teams like Buffalo
2. His shoot percentage says otherwise.
3. Generation bias
4. The fact that Bourque never got a sniff of Conn Symth, it's more impressive, it's top ten for winners. Can Bourque be the Marcel Dionne of defensemen? Sure, and I know he was a UFA veteran add on that got a cup in the tail end of his career, it was kind of embarrassing him taking the cup he won with the Avs back to Boston, total cringe.
5.See above. His wasn't his team, he was a piece of the puzzle. You could have taken him out and plugged in a Rob Blake and the Avs still win that cup. Not his prime, not exceptional that separates him from the rest of great defensemen of that year. Not dominate and we're judging dominance here.

 

[VanIslander]

His shoot percentage says otherwise.

It's a serious lack of understanding on your part to cite this against the claim of Bourque's greatness at shooting and shooting accuracy.

Bourque set the NHL record of 19 shots in a game doing exactly what he did all career long (holds easily the NHL career record in total shots taken) which is: PUT LONGRANGE SHOTS ON NET ON CLEARING ATTEMPTS. Most defensemen would dump the puck into the opposition's zone and incur an icing call when pressured but Bourque had the ability (often highlighted during games in slow-mo replay commentary) to put shots on net from almost anywhere, forcing goalies to play the puck and avoiding icing. From inside his own blueline to line changes mid ice, Bourque had outstanding puck handling skills to put it exactly where he wanted to put it. His all-star games repeated 4-for-4 accuracy shooting are heralded. On the powerplay he could release a huge slapper and - unlike even MacInnis or Pronger - not have the odd one go into the stands. His shots have eyes, as they say.

 

[VanIslander]

Generation bias

Seriously? This is your reply to the poster who cited some impressive achievements like his staggering all-star team record?! (Heck, his record is even better than Gretzky's and Howe's.) Certainly a comment of 'generation bias' does not counter in the slightest the poster's objection to the idea that Bourque isn't even one of the top defensemen.

1979-80 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1980-81 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1981-82 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1982-83 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1983-84 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1984-85 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1985-86 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1986-87 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1987-88 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1988-89 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1989-90 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1990-91 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1991-92 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1992-93 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1993-94 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1994-95 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

1995-96 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

1998-99 NHL All-Star Team (2nd)

2000-01 NHL All-Star Team (1st)

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

 

[VanIslander]

... it was kind of embarrassing him taking the cup he won with the Avs back to Boston, total cringe.
... he was a piece of the puzzle. You could have taken him out and plugged in a Rob Blake and the Avs still win that cup. Not his prime, not exceptional that separates him from the rest of great defensemen of that year. Not dominate and we're judging dominance here.

Well, first of all, Bourque was a 1st team all-star that regular season in which he won the Stanley Cup in the postseason, so unless you're gonna try to introduce some drop off in quality of his play, he was better than 99.9% of defensemen that year, and most in the playoffs as well, though you chose to compare him to Rob Blake, a 2nd team all star, having one of his three 2nd team all star seasons, arguably Rob Blake's best regular season other than his one career 1st team all star season (Blake was 4th in Norris trophy voting that 2001 season, 40-year-old Bourque 2nd to only a peaking Lidstrom).

Secondly, who was embarrassed in Boston when he returned with the cup? I was surprised at the time how many Bruins fans eagerly praised Bourque and cheered his accomplishment as an Av. He was an NHL all star that season, he won the cup, he was 2nd in team ice time, one of the core three defensemen on the championship squad. The only argument for embarrassment would be the idea of disloyalty to one's old franchise, which would be beside the point, irrelevant to what is being talked about by posters here.

 

[weaponomega]

1. No they got swept by nothing teams like Buffalo
2. His shoot percentage says otherwise.
3. Generation bias
4. The fact that Bourque never got a sniff of Conn Symth, it's more impressive, it's top ten for winners. Can Bourque be the Marcel Dionne of defensemen? Sure, and I know he was a UFA veteran add on that got a cup in the tail end of his career, it was kind of embarrassing him taking the cup he won with the Avs back to Boston, total cringe.
5.See above. His wasn't his team, he was a piece of the puzzle. You could have taken him out and plugged in a Rob Blake and the Avs still win that cup. Not his prime, not exceptional that separates him from the rest of great defensemen of that year. Not dominate and we're judging dominance here.

What is this argument about shots and shooting percentage you are spewing? It doesn't make any sense.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

1. No they got swept by nothing teams like Buffalo
2. His shoot percentage says otherwise.
3. Generation bias
4. The fact that Bourque never got a sniff of Conn Symth, it's more impressive, it's top ten for winners. Can Bourque be the Marcel Dionne of defensemen? Sure, and I know he was a UFA veteran add on that got a cup in the tail end of his career, it was kind of embarrassing him taking the cup he won with the Avs back to Boston, total cringe.
5.See above. His wasn't his team, he was a piece of the puzzle. You could have taken him out and plugged in a Rob Blake and the Avs still win that cup. Not his prime, not exceptional that separates him from the rest of great defensemen of that year. Not dominate and we're judging dominance here.

And for the bolded, it screams Lidstrom.