Where do you rank Ray Bourque all time?

[connormcmuffin]

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.

Second and first team allstars are pretty much interchangeable. I've never hear an argument where the goal posts were 'player x was a first team allstar and player y was a 2nd team allstar' it's really silly.

So Bourque isn't as good as Lidstrom, got it.

 

[VanIslander]

Second and first team allstars are pretty much interchangeable. I've never hear an argument where the goal posts were 'player x was a first team allstar and player y was a 2nd team allstar' it's really silly.

So Bourque isn't as good as Lidstrom, got it.

"So"? Are you really saying "so" here?

Bourque has nineteen (19) 1st & 2nd team all star selections.
Lidstrom has twelve (12) 1st & 2nd team all star selections.

Your reasoning continues to stun...

 

[connormcmuffin]

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.

All star teams, lol.

I talk about things like Conn Smythes and Championships, my point is made. I'm ignoring this thread now.

 

[67 others]

All star teams, lol.

I talk about things like Conn Smythes and Championships, my point is made. I'm ignoring this thread now.

All star teams via the usual halfway mark of the year all star game and being selected by the media as "First team all star" are 2 very different things

Being selected by the media as first and 2nd team all star is no different than the media voting on the Norris trophy and it is given the same weight among those doing all time rankings.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

So Bourque isn't as good as Lidstrom, got it.

No, Bourque was better.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

All star teams, lol.

I talk about things like Conn Smythes and Championships, my point is made. I'm ignoring this thread now.

Championships? Oh yeah, you mean team achievements! Sure...

But individually, Bourque was better than Lidstrom, period. Lidstrom played in the weakest era ever for defensemen, this is why he has more Norris trophies than Bourque who played in the strongest era ever for defensemen.

 

[connormcmuffin]

All star teams via the usual halfway mark of the year all star game and being selected by the media as "First team all star" are 2 very different things

Being selected by the media as first and 2nd team all star is no different than the media voting on the Norris trophy and it is given the same weight among those doing all time rankings.

The same that gives Brent Burns a Norris even though he plays sheltered minutes?

Yeah, I have zero respect for the opinion of hockey media. I'm sure they were all impressed with Ray's +/- too

 

[67 others]

No, Bourque was better.

The Lidstrom arguments are usually annoying.

When you break it down to the core, if you take the red wing squads and replace Yzerman, Fedorov(Or Datsyuk/Zetternerg) with Janney and Poulin, and take away the Chelios, Rafalski, Murphy types and replaced them with Glen Wesley, Jim Weimer types, are you still saying they would be winning cups?

Because if you say that, I don't want to hear about how irreplaceable Yzerman and Fedorov's amazing playoff performances are in threads defending their all time status' agaist Sakic/Forsberg or whoever ever again from the people claiming this.

The wings usually had 3rd and 4th liners and bottom pairing defensemen more valuable than guys in the Bruins top 6 forwards and defensemen after Bourque. Lidstrom was an important piece of a star studden roster. Bourque with one or two other players basically carried teams as weak as the modern Arizona Coyotes to incredible heights for their talent level.

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

The Lidstrom arguments are usually annoying.

The wings usually had 3rd and 4th liners and bottom pairing defensemen more valuable than guys in the Bruins top 6 forwards and defensemen after Bourque. Lidstrom was an important piece of a star studden roster. Bourque with one or two other players basically carried teams as weak as the modern Arizona Coyotes to incredible heights for their talent level.

Exactly! But someone here doesn't seem to get the memo.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

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.

Just Bruins fanboys. They can't see past Storrow Drive.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Wondering what all the hubbub was about, I decided to read the last three or four pages...what in the hell is mclovin talking about...?

Anyone else up for a bleach on the rocks...? (There must be a Clorox joke that can be made in there somewhere, I just haven't worked it out yet)

Bourque is a hell of a lot closer to 2nd best d-man of all time than, ya know, not...

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

5 norris trophies + 6 second place finishes. If one really puts heavy emphasis on longevity you could argue Bourque has the best career of any d men ever. Obv Orr was the better player

 

[MXD]

Stop wasting your time with someone who called Bourque inferior to Paul Coffey, please.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

jim weimer, have not heard thatname in probably 17 years

 

[GreatGonzo]

5 norris trophies + 6 second place finishes. If one really puts heavy emphasis on longevity you could argue Bourque has the best career of any d men ever. Obv Orr was the better player

thats exactly what I was thinking, does his consistency have a good enough argument to make this comparison closer?

Add that he was a Hart Finalists twice, I mean his peak was extraordinary.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Bottom four of the top five defensemen list of all time.

 

[connormcmuffin]

Marcel Dionne...

 

[Tarantula]

Marcel Dionne...

 

[Michael Farkas]

That emoticon could be used to quote more than just that post...

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Because every award Crosby as won is none debatable, including his very weak 2016 Smythe that was a nice little reputation award.

thats exactly what I was thinking, does his consistency have a good enough argument to make this comparison closer?

Add that he was a Hart Finalists twice, I mean his peak was extraordinary.

in other words your focusing on team awards, while giving Crosby that credit. Having guys like Malkin and Kessel certainly helps that case.....all while Bourque was the Bruins best offensive and defensive player for a majority of his career......and he was a defenseman.

If you put Orr’s and Bourques Norris finishes side by side Bourque blows him out of the water. So for career there is a case. But then you have Orr’s two art Ross and two smythes 3 Hart’s that seal the deal

 

[Thenameless]

If you put Orr’s and Bourques Norris finishes side by side Bourque blows him out of the water. So for career there is a case. But then you have Orr’s two art Ross and two smythes 3 Hart’s that weak the deal

Even putting their Norris finishes side by side would favour Orr if you take into account length of career.

 

[Nathaniel Skywalker]

Even putting their Norris finishes side by side would favour Orr if you take into account length of career.

That would show Orr was per game basis a better player. But career wise what is it. 19 top 4 Norris finishes for Bourque?

 

[GreatGonzo]

If you put Orr’s and Bourques Norris finishes side by side Bourque blows him out of the water. So for career there is a case. But then you have Orr’s two art Ross and two smythes 3 Hart’s that seal the deal

True. Orr’s career, although short, was insane though.....no telling what he would have accomplished if his knees didn’t give way on him. There is a reason a good chunk still consider him the GOAT.

I’ve always given Bourque the edge over Lidstrom simply based on being dominant for much longer while being a more “valuable” player to his team, but it’s always been close

 

[Tuna Tatarrrrrr]

Marcel Dionne...

what a bad comparaison...

Dionne was great but Bourque was clearly the superior player. Bourque is the second best defenseman of all time and Dionne doesn't even sniff at the top 20 forwards of all time.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If you put Orr’s and Bourques Norris finishes side by side Bourque blows him out of the water. So for career there is a case. But then you have Orr’s two art Ross and two smythes 3 Hart’s that seal the deal

Why bring Orr into this.

Seems many posters don't understand how much better a player Orr was than any other defensemen.