Who would you rather have on your team? Chelios or Coffey

[Blades of Glory]

Given a choice of either Chris Chelios or Paul Coffey, both in their primes, who would you want on your team? Remember, I'm not asking about who is better, per say, but rather who you would want on your team due to certain traits and skills that you may value more than others.

They were pretty much completely opposite in terms of style of play and career arch; Coffey worsened with age while Chelios actually got better after turning 30. But when they were in their primes, each impacted the game at a level that few defensemen in history have reached. In very different ways from each other, of course. I won't make my choice yet, but I'll write a little on each player in the next post.

Okay, I admit, the reason I haven't made a choice is because I just can't choose who I would rather want. Both are very high on the list of defensemen who I would want on my team during their primes. Actually,, they are probably higher on my list than they generally are ranked all-time.

Click to read more...

 

[lextune]

Depends in part on what my team needed....

 

[Blades of Glory]

You can make a strong argument that Paul Coffey was the greatest offensive defenseman in history not named Bobby Orr. During his prime, he was, and still stand as, the only person in the history of his position to put up raw offensive numbers that can even compare, albeit not that well, to what Orr did at his peak. But more importantly, I don't think there's ever been a defenseman, other than Orr, whose offensive ability, namely skating and vision, changed the game as much as Coffey's did in his prime. His ability to start the breakout and facilitate the Oilers' spectacular offensive game is what made him different from everyone else. I don't even need to get into his offensive ability. Looking at the numbers simply says enough. Contrary to popular belief, Coffey was not a pylon in the defensive zone while in Edmonton. A good portion of Edmonton's defensive strategy was simply to spend as little time in their own zone as possible. Clean breakouts were key. The only reason they could afford to do this is because they had Coffey, and he could create so much by turning defensive zone play into an offensive rush in a matter of a few seconds. 51 career fights and six 100 PIM seasons probably suggest that he could handle himself physically.

Chris Chelios did everything. He was a very good offensive defenseman, albeit not quite at the level of Bourque let alone Coffey, but was a rock in his own zone and was such a physical force that his presence on the ice had a psychological effect opposing forwards. He was the dirtiest player in the league, and maybe the dirtiest player of all-time, but unlike so many other dirty players (looking at you, Ulfie), he not only stood up for himself, but he also often beat the crap out of anyone who took issue with his play. His 1992-93 season is very high on my list of the greatest all-around seasons, at any position, in history. 73 points, a Norris Trophy, and a mind-boggling 282 PIM. How can someone score 70 points and be arguably the best defenseman in the league when he is so busy beating everyone up? I still can't believe Montreal traded him, let alone for a past-his-prime Denis Savard. To this day, I have seen only one "star" player, at any position, quite as physically feared for a similar length of time as Chris Chelios was in his prime. However, I'm not quite old enough to go further back than Larry Robinson, and of course, Robinson is that guy. Cam Neely is definitely up there, but his injuries slowed him down and he didn't have the downright dirty side that was a huge reason Chelios was so feared.

Also, I do think that Robinson did get by slightly on reputation. Very slightly. After he established himself as a terrifying physical force early on, no one wanted to touch him and he rarely needed to fight again. Chelios won the Norris in a season which he fought 8 times, which is a ridiculous amount for an elite defenseman. I can't imagine another Norris winner who fought 8 times during the season he won. I know Bobby Orr had 7 in 1970.

And lextune, just pretend you're starting from scratch.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Starting from scratch, I would take Chelios. He can make any team he plays on much better.

Coffey can only make a certain type of team better.

If I already had a player like Ovechkin on my team, I would probably take Coffey.

Coffey is the perfect defenseman (well, other than Orr) for a run-and-gun team.

In their primes, Coffey was probably a bit better overall, though.

By the way, I don't think there is any argument that Coffey isn't the #2 offensive defenseman of all time.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Coffey. His ability to rush the puck and engineer offense from the backend is second only to Orr. Unless you get Bobby himself, there is really nobody else that could adequately replace a prime Paul Coffey as far as the offensive dimension is concerned. A very rare breed of player.

Chelios was the complete package and really nasty to play against, but there were plenty of others like him in terms of what they brought to the table (though very few that excelled in all those aspects at the same time as well as he did). You could find plenty of contemporary defensemen that could be almost as good at what Chelios did. Pronger, Stevens...Foote and Hatcher if we're just talking defensive ability.

 

[finchster]

I would take Chelios by a hair, I feel his longevity and better defensive play gives him a slight edge over Coffey. He was a first team all-star and second in Norris voting at age 40.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Coffey. Chelios was great but Coffey was greater.

 

[JackSlater]

I would take prime Coffey on my team over prime Chelios. They were both immensely valuable, but I think that Coffey is more unique. As posters have already said, other than Orr there isn't anyone similar to Coffey offensively in the history of hockey. There are players who do the things the Chelios did in the NHL today, it's just that none of them do it as well as he did. I would take Coffey and then try to add a Chelios type player later.

 

[vulture77]

Very tough choice.


I guess I'd have Coffey for his incredible offensive edge. Chelios however was excellent at everything, including offense, defence, physical play, meanness... It's just too hard to choose. But I guess the absolute greatness in one area is more exceptional than being excellent in many things. Coffey it is then. Could go other way tomorrow though.

 

[Reds4Life]

Chelios any day (although it is close). Much better defensive player.

 

[pluppe]

My choices would be affected by what kind of team I had but generally I would take

Regular season: Coffey.
Play Off: Chelios.

But both are close which would make team need a large factor. Very interesting comparison.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Starting from scratch, I would take Chelios. He can make any team he plays on much better.

Coffey can only make a certain type of team better.

If I already had a player like Ovechkin on my team, I would probably take Coffey.

Coffey is the perfect defenseman (well, other than Orr) for a run-and-gun team.

In their primes, Coffey was probably a bit better overall, though.

By the way, I don't think there is any argument that Coffey isn't the #2 offensive defenseman of all time.

This.

Chelios can fit on any team and excel. Coffey only works on certain teams, but when he fits, he's the ideal #1 d-man.

 

[jkrx]

Chelios

 

[Dreakmur]

If I'm the coach, Paul Coffey. Having a quality offensive defensemen is so important! If I was coaching a team that didn't have one, I made one by moving a top forward back.

If I'm watching, Chris Chelios. I love watching aggessive players.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Chelios, defensively a world better, offensively very productive as well. Coffey was always a supplementary piece on teams with great forwards, Chelios you could argue was the heart of the Hawks when he played there and a rock to build on and rely on.

It's actually quite interesting, I was reading a hockey book written around 1989 the other day and Coffey was described as a "fine but not great" player and I thought it's pretty interesting that a hockey expert would use such words to describe him around the time of his peak.

 

[raleh]

I'd take prime Chelios over anyone but maybe 10 other guys. Coffey's a few spots back IMO.

 

[Hawker14]

Coffey.

Tough to admit since most don't agree, but I consider Coffey to be among the three greatest defencemen i've seen play.

1. Bobby Orr
2. Denis Potvin
3. Paul Coffey

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Starting from scratch? Chelios
Just need one guy to take your team to the next level so they can make that deep playoff run? Coffey
To put on "my team" (Canucks) right now... err next season? Chelios, but it's close.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Starting from scratch? Chelios
Just need one guy to take your team to the next level so they can make that deep playoff run? Coffey
To put on "my team" (Canucks) right now... err next season? Chelios, but it's close.

I would think after this last series against the Hawks it would be pretty easily Chelios. That team badly needs defense, toughness, and leadership, all of which Chelios trumps Coffey in.

 

[jkrx]

I would take Chelios on most teams in the league exceptions might be Boston, who has Chara and would benefit more of having a Coffey in his prime on the team.

 

[Big Phil]

I think Coffey had the ability to make players around him better to a larger extent than Chelios. Coffey played on the team with the owners of the top 7 highest single season point totals in NHL history. Not bad. We all know he could win and did win.

Chelios was notably weaker offensively but added the physical dimension and was stronger defensively. He was meaner, nastier and certainly had a well rounded game.

But I've always been in the camp of Coffey being a top 10 d-man of all time and ahead of Chelios. His offense would be too hard to pass up. We saw Coffey win two Norrises on a run and gun team like Edmonton and we saw him win another one on more of a conservative Bowman-coached team in Detroit. I don't think it matters to me what team you start with.

 

[jkrx]

I think Coffey had the ability to make players around him better to a larger extent than Chelios. Coffey played on the team with the owners of the top 7 highest single season point totals in NHL history. Not bad. We all know he could win and did win.

Chelios was notably weaker offensively but added the physical dimension and was stronger defensively. He was meaner, nastier and certainly had a well rounded game.

But I've always been in the camp of Coffey being a top 10 d-man of all time and ahead of Chelios. His offense would be too hard to pass up. We saw Coffey win two Norrises on a run and gun team like Edmonton and we saw him win another one on more of a conservative Bowman-coached team in Detroit. I don't think it matters to me what team you start with.

I wont disagree with you but as a coach I would rather want Chelios he feels more adaptive than Coffey. Although I didnt think Coffey were the best defenseman in the league that year or most valueable D on DRW either.

 

[lextune]

Starting from scratch, I would take Chelios. He can make any team he plays on much better.

Coffey can only make a certain type of team better.

If I already had a player like Ovechkin on my team, I would probably take Coffey.

Coffey is the perfect defenseman (well, other than Orr) for a run-and-gun team.

In their primes, Coffey was probably a bit better overall, though.

By the way, I don't think there is any argument that Coffey isn't the #2 offensive defenseman of all time.

Better overall than who? The way that is written it seems like you are saying Coffey was better overall than Orr.....

.....but I am hoping/praying that you meant Chelios.

 

[Reds4Life]

Better overall than who? The way that is written it seems like you are saying Coffey was better overall than Orr.....

.....but I am hoping/praying that you meant Chelios.

It's pretty clear to me TDMD meant that Coffey was better than Chelios. (prime comparsion)

 

[Big Phil]

I wont disagree with you but as a coach I would rather want Chelios he feels more adaptive than Coffey. Although I didnt think Coffey were the best defenseman in the league that year or most valueable D on DRW either.

In 1995? Who else would you have picked over Coffey? He was dynamite that year and was a shoo-in for the Norris