Zdeno Chara

[Cellee]

Shea Weber has also been very good for a very long time

 

[solidmotion]

do people know there is a history of hockey section on this website?

...there is a history of hockey section this website. it is worth exploring.

here's the list they made of the top defensemen of all time: HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

chara is at 43.

he's added pretty substantially to his legacy since then: two more post-season all-star selections, two more top-3 norris finishes, excellent longevity as a #1 defenseman.

i could see chara pushing for a spot in the top 25 at this point. pronger at 20 keeps him out of the top 20 but he wouldn't be far behind. top 10... no.

 

[nbwingsfan]

I think guys like Red Kelly and Pierre Pilote would both go in the top 15, Cyclone Taylor, King Clancy, Earl Seibert, and Tim Horton would likely be included in that list also.

This is why ranking players all time is kind of pointless to me. I mean, how can someone properly compare a guy playing in 2010 in a 30 team league versus a guy like Cyclone Taylor who played 90 years before him in a different league?

Everyone should just be compared on their own era’s versus their own peers and anything over a ~30 year span is just pointless

 

[FerrisRox]

Is big Z a top ten all time NHL defenseman? Obviously, this is tough to gauge and his career isn't over but I personally think he's done enough to get into the top ten. There as some obvious choices above him, Orr, Harvey, Bourque, Lidstrom but then its gets challenging. I think many will say Big Bird Robinson and big point getters like Coffee and perhaps Pronger.

I personally don't think he's a top ten guy.

You're missing a few no-brainers like Denis Potvin and Larry Robinson for example. I think it starts to get subjective after that, but I don't see credible arguments being made for Chara being better than guys like Chris Chelios and Scott Stevens and a tier of guys like Paul Coffey, Brian Leetch, Eddie Shore, Pierre Pilote, Brad Park, Al MacInnis and Marcel Pronovost further cloud things.

 

[Cleatus]

At the top of his game, I believe he was easily a top 10 D-man because he was an absolutely scary monster in nearly every facet of the position. As a Leafs fan, I still hate it when he comes on the ice, but he's obviously not quite as fearsome as he used to be.

But when I consider all his not-so-prime years in his long career, I'd probably have to put him in the 10-15 range overall.

Hate the team he plays for, but he goes above and beyond anything I'd want in a defender, and is one of my favourites to ever play the game in general. Gonna be sad when he retires because there won't be anything like him for a very very long time.

 

[Loseipeg]

15-20 is pretty much where he falls for me.

In his own era, he's 2nd only to Lidstrom.

Arguably one of the most physically imposing defenders in history, and one of the best defensively in his prime. At his peak, the D zone was shut down when he was out there. And he was seemingly always out there logging 26-28 min a night.

Norris record of 1-2-2-3-3-3-4-5 is no joke
3x AS-1
4x AS-2

he also contributed more offensively than he is remembered for. 199-440-639 in 1,477 games. His +254 and 1,900 PIM speak to the defense and physical intimidation.

Plus he is one of the best captains/leaders of his era. He has been the man in the Boston locker room since day 1.

edit: embarrassment of riches moment, he's only the 4th best defender in Bruins history behind Orr, Bourque, Shore

The dzone was pretty wide open in the 2013 final. This is really overrating him. One Norris and one cup and hes all of a sudden mentioned in same breath as Lidstrom?

 

[psycat]

Id rank Keith(and Karlsson for that matter), as it is, over Chara.
Great defenceman obviously not really near top 10 though.

 

[Loseipeg]

Id rank Keith(and Karlsson for that matter), as it is, over Chara.
Great defenceman obviously not really near top 10 though.

Yup, keith and karlsson both better. Chara getting overrated by bruins fans. Ugh.

 

[alko]

Lets wait until he play his last game. There are 1-2 Stanley Cups parades in front of him, so most of you will change the opinion.

 

[burstnbloom]

Watched him against the Isles, he and McAvoy were still the best Boston D men. He was moving better than I ever saw him. Gap control, long effective stick, a big fight, jumping into the play. He did it all. Freak of nature. There is no way this guy should be playing at his level at age just turned 42.

In that game, the isles had one shot on goal when he was on the ice and he beat up Matt Martin. The day after his 42nd birthday. Chara is hard to define. There has never been another player quite like him. I don't know how to rank him but I'd say the only guys who really played in his era that I'd take over him are Pronger and Lidstrom. In his prime he was shutting down the best players in hockey for 28 min a night while scoring 40-50 points. He's been the most intimidating player in the league for two decades. Think about that. We've been really fortunate in Boston.

Edit- modern guys like Keith and Karlsson I get why people name them but I've seen a lot of both of them in their primes and Chara was more of a force than either of them until he was about 35. They have more Norris trophies but hockey writers will always give it to a guy with 60 points over a 40 pt guy with better defense. Both of those guys were deployed as offensive weapons as attack d. Chara has never started 50% of his zone starts in the ozone. He's played the hardest of the hard quality of competition and dominated puck possession against them. Hes not the offensive player those two were in their primes but hes far better on the other side of the ice than either of them.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

15-20 is pretty much where he falls for me.

In his own era, he's 2nd only to Lidstrom.

Arguably one of the most physically imposing defenders in history, and one of the best defensively in his prime. At his peak, the D zone was shut down when he was out there. And he was seemingly always out there logging 26-28 min a night.

Norris record of 1-2-2-3-3-3-4-5 is no joke
3x AS-1
4x AS-2

he also contributed more offensively than he is remembered for. 199-440-639 in 1,477 games. His +254 and 1,900 PIM speak to the defense and physical intimidation.

Plus he is one of the best captains/leaders of his era. He has been the man in the Boston locker room since day 1.

edit: embarrassment of riches moment, he's only the 4th best defender in Bruins history behind Orr, Bourque, Shore

Pronger was better he took 3 different teams to the finals in a 5 year perior upon arrival..not a coincidence. Chara is great but Pronger was better

 

[Godzilla]

Yeah you're right it's a bad habit of mine. I guess it's because I'm a fan of the history of the game while at the same time seeing them for what they were rather than how they dominated their peers.

Oh, that explains it. So you never actually watched any hockey before 1990. It all makes sense now.

 

[nbwingsfan]

do people know there is a history of hockey section on this website?

...there is a history of hockey section this website. it is worth exploring.

here's the list they made of the top defensemen of all time: HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

chara is at 43.

he's added pretty substantially to his legacy since then: two more post-season all-star selections, two more top-3 norris finishes, excellent longevity as a #1 defenseman.

i could see chara pushing for a spot in the top 25 at this point. pronger at 20 keeps him out of the top 20 but he wouldn't be far behind. top 10... no.

One thing I've noticed about the history board is that they tend to give more credit to the older generations "just because".

I've yet to see any actual viable way to compare a player playing in a 4 team, 40 person league (all NA) in 1910-20 versus a guy playing in a 32 team, 640 person league (World Wide).

 

[Fire Sweeney]

Orr
Shore
Harvey
Bourque
Potvin
Chara
Lidstrom
Park
Robinson
Coffeey

 

[BruinsBtn]

Pronger was better he took 3 different teams to the finals in a 5 year perior upon arrival..not a coincidence. Chara is great but Pronger was better

Pronger's peak was one of the highest of any defensemen ever. Easily higher than Lidstrom. But his career was remarkably patchy. How you rate him is more of a question of peak vs total career. I don't think anyone would argue that his Cup run with Edmonton was the best defensive performance in a generation.

 

[solidmotion]

One thing I've noticed about the history board is that they tend to give more credit to the older generations "just because".

I've yet to see any actual viable way to compare a player playing in a 4 team, 40 person league (all NA) in 1910-20 versus a guy playing in a 32 team, 640 person league (World Wide).

pre-wwii is not my strong suit but from the o6 era onwards comparisons feel pretty straightforward: dominance relative to peers, qualified by the strength of the league at the time.

& actually their defensemen list is a great example of not showing bias to earlier eras: only 5 pre-wwii players in the top 25, compared to (depending on your definition) 10 or so from the 1980s alone.

 

[nbwingsfan]

pre-wwii is not my strong suit but from the o6 era onwards comparisons feel pretty straightforward: dominance relative to peers, qualified by the strength of the league at the time.

& actually their defensemen list is a great example of not showing bias to earlier eras: only 5 pre-wwii players in the top 25, compared to (depending on your definition) 10 or so from the 1980s alone.

It doesn't seem as straight forward when again you're now comparing 6 teams and like 100 players all from NA versus 640+ players from around the world and 32 teams.

Would you agree its vastly different and harder to dominate today versus 1950?

 

[newfy]

It doesn't seem as straight forward when again you're now comparing 6 teams and like 100 players all from NA versus 640+ players from around the world and 32 teams.

Would you agree its vastly different and harder to dominate today versus 1950?

On the flipside.. take the best Canadians in the league and a good chunk of the best Americans and condense them into 6 teams. How easy would it be to dominate? Youre talking 1 Canadian and 1 American Olympian on each teams top pair on defense every single game. You never see a Lebda or Brian Lashoff or Luca Sbisa your entire career

 

[nbwingsfan]

On the flipside.. take the best Canadians in the league and a good chunk of the best Americans and condense them into 6 teams. How easy would it be to dominate? Youre talking 1 Canadian and 1 American Olympian on each teams top pair on defense every single game. You never see a Lebda or Brian Lashoff or Luca Sbisa your entire career

Sure, but it also wasnt nesely as popular of s sport either

 

[easton117]

It doesn't seem as straight forward when again you're now comparing 6 teams and like 100 players all from NA versus 640+ players from around the world and 32 teams.

Would you agree its vastly different and harder to dominate today versus 1950?

I would. Hell look at videos of guys in the 70s and 80s. To say their wasn’t a discrepancy in talent level from the top guys to the bottom feeders is ludicrous. Some guys looked like it was their first time on skates.

That to me is the biggest problem comparing players across eras. The margin between the top and botom players now is very small compared to what it was then.

If you can stand out in this era, like a McDavid or Chara I’d be willing to put you pretty high up on any list.

If I made lists. Which I don’t. Which is also why I have to go to the grocery store 3 times to get everything I need.

 

[DKH]

Still don't get how Pierre Pilotte didn't make the top 100... Eight straight with a top five Norris finish including winning the award three times.

I remember him at the end along with Bill White and Pat Stapleton. And of course Keith Magnuson was all the rage in the early 70’s. He was more a first 50 years of hockey guy to me.

He was still impactful but his best days were just before my time.

 

[Lafleurs Guy]

I remember him at the end along with Bill White and Pat Stapleton. And of course Keith Magnuson was all the rage in the early 70’s. He was more a first 50 years of hockey guy to me.

He was still impactful but his best days were just before my time.

He was easily the list's biggest omission.

 

[JackSlater]

Not a viable contender for top ten all time.

 

[DKH]

He was easily the list's biggest omission.

Kind of insane those Black Hawks didn’t get multiple Cups in the 60’s

 

[authentic]

Oh, that explains it. So you never actually watched any hockey before 1990. It all makes sense now.

Oh I've watched countless full NHL and international games from the late 50s and on, it's literally the reason I can tell they wouldn't be as good as the players today as they are, which many actually argue against (yeah obviously that's unfair and they would be better with todays advantages but we have no clue how good they would actually be, and it's also unfair to say because one player dominated a less evolved and inferior era that they are without a doubt better too, so it works both ways).