Zdeno Chara's Place in Bruins Defeseman History

[BraveCanadian]

I hate Chara with a passion. But I think a robust debate could be had vis-à-vis Chara vs Bourque in terms of what you want a cornerstone franchise defenseman. Does individual greatness trump a little less individual greatness but more team success? And I think you could have the same debate between Chara vs Shore which would be more on the grounds of comparing historical eras. I could also see a Shore vs Chara vs Bourque royal rumble being loads of fun.

Not discounting Chara's ability, dedication, and leadership, but if he and Bourque trade places, their team success trades places with them.

When I imagine it with Chara in the finals against the dynasty Oilers, he'd have been lit up like crazy by their speed and puck movement. That was not a team with a lot of depth to cover his weaknesses and play to his strengths. Conversely, I can easily imagine Bourque fitting in on the much better Bruins team that one the Cup and still winning.

 

[The Panther]

Please, no Bruins fans take offense to this, because it's not meant as a dig at your team, except for maybe the folks in the front office while he was there. Ray Bourque was wasted on the Bruins, in my opinion. I don't feel that they ever made the moves to build a team around him that actually gave him the best chance to win. If they had, I suspect we never would have seen him in any other jersey, because I think it's likely he would have gotten a Cup in Boston. The franchise has been much better about that in recent years, building real teams that won a Cup and played in two other hard fought Finals. Imagine Bourque on a franchise with that mentality. I doubt we'd be talking about just one Cup, and a Conn Smythe seems like a distinct possibility too.

There was that period around 1992 to 1994-ish where, if Neely was healthy (a big "if"), the Bruins had a pretty strong line-up around Bourque. Maybe the same applied to c.1981 to 1984, too.

So, basically, for about three years in the early-80s and and three years in the early-90s, I think Bruins' management assembled a pretty good supporting cast for Bourque. The Bourque-Bruins did finish 1st overall in 1982-83 and in 1989-90, and 2nd overall in 1983-84 and 1992-93. It's not like they weren't a good team, but, in general, I agree with you because I think Bourque's presence is the one consistent strength they had from the dawn of the 80s to the mid/late-90s.

Damn, Bourque circa the late-80s was a beast.

I remember Boston's western road trip in February 1989. Here are three straight games on their road trip, all against winning teams:
@ Los Angeles -- Bourque has 2 goals and 2 assists, and Boston wins 7 - 3.
@ Calgary (I remember watching this game) -- Bourque assists on a Boston goal in the 2nd. In the 3rd, with Boston down by one, Bourque scores a nice goal late in the third to tie it, and then on his next shift sets up Keith Crowder for the game winner with about five minutes left. Three points, +3. (Calgary, this season, lost only three games in three periods on home-ice, and this was one of them.)
@ Edmonton -- Bourque has an assist and goes +3 in a 4-2 Boston win.

Incredible player.

 

[buffalowing88]

I think it's gross that anyone would rival Shore with Chara. I can certainly grant Park, but Shore? Really?

 

[Boxscore]

I have him #4 behind Orr, Ray and Shore.

 

[Hobnobs]

I think he slots in nicely behind Orr and Ray for me.

 

[JackSlater]

Seems a pretty obvious fourth to me given where Park spent his career, but not so far ahead of Park. I'm not a Chara fan and I think he's the most overrated defenceman in recent history, and perhaps that blinds me because I can't think of any argument at all that could put him higher than fourth in this context.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I mean obviously Park is a better player, but is Park's bruins career better? I don't see a path to victory for Park there.

Well said.

 

[Mr Burns]

Well Orr is the greatest defenseman of all time and Bourque is the second greatest defenseman of all time then Chara is certainly below those two. I don't know about Shore because different era and Park was the best defenseman who has never won a Norris. I put Chara between 3-5.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Consider that Chara has a higher plus/minus in the playoffs than Serge Savard or Scott Stevens.

 

[Stephen]

Does this not speak more to the players around them though? I think no doubt the last 10-15 years have been better in terms of the Bruins franchise than the whole of Bourque's term, but that also includes much better surrounding players generally, including Thomas being much better than Chara in the cup win (and several others having cases), and even Bergeron being arguably more valuable during this period for the team in general.

I could understand this thinking if, as mentioned earlier, Chara had put a decent team on his back a la '06 Pronger and had won the cup as the clear best player on the team, and if the only reason why Bourque was considered the better player was his consistency and length of prime rather than also having a better and longer peak in both the regular season and playoffs. Or if Bourque had questions about his leadership and commitment and wasn't also a captain forever. As it stands though it basically comes down to Chara is a better Bruin because he had better teammates and didn't play in the time of dynasties.

The Bruins were still good in the early 80s when Bourque broke into the league, and after a couple of quiet regular seasons in the mid 80s they really put together strong cast surrounding him from about the late 80s to the early mid 90s. He ran into an older Oilers dynasty in 1988 and 1990, and then the Bruins kind of ran into an emerging Mario Lemieux and Pittsburgh Penguins in 1991 and 1992 in the conference finals before underachieving in 1993 and maybe going on a gradual decline by 1994. Would say things probably changed for the worse in Boston after the 1994 lockout with Neely retiring shortly after that. The Bruins managed 6x 100 point seasons and 5x division titles, 2x finals appearances and 5x conference finals appearances during the first 15 years of his career, having the misfortune of running into Gretzky, Messier, Lemieux on 4x occasions.

Watching my team go up against Chara on a few occasions in the playoffs as well as the 2011, 2013 and 2019 runs in more detail than other years, I recall how strong of a program they ran top to bottom and there are certainly a number of standout players like Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, Pastrnak, Krug, Thomas, etc. but Zdeno Chara was always top of mind as a factor in games throughout that era. Did he have the absolute high end skillset of a Ray Bourque or the ability to control the game Bourque did or the offensive production? Definitely not. But he was a larger than life competitor, intimidation factor without parallel in his era.

This line of debate reminds me of the Roenick, Chelios, Belfour etc. vs Kane, Toews, Keith, etc. that occasionally pops up about great Blackhawks eras.

 

[Voight]

I get Chara has the cup. but Bourque did carry two teams to the finals.

Off topic but it really does not feel like its been 14 years since he signed in Boston..... time flies.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Watching my team go up against Chara on a few occasions in the playoffs as well as the 2011, 2013 and 2019 runs in more detail than other years, I recall how strong of a program they ran top to bottom and there are certainly a number of standout players like Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, Pastrnak, Krug, Thomas, etc. but Zdeno Chara was always top of mind as a factor in games throughout that era.

agree with this.

injuries or not, crooked reffing or not, patrice bergeron or not, luongo’s yips or not, i still think the single player in the league who could have beaten the sedins in a seven game series in 2011, with the supporting cast they had, was zdeno chara.

 

[MadLuke]

Consider that Chara has a higher plus/minus in the playoffs than Serge Savard or Scott Stevens.

Also comparing the RS/playoff track record of both, both were excellent, Bourque bruins played in the third most playoff game of is era behind the Oilers and Habs, Chara Bruins behind only the Pens.

Bourque missed the playoff only once and that he was 36 years old, missed 20 games. That said Bourque played mostly during at time that missing the playoff was exceptional.

But a bit like science that would end up saying a bumblebee cannot fly, consider what Chara > Bourque has a Bruins mean, considering that Senator Chara is above Colorado Avs, how that not end up saying Chara > Bourque

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

The Bruins were still good in the early 80s when Bourque broke into the league, and after a couple of quiet regular seasons in the mid 80s they really put together strong cast surrounding him from about the late 80s to the early mid 90s. He ran into an older Oilers dynasty in 1988 and 1990, and then the Bruins kind of ran into an emerging Mario Lemieux and Pittsburgh Penguins in 1991 and 1992 in the conference finals before underachieving in 1993 and maybe going on a gradual decline by 1994. Would say things probably changed for the worse in Boston after the 1994 lockout with Neely retiring shortly after that. The Bruins managed 6x 100 point seasons and 5x division titles, 2x finals appearances and 5x conference finals appearances during the first 15 years of his career, having the misfortune of running into Gretzky, Messier, Lemieux on 4x occasions.

Watching my team go up against Chara on a few occasions in the playoffs as well as the 2011, 2013 and 2019 runs in more detail than other years, I recall how strong of a program they ran top to bottom and there are certainly a number of standout players like Bergeron, Marchand, Rask, Pastrnak, Krug, Thomas, etc. but Zdeno Chara was always top of mind as a factor in games throughout that era. Did he have the absolute high end skillset of a Ray Bourque or the ability to control the game Bourque did or the offensive production? Definitely not. But he was a larger than life competitor, intimidation factor without parallel in his era.

This line of debate reminds me of the Roenick, Chelios, Belfour etc. vs Kane, Toews, Keith, etc. that occasionally pops up about great Blackhawks eras.

Don't forget that they were knocked out of the playoffs twice by the dynasty Islanders also. 1982-83 was one of their strongest post-Orr seasons.

 

[ted2019]

Chara's weaknesses still had to be covered for. His skating was really bad for a Norris winner.

Bourque OTOH needed no coverage of any kind, you just sent him against anyone, at anytime, with anyone on his side, and he would excel. He was a great skater and had almost all the tools.

I see your point about Chara bringing a unique physical presence, but this is Ray Bourque we're talking about.

Chara "brought the cup", but his performances in the playoffs, while OK, weren't memorable neither. He did enough, but not more. He was no Chris Pronger here.

Even though he was a bad skater, that made him rely on force and positioning and most importantly, smarts, to play as well as he did considering the way the game changed from the time he entered the league.

 

[ted2019]

He was #1 on his team, but not seen as a potential #1 league wide. So I can see that taking a sheen off him. I personally don’t care that he’s still playing, but you know there’s people who think he’s now just a compiler, and therefore not as good as he was.

Understandable because he’s not a #1 anymore but with some people that final impression is all that matters.

Jeremy Roenick was a complier from his age 34-39 seasons. Roenick's last season, he averaged 11:39 TOI. Dave Andreychuk was a complier from his age 34-42 seasons and Andreychuk's last season, he averaged 13:26 TOI. Chara at 41 pulled in 3 Norris votes for the 2018-19 season. A complier doesn't average 21:01 a game at age 42

 

[vikash1987]

1. Bobby Orr
2. Ray Bourque
3. Eddie Shore
4. Zdeno Chara
5. Brad Park

 

[seventieslord]

So, basically, for about three years in the early-80s and and three years in the early-90s, I think Bruins' management assembled a pretty good supporting cast for Bourque. The Bourque-Bruins did finish 1st overall in 1982-83 and in 1989-90, and 2nd overall in 1983-84 and 1992-93. It's not like they weren't a good team, but, in general, I agree with you because I think Bourque's presence is the one consistent strength they had from the dawn of the 80s to the mid/late-90s.

Well guess what, the Bruins had an even strength GF:GA ratio of 0.95 in 1989-90, 0.99 in 1992-93, and 0.95 in 1983-84 with Ray Bourque not on the ice, so it's not like they had a "good team", it's more like they "had a great player".

(the 1982-83 team was excellent even without Ray - 1.26 - but this still paled in comparison to the 2.16 they were with him on the ice)

 

[seventieslord]

I think it's gross that anyone would rival Shore with Chara. I can certainly grant Park, but Shore? Really?

OK, we have people here who refuse to accept that anyone who played a long time ago can be any good, and we have people who have Shore quite easily in the top-5 defensemen of all-time, or even higher, and the way your statement is worded I can't tell which of the two you are.

 

[buffalowing88]

OK, we have people here who refuse to accept that anyone who played a long time ago can be any good, and we have people who have Shore quite easily in the top-5 defensemen of all-time, or even higher, and the way your statement is worded I can't tell which of the two you are.

Probably should have clarified. I think Shore is in my top 5 defensemen. Probably top 4 tbh, but arguments can be made. I just think his impact is forgotten over the course of time.

 

[Stephen]

Probably should have clarified. I think Shore is in my top 5 defensemen. Probably top 4 tbh, but arguments can be made. I just think his impact is forgotten over the course of time.

I feel like Shore is well remembered in hockey history discussions generally. It's also interesting that we're talking about him in a Chara topic too. Not because of the Bruins connection but in terms of being an outsized physical presence, intimidating factor, etc. I'm curious what a modern defenseman would need to do to surpass Shore?

 

[buffalowing88]

I feel like Shore is well remembered in hockey history discussions generally. It's also interesting that we're talking about him in a Chara topic too. Not because of the Bruins connection but in terms of being an outsized physical presence, intimidating factor, etc. I'm curious what a modern defenseman would need to do to surpass Shore?

That's a good question. And a good point about him coming up in conversations even when he's not directly related.

I feel like given his relatively normal size/outsized attitude, I'd have seen someone like Doughty having a modern-day approach to the game that is similar to Shore. He's past the point where he could surpass Eddie but the Cups and his impact for a team for an extended peak mean something. I have Doughty pretty highly-ranked all time so I'm probably a bit biased. Shore was obviously the more impactful player, but some similarities do exist.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

I feel like Shore is well remembered in hockey history discussions generally. It's also interesting that we're talking about him in a Chara topic too. Not because of the Bruins connection but in terms of being an outsized physical presence, intimidating factor, etc. I'm curious what a modern defenseman would need to do to surpass Shore?

A lot more than some think.

4x Hart
7x Hart finalist
7x AS-1

Fair to assume 5-7 retro Norris trophies at a minimum.

 

[ESH]

I can see it. Had he retired 5 years ago, he might be in the convo for 3rd best.

Orr
Bourque/Shore
Bourque/Shore/Chara (basically between the loser of the 2nd place and Chara).

Because of how long Chara lasted, he’s lost a lot of his sheen. But he’s still a top 6 D, so I wouldn’t retire either.

how could you possibly think that Chara captaining his team to the finals a couple years ago, playing on the top pair has somehow reduced his status as a Bruins defenseman all-time?

 

[Professor What]

A lot more than some think.

4x Hart
7x Hart finalist
7x AS-1

Fair to assume 5-7 retro Norris trophies at a minimum.

IIRC, his retro Norris count was either 7 or 8, which would put him right at the top of the list. As for what a modern player would have to do to reach his level, well, I'm very comfortable that only four other defensemen have ever reached that level, and with Bourque and Lidstrom both being fairly recent, we've got a decent idea. That's a tall, steep mountain.