| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/15/2007 : 19:47:16
After Orr, who is the best defenceman of the post-expansion era? |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 11:46:57
I agree that Lidstrom is great, perhaps one of the top, but there is just no way I could put him in the same class as Orr, Potvin, Bourque, Robinson, Park, .. These fellows dominated - some in particular areas, most in multiple areas. Lidstrom just doesnt dominate. He's very good in many areas (not all) and this makes him a great player, just not in the top-5 kind of class.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 11:18:18
I agree that Lidstrom is great. But, as mentioned, for me the question of who is greater, this player or that player, has nothing to do with how they are doing at the age of 35. Don't get me wrong, I think that Lidstrom, Bourque and others who have continued their excellence for so long deserve all the credit in the world. i just don't think it is relevant to this question. Next time I'll be as specific as possible about that in making the question, but some of my posts probably make this way of thinking of mine pretty clear I think. I mean these guys have been doing this GOAT draft for like a month now, apparently based on my comments in the Gretzky thread.
For me, it's a question of "who, in their prime, would you like on your team the most?". I realize that depends on a lot of factors but, to me, it is a more interesting question than simply, "who had the best career?".
Under my interpretation of the question, do you still think that Lidstrom is "greater" than Orr and Potvin? My guess is that you might,in which case, great, we can have a good debate about that. Personally, I think Potvin had at least two steps on Lidstrom offensively, and that edge combined with his hitting ability, would rank Potvin ahead of Lidstrom for me. Orr, well, without getting into any details, I'll just say that I would be very pleased if I had the number 2 pick in a draft and you took Lidstrom ahead of Orr.
Last point. This grouping of Orr and Lemieux with Lindburgh is misleading. Sure Orr/Lemieux didn't have the longevity of Gretzky/Bourque but they are far from being guys that just had a "bright start". I mean, Orr won 8 Norris trophies in a row! Gotta repeat that, 8 Norris trophies in a row! Even under a "best career" definition of the question, that's pretty impressive! And it's not like Lemieux only had a good three or four years either. |
| Guest8372 |
Posted - 03/27/2007 : 09:44:52
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Hmmm - Nope to Potvin. Why?
Potvin retired when he was 35 in 1988. Scoring 51 points. I can't find his +/- stats. This was in the live puck era.
When Lidstrom was 35yrs old, he had 80 points, with a +26. Currently has 61 points and a ridiculous +36. When Detroit won the cup, he is a total +30 with 43 points.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 21:01:13
For me, the question doesn't have so much to do with the 20 year thing, as much as I respect that. It's more like a "take each of their best 5 years and line them up against each other" type of thing. The 20 year thing would have more meaning for me if these "greatest" questions were worded something like "who had the greatest career?" But that's just my take on it.
Hmmm - Nope to Potvin. Why?
|
| Guest7139 |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 20:26:45
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
The thing about Bourque for me though is this; he never really wowed me. I think you'll know what I'm saying Andyhack. He was the model of consistency and did everything very well, but there was just something lacking for me. I wouldn't say he was a guy who controlled the pace of a game. Don't get me wrong, I love Bourque but I would have a very hard time saying he was dominant. Orr, Harvey, Potvin, Park, Robinson and even Serge Savard had that ability to control games.
You could say this about the current best defencemen in hockey. Lidstrom is all business. No razzle dazzle.
Is he the fastest? Nope.
Hardest shot? Nope.
Strongest? Nope.
Tallest? Nope.
Best passer? Nope.
Hardest hitter? Nope.
Dominating physical presence? Nope.
Smartest? By far.
Best positional d-man? Yup.
Dominates the game mentally? I don't know if I have the hockey IQ to figure that out. He just does the basics with consistellence (is that a word? consistent-excellence).
But he is the best there is right now. Compare your greats at the ripe old age of 36. Are they as good as Lidstrom is now? Remember now, he is top 3 or 4 in d-man scoring (in a relatively low scoring era) and #1 in +/- by about a million.
Borque - close
Potvin - Nope
Park - never seen in action but the 72 series he was close to useless against the Russians.
Orr - never made it this far
Big Bird - nope but still a physical presence.
There is hope yet that his name will be up there with greatest d-men ever. Maybe someone can start a definition for GOAT. Is it the star outshining all the rest that didn't last (Orr, Lemieux, Pelle Lindbergh) or the bright start that just kept on shinning day in day out for 20 odd years that you take it for granted (Gretzky, Howe, Borque, Roy)?
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 19:19:52
I agree, it's almost impossible to compare (apples and oranges, and personally, from all the information I have, I have to say that Orr is the best Defenseman to ever play the game by FAR). That has always been my opinion. But as debates go, I just wanted old Slava to get his fair share and he is certainly one in the next top 5.
There are tons, but here's just a few bits on Fetisov::
http://www.nhl.com/nhl/app?service=page&page=NewsPage&articleid=279646
http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/spot_oneononep200101.htm
http://www.russianrocket.de/Teammates/Fetisov/hauptteil_fetisov.html
And Beans, Never, and I mean NEVER compare stats in other leagues with stats in the NHL. They are not even apples and oranges, they are more like apples and a Tyranasaurus Rexes.  This is especially true, but not limited to, the Russian Leagues.
Ovechkin is a good example:
2004-2005: Moscow Dynamo: 37 games, 13 goals and 27 points.
2005-2006: Washington Capitals: 81 games, 52 goals and 106 points. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 18:20:10
In any case, it was an NHL poll (at least that was my intention - just cause we don't know enough about players who played elsewhere).
Either way though, I can't really properly comment on Fetisov. From what I did see of him in his peak years (mainly clips), I think we are talking about a lower level of greatness from Orr. Maybe Bourque and Fetisov would be a better comparison but even that is so hard for us to really talk about intelligently given that we didn't really see the guy in his prime. I would certainly say that Bourque in his twilight was more valuable than Fetisov was in his twilight. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/26/2007 : 16:04:52
tctitians, I am not sure if anyone could reasonably argue that. Unless you had/have a massive amount of Fetisov footage or had a live satellite feed into the Red Army Games from the late 70's and 80's.
However, what we can debate is stats. And if you include his games for CSKA Moscow with his NHL games, he played 915 games and had 178 goals, 392 assists for 570 points.
This is a far cry from what Orr did in pretty much the same amount of games.
He still isn't in my top 5.
|
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/25/2007 : 21:44:44
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think Fetisov was a great player and definately an amazing international player. However, he played in times of the lowest scoring in history and he was not the key point of any of the teams he played on.
I don't personally think he belongs in the top 10 all time. Definately not #2 behind Orr. I think the right players are being debated. Park and Potvin with outside shots of Bourque and Coffey. I don't put Fetisov ahead of any of those guys.
So, by your comments, you are agreeing with me that we are only debating best NHL careers. Fetisov was compared (and debated) with Orr when he was in his prime. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 06:31:51
I think Fetisov was a great player and definately an amazing international player. However, he played in times of the lowest scoring in history and he was not the key point of any of the teams he played on.
I don't personally think he belongs in the top 10 all time. Definately not #2 behind Orr. I think the right players are being debated. Park and Potvin with outside shots of Bourque and Coffey. I don't put Fetisov ahead of any of those guys. |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 21:22:58
To be honest guys, i'm a little disappointed that my Fetisov injection didnt get more traction.
I think it's, at the very least, narrow-minded not to consider him in the discussion.
We could qualify this discussion to 'After Orr, who has had the best NHL career since 1967?', if that is what people want to discuss.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 20:34:01
quote:
Originally posted by dummy101
Do you guys think Potvin and Park had enough foot speed to compete in todays game,they were big hipcheckers(Potvin all around hitter).After all Montreal's and Edmonton's speed were each players nemisis'.
A further thought; Scott Stevens competed just fine. I would say Park and Potvin were both better skaters than Stevens. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:46:22
Yeah, that's one of the reasons I wish I would have seen more of Park in his younger days when his knees were stronger. But I was too young when Park was a Ranger to really be able to make a good assesment now of your question. I agree that the Park of the late 70s would have trouble now. Mind you, even in his slower Bruin days, he was still smart enough to oftentimes compensate for his speed problem with good positioning etc. Potvin in his prime would have been okay I think, but you make a good point. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:27:32
quote:
Originally posted by dummy101
Do you guys think Potvin and Park had enough foot speed to compete in todays game,they were big hipcheckers(Potvin all around hitter).After all Montreal's and Edmonton's speed were each players nemisis'.
Easily. These guys were great skaters actually. While ultimately not the fastest they were by no means slugs. |
| dummy101 |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 16:22:25
Do you guys think Potvin and Park had enough foot speed to compete in todays game,they were big hipcheckers(Potvin all around hitter).After all Montreal's and Edmonton's speed were each players nemisis'. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 15:46:54
Willus3 - no major scoffing here about your Chelios-Bourque comment. But I think Bourque's edge in offence is probably a little greater than Chelios's edge, if any, in defence. I am almost sure too that I once read a Chelios quote where he said Bourque was the best amongst the defencemen he played against. That doesn't mean he was saying Bourque was better than him though, I know.
Anyway, I thought a bit about your point while walking home from work just now. You're basically right, Bourque didn't really have one major thing that absolutely "wowed" you. A sort of interesting thing came to my mind though, not a "wow" thing so much, but something I would say he did as well as anyone ever. That was, when Bourque made a mistake, as he occasionally did, he was amazing at immediately taking steps to make things right. Sure, this hopefully is natural for anyone, but he seemed particularly excellent at cleaning up his mistakes. And that's a good lesson for all of us, whether in hockey or in life in general. |
| PainTrain |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 20:25:56
Scott Stevens, he still maneged to get around 900 points but he could change a game around with a big hit, just ask Lindros. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 18:35:49
Absolutely Bourque is a class act. Very old school that way. Another one of the truly humble guys.
Again don't get me wrong, Bourque is an all time great. No question.
I just wish he had that one thing that stood out. Orr had his incredible speed, Potvin and Park were huge hitters, etc...
Actually I hope you don't scoff too much at this but Chelios plays very similarly to Bourque. Chelios is slightly less offensive but their overall play is quite similar. Textbook defensemen. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 17:58:58
I know what you mean Willus3, but that's actually tied into the reason that I raised those Montreal series. Even then, partially because of Bourque's understated style, one may not say from the perspective of a fan that he "controlled" the game, but I bet if you ask the Hab players of that time, many would have said that he at least came close to controlling it (I remember reading a number of pretty praiseworthy comments from Habs to that effect after those series). And Don Cherry, who actually was never a HUGE Bourque fan (compared to Neely) as I recall, made a comment once that I think was something like "when Bourque plays the Habs, he plays like he is God". If you can, somehow try to get a hold of or see tapes of some of those games. In particular, I remember some special ones when Bourque was actually getting a little older - Games 6 and 7 of the 1994 Habs-Bruin playoff battle.
One thing you gotta give Bourque though - the sweater thing with Espo was up pretty close to the top of classy gestures in NHL history. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 17:26:55
The thing about Bourque for me though is this; he never really wowed me. I think you'll know what I'm saying Andyhack. He was the model of consistency and did everything very well, but there was just something lacking for me. I wouldn't say he was a guy who controlled the pace of a game. Don't get me wrong, I love Bourque but I would have a very hard time saying he was dominant. Orr, Harvey, Potvin, Park, Robinson and even Serge Savard had that ability to control games.
|
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 16:57:53
Hey Willus3 - thanks, it's good to be on board. Hopefully our Orr/Potvin/Park ship will continue to sail despite the strong winds against it! But this is an interesting and fun site - particularly fun cause it gives us a chance to talk about the 70s! There were great movies in that decade too as you know, but that's for another site I guess.
Yes, Potvin and Park are close. I think all of our impressions are greatly influenced by who we actually saw. I saw a lot of Park as a Bruin, but I was pretty young when he was a faster slightly more offensive-minded Ranger. Perhaps if I would have seen him in his younger years I'd have given him the edge over Potvin (who I saw from the beginning and whose peak as a player probably coincided with my peak as a high school kid obsessing with the NHL/planning hockey pool picks in the back of science class, etc.). In those years, aside from those memorable checks, the thing that stand out for me is Potvin quarterbacking the Islanders powerplay - really something to watch. I hated the Islanders by the way. In their pre-cup choke years I wrote "Choke" on all of my Islander hockey cards. HOW STUPID, I DESTROYED LOTS OF CARDS THAT WOULD GO ON TO BE PRETTY VALUABLE!
One comment on Bourque. If he always played as well as he did (thankfully) against the Habs in the playoffs, he'd probably be my "Number 2 after Orr" guy. Bourque was pretty consistent overall, which I guess is a big point on his Resume, but there were some playoff series against the Habs where he was really extra special. |
| Mikhailova |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 13:18:01
Wow tctitans...guess who I was going to pick next??
If someone takes him I'll be mad  |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/19/2007 : 08:18:22
Ok... now that I have had the chance to pick him in my G.O.A.T draft, I think that there is another name to throw into the mix that hasnt been mentioned yet. :)
Viacheslav Fetisov.
There are many who argue that he is the 2nd best Dman in the modern era. I didnt have the chance (besides the rare international game here and there) to personally watch him play at anytime near his prime, so it's hard for me to judge personally, but he was said to be the complete package. Gifted offensively and as steady as they come in his own zone. His leadership qualities also made him a perennial captain of his Russian teams. He had a pretty impressive career after coming to the NHL, and that didnt start untiil he was 32 years old.
Definately worth a consideration... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 20:54:43
quote:
Originally posted by Guest6656
After Orr?
Who says Orr is the best?
This has to be one of the funniest posts I've seen here. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 20:51:59
This is a great poll and a very tough call. It's between Potvin and Park. I find it really hard to choose between these two. Park is generally overlooked because of his unfortunate timing. He played when Orr and Potvin were in their primes. He was runner up to win the Norris 6 times. Consider this... Put Bourque in the same situation. Bourque would also be runner up every year against those two. I can't stress it enough how under valued Park is. For me I'd be happy letting a coin toss decide, they are that close. But those two are definitely the next in line.
Robinson was truly great also. But Andyhack touched on a very valid point about him. He was a touch clumsy. And, especially later in his career, was prone to making bad mistakes.
Serge Savard is another who is completely under appreciated.
And as I've mentioned before, Coffey has no business in the top ten. Robinson made bad errors later in his career but Coffey did it through his entire career. I remember watching and thinking wow, I cannot believe he just did that. That's a junior level mistake. And he would do things like that several times a game sometimes.
BTW Andyhack, very glad to have you aboard. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 08:42:23
What??? Andyhack, how can you leave out the killer trio of Coffey, Lowe, and Huddy??
Kidding. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 07:11:49
Sunday Morning thought:
Beans - you are right, it is natural for the younger generation to vote for Lidstrom, and the poll seems to be showing that. And there is no argument from me that Lidstrom is near the very top and deserves to be considered here. But, objectively, not as a grumpy old man longing for the old days, I'd put Potvin as a Number 2 by a small margin over Bourque and Park (and you won't find a bigger fan of Bourque or Park). But it would be interesting to see how this poll would break down if we could sort the votes by age of the voters. Maybe we can assume that most of the votes for the '70s guys are from the older guys though. In that case, I would say again that Park is very underrated.
As for Robinson, I agree he was tremendous but I push him down slightly due to the clumsiness factor which he showed a little more than the others (probably due to physical factors). I will say though that the trio of Robinson, Savard and Lapointe was the best trio of defenceman on any team in NHL history. |
| dannywer0 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 05:31:36
MacCinnes big time. I mean he was with a bad team and he still contributed big time. But Ray Bourque was second on my list. |
| Guest2180 |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 01:06:01
I'm not saying that Al MaCinnes is better than any of the others mentioned. I just think he deserves to be mentioned along with Borque and Coffey. If it wasn't for Borque, MaCinnes would have a few more Norris trophies. |
| leafsfan_101 |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 16:08:45
quote:
Originally posted by Blubberboy
I think Chris Pronger Should be mentioned.
Go Canucks
Eww, not as the greatest defenceman of all time after Orr. Denis Potvin was so much better, as was Brad Park. All of the defenceman on that list are better in their prime then Pronger.
Long Live Leafs Nation!! |
| -oil-country- |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 15:54:35
I would pick S.Niedermayer over Pronger any day but i would also pick any of the guys on the list over S.Niedermayer. I picked Bourque. |
| Blubberboy |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 15:19:22
I think Chris Pronger Should be mentioned.
Go Canucks |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 14:04:04
Andyhack, the vast majority of the people on this site are under the age of 25. Hence, Potvin and Park not getting thier due respect. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 11:41:14
My guess is that most people (over 98%), knowledgable or not that knowledgable, would say Orr is the best. I could be wrong about that estimate but I would hope that I am not.
As for the earlier "I can't believe Coffey wasn't on the list" comment, that's fine, I respect your opinion. My opinion, looking at the results of the poll so far, is that Denis Potvin and Brad Park are incredibly underrated, by this sites viewers anyway (or, more likely, the people voting just didn't see these two guys because they're too young and haven't checked up on them enough). Trust me, they were both very good both offensively and defensively and strong arguments can be made for either one of them here. |
| Guest6656 |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 11:09:42
After Orr?
Who says Orr is the best? |
| Guest9696 |
Posted - 03/17/2007 : 10:36:35
Paul Coffey is definitely the best since. I can't believe he's not 1 of the choices. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 21:35:09
Guest 4567,
The point of the "what if" had nothing to do with saying that Coffey was helped by the strong Oiler team. Others may make that point, but I don't. The "what if" point was raised only because we were discussing Coffey's defensive abilities, and some of the "Coffey guys" seem to be suggesting that there were reasons related to the Oilers system/style that his defensive ability didn't come out. As someone who doesn't think he was very good defensively, I can respond to that in two ways: 1) your way actually - and say "what ifs" are b.s. and just go watch the old coverage of Coffey in his own end when he didn't have the puck or 2) say okay, lets think about that point a bit and explore it - which is what I did and what led to the "what if"
|
| Guest4567 |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 20:35:20
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Thanks, I didn't see that before. It was interesting. Sorry for the slight overlap here - though this poll excludes pre-67 guys like Harvey, Howell, etc. and isn't just about Coffey. For example, Beans, why is Potivn not on your list? I hope he is Number 6 at least.
As for Guest 7418's Coffey comment, I think one way to go about this debate is to imagine what would have happened if Coffey would have purposely toned down the offence in the same way that Park did for the Bruins in the mid/late 70s (I think in Park's case it was partially due to injuries and also due to the defense first concept of those late 70s Bruins teams). So, and I know it is hard to imagine this, but what if Coffey wasn't on the Oiler powerhouse but rather a defensive-minded team and his free-wheeling style didn't fit in. Would he have done anywhere near as good a job defensively as Park did for the Bruins? I just don't think so.
As I say, Coffey is an interesting case. You almost have to rank him up higher as a hockey player than you do if just focussing on him as a defenceman, if that makes any sense.
I really hate the what if answer to all the polls people put on. I mean come on what if Coffey was on a defensive minded team..the fact is he didnt have to be defensive thats what Kevin lowe and Lee fogilin gave Edmonton just like Gord Klucek helped bourque as did Wesley. it takes 2 men to make the D then 3 forwards to help out and if your team is all offence and coffey led the d charge then he fit their style or else they wouldnt of even drafted him. GMs have a plan and Coffey was Edmontons d plan. I mean why not argue because Bryan fogarty was the best jr dman ever breaking all Orrs jr records he should be on the list. What if he wasnt a drunk and didnt die at age 28. I mean what if..the fact was he was a drunk and did die so he aint on the list so stop with the what ifs and just use facts..thanks |
| jbraiter |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 19:45:23
rory fitzpatrick
Go Canucks |
| tctitans |
Posted - 03/16/2007 : 16:55:59
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I think that Coffey, from being a kid through juniors and into the NHL, would have been moved to a forward position if he was just average on the defensive end. He was, in many opinions, the fastest skater in history. Also, he has a nose for the net, great hands, and is a great passer. Do those skills not have forward written all over it?? There was a reason he was a defensemen and not a forward. Granted, I will not argue that he did not have the defensive skills of Potvin or Park or Bourque. But lets make sure that we are not confusing him of being a goat on the defensive end. Not as skilled as others yes, but not a total meathook.
Both Gretzky and Lemieux called Coffey the best passer they have ever seen. |
|
|
