| Author |
 Topic  |
|
dummy101
Top Prospect
Canada
33 Posts |
 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'. |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
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.
|
Edited by - Beans15 on 03/26/2007 16:05:22 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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. |
Edited by - andyhack on 03/26/2007 18:29:06 |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
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)?
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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?
|
|
|
|
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
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
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. |
|
|
|
tctitans
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
931 Posts |
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.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
After Orr, who is the best defenceman since 1967? 
