HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Pittsburgh Penguins (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=23)
-   -   Apparently Lidstrom was as good as Lemieux (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1254535)

dr robbie 09-02-2012 09:32 AM

Apparently Lidstrom was as good as Lemieux
 
http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=640799

Made me feel sick.

Blitzburgh87* 09-02-2012 09:37 AM

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahajaja hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha :biglaugh:

gopens66 09-02-2012 09:39 AM

What a frootloopin joke! Absolutely moronic statement.

spizzle420 09-02-2012 09:41 AM

Joke 1: Well, he did win *4* Stanley Cups. :sarcasm:

Joke 2: But Lemieux shakes hands better. :sarcasm:

bathroomSTAAL 09-02-2012 09:59 AM

How dare they! Boycott NHL.com!

WhatsaMaatta 09-02-2012 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bathroomSTAAL (Post 54035825)
How dare they! Boycott NHL.com!

Together we can!

Jacob8hockey* 09-02-2012 10:41 AM

It wouldnt be that far off to say Mario and Lidstrom are similar to eachother in how they would rank in there positions all time. Both top guys to play in their own position.

Ofcourse, point wise Lemieux never got to play as much as he could have. But still what each did was amazing for their positions.

#66 09-02-2012 10:53 AM

Kills me to say it because I've always liked Lidstrom but he's slowly becoming one of the most over rated players of all time.

Maybe Lemieux takes a hit because you don't get credit for games you don't play.

JTG 09-02-2012 12:07 PM

Lidstrom is one of the best defensemen ever. He's in a top tier, and in the last 10-15 years, he's bar none in my mind, the best defenseman over that period.

Mario Lemieux defies tiers. He sits atop any rankings with Gretzky, and I'd personally contend that Mario was better. I think with him, you had a guy who could do everything Wayne did, except he was so much harder to handle because he was a gigantic man.

I think if you take into consideration that Gretzky put up a vast majority of his points when the game was at the highest levels of scoring in hockey history, and Mario did what he did when the game was primarily clutch and grab...couple that he missed a ton of time with injuries and cancer...not a crazy conclusion that if you put Mario in the same hayday as Wayne, and give Mario a new back and no cancer...he'd probably match Wayne point for point, and have a real good shot at beating him statistically.

Rob Scuderi 09-02-2012 12:16 PM

I flipped to the first article to see Brodeur over Beliveau and Bourque. Should have known then.

MetalheadPenguinsFan 09-02-2012 12:18 PM

Oh NHL.com u so silly!!!!

Eli Cash 09-02-2012 12:20 PM

Ugh. That's not even close.

Lidstrom's teams made the playoffs every single year he was on them (he was a big part of it, but still...there were some absurdly talented, high-spending Wings teams there). Mario carried an entire team on his back for how long? Come on now.

Jill Sandwich 09-02-2012 12:40 PM

They're both the 2nd best all time at their position. But I think Gretz, Lemieux and Bobby Orr are in a level all their own.

invictus 09-02-2012 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill Sandwich (Post 54038547)
They're both the 2nd best all time at their position. But I think Gretz, Lemieux and Bobby Orr are in a level all their own.

Ray Bourque?

Jill Sandwich 09-02-2012 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invictus (Post 54039787)
Ray Bourque?

Bourque is an amazing player. That 1990 season might have been the best season a defenseman not named Orr has ever played. But I think Lidstrom is better.

The Lidstrom-Bourque argument has amusing similarities to Bourque-Potvin arguments 15 years ago.

#66 09-02-2012 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jill Sandwich (Post 54040031)
Bourque is an amazing player. That 1990 season might have been the best season a defenseman not named Orr has ever played. But I think Lidstrom is better.

The Lidstrom-Bourque argument has amusing similarities to Bourque-Potvin arguments 15 years ago.

Potvin? IMO he's just as good as those guys and played a meaner game.

Jill Sandwich 09-02-2012 02:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by #66 (Post 54040271)
Potvin? IMO he's just as good as those guys and played a meaner game.

And now we've come full circle.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 09-02-2012 02:35 PM

How do these jokers get jobs?

Darth Vitale 09-02-2012 02:45 PM

Way to keep fans passionate about hockey with the lockout looming. A good distraction is always best. FU NHL.

Seriously it's kind of a stupid comparison. How do you compare a D with Mario Lemieux and find a way to argue the D was "as good"? Their roles and opportunity for scoring are completely different.

I think it is fair to argue that Lidstrom was as good a D as Lemieux was a forward. You can argue Lidstrom was the greatest D of all time, so you can't dismiss him as chicken feed. It's not like they're comparing him to Dan Boyle or something. Lidstrom was an absolute machine and dominant in his role for 20 years, playing against the league's best players. It counts for something but like I said it's a stupid comparison.

It's like me saying "Man how do you ever decide between Joe Montana and Mean Joe Green as the best player ever?"

"I just can't figure out what's better: my ferrari or my cigarette boat." :laugh:

invictus 09-02-2012 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chancellor Vitale (Post 54040847)
Way to keep fans passionate about hockey with the lockout looming. A good distraction is always best. FU NHL.

Seriously it's kind of a stupid comparison. How do you compare a D with Mario Lemieux and find a way to argue the D was "as good"? Their roles and opportunity for scoring are completely different.

I think it is fair to argue that Lidstrom was as good a D as Lemieux was a forward. You can argue Lidstrom was the greatest D of all time, so you can't dismiss him as chicken feed. It's not like they're comparing him to Dan Boyle or something. Lidstrom was an absolute machine and dominant in his role for 20 years, playing against the league's best players. It counts for something but like I said it's a stupid comparison.

It's like me saying "Man how do you ever decide between Joe Montana and Mean Joe Green as the best player ever?"

"I just can't figure out what's better: my ferrari or my cigarette boat." :laugh:

How can anyone make this argument and mean it?

Rowdy Roddy Peeper 09-02-2012 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by invictus (Post 54041223)
How can anyone make this argument and mean it?

Well, no educated hockey fan can. No offense to CV, where I'm sure it was just an oversight. ;)

sEmowashere 09-02-2012 03:59 PM

I don't have a problem with this. Lidstrom was a great D and exceptional leader for an extremely long time. You can't choose between the two so it's obvious a tie. One of the best D of all time and one of the best Forwards of all time. No problems, we should be happy that we had a player who played his position as well as Lidstrom played his and vice versa.

#66 09-02-2012 04:04 PM

We've seen Lemieux score 199 points with Brown and Errey on his wings. Good players that fit Lemieux at the time but not really Jags and Francis.

On the other hand have we ever seen Lidstrom play on a bad team? Or even an OK one? He's always had one of the better teams in the league around him with tons of structure and support.

Quote:

And now we've come full circle.
Well those are the top defenseman ever so the same names keep popping up. Also wan't to add that if Orr is easily #1 then Shore is easily #2. Anything and everything from Shore's time period has him pegged as the best player in the league and those are the only two defenseman that can say that.

Double-Shift Lassť 09-02-2012 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTG (Post 54038021)
Mario Lemieux defies tiers. He sits atop any rankings with Gretzky, and I'd personally contend that Mario was better.

This.

Giroux tha Damaja 09-02-2012 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JTG (Post 54038021)
I think if you take into consideration that Gretzky put up a vast majority of his points when the game was at the highest levels of scoring in hockey history, and Mario did what he did when the game was primarily clutch and grab...couple that he missed a ton of time with injuries and cancer...not a crazy conclusion that if you put Mario in the same hayday as Wayne, and give Mario a new back and no cancer...he'd probably match Wayne point for point, and have a real good shot at beating him statistically.

All of those are valid considerations when you're looking at who you want for one game, at their peak. But when you're weighing legacies you, in my mind, have to look primarily at what actually happened, not what could've.

What if Mario had a healthier body? Fair question when considering what might've been, but when comparing the two men, why not ask "what if Wayne had a bigger, faster body"?

Ultimately I hate these attempts at ranking the all time greats, because by the end the guys at the top are nearly deities, and the amazing players just a tick below them are downplayed.

Mario was amazing, Wayne was unreal, and Lidstrom is a defensrman unlike any before him. What is to be gained by ranking such different players?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.