View Single Post
12-08-2005, 04:20 PM
Registered User
sparr0w's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,377
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by doublejack
I think you guys may have misunderstood what I wrote about Lidstrom declining faster than Chelios. I do not mean that Chelios is today a better player than Lidstrom. Clearly that's not the case. I mean that Chelios at age 35 was closer to what he was in his prime than what Lidstrom is today compared to his prime. Basically rate of decline relative to age is what I'm talking about. I guarantee Nick will not be capable of playing in the NHL at age 44, that's the proof of my claim. If he can then you guys are right and I was wrong.

I also think there are many who have an overly rosey view of Lidstrom. He's still a good player but he's not Norris Nick anymore. Next time he's involved in a foot race through the neutral zone watch how badly he gets beaten. His lack of speed is pretty apparent. He's getting caught out of position and pinching in which is leading to more scoring chances against us. He made Olausson look good in 2002. There's no way imo he could do that anymore.
We, I at least, understood what you said. I disagree. Lidstrom is not in some meteoric decline. He'll likely have to adapt his game and readjust his positioning as he approaches and crosses 40 but there is no reason he can't continue to be an impact player like Chelios has been. And Lidstrom even has the upperhand of having had a remarkably healthy career *knocking on wood* that isn't focused on physical attributes (speed, size, or strength).

sparr0w is offline