View Single Post
Old
08-03-2012, 10:48 AM
  #56
The Gnome
Registered User
 
The Gnome's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Calgary
Posts: 3,025
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crymson View Post
I'm aware of what you meant. My meaning was that this is calling him a "poor man's Lidstrom" is tantamount to overstating his abilities.

More, I do not feel that their styles are similar. Lidstrom was an incredible puck mover, always making the right first pass. Bouwmeester is an unremarkable passer. Lidstrom had a great shot and the willingness to use it often. Bouwmeester has neither. Lidstrom played an pure positional game, his supreme hockey intelligence enabling him to always be in the right place and making physical play unnecessary. Bouwmeester does not play a sound positional game, and he plays an unphysical style because he's lazy (this was not the case when he played for the Panthers). Lidstrom's style never relied on his speed. Bouwmeester's style relies heavily on his speed. Lidstrom was an excellent shutdown defenseman. Bouwmeester cannot operate in such a role. Lidstrom was a general on the power play. Bouwmeester cannot ably quarterback a power play unit.

The reason you're calling Bouwmeester a poor man's Lidstrom is that he's an unphysical, puck-moving defenseman. This is a very poor way of looking at things. Bouwmeester is unphysical because he's lazy, not because his style doesn't require it. He's below-average offensively and average defensively. Lidstrom was unphysical because his style didn't require it, and he wasn't a puck-moving defenseman; he was the supreme two-way defenseman.

They both played hockey, and they're both defensemen. That's about as much as they have in common in terms of play style.
Bouwmeester is very comparable to Lidstrom. Get over your giant boner for the guy. Nobody is saying that he is anywhere as good as Lidstrom. If you honestly think Bouwmeester is lazy then you know nothing about him.

The Gnome is offline   Reply With Quote