HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Atlantic Division > Montreal Canadiens
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Andrei Markov: The best Habs defenseman since Larry Robinson?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-20-2009, 01:32 AM
  #26
LesCanadiens
Registered User
 
LesCanadiens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: The Okanagan Baby!
Posts: 2,822
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylife View Post
Thank you for bringing Chelios up.

How do you find he ranks next to Markov as a habs defender?

It seems to me he was traded for Denis Savard just as he was entering his best years
I'll chime in...Chelios was better than Markov in almost every way...the only area where it may be debatable is passing.....but it's darn close, they were very similar at seeing the ice....and both were/are great at the slap-pass.

But, Chelios was a better skater and shooter and a MUCH better physical player who was best under pressure and when challenged physically.....unlike Markov.

LesCanadiens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 06:07 AM
  #27
Hackett
HF Needs Feeny
 
Hackett's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,642
vCash: 500
yeah, gotta go with chelios as the best d-man since robinson. I'm not going to go in detail as to why he's better to avoid being redundant.

Markov would be the next guy on the list, though. After Markov, you get into the Schneiders and Desjardins.

On a side note, I think Malakhov's best would beat Markov's best, the problem is that Malakhov was wildly inconsistent and seemed to lack the drive. Honestly, when Malakhov wanted to play, he played like a norris candidate. This guy was a 6 foot 6 d-man that could skate quite well, shoot with authority, pass as good as anyone, and if he really felt like it, he could destroy the opponents physically. Malakhov could do it all, but he was just so damn flaky.

Hackett is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 06:28 AM
  #28
beowulf
Poster of the Year!
 
beowulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,325
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to beowulf
Quote:
Originally Posted by superstar436 View Post
ever heard of chris chelios
Great dman but I still think that if you compare his time in Montreal vs Markov's, the General is the better of the two.

As for comparing stats, Chelios played for the Habs during a time when the NHL still had offence.

I agree with Hackett on Malakhov, probably the most talented dman in Montreal in a long time but he would just not play at the level he could often enough....

beowulf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 01:29 PM
  #29
Lowe in Oil
Registered User
 
Lowe in Oil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,583
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowe in Oil View Post
this pic really amuses me

Lowe in Oil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:01 PM
  #30
superstar436
Registered User
 
superstar436's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,000
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hackett View Post
yeah, gotta go with chelios as the best d-man since robinson. I'm not going to go in detail as to why he's better to avoid being redundant.

Markov would be the next guy on the list, though. After Markov, you get into the Schneiders and Desjardins.

On a side note, I think Malakhov's best would beat Markov's best, the problem is that Malakhov was wildly inconsistent and seemed to lack the drive. Honestly, when Malakhov wanted to play, he played like a norris candidate. This guy was a 6 foot 6 d-man that could skate quite well, shoot with authority, pass as good as anyone, and if he really felt like it, he could destroy the opponents physically. Malakhov could do it all, but he was just so damn flaky.
Please do not bring back the memory. He was my favorite player back in 1995-2000.
What a wasted talent !
But I think that Markov has better vision, yet nobody saw the real malakhov coz the guy never gave his 100%

superstar436 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:08 PM
  #31
panorama01*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Libya
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Chelios was replaced by the Schneider-Desjardins combination (Robinson left not long after Desjardins arrived). Management traded Desjardins believing Brisebois capable of replacing him. So after a short time of Schneider-Brisebois, Schneider was traded for Malakhov. Then came Rivet as a third defenceman. Eric Weinrich showed up at one point (traded in 1998 for Dave Manson in the Hackett trade, and Manson had been obtained in 1997 for Murray Baron, and Baron was obtained in the Turgeon trade in 1996) along with Malahkov, Brisebois and Rivet... then Malakhov was traded for Souray, so we had Brisebois, Weinrich and Rivet... the next year, Weinrich was traded for Patrick Traverse... Markov began playing that year and the next year was one of the top defencemen after Brisebois and Rivet. Markov then became the unquestioned top defenceman. At this time, Souray returned from being mostly injured in the past three years or so and became the second defenceman and Brisebois was, after the lockout, gone to Colorado.

panorama01* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:14 PM
  #32
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by panorama01 View Post
Chelios was replaced by the Schneider-Desjardins combination (Robinson left not long after Desjardins arrived). Management traded Desjardins believing Brisebois capable of replacing him. So after a short time of Schneider-Brisebois, Schneider was traded for Malakhov. Then came Rivet as a third defenceman. Eric Weinrich showed up at one point (traded in 1998 for Dave Manson in the Hackett trade, and Manson had been obtained in 1997 for Murray Baron, and Baron was obtained in the Turgeon trade in 1996) along with Malahkov, Brisebois and Rivet... then Malakhov was traded for Souray, so we had Brisebois, Weinrich and Rivet... the next year, Weinrich was traded for Patrick Traverse... Markov began playing that year and the next year was one of the top defencemen after Brisebois and Rivet. Markov then became the unquestioned top defenceman. At this time, Souray returned from being mostly injured in the past three years or so and became the second defenceman and Brisebois was, after the lockout, gone to Colorado.
The interesting thing about Souray was how after his injuries he came back to be a much better player than he ever was before, in fact the guy developed into an offensive threat even though he had never done that earlier in his career. Prior to coming to Montreal, he was known primarily as a physical defender who could hit and was really a 6th/7th defenseman. Same for his first couple of years with Montreal, but somehow for the first time in his career he developed a knack for scoring around 03/04.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:31 PM
  #33
canadianeh
Registered User
 
canadianeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
Cheli is/was a gamer. First name that came to mind when i read the title. Memories tend to fade over time, but Chelios was incredible, and trading him for a washed up Denis Savard (because he was from Quebec) was one of the worst moves in the history of the Habs. (just behind trading Roy... you don't trade the best goalie in history. I don't care if he IS an A-hole)

canadianeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:33 PM
  #34
canadianeh
Registered User
 
canadianeh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 507
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smon View Post
The interesting thing about Souray was how after his injuries he came back to be a much better player than he ever was before, in fact the guy developed into an offensive threat even though he had never done that earlier in his career. Prior to coming to Montreal, he was known primarily as a physical defender who could hit and was really a 6th/7th defenseman. Same for his first couple of years with Montreal, but somehow for the first time in his career he developed a knack for scoring around 03/04.
too bad once Souray learned to score he COMPLETELY forgot how to play D.

If he could have done BOTH he would be a great player. But for all the goals he gave us he was giving up more. I was sad to see his shot go, but he's NOT worth the money he's making.

Plus the injury he came back from that made him better wasn't his wrist... it was in the bottle.

canadianeh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:35 PM
  #35
Volcanologist
Spark up a Dubas
 
Volcanologist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Kessel Apocalypse
Country: Germany
Posts: 20,620
vCash: 500
Chelios was far better.

Volcanologist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:45 PM
  #36
Squiffy
Victims, rn't we all
 
Squiffy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,525
vCash: 500
Chelios by a mile, first thing I thought reading the title too. I hated his guts for two decades, but even I respect him now.

For those saying it makes little sense to compare offensive stats between the two eras considering the difference in scoring in them, I'll flip it around on them.

In those days of 200 point seasons and regular scores of 7-5, Chelios put up far superior +/- numbers compared to what Markov now does in a far lower scoring league. For a reason, the man was an excellent defender to go along with his offensive prowess. Markov and Chelios may be comparable offensively, but defensively Chelios in his prime blows Markov out of the water, tilting the scales considerably in his favour.

__________________
bWo: If you don't know, you should know... Buds WORLD Order Constitution
Adj: "Squiffy" - stupefied by a chemical substance (esp. alcohol)

R.I.P. Darryl buddy... it was too soon.. too soon

Last edited by Squiffy: 04-20-2009 at 02:54 PM.
Squiffy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 02:48 PM
  #37
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volcanologist View Post
Chelios was far better.
Remember this one?

Ahhh... 100 years of memories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DR-ZgMz3FIU


Last edited by Squiffy: 04-20-2009 at 02:50 PM. Reason: fixed yt
Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:04 PM
  #38
kent_carlson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylife View Post
That's a fantastic brief analysis.

For me, the case is made for a Robinson - Chelios - Markov lineage...

but what a gaping, decade-long, chasm between Chelly and Markov

(Desjardins, Rivet, Souray, etc. are noted)

The Lost Decade can be traced back to the trade of HOF Chelios for the local guy
Wow, you don't remember that the Habs won their last Stanley Cup a couple of years after that trade? If you are talking about the Houle's era, it was almost 4 years after the Chelios Trade.
Chelios was arrested outside a bar in the States and it was one off-ice misbehavior too many. It has nothing to do with the local boy.


Last edited by kent_carlson: 04-20-2009 at 03:18 PM.
kent_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:26 PM
  #39
panorama01*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Libya
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
Between 1986 and 1989, the Canadiens were a true contender in the NHL. They were never the same after the Chelios trade, never...

In fact, go back to 1985 - during that playoff series with Quebec, Chelios was injured...

In 1989-90, the Canadiens lost Chelios for most of the year (a reason why they concluded, perhaps, that they could get along without him)... the quick decline in Bobby Smith and Mats Naslund's scoring was another reason for the team's regression that year... that was the reason why they may have decided to get Savard, to replace Smith and regain some scoring capability, believing somehow that Schneider and Desjardins could replace Chelios.

As for the Stanley Cup after the Chelios trade, they did win, but they were still not the same... they won in part because the Schneider and Desjardins combination had more experience, and GM Savard made trades that worked for that year - getting Damphousse (which worked well long-term) and Bellows, that addressed the scoring problem on the team as its defence was considered the best in the league at the time. In fact, the team had a reputation as the Devils got, not surprisingly, after Lemaire left the Canadiens to join the Devils.

panorama01* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:28 PM
  #40
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent_carlson View Post
Wow, you don't remember that the Habs won their last Stanley Cup a couple of years after that trade? If you are talking about the Houle's era, it was almost 4 years after the Chelios Trade.
Chelios was arrested outside a bar in the States and it was one off-ice misbehavior too many. It has nothing to do with the local boy.
Sure I remember the 93 cup... it was awesome!

just sayin' that Chelly could have been used here backbonin' the D throughout the 1990's... know-what-I-mean?

Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:31 PM
  #41
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent_carlson View Post
Wow, you don't remember that the Habs won their last Stanley Cup a couple of years after that trade? If you are talking about the Houle's era, it was almost 4 years after the Chelios Trade.
Chelios was arrested outside a bar in the States and it was one off-ice misbehavior too many. It has nothing to do with the local boy.
Sure, it did. If they had to trade him, no one was forcing them to trade him and a 2nd round pick for the declining Denis Savard. The reason they did was because: a) he was a hometown boy loved by everyone and b) they looked like idiots for drafting Wickenheiser over Savard.

Savard was a good player don't get me wrong, but he barely contributed to the 93 run and was nowhere near the player Chelios was at that point. I'm pretty sure Denis was a healthy scratch most of the playoffs.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:34 PM
  #42
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by panorama01 View Post
Between 1986 and 1989, the Canadiens were a true contender in the NHL. They were never the same after the Chelios trade, never...

In fact, go back to 1985 - during that playoff series with Quebec, Chelios was injured...

In 1989-90, the Canadiens lost Chelios for most of the year (a reason why they concluded, perhaps, that they could get along without him)... the quick decline in Bobby Smith and Mats Naslund's scoring was another reason for the team's regression that year... that was the reason why they may have decided to get Savard, to replace Smith and regain some scoring capability, believing somehow that Schneider and Desjardins could replace Chelios.

As for the Stanley Cup after the Chelios trade, they did win, but they were still not the same... they won in part because the Schneider and Desjardins combination had more experience, and GM Savard made trades that worked for that year - getting Damphousse (which worked well long-term) and Bellows, that addressed the scoring problem on the team as its defence was considered the best in the league at the time. In fact, the team had a reputation as the Devils got, not surprisingly, after Lemaire left the Canadiens to join the Devils.
Nice recap.

Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:35 PM
  #43
Jee
Moderator
@DeuxiemeJumeau
 
Jee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Montréal
Country: Ireland
Posts: 17,803
vCash: 500
what about Patrick Traverse?!

Jee is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 03:39 PM
  #44
kent_carlson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by smon View Post
Sure, it did. If they had to trade him, no one was forcing them to trade him and a 2nd round pick for the declining Denis Savard. The reason they did was because: a) he was a hometown boy loved by everyone and b) they looked like idiots for drafting Wickenheiser over Savard.

Savard was a good player don't get me wrong, but he barely contributed to the 93 run and was nowhere near the player Chelios was at that point. I'm pretty sure Denis was a healthy scratch most of the playoffs.
Who knows which other player was available at the time? But it was a bad trade, Savard (Serge) was trading d-man like they cab be replaced in no time, wrong!

Anyway, back on topic, if I had to make a list for an entire career, I think that Rod Langway would be ahead of Markov, but he was traded before.

kent_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:00 PM
  #45
panorama01*
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Country: Libya
Posts: 1,832
vCash: 500
In the second half of the 1980s, the Canadiens were arguably number two or three after Edmonton and possibly Calgary - then after that was Boston and Philadelphia, Boston effectively replacing Philadelphia as the Canadiens' eastern competition in 1988...

Edmonton then weakened itself significantly with the Gretzky trade and Los Angeles became a minor power... 1990-91 saw the rise of Keenan's Blackhawks and the St. Louis Blues. The Blues then shot themselves in the foot with two bad trades (Oates for Janney and Quintal) and the infamous Courtnall-Ronning-Quinn trade that turned the Canucks into minor contenders (Bure joined them the next year)... The Pittsburgh Penguins then with that trade turned themselves into a power that won two Stanley Cups in a row.

The Flames were a major power that damaged themselves severely with that Gilmour trade, and turned Toronto into possible contenders. Though Edmonton was weakened, it was able to win in 1990 but then traded Messier and Tikkanen to the point where it was no more a threat.

The Red Wings had a good team developing but with a fatal flaw - Tim Cheveldae in the goal.

So 1993 was a time of flux in the state of league powers with new teams appearing to contend and no obvious major powers... though Quebec did have a better record than Montreal their lack of experience and type of play was such that it was not a major upset at all when Montreal defeated it. The only two teams in the east clearly superior to the Canadiens in 1993 was Pittsburgh and Boston, and they missed each of them. In the West, Chicago appeared the strongest, but perhaps Vancouver or Toronto might threaten... but no one clearly powerful and in the end Los Angeles got through. So this state of the league also is a reason why the Canadiens were able to win in 1993 despite not being as good as in the late 1980s.

panorama01* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:16 PM
  #46
DaHabMan
Registered User
 
DaHabMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Lasalle
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,243
vCash: 500
lets just agree that markov is one of the best defenseman weve had in a long time and is a legitimate #1 defenseman in the league. He's not a physical defenseman but when he goes in the corners he pins is man to the boards and does what he has to do. But to compare him to chelios is really unfair because, chelly was the complete package. Hes a hof but make no mistake about it, markov is part of the elite in the league.

DaHabMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:22 PM
  #47
Born in 1909
Hockey Royalty
 
Born in 1909's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 4,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by panorama01 View Post
In the second half of the 1980s, the Canadiens were arguably number two or three after Edmonton and possibly Calgary - then after that was Boston and Philadelphia, Boston effectively replacing Philadelphia as the Canadiens' eastern competition in 1988...

Edmonton then weakened itself significantly with the Gretzky trade and Los Angeles became a minor power... 1990-91 saw the rise of Keenan's Blackhawks and the St. Louis Blues. The Blues then shot themselves in the foot with two bad trades (Oates for Janney and Quintal) and the infamous Courtnall-Ronning-Quinn trade that turned the Canucks into minor contenders (Bure joined them the next year)... The Pittsburgh Penguins then with that trade turned themselves into a power that won two Stanley Cups in a row.

The Flames were a major power that damaged themselves severely with that Gilmour trade, and turned Toronto into possible contenders. Though Edmonton was weakened, it was able to win in 1990 but then traded Messier and Tikkanen to the point where it was no more a threat.

The Red Wings had a good team developing but with a fatal flaw - Tim Cheveldae in the goal.

So 1993 was a time of flux in the state of league powers with new teams appearing to contend and no obvious major powers... though Quebec did have a better record than Montreal their lack of experience and type of play was such that it was not a major upset at all when Montreal defeated it. The only two teams in the east clearly superior to the Canadiens in 1993 was Pittsburgh and Boston, and they missed each of them. In the West, Chicago appeared the strongest, but perhaps Vancouver or Toronto might threaten... but no one clearly powerful and in the end Los Angeles got through. So this state of the league also is a reason why the Canadiens were able to win in 1993 despite not being as good as in the late 1980s.
Excellent history lesson!

I remember those days... and I remember the Window that opened for the Habs that year.

The players saw it too

Born in 1909 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:27 PM
  #48
kent_carlson
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 763
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by panorama01 View Post
In the second half of the 1980s, the Canadiens were arguably number two or three after Edmonton and possibly Calgary - then after that was Boston and Philadelphia, Boston effectively replacing Philadelphia as the Canadiens' eastern competition in 1988...

Edmonton then weakened itself significantly with the Gretzky trade and Los Angeles became a minor power... 1990-91 saw the rise of Keenan's Blackhawks and the St. Louis Blues. The Blues then shot themselves in the foot with two bad trades (Oates for Janney and Quintal) and the infamous Courtnall-Ronning-Quinn trade that turned the Canucks into minor contenders (Bure joined them the next year)... The Pittsburgh Penguins then with that trade turned themselves into a power that won two Stanley Cups in a row.

The Flames were a major power that damaged themselves severely with that Gilmour trade, and turned Toronto into possible contenders. Though Edmonton was weakened, it was able to win in 1990 but then traded Messier and Tikkanen to the point where it was no more a threat.

The Red Wings had a good team developing but with a fatal flaw - Tim Cheveldae in the goal.

So 1993 was a time of flux in the state of league powers with new teams appearing to contend and no obvious major powers... though Quebec did have a better record than Montreal their lack of experience and type of play was such that it was not a major upset at all when Montreal defeated it. The only two teams in the east clearly superior to the Canadiens in 1993 was Pittsburgh and Boston, and they missed each of them. In the West, Chicago appeared the strongest, but perhaps Vancouver or Toronto might threaten... but no one clearly powerful and in the end Los Angeles got through. So this state of the league also is a reason why the Canadiens were able to win in 1993 despite not being as good as in the late 1980s.
Wow, 2 great posts, very accurate.

kent_carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:49 PM
  #49
CPrice
Registered User
 
CPrice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,264
vCash: 500
Markov is probably my favorite player on the Habs and I'm disappointed to see him out for the playoffs. My next jersey will be a Markov one, this guy is the core of the team. The record with him out of the lineup speaks for itself.

CPrice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2009, 04:50 PM
  #50
smon
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHabMan View Post
lets just agree that markov is one of the best defenseman weve had in a long time and is a legitimate #1 defenseman in the league. He's not a physical defenseman but when he goes in the corners he pins is man to the boards and does what he has to do. But to compare him to chelios is really unfair because, chelly was the complete package. Hes a hof but make no mistake about it, markov is part of the elite in the league.
I agree. Markov is a definite #1 defenseman. But I don't think he was the full package, as Chelios was. To give an example, he's obviously not that physical of a player.

smon is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:55 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.