HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Greatest Defenceman of All Time #9

View Poll Results: Who is the greatest defencemen of all time? #9
Chris Chelios 8 11.59%
Paul Coffey 28 40.58%
Scott Stevens 5 7.25%
Slava Fetisov 12 17.39%
Brad Park 8 11.59%
Pierre Pilote 2 2.90%
Tim Horton 3 4.35%
King Clancy 0 0%
Al MacInnis 3 4.35%
Earl Seibert 0 0%
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-26-2006, 11:41 PM
  #26
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovy1335
Semantics...

I doubt that rigger meant by "defender" "best at defending"

By the way, If a player gets beat, then skates back and catches the guy anyway, isn't he still defending? And didn't it work?
In a discussion about the greatest defensemen of all time bringing up that the position and this ranking might involve being the "best at defending" is much more than mere semantics. Plus I was merely illustrating a point about why I (and others) aren't ranking him as high as some would like.

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2006, 11:52 PM
  #27
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan
As a defenceman there is one more way you can dominate a game and that is physically. Lidstrom has never done that. A lot of great defencemen have that aspect to their game.

Not all penalties are bad. If you take a roughing penatly or fight someone late in a game to send a message, that's not a bad penatly to take. Furthermore, making big hits can get a team going. It also causes the other players to have their heads up.

I don't think he's deserving of top 10 status because he isn't good enough to be in their. He really lacks in the physical side of the game. I'd rather play against Nick Lidstrom than Scott Stevens just because Stevens might take my head off. You are really underrating the physical side of the game. Even though he has won a Conne Smythe I am not a big fan of his in the playoffs. He seems to play better when he has a lot of defensive depth playing along side of him. You have seen this in recent years. The Wings' defence has got worse over the years. Lidstrom hasn't been able to be the go to guy in the playoffs. He got badly out played by Pronger this playoffs and the Wings have only won one round when he has been their true #1 defenceman.
How has lacking a physical presence hurt Lidstrom in any way? Sure you'd best keep your head up against Stevens but it isn't going to be any easier to score. And THAT is what matters. Hits don't equal defense.

Come again? Detroit has won two Stanley Cups with Lidstrom as "their true #1". Chelios may have been the runner-up for the '02 Norris, but he was still the Wings' #2 behind Lidstrom. And who in '98 kept Lidstrom from "true #1" status? Murphy? Fetisov in his swansong? Aaron Ward? Lidstrom had an unspectacular series against Edmonton, but beyond that I'd stack his playoff resume against ANY of his peers.

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 12:21 AM
  #28
Bluesfan1981
Registered User
 
Bluesfan1981's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 591
vCash: 500
Coffey. Add Dit Clapper

Bluesfan1981 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 12:53 AM
  #29
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan
As a defenceman there is one more way you can dominate a game and that is physically. Lidstrom has never done that. A lot of great defencemen have that aspect to their game.

Not all penalties are bad. If you take a roughing penatly or fight someone late in a game to send a message, that's not a bad penatly to take. Furthermore, making big hits can get a team going. It also causes the other players to have their heads up.

I don't think he's deserving of top 10 status because he isn't good enough to be in their. He really lacks in the physical side of the game. I'd rather play against Nick Lidstrom than Scott Stevens just because Stevens might take my head off. You are really underrating the physical side of the game. Even though he has won a Conne Smythe I am not a big fan of his in the playoffs. He seems to play better when he has a lot of defensive depth playing along side of him. You have seen this in recent years. The Wings' defence has got worse over the years. Lidstrom hasn't been able to be the go to guy in the playoffs. He got badly out played by Pronger this playoffs and the Wings have only won one round when he has been their true #1 defenceman.
Ray Bourque wasn't an overly physical defenceman, either. Coffey had some seasons with big PIM totals, but nobody ever confused him with Scott Stevens.

Coffey's playoff record isn't as spectacular as some might think. Yes, he won four Cups. Can't take that away from him. And he had a couple big playoffs. But in 1987, he was injured for a good chunk of the year, and part of the playoffs. When Coffey has 11 points in 17 games, he's probably not going to be on Conn Smythe ballots. In 1991 with Pittsburgh, he suffered a serious eye injury at the hands of Fetisov and missed almost half of the Pens games. (I could go into the argument that the Oilers, Pens and Wings all won the Cup in the year they traded Coffey, but I think that has more to do with the return package).

I've always said "tell me how the player played the game. Don't talk to me about stats and awards." This is especially true with defencemen. Lidstrom might have a slight edge on Chelios and Fetisov for offensive ability, but both are Lidstrom's equal defensively, and both were much more physical. I'll argue that Chelios was a better leader, too. A 40-year-old Chelios nearly beat a 32-year-old Lidstrom for the Norris in 2002.

Lidstrom won three Norris Trophies, and you can't take those away from him. But in those three Norris seasons, he beat guys who were roughly 40 years old. As John Flyer Fan astutely pointed out in the last poll, the number of great defencemen to be drafted after Stevens in 1982 has been severely lacking. (Lidstrom and Leetch are the only two blue-liners picked since then who are locks for the HHOF, although Niedermayer and Pronger are inching closer). None of Lidstrom's Norris seasons are as good as Bourque, Chelios or Coffey's.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 01:52 PM
  #30
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 24,679
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
How has lacking a physical presence hurt Lidstrom in any way? Sure you'd best keep your head up against Stevens but it isn't going to be any easier to score. And THAT is what matters. Hits don't equal defense.

Come again? Detroit has won two Stanley Cups with Lidstrom as "their true #1". Chelios may have been the runner-up for the '02 Norris, but he was still the Wings' #2 behind Lidstrom. And who in '98 kept Lidstrom from "true #1" status? Murphy? Fetisov in his swansong? Aaron Ward? Lidstrom had an unspectacular series against Edmonton, but beyond that I'd stack his playoff resume against ANY of his peers.
Physical play as a defenceman is very important. If it isn't important then why do players bodycheck? If Scott Stevens wasn't a phyiscal defenceman the he wouldn't be considered as good as he is. When you play against a physical defenceman you have to be on your toes. You can't cut across the middle and you can't have your head down. Furthermore, physical play wears down the other team. It might also cause an injury.

I agree that Detroit has won two Cups with Lidstrom as their best defenceman. However, both of those years he had a lot of good depth behind him. He also wasn't the Wings best player either. In the last couple of seasons he has been the Wings best player but they have only won one playoff round. Now you can't just blame Lidstrom. However, it doesn't help him. Lidstrom wasn't able to shutdown Iginla and he just played average in the Edmonton series. If you don't count Chelios or Stevens then yes I would agree with you that Lidstrom's performance in the playoffs is the best compared to his peers.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 02:09 PM
  #31
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 24,679
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Ray Bourque wasn't an overly physical defenceman, either. Coffey had some seasons with big PIM totals, but nobody ever confused him with Scott Stevens.

Coffey's playoff record isn't as spectacular as some might think. Yes, he won four Cups. Can't take that away from him. And he had a couple big playoffs. But in 1987, he was injured for a good chunk of the year, and part of the playoffs. When Coffey has 11 points in 17 games, he's probably not going to be on Conn Smythe ballots. In 1991 with Pittsburgh, he suffered a serious eye injury at the hands of Fetisov and missed almost half of the Pens games. (I could go into the argument that the Oilers, Pens and Wings all won the Cup in the year they traded Coffey, but I think that has more to do with the return package).

I've always said "tell me how the player played the game. Don't talk to me about stats and awards." This is especially true with defencemen. Lidstrom might have a slight edge on Chelios and Fetisov for offensive ability, but both are Lidstrom's equal defensively, and both were much more physical. I'll argue that Chelios was a better leader, too. A 40-year-old Chelios nearly beat a 32-year-old Lidstrom for the Norris in 2002.

Lidstrom won three Norris Trophies, and you can't take those away from him. But in those three Norris seasons, he beat guys who were roughly 40 years old. As John Flyer Fan astutely pointed out in the last poll, the number of great defencemen to be drafted after Stevens in 1982 has been severely lacking. (Lidstrom and Leetch are the only two blue-liners picked since then who are locks for the HHOF, although Niedermayer and Pronger are inching closer). None of Lidstrom's Norris seasons are as good as Bourque, Chelios or Coffey's.
Bourque and Coffey weren't that physical but they were more phyiscal than Lidstrom was. Coffey and Lidstrom are pretty close but what separtes them is that Coffey was so much better offensively. He is the second best offensive defencemen.

Coffey has had some great playoffs. He also has had some average playoffs as well.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 02:40 PM
  #32
hockeyyy
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 67
vCash: 500
I agree Park was very underrated while with the Rangers and The Mighty Bid Bad Boston Bruins.

hockeyyy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 02:55 PM
  #33
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by canucksfan
Physical play as a defenceman is very important. If it isn't important then why do players bodycheck? If Scott Stevens wasn't a phyiscal defenceman the he wouldn't be considered as good as he is. When you play against a physical defenceman you have to be on your toes. You can't cut across the middle and you can't have your head down. Furthermore, physical play wears down the other team. It might also cause an injury.

I agree that Detroit has won two Cups with Lidstrom as their best defenceman. However, both of those years he had a lot of good depth behind him. He also wasn't the Wings best player either. In the last couple of seasons he has been the Wings best player but they have only won one playoff round. Now you can't just blame Lidstrom. However, it doesn't help him. Lidstrom wasn't able to shutdown Iginla and he just played average in the Edmonton series. If you don't count Chelios or Stevens then yes I would agree with you that Lidstrom's performance in the playoffs is the best compared to his peers.
Are you kidding? 5 goals vs the Canucks, 4 vs the Sharks, 3 vs the Lightning, 1 vs the Wings. Hell, points head to head, Iginla 4, Lidstrom 5.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

norrisnick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-27-2006, 11:06 PM
  #34
canucksfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: British Columbia
Posts: 24,679
vCash: 990
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
Are you kidding? 5 goals vs the Canucks, 4 vs the Sharks, 3 vs the Lightning, 1 vs the Wings. Hell, points head to head, Iginla 4, Lidstrom 5.

You're barking up the wrong tree.
I thought he scored 3 goals against Calgary but even if he only scored one he still was a force in that series. Lidstrom slowed him down but he didn't shut him down.

canucksfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-28-2006, 03:28 PM
  #35
Jysk
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Skellefteć Sweden
Posts: 326
vCash: 500
Coffey add Pronger

Jysk 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 02:49 AM.

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.