Your definition leaves out defensive skill, and therefore isn't a "complete" player.
Yeah, I kinda see both sides here. I mean, your "typical" power forward has a tremendous impact on forechecking, which could be seen as simply advanced zone defense. It'd be fair to say that someone's excellence in that area would "compensate" "overall" for any minor blemishes there might be in the actual defensive zone. Bringing it back around to case in point, I would consider Neely AND Messier, for examples, excellent fore-checkers, and even I'll admit that Neely wasn't a slouch on the back-check.
There is one more thing I wanted to address but I can't post in that thread. Comparing the Neely injury to Yzerman's injury is like comparing ice to a hot oven.
I am gathering you didn't watch much hockey back in the early 90s because thinking the injuries to each player were/are similar is beyond wrong.
So, let me explain. Neely had a career ending one, one that he should not have never let him play another game after receiving that hit from Samuelsson. It wasn't a mere knee injury like the Yzerman one, it was a leg injury that had so much damage to his leg, that the muscle started to calcify. That means, his muscle was turning into bone. Yes, turning to bone. He never should have played again but somehow gutted out that 93/94 season scoring 50 in 44 games and eventually only playing 49 before, that was it. He basically played ever again. That 93/94 season, to get him to play out the season, he played a few games, sat for a few games and this was repeated, that was the plan going into the season. That was the only way to even hit 49 games. As you see, it wasn't like the Yzerman nagging knee injury, his injury was career ending. Yzerman continued to play, Neely is lucky he didn't lose the leg as that almost happened.
By all means, please read this article on the injury,and you will see it is not like or on par with Yzerman at all. It was a much much worse injury.