In my opinion I'd rate him as the best player in the league from 00-08, maybe even 09.
Yes, better than Crosby, better than Ovie, etc etc. I don't think you can consider any forward better than Lidstrom cause there's no forward playing that's a lock for a top 5 all time at their position. This is probably an unpopular opinion and I'll likely be flamed but whatever.
In my opinion I'd rate him as the best player in the league from 00-08, maybe even 09.
Yes, better than Crosby, better than Ovie, etc etc. I don't think you can consider any forward better than Lidstrom cause there's no forward playing that's a lock for a top 5 all time at their position. This is probably an unpopular opinion and I'll likely be flamed but whatever.
You're very correct, and he was named the best player of the last decade after all. So there is a consensus there. There have been those who have had better years but Nicks consistency is what makes him an all time great.
I know I'm just going to be bashed for this, but Lidstrom is better than Bobby Orr. Points were much more inflated back then. No D-man gets 139 points unless the goalies are trash.
The goalies weren't trash you say?
If you're goalie gave up any of the goals seen in this video, you'd want you're goalie pulled.
And I don't want to hear the whole "point scoring isn't everything" argument, Orr played like he was an extra forward. Great player, FOR HIS TIME.
Kinda ridiculous to exclude him from your top 5. IMO he's tied at number 2 with Bourque. The fact that he's still at the level he's at when he's 41 says a lot. People complain about his competition being weak, but theres really nothing else to compare him to. While he wasn't getting any Norris's in the mid 90s, its because a lot of people weren't noticing him because of his passive play style and the "strom" at the end of his name. A few years later people started to take note of that guy who's always standing in the right spot defensively and putting up 60 points a year.
Eventually, if we shouldn't already, we will have to compare players only with other players from the same era, otherwise we'll drive each other crazy trying to justify where we place players on these lists because the game is evolving too quickly.
On topic, Craig Simpson said during the CHI-DET series in '09 that Lidstrom may be the greatest ever, which I translate to Lidstrom being the second greatest. Besides, players can be great for different reasons. Do you want Orr for his revolutionary and dominant style of play or Lidstrom for his rare reliability and longevity? People need to define greatness before for they attribute it to something. /Philosophy
On topic, Craig Simpson said during the CHI-DET series in '09 that Lidstrom may be the greatest ever, which I translate to Lidstrom being the second greatest. Besides, players can be great for different reasons. Do you want Orr for his revolutionary and dominant style of play or Lidstrom for his rare reliability and longevity? People need to define greatness before for they attribute it to something. /Philosophy
I can agree with that. 20 years of excellence is awesome, 9 years of breaking-records-excellence is awesome. I think most people would agree that Orr is a level above (myself included), but I think a lot of people have a tendency to undervalue TWO DECADES of being a top defenseman in the league.
Eventually, if we shouldn't already, we will have to compare players only with other players from the same era, otherwise we'll drive each other crazy trying to justify where we place players on these lists because the game is evolving too quickly.
On topic, Craig Simpson said during the CHI-DET series in '09 that Lidstrom may be the greatest ever, which I translate to Lidstrom being the second greatest. Besides, players can be great for different reasons. Do you want Orr for his revolutionary and dominant style of play or Lidstrom for his rare reliability and longevity? People need to define greatness before for they attribute it to something. /Philosophy
He would be no where near that dominant in this era. Better defense and goalies in the league.
But, he was good on his skates and good offensively. So, he would have several season over 80 points maybe.
I know I'm just going to be bashed for this, but Lidstrom is better than Bobby Orr. Points were much more inflated back then. No D-man gets 139 points unless the goalies are trash.
The goalies weren't trash you say?
...
If you're goalie gave up any of the goals seen in this video, you'd want you're goalie pulled.
And I don't want to hear the whole "point scoring isn't everything" argument, Orr played like he was an extra forward. Great player, FOR HIS TIME.
Goalies were the same for every player and he managed to outscore everyone. Twice.
When people start calling him better than Orr or even up there with Orr (IE a close second), he becomes probably the most overrated player on these boards. You could put him anywhere from 2-8 on an all time list an not have anything wrong for your list. He's probably 5th for me behind Orr, Harvery, Bourque and Shore.
Most people only remember 2002+ Chelios and extrapolate that play retroactively to the rest of his career. So Chelios gets the opposite of the Niedermayer effect - actually WAS dominant, but isn't remembered as such by most.
Most people only remember 2002+ Chelios and extrapolate that play retroactively to the rest of his career. So Chelios gets the opposite of the Niedermayer effect - actually WAS dominant, but isn't remembered as such by most.
Thats true. A few weeks ago I mentioned Chelios' "Montreal Days" and was promptly "corrected" by my friend, telling me that he was a Blackhawk, not a hab, before he was a Wing.
I'm waiting for the day someone is going to correct me and tell me he was Dominant in Detroit before his career died out in Atlanta.
speaking of chelios, I find it pretty funny he ended up playing for the Wings for more seasons than he did in montreal or chicago. he was traded there at age 37!
I'm a big supporter of Lidstrom, but when was the last time a defenseman had more points than any of the other forwards in the league?
Lidstrom is/was the best of his generation. Orr was something special.
orr in his prime, would not outscore every forward in the game today. not even close. people like to fantasize about players from the 70s and 80s and think that somehow the game hasn't progressed and those players would still destroy the league today.
orr in his prime, would not outscore every forward in the game today. not even close. people like to fantasize about players from the 70s and 80s and think that somehow the game hasn't progressed and those players would still destroy the league today.
orr in his prime, would not outscore every forward in the game today. not even close. people like to fantasize about players from the 70s and 80s and think that somehow the game hasn't progressed and those players would still destroy the league today.
How do you know that? Using that logic you can also infer that you think Gretzky wouldn't either.
Diffrent era =/= doesn't mean less talented. Afforded the same training and knowledge as todays players do, how do you know Orr wouldn't outscore the top forwards in todays game?
