It wouldnt be that far off to say Mario and Lidstrom are similar to eachother in how they would rank in there positions all time. Both top guys to play in their own position.
Ofcourse, point wise Lemieux never got to play as much as he could have. But still what each did was amazing for their positions.
Lidstrom is one of the best defensemen ever. He's in a top tier, and in the last 10-15 years, he's bar none in my mind, the best defenseman over that period.
Mario Lemieux defies tiers. He sits atop any rankings with Gretzky, and I'd personally contend that Mario was better. I think with him, you had a guy who could do everything Wayne did, except he was so much harder to handle because he was a gigantic man.
I think if you take into consideration that Gretzky put up a vast majority of his points when the game was at the highest levels of scoring in hockey history, and Mario did what he did when the game was primarily clutch and grab...couple that he missed a ton of time with injuries and cancer...not a crazy conclusion that if you put Mario in the same hayday as Wayne, and give Mario a new back and no cancer...he'd probably match Wayne point for point, and have a real good shot at beating him statistically.
Lidstrom's teams made the playoffs every single year he was on them (he was a big part of it, but still...there were some absurdly talented, high-spending Wings teams there). Mario carried an entire team on his back for how long? Come on now.
Bourque is an amazing player. That 1990 season might have been the best season a defenseman not named Orr has ever played. But I think Lidstrom is better.
The Lidstrom-Bourque argument has amusing similarities to Bourque-Potvin arguments 15 years ago.
Bourque is an amazing player. That 1990 season might have been the best season a defenseman not named Orr has ever played. But I think Lidstrom is better.
The Lidstrom-Bourque argument has amusing similarities to Bourque-Potvin arguments 15 years ago.
Potvin? IMO he's just as good as those guys and played a meaner game.
Way to keep fans passionate about hockey with the lockout looming. A good distraction is always best. FU NHL.
Seriously it's kind of a stupid comparison. How do you compare a D with Mario Lemieux and find a way to argue the D was "as good"? Their roles and opportunity for scoring are completely different.
I think it is fair to argue that Lidstrom was as good a D as Lemieux was a forward. You can argue Lidstrom was the greatest D of all time, so you can't dismiss him as chicken feed. It's not like they're comparing him to Dan Boyle or something. Lidstrom was an absolute machine and dominant in his role for 20 years, playing against the league's best players. It counts for something but like I said it's a stupid comparison.
It's like me saying "Man how do you ever decide between Joe Montana and Mean Joe Green as the best player ever?"
"I just can't figure out what's better: my ferrari or my cigarette boat."
Way to keep fans passionate about hockey with the lockout looming. A good distraction is always best. FU NHL.
Seriously it's kind of a stupid comparison. How do you compare a D with Mario Lemieux and find a way to argue the D was "as good"? Their roles and opportunity for scoring are completely different.
I think it is fair to argue that Lidstrom was as good a D as Lemieux was a forward. You can argue Lidstrom was the greatest D of all time, so you can't dismiss him as chicken feed. It's not like they're comparing him to Dan Boyle or something. Lidstrom was an absolute machine and dominant in his role for 20 years, playing against the league's best players. It counts for something but like I said it's a stupid comparison.
It's like me saying "Man how do you ever decide between Joe Montana and Mean Joe Green as the best player ever?"
"I just can't figure out what's better: my ferrari or my cigarette boat."
I don't have a problem with this. Lidstrom was a great D and exceptional leader for an extremely long time. You can't choose between the two so it's obvious a tie. One of the best D of all time and one of the best Forwards of all time. No problems, we should be happy that we had a player who played his position as well as Lidstrom played his and vice versa.
We've seen Lemieux score 199 points with Brown and Errey on his wings. Good players that fit Lemieux at the time but not really Jags and Francis.
On the other hand have we ever seen Lidstrom play on a bad team? Or even an OK one? He's always had one of the better teams in the league around him with tons of structure and support.
Quote:
And now we've come full circle.
Well those are the top defenseman ever so the same names keep popping up. Also wan't to add that if Orr is easily #1 then Shore is easily #2. Anything and everything from Shore's time period has him pegged as the best player in the league and those are the only two defenseman that can say that.
Mario Lemieux defies tiers. He sits atop any rankings with Gretzky, and I'd personally contend that Mario was better.
This.
__________________
"Every game, every point is a necessity." -- Ty Conklin, January 2007
"I'll have a chance to compete for the post of first issue. This is the most important thing." -- Sergei Bobrovsky, June 2012
I think if you take into consideration that Gretzky put up a vast majority of his points when the game was at the highest levels of scoring in hockey history, and Mario did what he did when the game was primarily clutch and grab...couple that he missed a ton of time with injuries and cancer...not a crazy conclusion that if you put Mario in the same hayday as Wayne, and give Mario a new back and no cancer...he'd probably match Wayne point for point, and have a real good shot at beating him statistically.
All of those are valid considerations when you're looking at who you want for one game, at their peak. But when you're weighing legacies you, in my mind, have to look primarily at what actually happened, not what could've.
What if Mario had a healthier body? Fair question when considering what might've been, but when comparing the two men, why not ask "what if Wayne had a bigger, faster body"?
Ultimately I hate these attempts at ranking the all time greats, because by the end the guys at the top are nearly deities, and the amazing players just a tick below them are downplayed.
Mario was amazing, Wayne was unreal, and Lidstrom is a defensrman unlike any before him. What is to be gained by ranking such different players?
