See if they will do or have done a forwards list.
I need more humour during the Lockout
Who would want to bet Crosby is in the top 5?
As has already been said, Lidstrom at #2...whatever, there's at least an argument, albeit a weak one, and an extremely vocal minority for such a ranking but Bourque, sorry I mean Borque at 7th...totally devoid of any credibility what so ever!!!
Last edited by Rhiessan71: 12-05-2012 at 01:03 AM.
See if they will do or have done a forwards list.
I need more humour during the Lockout
Who would want to bet Crosby is in the top 5?
As has already been said, Lidstrom at #2...whatever, there's at least an argument, albeit a weak one, and an extremely vocal minority for such a ranking but Bourque, sorry I mean Borque at 7th...totally devoid of any credibility what so ever!!!
The list is better than most media lists I woud personally put Bourque over Shore, Robinson and Potvin but I also think that this proves how small margins we are dealing withwhen ranking these players.
Very difficult to evaluate other players. Obviously the HOH board has done a great job evaluating Shore and Harvey. From a statistical/awards perspective, Shore to me looks like he would be a great #2 after Orr.
potvin is so underrated, offensively he was no worse then lidstrom and defensively he was the most intimidating player in the league sure lidstrom had longevity but he only played 4 more seasons than potvin and during those 4 seasons he was constantly debating on whether or not to retire and during his last few seasons it could be argued that his norris trophy's were lifetime achievement awards
We have a history of hockey forum. Let's use it, shall we?
is it really necessary to debate the merits of a list compiled by someone who doesn't watch hockey on the history board? amid the actual serious discussion here, and the endless lidstrom commentary, which has its own thread, this seems like it just unnecessarily takes up space here.
analogy: editor of rock music magazine decides to run a story on frank ocean for whatever reason. farms out the story to the one staff writer who kind of likes beyonce and has some prince songs on his iPod. doesn't deserve a response, here or probably anywhere else.
This is Nicklas Lidstrom we're talking about here.
This argument will likely begin or end with you answering the question as to whether or not you saw Bourque's entire career. Did you? The guy has longevity as an elite player that can only be matched by Gordie Howe.
is it really necessary to debate the merits of a list compiled by someone who doesn't watch hockey on the history board? amid the actual serious discussion here, and the endless lidstrom commentary, which has its own thread, this seems like it just unnecessarily takes up space here.
analogy: editor of rock music magazine decides to run a story on frank ocean for whatever reason. farms out the story to the one staff writer who kind of likes beyonce and has some prince songs on his iPod. doesn't deserve a response, here or probably anywhere else.
Yeah, I sighed hard when I saw this get moved to the History board.
At the risk of sounding like an elitist (strictly a reader however), this forum's quality distinguishes itself from others on the board and I wouldn't mind it if a mod wanted to be more selective about what they moved here. Because this thread certainly isn't deserving.
at 7th...totally devoid of any credibility what so ever!!!
