The fact of the matter is that players get bigger, faster and stronger over time.
Bobby Orr is the best defenseman in history - no d-man has ever been as dominant. But saying that, the players he was so dominant over would also be absolutely destroyed by today's talent. When watching games from the early 70’s (ex. Summit Series), it’s hard not to take notice of the skill level. Like Sampe has noted in his earlier post, the equipment, speed, strength, skill, and tactics of the players are almost laughable by today’s standards. Even simple things like skating mechanics seem pretty primitive.
Now, I still consider Orr the best defenseman in history…….
But I’m thoroughly convinced that if Lidstrom or Pronger were transported back in time to Orr’s era, they’d be every bit as dominant as Bobby was.
I get a kick out of how some people talk like players from years ago were 'so primitive'. 70's players like Potvin and Robinson were playing when Bourque or Stevens were playing in the 80's. Was Bourque or Stevens that much better than Potvin or Robinson? No! Were any of those 4 head and shoulders over the other when their careers overlapped? No! Was/Is Lidstrom/Pronger that much better then Bourque or Stevens? No! Then why do you think the players of today are so much better then the players of yesterday? I've watched both eras and as good as Lidstrom/Pronger are, they aren't no Bourque/Stevens yet. Things have not changed that much in 20 some years. Other than Gretzky being the possible exception, Orr was the most dominant player I've ever seen! If only you could tranport Orr into today.
Lastly, Brad Park was not the prettiest D to watch, but from what people in the know (other players back then) say, he was definitely one of the best.
Orr was great to watch play. Gretsky, Mario, and Orr are the three purest talents I have ever seen play. Orr was so fluid with the puck it was amazing. The only problem with Orr playing today, would be the size of the players. Back than, most players were a lot smaller, and not in as good of shape. For you folks not old enough to have seen him play, He was kind of like Gretsky would be if he played dee.
Orr's talent transends any discussion about defensemen the way Gretzky transends any discussion about forwards. It's a no contest. The talent level of Orr was such that it would translate anywhere to any era.
Brad Park is the consumate bridesmaid in terms of Norris Trophies. It's like trying to win an Art Ross in the days of Gretzky and Lemieux in their prime. It's just not going to happen. While Park had his defensive lapses at times, he was still a hall of fame caliber defenseman and that can't be dismissed. One series does not a player make, Big Cat Davo. He certainly wasn't the first and he won't be the last to have an absolute horrible series. Park was a staple on the blueline for the Early 70's Rangers and the Early 80's Bruins squads. He was never a 100+ point defenseman, but he certainly had the offensive instincts to post an incredible amount of points.
As for the Lidstrom and Pronger arguments, i'd have to say that Chris Pronger would have the more noticeable impact on the type of game that was played in the 60's - 80's. The reason I feel Pronger is set apart is the fact that he's a tower in a time where there was very rarely a player over 6"2'. Pronger stands at 6"6' and has the offensive instincts of a shifty defenseman half his size. Not to mention the fact that he has the physicality to go along with that creativity in the offensive end. Lidstrom has the ability, perhaps even more than Pronger, but he doesn't have the size.
I wonder about some of the big names these days. Like Pronger. He's a guy that's notorious for his stickwork and occasionally throws a big hit, but usually fights small European guys if at all (cough...Sandstrom...cough...Slegr...cough). You put Pronger in the 70's with that nastiness and he would be getting punished by any number of eccentric tough guys from back then. I question whether Pronger would be as effective after having someone like Tiger Williams or Dave Schultz beat the piss out of him for his stickwork. Bourque compares fine; he was always a two-way player that set up a fence for himself. Smart enough to keep himself out of the bigger hits most of the time and his raised stick took care of the few guys that were able to line him up.
Lidstrom I really wonder about. He's got the smarts to play in any era, but how would he react to some of the stuff Salming endured? I don't think anyone of us can do anything but guess about that. Breaking barriers like Salming did requires an amazing amount of toughness and I hesitate to say that any player could do it, even a player as good as Lidstrom.
I think the game was already in transition during Orr's years, but still, I'd say that Lidstrom wouldn't make it in the 60's. Going back further just reduces the likelihood. Back then it was more battle and less skills, I don't think Lidstrom's skills would be useful enough to account for his lack of piss-n-vinegar. Guys like Foote and Pronger would survive, but they wouldn't be great.
It's hard to believe I'm saying this, because I've been a Wings fan all my life. I don't think the transition works either way. For instance, Gordie Howe wasn't great because of blinding skill, he was great because he was consistently the meaner, nastier guy going into the corner to pick up the puck. In today's play he'd either spend all his time in the box (or suspended) or he'd be a non-factor.
Stevens would MAYBE fit in in the old days, because of his cheapshotting. NOT because of any skill.
Leetch is OVER-RATED offensively, and adequate defensively. He is one of the top 20 skating defensemen of all-time, perhaps, after Orr, Coffey, Robinson, Lidstrom, Salming, Housley, etc. He is a pretty decent passer, and an average shooter. He has good moves for a defenseman at times, but won't make people forget Coffey or Housley or Orr. He is simply a very good defenseman in an era of great defensmen.
Stevens would MAYBE fit in in the old days, because of his cheapshotting. NOT because of any skill.
Leetch is OVER-RATED offensively, and adequate defensively. He is one of the top 20 skating defensemen of all-time, perhaps, after Orr, Coffey, Robinson, Lidstrom, Salming, Housley, etc. He is a pretty decent passer, and an average shooter. He has good moves for a defenseman at times, but won't make people forget Coffey or Housley or Orr. He is simply a very good defenseman in an era of great defensmen.
Agreed on all points. Stevens probably would've done well, but Leetch wouldn't have. Compare him to Orr and he's nothing special. He's an excellent skater but the rest of his game is rather average...he's an offensive defenseman who doesn't bring it all to the table like Orr/Robinson etc.
Agreed on all points. Stevens probably would've done well, but Leetch wouldn't have. Compare him to Orr and he's nothing special. He's an excellent skater but the rest of his game is rather average...he's an offensive defenseman who doesn't bring it all to the table like Orr/Robinson etc.
Rather average? Brian Leetch has first rate puck handling skills and offensive instinct. His passes are always perfect, and he never seems to panic under pressure. While he isn't the second coming of Tim Horton, he is capable of using the body defensively, and also is solid most of the time. Brian Leetch is one of the greatest Americans to ever play the game, and to say that he wouldn't do well in any era other than our own. Nobody is saying he's Orr or Robinson, but back in the Original Six days, not every player on every team was HOF quality.
