Yes, lets compare Coffey to the model of consistency and longevity. Lidstrom isn't the benchmark. This would be like knocking Lidstrom because his peak was a little below Coffey's. Coffey isn't the benchmark for that, either.
And yes, my mistake, Coffey was in Detroit before Bowman. But he was kept around for three years and was a key part of Detroit's run to the finals in 1995, so clearly he was welcome on Bowman's team.
I don't know why you'd even try to compare Lowe to Coffey. Lowe was a solid guy but the value of a guy like Lowe is such that a team can afford to have Coffey and then put a Lowe or two next to him to make up for his deficiencies in his own zone. Basically Coffey was a specimen, Lowe was a very solid NHLer but by no means an exceptional player even as far as stay-at-home D-men are concerned.
Maybe a Coffey vs Langway comparison would be a more sensible attempt to discuss the relative merits of offense-first D-men vs. defense-only D-men.
(...) His passing and skating didnt go sour until around 97 when he was a washed up veteran who wouldnt let go. He spiked at the age 38 with 40 points. (...)
Everybody has a different method of evaluation, but after Coffey was a top defenceman for approximately a decade, we should not overemphasize his last seasons. He played hockey for fun, fame and money - thus he was right not to bow out early just to have some people say that he ended his career when he was still in his prime. Furthermore, not too many players from that era were still competetive with 38.
I am not talking to you personally, because this is correct, but those of you who read this, stop and say it over again. A 38 year old defenseman who had slowly lost his abilities, in his full last NHL season, managed 40 points at the peak of the dead puck era, and it is disappointing.
That statement alone says volumes about just how remarkable Coffey actually was in his prime.
Today 04:55 PM seventieslord Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx
Lidström just finished his 18th season....
Lidstrom is significantly better than Coffey, and everyone is 100% in agreement on that.
I'd have to disagree with the "significant" portion. Lidstrom is a great 2 way dman who happens to have won 6 norris trophies i believe due to a parity amongst great defensemen of his era. Coffey had to compete against prime players such as Raymond Bourque, Chris Chelios, Al Mcinnis, Dennis Potvin, and Rod Langway. 3 times he was not awarded the Norris trophy due to a lower +- despite having superior offensive numbers to Bourque and Langway. His +- was still a in the + 30 to 40 category and he did not take home the Norris. Lidstrom on the other hand has won the norris on several occasions despite having lower +- and lower point totals then some of his competitors. In my opinion He also learned a lot about how to control the pace of a game from his predecessor in Detroit in the mid 90's. Paul Coffey. Now I am not knocking Lidstrom and promoting Coffey, because Lidstrom is one of my fav players today, but some of his norris wins have to be questioned. He is clearly better the Coffey Defensively. But the same can be said of Coffey being that much better the Lidstrom Offensively. Lidstrom also seems to have better longevity.
I'd have to disagree with the "significant" portion. Lidstrom is a great 2 way dman who happens to have won 6 norris trophies i believe due to a parity amongst great defensemen of his era. Coffey had to compete against prime players such as Raymond Bourque, Chris Chelios, Al Mcinnis, Dennis Potvin, and Rod Langway. 3 times he was not awarded the Norris trophy due to a lower +- despite having superior offensive numbers to Bourque and Langway. His +- was still a in the + 30 to 40 category and he did not take home the Norris. Lidstrom on the other hand has won the norris on several occasions despite having lower +- and lower point totals then some of his competitors. In my opinion He also learned a lot about how to control the pace of a game from his predecessor in Detroit in the mid 90's. Paul Coffey. Now I am not knocking Lidstrom and promoting Coffey, because Lidstrom is one of my fav players today, but some of his norris wins have to be questioned. He is clearly better the Coffey Defensively. But the same can be said of Coffey being that much better the Lidstrom Offensively. Lidstrom also seems to have better longevity.
- Lidstrom won his Norrises against weaker defensemen, yes. But he has six of them, plus he was a 3-time runner-up.
- Coffey did not deserve the Norris automatically by having the most points and a decent +/-.
- Lidstrom has always, for 30 minutes of every game, drawn the toughest defensive assignments. If a few defensemen have a higher +/- than him every season that should really be no concern.
- None of Lidstrom's Norris wins should be questioned. What I question is how he didn't win in at least one of the years he was a runner-up, and how he wasn't a finalist this year.
- None of Lidstrom's Norris wins should be questioned. What I question is how he didn't win in at least one of the years he was a runner-up, and how he wasn't a finalist this year.
His play didn't merit being a finalist this season.
His play didn't merit being a finalist this season.
Defensive numbers say he was still the best defensive defenseman in the NHL (based on ESGA and PPGA and quality of competition) - and there are people who saw a lot more of him this year than I did, who insist that is correct.
Defensive numbers say he was still the best defensive defenseman in the NHL (based on ESGA and PPGA and quality of competition) - and there are people who saw a lot more of him this year than I did, who insist that is correct.
I had him as the 5th best defenseman this year, still very good, but definitely some slippage from the last few seasons.
I think the 3 finalists and Pronger had better seasons.
- Lidstrom won his Norrises against weaker defensemen, yes. But he has six of them, plus he was a 3-time runner-up.
- Coffey did not deserve the Norris automatically by having the most points and a decent +/-.
- Lidstrom has always, for 30 minutes of every game, drawn the toughest defensive assignments. If a few defensemen have a higher +/- than him every season that should really be no concern.
- None of Lidstrom's Norris wins should be questioned. What I question is how he didn't win in at least one of the years he was a runner-up, and how he wasn't a finalist this year.
Yeah, the funny thing about facing arrbez in the ATD is that I honestly think that both Blake and Chara's Norrises should have really been Lidstrom's.
I had him as the 5th best defenseman this year, still very good, but definitely some slippage from the last few seasons.
I think the 3 finalists and Pronger had better seasons.
Eh, I have Mike Green 6th at best.
1. Keith
2-4. Doughty/Pronger/Lidstrom (all very close)
5. Boyle
6. Green
I can see an argument for Lidstrom as a finalist. But Pronger would deserve it too. I wouldn't pick Mike Green, who was only chosen because of his statistics.
Lidstrom isn't as good as before, but he's no worse than any dman in the league other than Keith.
His play didn't merit being a finalist this season.
He had a poor first half, but he was probably the best defender in the NHL in the 2nd half.
Simply put, Drew Doughty was not better than Nicklas Lidstrom this season. Doughty is a great player who is going to win Norris trophies in the future, but in a season where they put up similar offensive totals, Doughty is simply not better than Nicklas Lidstrom defensively.
Lidstrom and Pronger both had a strong case to be Norris finalists this year, but new younger players are more attractive to voters. Same thing that saw a guy like Denis Potvin lose Norris Trophies he should have won in the early 1980s to guys like Randy Carlyle.
1. Keith
2-4. Doughty/Pronger/Lidstrom (all very close)
5. Boyle
6. Green
I can see an argument for Lidstrom as a finalist. But Pronger would deserve it too. I wouldn't pick Mike Green, who was only chosen because of his statistics.
Green had an absolutely brutal playoff series and was a big reason the Caps were out in round one, but he deserved the nomination.
If you're going to blame him for the playoff loss (deserved along with Semin and Boudreau) he also deserves a lof of credit for what he did during the regular season. He was far and away the best offensive defenseman in the league, he was a huge reason they had the best PP in the regular season and a huge reason they ran away with the Presidents trophy.
- Lidstrom won his Norrises against weaker defensemen, yes. But he has six of them, plus he was a 3-time runner-up.
- Coffey did not deserve the Norris automatically by having the most points and a decent +/-.
- Lidstrom has always, for 30 minutes of every game, drawn the toughest defensive assignments. If a few defensemen have a higher +/- than him every season that should really be no concern.
- None of Lidstrom's Norris wins should be questioned. What I question is how he didn't win in at least one of the years he was a runner-up, and how he wasn't a finalist this year.
What I question is how this guy doesnt have a hart.
It is rather strange that a player with 6 Norris Trophies, 4 Stanley Cups, and 9 first-team all-star selections doesn't have a Hart, but considering his position, is the lack of a Hart Trophy really that surprising? I mean, Ray Bourque never won a Hart despite being the best player on his team (by a wide margin) every year in Boston.
Yes, I know what happened to Bourque in 1990 with the 6 writers leaving him off the ballot entirely. Leaving him off entirely was the only way that Bourque wouldn't have won, and that is an pathetic display of journalism. But the fact still remains that Bourque never won a Hart Trophy, and being a defenseman was probably the major reason. You don't think that some of those said writers in 1990 probably thought that it would be sacrilegious for a defenseman to win the Hart if he didn't also win the Art Ross?
The same mentality hurt Lidstrom, but so did his circumstances. Playing in Detroit, on a very talented team that was captained by Steve Yzerman, was not going to get him noticed as a Hart contender. What year do you think he had a legitimate chance to win the Hart, or should have won the Hart? His best two chances were the two seasons following the lockout, but there was no way he was going to, or should have, won to Hart over Jagr or Thornton in 2006 or Crosby in 2007.
However, it is strange that Lidstrom's highest Hart finish is 6th. Again, that probably comes from playing on such consistently elite teams that feature other elite players. Doug Harvey was a better defenseman than Lidstrom, but he never won a Hart. Why? Look at his list of team-mates. In order for a defenseman to get serious Hart consideration, he needs to put a team on his back for an entire season AND be the most important name on that team. Unfortunately for Lidstrom, he has had too many great team-mates.
It is rather strange that a player with 6 Norris Trophies, 4 Stanley Cups, and 9 first-team all-star selections doesn't have a Hart, but considering his position, is the lack of a Hart Trophy really that surprising? I mean, Ray Bourque never won a Hart despite being the best player on his team (by a wide margin) every year in Boston.
Yes, I know what happened to Bourque in 1990 with the 6 writers leaving him off the ballot entirely. Leaving him off entirely was the only way that Bourque wouldn't have won, and that is an pathetic display of journalism. But the fact still remains that Bourque never won a Hart Trophy, and being a defenseman was probably the major reason. You don't think that some of those said writers in 1990 probably thought that it would be sacrilegious for a defenseman to win the Hart if he didn't also win the Art Ross?
The same mentality hurt Lidstrom, but so did his circumstances. Playing in Detroit, on a very talented team that was captained by Steve Yzerman, was not going to get him noticed as a Hart contender. What year do you think he had a legitimate chance to win the Hart, or should have won the Hart? His best two chances were the two seasons following the lockout, but there was no way he was going to, or should have, won to Hart over Jagr or Thornton in 2006 or Crosby in 2007.
However, it is strange that Lidstrom's highest Hart finish is 6th. Again, that probably comes from playing on such consistently elite teams that feature other elite players. Doug Harvey was a better defenseman than Lidstrom, but he never won a Hart. Why? Look at his list of team-mates. In order for a defenseman to get serious Hart consideration, he needs to put a team on his back for an entire season AND be the most important name on that team. Unfortunately for Lidstrom, he has had too many great team-mates.
Yeah, that's the way it's been, but that's not the way it should have been.
It's not even that I necessarily think he should have won a hart, but he definitely should have been at least a 4-time finalist, not a guy who peaked at 6th in voting.
It is rather strange that a player with 6 Norris Trophies, 4 Stanley Cups, and 9 first-team all-star selections doesn't have a Hart, but considering his position, is the lack of a Hart Trophy really that surprising? I mean, Ray Bourque never won a Hart despite being the best player on his team (by a wide margin) every year in Boston.
Yes, I know what happened to Bourque in 1990 with the 6 writers leaving him off the ballot entirely. Leaving him off entirely was the only way that Bourque wouldn't have won, and that is an pathetic display of journalism. But the fact still remains that Bourque never won a Hart Trophy, and being a defenseman was probably the major reason. You don't think that some of those said writers in 1990 probably thought that it would be sacrilegious for a defenseman to win the Hart if he didn't also win the Art Ross?
The same mentality hurt Lidstrom, but so did his circumstances. Playing in Detroit, on a very talented team that was captained by Steve Yzerman, was not going to get him noticed as a Hart contender. What year do you think he had a legitimate chance to win the Hart, or should have won the Hart? His best two chances were the two seasons following the lockout, but there was no way he was going to, or should have, won to Hart over Jagr or Thornton in 2006 or Crosby in 2007.
However, it is strange that Lidstrom's highest Hart finish is 6th. Again, that probably comes from playing on such consistently elite teams that feature other elite players. Doug Harvey was a better defenseman than Lidstrom, but he never won a Hart. Why? Look at his list of team-mates. In order for a defenseman to get serious Hart consideration, he needs to put a team on his back for an entire season AND be the most important name on that team. Unfortunately for Lidstrom, he has had too many great team-mates.
Pronger won a Hart during a seaso where Lidstrom simply were better than him. All Im saying...
Pronger won a Hart during a seaso where Lidstrom simply were better than him. All Im saying...
Pronger carried the St. Louis Blues to the President's Trophy despite Al MacInnis, Pavol Demitra, and Pierre Turgeon each missing between 10-20 games.
You can make an argument that Lidstrom deserved to win the Norris, but there is a reason Pronger won the Hart, and that was because he was the most valuable player in the league that year. Jaromir Jagr was the only other player that got serious consideration, and he probably would have gotten it had he not missed so many games.
Pronger carried the St. Louis Blues to the President's Trophy despite Al MacInnis, Pavol Demitra, and Pierre Turgeon each missing between 10-20 games.
You can make an argument that Lidstrom deserved to win the Norris, but there is a reason Pronger won the Hart, and that was because he was the most valuable player in the league that year. Jaromir Jagr was the only other player that got serious consideration, and he probably would have gotten it had he not missed so many games.
I would say that Lidstrom were equally if not more important to the red wings. If I remember correctly Demitra was injured at the end of the season when Blues were basically qualified for the playoffs. Im not downplaying Prongers role on the team he was undoubtly the most important player on the Blues squad but Lidstrom was the most important player on an "excellent" Detroit team and its not like they didnt have injuries on key players. Fedorov, Verbeek, Kozlov, Holmstrom, Brown, Draper, McCarty and Maltby all missed multiple games.
What I question is how this guy doesnt have a hart.
Well, he was just so consistently great for a long time and never really spiked to the point that the voters felt he deserved it. I tend to agree. I mean let's look deeper into this, what would be a year that Lidstrom deserved a Hart? I can't think of one at all. These are is Norris years
2001 - Sakic wins for sure
2002 - Might have been his best shot, but Theodore was simply dominant and Iggy had a strong year
2003 - Another shot, but Forsberg peaked at the right time
2006 - It was a coin flip between Thornton and Jagr. Lidstrom could have been a finalst though
2007 - It was Crosby's
2008 - No one was getting it but Ovy
He wasn't shafted, just didn't have that ONE season
Lidstrom was probably the best player overall in the first decade of the century, but never the best in any one season. Pretty much always somewhere in that 3-7 range.
Trying to award Pronger's Hart to anyone else that year is revisionist history at its finest. Nobody disagreed with the decision at the time, nor should they have. Pronger was a force from start to finish that season, and vaulted his club from their usual 4th or 5th place position to 1st overall. You could maybe argue for Jagr on a per-game basis, but the 20 or so games he missed made Pronger the clear choice. It really only seems like people have started to question the validity of his Hart in the past couple of years as memories of how good he was that year begin to fade.
