15 who played for the B's make NHL Top 100 (corrected)

[sarge88]

I guess you where to young when you say him play (if at all). Forsberg was a dominant force. You could even argue that Quebec got the better of the Lindros trade receiving Forsberg alone...

Fantastic player. If anything under appreciated. He definitely belongs on the list.

I'm 46 and saw him as much as I could, being on the east coast.

Never a fan....Sakic was the key to the Avs success...he tended to get the tougher matchups and Forsberg was a big beneficiary.

He was a very good player, but never had the career worthy of being named top 100, IMO.

Nothing wrong with being in that next group though. I just consider him to be in the mix of guys I mentioned....Neely, Goulet, etc.

 

[mrzero]

Glad to see Jean Ratelle make the list ( he sometimes gets forgotten about ) Such a smooth and skillful playmaker and one of the classiest players ever. Park and him lead the Bruins after the big trade.

 

[whatsbruin]

13 players who played for the Bruins during their career (some briefly ) are in the Top 100.

Ray Bourque, Johnny Bucyk, Phil Esposito, Jaromir Jagr, Adam Oates, Bobby Orr, Bernie Parent, Brad Park, Jacques Plante, Jean Ratelle, Terry Sawchuk, Milt Schmidt and Eddie Shore.

https://www.nhl.com/news/100-greatest-nhl-players-of-all-time/c-286030052?tid=282169076

14, Paul Coffey had a cup of coffee in 2000-2001.

15, Brian Leetch.

The B's really liked bringing in past prime time players, and hoping for lighting in a bottle

 

[Hamilton Brian]

too bad we got em both at the wrong end of their careers

Yes! Unforgettable periods. Trying to replace Bourque with Coffey was a move of managerial brilliance. "He was really good in the 80s..."

 

[Budddy]

Gretzky over Orr is a joke but I completely understand.

Lindros not a fan of

I'm going to have to go through this carefully since from 1966 I was very fortunate to start going in my folks loge 7 row 1 seats see live 1500 games if not more and see these guys up close

I can't fairly comment on pre expansion that well but my kid texted me yesterday and said give me your top 10. I did it from basically 50's on up

Orr
Gretzky
Howe
Lemieux
Richard
Beliveau
B Hull
Messier
Bourque
Jagr

Very good list...I like that you have Bourque high too. I feel Bourque is the second best Dman I have ever seen and I watched him closely since his rookie year. I think he is s step above the other elite guys such as Lidstrom ..Potvin etc...

 

[DKH]

Very good list...I like that you have Bourque high too. I feel Bourque is the second best Dman I have ever seen and I watched him closely since his rookie year. I think he is s step above the other elite guys such as Lidstrom ..Potvin etc...

I totally agree on Lidstrom and Potvin

I thought Bourque was the perfect defenseman- no weakness strong in every area

He had 2 unfortunates

He came after the most dynamic player the game had ever seen.

He was on good to very good teams but not great

Had the Habs got a hold of him in the draft he would live in a castle up dare with a moat and a golden toilet seat and be this generations Jean Beliveau

He'd also have 3+ Cups

 

[LouJersey]

The list is a joke when Dale Hawerchuk and Evgeni Malkin aren't on it. Doug Gilnour prolly should have as well.

 

[Fenway]

Brian Leetch and Paul Coffey were Bruins...sorta.

I tried to purge these 2 from memory. Coffey in 2001 was like watching Willie Mays on the 73 Mets. My best memory of the 2005-6 season was the Olympics break.

I will correct the OP

 

[missingchicklet]

Lists such as this are usually silly, and this one is no exception. For example, Toews on it and Malkin not? What a joke. As for the Bruins players, Chara not being on it while others who were not nearly as good as Z are on it demonstrates how flawed the list is. He was not only the best shutdown d-man of his generation, but one of the greatest of all-time. His peers voted him "player they hated playing against most" multiple times." His defensive stats based on competition faced are massive. Heck, he even put up 40 or more points 9 times in his career and 50 or more three times. Not too bad for a player widely regarded as a defensive d-man. It can be argued that this team, and its Vezina winning goalies, would have gotten nowhere near where they got without Chara. Z is with the elite of the elite when it comes to shutdown d-men throughout the history of the NHL. Total crock that he is not listed in the top 100.

 

[Aeroforce]

Comparing players from different eras is difficult, if not impossible. Conditioning, techniques and tactics, number of teams, etc. are constantly evolving; not to mention the addition of the salary cap.

I saw a lot of Mike Modano in his prime, and he absolutely belongs on this list, even without the tag 'American born player.' When they make these lists 10, 20, 30 years from now, he'll still be on them.

And I don't have a crystal ball, but barring a career-threatening injury, Pat Kane will remain on, too.

I agree Chara and Malkin should have made the list. And just to demonstrate how more or less meaningless these lists are, if they had been in the All Star Game, I bet they both would have made the list!

 

[Budddy]

I totally agree on Lidstrom and Potvin

I thought Bourque was the perfect defenseman- no weakness strong in every area

He had 2 unfortunates

He came after the most dynamic player the game had ever seen.

He was on good to very good teams but not great

Had the Habs got a hold of him in the draft he would live in a castle up dare with a moat and a golden toilet seat and be this generations Jean Beliveau

He'd also have 3+ Cups

Yeah...agree

I never understood how people would have Lidstrom over him...Bourque could score...hit...defend and did it at a elite level. Lidstrom was obviously good but didn't possess the hitting game that Bourque had. Bourque scoring numbers were insane. I think he had 17 times being selected to first or second team all star teams; ridiculous high level of play over a long stretch...

Bourque should have had a Hart too, but was ripped off in the 1990 voting where several voters didn't even have him in top 5

 

[trenton1]

Kind of erratic. At times inclusion seems to be about winners (Gainey, Nieuwendyk) and other times nationality or longevity. Lists like these need specific criteria, IMO. I don't take this too seriously, it's just something to generate news for the anniversary.

 

[Budddy]

Lists such as this are usually silly, and this one is no exception. For example, Toews on it and Malkin not? What a joke. As for the Bruins players, Chara not being on it while others who were not nearly as good as Z are on it demonstrates how flawed the list is. He was not only the best shutdown d-man of his generation, but one of the greatest of all-time. His peers voted him "player they hated playing against most" multiple times." His defensive stats based on competition faced are massive. Heck, he even put up 40 or more points 9 times in his career and 50 or more three times. Not too bad for a player widely regarded as a defensive d-man. It can be argued that this team, and its Vezina winning goalies, would have gotten nowhere near where they got without Chara. Z is with the elite of the elite when it comes to shutdown d-men throughout the history of the NHL. Total crock that he is not listed in the top 100.

I'm still shaking my head at Keith being on the list but not Z...

 

[Fossy21]

Longevity, absent talent like Orr, Lemieux, Gretzky, should be a part of making a list like this, IMO.

I thought this was an NHL list, so I didn't take international play into consideration.

To me the Avs were successful in much larger part due to Sakic. I don't think they win either Cup without him, but they did win in 01 with Forsberg only playing 1/2 their playoff games, missing the entire finals.

I just consider him to be in the very good range, with durability issues.

He's in a group of guys like Neely, Mullen, MCDonald, Goulet, Anderson and Federko, among others, who had better careers, but also probably don't deserve to be on this list.

I didn't take it into consideration either, other than that he performed against top competition there without Sakic taking "tougher matchups" (which isn't necessarily true in the Avs either).

Yes, they won a cup almost completely without him. They also almost won a cup when he scored 27 points in 20 games (most in the playoffs by 4 points, despite not making the finals) after not playing a single regular season game. He had 8 points in 7 games against Detroit. Sakic had 5 and was a -5.

Forsberg is 4th all time in assists per game. And as far as longevity goes, I know you mentioned Orr as an exception, but Forsberg did play over 700 games. Crosby just passed him in games played this season, Toews and Kane haven't played more games than him yet (actually, Kane just passed him). Not that their inclusion isn't controversial either, but it's more than enough games to prove yourself.

 

[Fenway]

Listening to Cherry talk about Orr's last injury with Boston was sad.

Orr didn't hurt the knee on the ice, it happened walking down a ramp at Madison Square Garden.

Park and Orr only played 10 games together and Grapes said it was magic and had Orr stayed healthy Boston would have been the dynasty in the late 70's and not Montreal.

Milt Schmidt is the only player on the list who played his entire career for the Bruins. Eddie Shore was actually traded by Boston in his last season.

January 25, 1940: Traded to NY Americans by Boston for Ed Wiseman and $5,000.

 

[Fenway]

 

[Lobster57]

Park and Orr only played 10 games together and Grapes said it was magic and had Orr stayed healthy Boston would have been the dynasty in the late 70's and not Montreal.

Orr had 18 points in those 10 games. But the B's were 4-4-2...

 

[Sheppy]

No Chara? Bergy?

Keith over Z?

Bergeron isn't a top 100 player.

 

[Fossy21]

Orr had 18 points in those 10 games. But the B's were 4-4-2...

And they still went to two Cup Finals and two Semifinals those last four years of the 70's.

Bergeron isn't a top 100 player.

I don't think so either, but Toews is in there.

 

[BMC]

Gretzky over Orr? I call bull spit.

Gretzky was the greatest scorer in the history of the game. No question about that, his ability to pass the puck to the player with the best chance to score or to score himself remains unparalleled.

Bobby Orr completely revolutionized the way the game was played., the first truly offensive defenseman. He was also a much more complete player than Gretzky, as was Gordie Howe. I'd take either Orr or Howe over Gretzky every single day of the week.

 

[DKH]

Orr had 18 points in those 10 games. But the B's were 4-4-2...

They lost 4-2 in Vancouver game 1 then went 14 straight undefeated Orr played first 10 with Park

I was wrong I thought they went 8-1-1 and went undefeated for like 20

They went 6-1-3 and after losing 9-0-5

 

[BostonBob]

And that idiot McLean forgets to mention Ray Bourque when talking about the history of great Bruin defensemen.

 

[BruinDust]

Yeah...agree

I never understood how people would have Lidstrom over him...Bourque could score...hit...defend and did it at a elite level. Lidstrom was obviously good but didn't possess the hitting game that Bourque had. Bourque scoring numbers were insane. I think he had 17 times being selected to first or second team all star teams; ridiculous high level of play over a long stretch...

Bourque should have had a Hart too, but was ripped off in the 1990 voting where several voters didn't even have him in top 5

2 things for me separate Bourque from Lidstrom.

1) He was more dynamic. Lidstrom was an extremely smart player, made the right play most of the time. But Bourque could do it all, and do it at a high level. Lidstrom never brought you out of your seat, Bourque could do that on a regular basis.

2) High-level play over time. Simply put, Lidstrom's first quarter of his career was very good, but not elite. He was into his 7th season before he ever got a 1st or 2nd team all-star nod. He was also 21 year old when he entered the league. Ray Bourque was a Top 5 D-man in the league from the year he started as an 19 year old in 1979, until the day he put the cup over his head in 2001, as his 1st/2nd team all-star nod that year can atest.

And if that wasn't enough to sway the Bourque over Lidstrom argument, there is also this neat article.

http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/nhl/goes-brown-nhl-awards-look-like-using-mlb-model/

And the winner is…
While running through the research for this piece, one name showed up more than any other. It's a guy who already has plenty of hardware from a legendary career. But if he'd played in a world where the NHL split its awards by conference, he'd have a whole lot more. So let's talk about Ray Bourque.

In the real world, Bourque won the Norris Trophy five times between 1987 and 1994. That was an impressive run, one that slots him behind only Orr, Lidstrom and Doug Harvey on the all-time list. But split the trophy by conference, and Bourque jumps to the top of the leaderboard by adding an astounding six more Norris Trophies. He wins the Prince of Wales version in 1982, 1985 and 1993, then adds Eastern Conference honors in 1995, 1996 and 1999. (He nearly wins the Western Conference version in 2001 too, but finishes second to Lidstrom.) That makes it a ridiculous 11 times that Norris voters thought Ray Bourque was the best defenceman in his conference.

But it gets even better for Bourque, because in our alternate universe, voters eventually get bored of handing them the Norris and start voting him for the Hart Trophy too. He'd have been the Eastern MVP in 1987, 1990 and 1991.

Mix in the real-world Calder that he picked up in 1980, and Bourque winds up with 15 different individual awards over the course of his career, making him just about the most decorated athlete in pro sports history.

So maybe now we finally know why the NHL never adopted the MLB model. It just wouldn't have been fair to the guy who had to build Ray Bourque's trophy case.

 

[Sheppy]

I still can't believe Bobby was forced to retire at 30 years old... That's insane. Imagine what he could have done in 10 more seasons...

 

[BruinDust]

I still can't believe Bobby was forced to retire at 30 years old... That's insane. Imagine what he could have done in 10 more seasons...

He could of played 15 more probably with his skating and hockey sense.

Absolutely criminal he was robbed of his career so early.