His endurance helped. He always fresher than the guy trying to get past him.In coaches polls, I recall Bourque winning best defensive dman at least once or twice in the late 80’s/early 90’s, so he was really damned good defensively at his peak.
His endurance helped. He always fresher than the guy trying to get past him.In coaches polls, I recall Bourque winning best defensive dman at least once or twice in the late 80’s/early 90’s, so he was really damned good defensively at his peak.
I was wondering the same. I see McDonagh mentioned and laugh because Doughty was another tier in the shutdown role, the best of his generation. Hopefully he gets more recognition after he retires. He’s obviously past his best but is still capable of playing at an elite level, until he burns out each year with the insistence on keeping his usage in the top 3 of the NHL… every year. He’s got to be near the top of career TOI…No love for prime Doughty?
Solid listOrr
Robinson
Lidstrom
Potvin
Park
Chelios
Savard
Chara
Bourque
Languay
He should give a bit of his salary to MarkovWheres NHL all star Habs/Leafs legend Mike Komisarek?
Lids was hideous in the early 90s style. His style because more effective as pads got bigger and goalies got more technical.Bourque ahead of Lids?![]()
Lids was hideous in the early 90s style. His style because more effective as pads got bigger and goalies got more technical.
There is an Osgood goal by umberger on camera where everyone blames Osgood and they should. However, it should be noted that would be a goal 9 times out of 10 in the 80s because of how lidstrom played it. You were forced to attack the man a lot more prior to pads and goalie evolution, or else.
He didn't get Norris consideration in his early years for a reason
This is a confusing post and revisionist history.
For starters, Lidstrom was still in Sweden in the 80s. Umberger? Is there an Umberger from the 90s I'm forgetting? Because RJ entered the league in the 2006 season.
Lids was a non-physical Swedish defenseman breaking into the NHL in the early 90s, so they called him an offensive defenseman because by conventional North American thinking at the time, what else could he possibly be? Not physical, European = offensive Dman.
He didn't get Norris consideration in his early years because he had known guys like Coffey, and Konstantinov on the team. It wasn't until the 97 finals that people started to figure out this quiet Swedish guy was a pretty great Dman. And even then Chelios joined the team in 99 and was already a Norris winner.
That's not to say he should've been winning Norris's in early 90s or anything. But the claim of being "hideous" is simply false.
The umberger goal on Osgood was from the 2000's, but it merely highlighted facts. Lidstrom played his angle style expectinf osgood to have the corners covered. Osgood let in a weak goal(by 2000s standards, but common in smaller pad eras). A lot of analysts pointed out how in the 80s, you could not simply play the angle game like lidstrom did without giving up plum chances and pointed out how this style only became relevant when bigger pads and covering more net became prevalent. You had to more aggressively attack the puck carrier.This is a confusing post and revisionist history.
For starters, Lidstrom was still in Sweden in the 80s. Umberger? Is there an Umberger from the 90s I'm forgetting? Because RJ entered the league in the 2006 season.
Lids was a non-physical Swedish defenseman breaking into the NHL in the early 90s, so they called him an offensive defenseman because by conventional North American thinking at the time, what else could he possibly be? Not physical, European = offensive Dman.
He didn't get Norris consideration in his early years because he had known guys like Coffey, and Konstantinov on the team. It wasn't until the 97 finals that people started to figure out this quiet Swedish guy was a pretty great Dman. And even then Chelios joined the team in 99 and was already a Norris winner.
That's not to say he should've been winning Norris's in early 90s or anything. But the claim of being "hideous" is simply false.
The umberger goal on Osgood was from the 2000's, but it merely highlighted facts. Lidstrom played his angle style expectinf osgood to have the corners covered. Osgood let in a weak goal(by 2000s standards, but common in smaller pad eras). A lot of analysts pointed out how in the 80s, you could not simply play the angle game like lidstrom did without giving up plum chances and pointed out how this style only became relevant when bigger pads and covering more net became prevalent. You had to more aggressively attack the puck carrier.
His style didn't work as effectively in the early 90s because of these factors. Bigger pads and needing to cover goalie flaws less Contributed to his style becoming the way to play mid/late 90s. Prior to that, it was a weakness
I think the suggestion was that Lidstrom’s defense was more era dependent, and so he wouldn’t have been as good as Bourque in the 80s or early 90s defensively, and the Umberger goal was just an example of the type of goals that would have gone in more regularly with Lidstrom on the ice had he played in the 80s, due to both Lidstrom’s style and the goalies his opponents would have been shooting on.
I don’t think it’s fair to suggest Lidstrom wouldn’t have made era adjustments in his prime though
It's a decent list and honestly it's really hard to do rankings like this for all time in terms of isolating defensive play.I was going in (roughly) chronological order for my list.
Lidstrom's style in his early years wasn't ideal until goalie pads got bigger and standup style phased out. Folks always argue he deserved more Norris consideration his early years and I call that BS because I was there and know how it drove coaches crazy lol. It wasn't ideal until it was. That's not a hypothetical, that's a "we saw his style was not ideal in the early 90s"By the same token you could argue Bourque's style wouldn't have worked in the post lockout, more open style of hockey. It's such a ridiculous hypothetical argument. A desperate reach to put Lidstrom below Bourque.
Lidstrom's biggest strength was his hockey IQ, so as you mention, to think he wouldn't have adjusted to the era is ridiculous. He was in the league for 20 years. He had to make plenty of adjustments going from 90s hockey to post lockout hockey.
I was wondering the same. I see McDonagh mentioned and laugh because Doughty was another tier in the shutdown role, the best of his generation. Hopefully he gets more recognition after he retires. He’s obviously past his best but is still capable of playing at an elite level, until he burns out each year with the insistence on keeping his usage in the top 3 of the NHL… every year. He’s got to be near the top of career TOI…
Lidstrom's style in his early years wasn't ideal until goalie pads got bigger and standup style phased out. Folks always argue he deserved more Norris consideration his early years and I call that BS because I was there and know how it drove coaches crazy lol. It wasn't ideal until it was. That's not a hypothetical, that's a "we saw his style was not ideal in the early 90s"
No need to get so emotional over basic truths
One thing I am going to bring up here that might get me flamed is that, as good as Orr was, who else has had the opportunity to play their entire career in a league made up predominantly of recent or current expanaion teams? The first expansion was in 1967. They added:Bobby Orr is the best at everything. It's hard to tease out his pure defending but his defensive impact, like his offensive and transition, is the best.
In 1970 he was +124 (best non-teammate was +51) while putting up 100+ assist and almost 140 points. This is a comparable scoring era to now...
When we rank defencemen, there is no big 4, there is Bobby Orr and then the..............the rest. The only thing stopping him from being the absolute GOAT is injuries.
When is comes to anything regarding playing defence in Hockey...you are not as good as Robert Gordon Orr.