Best defending defensemen all-time?

[Hasbro]

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.

 

[Statto]

No love for prime Doughty?

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…

 

[Arthur Morgan]

Aki Berg

 

[Craig Ludwig]

Vladimir Konstantinov was a pillar on D, sad and unfortunate about his accident as it limited him to a mere 6 seasons. He was +60 in his second to last year whereas Lidstrom was +29.

 

[Mike C]

Orr
Robinson
Lidstrom
Potvin
Park
Chelios
Savard
Chara
Bourque
Languay

Solid list

 

[Hockeyholic]

Wheres NHL all star Habs/Leafs legend Mike Komisarek?

He should give a bit of his salary to Markov

 

[UED]

Modern guys would be Chara, Weber, McDonagh, Pietrangelo, Doughty

 

[Jayevs]

She’s Weber deserves a mention here IMO

 

[Davenport]

When the Leafs hoisted the Cup in 1967, Marcel Pronovost - at 37, and playing lots of minutes - was on the ice for just one even-strength goal against in the 12 playoff games.

 

[67 others]

Doug Harvey

Discussion over

 

[67 others]

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

 

[Regal]

A lot of Pietrangelo mentions which I don’t really agree with. Very good all around defenseman but I don’t think his defense alone deserves special mention even among his era.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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.

 

[Regal]

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.

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

 

[Channelcat]

Scott Stevens

 

[67 others]

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

 

[Demandedace]

The Secretary of Defense himself - Langway.

 

[lawrence]

I feel Adam foote is one of the best at defending.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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

"A lot of analysts" pointed out how Lidstrom played the angle on one goal in a way you couldn't in the 80s?" So you're saying Lidstrom played a style that was effective for the 20 years he played in the NHL and not the decade before he was in the league? How dare he.

This is such a bizarre invented argument.

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

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

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.

 

[LavalPhantom]

Anyone remember Niklas Hjalmarsson?

 

[wetcoast]

I was going in (roughly) chronological order for my list.

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.

 

[67 others]

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.

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

 

[JackSlater]

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…

Doughty was the best defensively among star defencemen in the 2010s. He was/is a bit underrated by people trying to be smart (DUE Doughty lol!) and achieving the exact opposite. Would have scored more on most other teams, but also probably would have had a few more defensive issues.

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

You're right that people try to project Lidstrom backwards and wrongly say that he deserved Norris attention earlier than he received it, but I don't think it matters whether Lidstrom's defensive style would have been as effective in the 1980s. Lidstrom's best years were in the 2000s, he wasn't trying to win 1980s or early 1990s hockey games in the 2000s. If he needed to adjust his style, and I'm not exactly certain that he would have, I'm confident that a player that intelligent could have figured it out.

 

[SML2]

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.

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:
California
L.A.
Pittsburgh
Philly
St Louis.

The next was in 1970

Buffalo
Vancouver

In 1972

Islanders
Atlanta

1974
Washington
Kansas City

There was never a time in his career where his schedule wasn't loaded with teams he should have dominated. Granted, he did, but I don't think enough is said about how little of the rest of the league were serious competitors. With the exception of Philly none of those teams were very good before Orr left the game.

Edit: this comment is made on relation to the other greats we were referring to in the thread, obv. Everyone in the league was playing vs the same level of competition at the time.