Best "Defensive Defenseman" of All-time?

[Hyped]

Year after year we see defensive forwards being awarded the Selke trophy. They also have the Art Ross for best offensive forward. Meanwhile, defenseman have only the Norris trophy for "best defenseman". That award has usually gone to defensemen that also have a very good offensive flair about them. Meanwhile, the strictly defensive guys never really get the credit. If the NHL were to consider a trophy for the best defensive d-man, they'd probably want to name it after the best of all-time. So my question to you:

Who is the best "defensive d-man" of all-time?

 

[pitseleh]

Doug Harvey.

Tim Horton or Earl Seibert are probably the best defensemen without as much offensive upside as the top defensemen of all-time.

 

[Al Bundy*]

Big Bird.

 

[TANK200]

Lionel Hitchman and Ching Johnson deserve some mention here. Rod Langway and Serge Savard are up there too.

 

[pappyline]

If you look back at the top AS vote getter each year (should be equivalent to the Norris) you see names like Shore, Clancy, Quackenbush etc. It appears that Dmen who could contribute to the attack were always more valued than the purely stay at home guys.

 

[Psycho Papa Joe]

Career wise, the best I've seen is Serge Savard.

 

[SML]

"insert obligatory guy noone on this forum has ever seen play"
It's almost impossible to talk "all time" when it seems a majority of posters here think Ray Bourque is "old school". The game is so different it's almost like you aren't talking about the same game. You kind of have to approach this by breaking it down into eras so at least the guys you're talking about can be measured by the same standards. I never saw Doug harvey play. You can tell me all the stories you want and I'm not going to get it. The same way when I tell some kid 10 years from now about MacInnis' shot or Stevens checks he's going to look at me like I'm from Mars.

 

[pappyline]

This happens to be the "History of Hockey" forum so most posters here done some research & are able to make educated judgements on players they never saw. Also they have a passionate interest in all eras of hockey. Those that think that Ray Bourque is "old school" should frequent another forum because they won't contribute much here..

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The same way when I tell some kid 10 years from now about MacInnis' shot or Stevens checks about Al MacInnis' shot he's going to look at me like I'm from Mars.

Then he'd be a very close-minded individual. People who won't evaluate players they never saw play are often just too lazy to look into it further. Watching a player live is only part of the equation. Even today, the only players I (and presumably almost every other fan) see live more than once in a while are those on their home team. But I can still tell you Vincent Lecavalier was better than Nathan Horton this year, despite the fact that I don't recall witnessing either player play a single game.

 

[SML]

If I'm out of place or out of line, I apologize. I'm just saying that it's difficult to truly compare players of different eras against each other and actually come out with a difinitive answer as to who is better. I can compare Wayne Gretzky vs Mario Lemieux because they played head to head, they played the same competition, they had the same advantages/ disadvantages in terms of playing styles, equipment, training methods, etc. It becomes much more of a question when you take a player from a different era who didn't have these things and speculate as to how he would have performed. I will admit, I don't come to the History forum very often, I will take my two cents back where I belong.

 

[ozzie]

Didn't Langway win 2 Norris Trophies based soley on his defensive play? I was somewhat young to remember or appreciate his play. But he was up against some HOF caliber defensemen and won in an extremely high scoring era.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

If I'm out of place or out of line, I apologize. I'm just saying that it's difficult to truly compare players of different eras against each other and actually come out with a difinitive answer as to who is better. I can compare Wayne Gretzky vs Mario Lemieux because they played head to head, they played the same competition, they had the same advantages/ disadvantages in terms of playing styles, equipment, training methods, etc. It becomes much more of a question when you take a player from a different era who didn't have these things and speculate as to how he would have performed. I will admit, I don't come to the History forum very often, I will take my two cents back where I belong.

Trying to figure out how a player would perform if he were playing today is something a lot of people try to do. People who start talking about old players and use their crappy equipment and poor training methods as arguments against them (not saying you're one of them) drive me nuts. The best method is to rate them by how dominant they were in their own era. If a guy dominated the 1940's, he's just as good as a guy who dominated the 1990's in my book.

 

[Stonefly]

If I'm out of place or out of line, I apologize. I'm just saying that it's difficult to truly compare players of different eras against each other and actually come out with a difinitive answer as to who is better. I can compare Wayne Gretzky vs Mario Lemieux because they played head to head, they played the same competition, they had the same advantages/ disadvantages in terms of playing styles, equipment, training methods, etc. It becomes much more of a question when you take a player from a different era who didn't have these things and speculate as to how he would have performed. I will admit, I don't come to the History forum very often, I will take my two cents back where I belong.

Don't apologize and don't let these guys scare you away. Especially if you are interested in the history of hockey.
I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I don't like to try and rate players I've never seen. And I've seen more than most who frequent the HOH forum. It doesn't make me lazy as someone has suggested. I just understand that, like you said, people that didn't see a guy play won't necessarily get it when someone tries to explain how great that player was or wasn't. i understand it because I feel the frustration every time I try to explain to someone just how great Orr was. It's become a kind of mission for me. Much like Pappyline and Bobby Hull. The people I tell about Orr have read and heard all about him but, and it's unfortunate, they will never grasp how truly great he was without seeing him play games. Not highlights.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Doug Harvey.

Tim Horton or Earl Seibert are probably the best defensemen without as much offensive upside as the top defensemen of all-time.

I agree with Doug Harvey

Rod Langway + Serge Savard however are just as good a Dman without the offensive upside as those mentioned. Langway with the slight nod

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Keith Brown!

 

[pappyline]

Don't apologize and don't let these guys scare you away. Especially if you are interested in the history of hockey.
I pretty much agree with what you're saying. I don't like to try and rate players I've never seen. And I've seen more than most who frequent the HOH forum. It doesn't make me lazy as someone has suggested. I just understand that, like you said, people that didn't see a guy play won't necessarily get it when someone tries to explain how great that player was or wasn't. i understand it because I feel the frustration every time I try to explain to someone just how great Orr was. It's become a kind of mission for me. Much like Pappyline and Bobby Hull. The people I tell about Orr have read and heard all about him but, and it's unfortunate, they will never grasp how truly great he was without seeing him play games. Not highlights.

I agree that seeing someone play is the best. I saw both Orr & Hull in their prime & they were something special. Right up their with Lemieux & Gretzky, However, you got to give due to the great players you never saw. From what I have read about Shore, Morenz , Max Bentley, Milt Schmidt etc. They were pretty special also. If you don't give these guys their due, then you are no better than some kid comong on & saying everyody pre Gretzky is a dinasaur.

 

[SML]

I guess I draw the line where there are players that nobody has really seen live, and there really is no video footage to go by, just accounts written by people who saw them at the time. In my mind, those accounts are skewed at best. Those accounts are more than likely written by people who saw those players alot, and more than not, fans of that team and that player. Now just by surfing around HF alone, you can see that there are dramatically different points of view regarding virtually every player in the league. If you go to the Pens board tonight, for example, Crosby is the God of hockey, but you'd get a different POV on the other 29 boards. My point being, that I think written accounts are more heresay than evidence because they are more than likely tainted with the bias of a fan. As you guys have pointed out, I don't know everything, so maybe I'm wrong about that. But when somebody throws out a player that played so long ago, I'd like to know how they found out and from what source. Now we're getting to the point where a good amount of HOF'ers are beginning to fall into that category, and every year more will. Granted, video evidence will support claims of more recent guys, but with every year, the guys further back fall further into obscurity. I don't like it either, but what can you do to make a case?

 

[Stonefly]

I agree that seeing someone play is the best. I saw both Orr & Hull in their prime & they were something special. Right up their with Lemieux & Gretzky, However, you got to give due to the great players you never saw. From what I have read about Shore, Morenz , Max Bentley, Milt Schmidt etc. They were pretty special also. If you don't give these guys their due, then you are no better than some kid comong on & saying everyody pre Gretzky is a dinasaur.

The difference is I don't disrespect the players before my time in any way. I don't think SML disrespected them in his post either.

 

[pappyline]

I guess I draw the line where there are players that nobody has really seen live, and there really is no video footage to go by, just accounts written by people who saw them at the time. In my mind, those accounts are skewed at best. Those accounts are more than likely written by people who saw those players alot, and more than not, fans of that team and that player. Now just by surfing around HF alone, you can see that there are dramatically different points of view regarding virtually every player in the league. If you go to the Pens board tonight, for example, Crosby is the God of hockey, but you'd get a different POV on the other 29 boards. My point being, that I think written accounts are more heresay than evidence because they are more than likely tainted with the bias of a fan. As you guys have pointed out, I don't know everything, so maybe I'm wrong about that. But when somebody throws out a player that played so long ago, I'd like to know how they found out and from what source. Now we're getting to the point where a good amount of HOF'ers are beginning to fall into that category, and every year more will. Granted, video evidence will support claims of more recent guys, but with every year, the guys further back fall further into obscurity. I don't like it either, but what can you do to make a case?

In the case of Crosby the fact that the other 29 boards hate him speaks for itself & convinces me even more that he is damn good.

Same goes for players that nobody alive today never saw. Take Eddie Shore, for example. Not every article was written by a fan, You can find info from both lovers & haters out there but they still all regard him as one of the best. King Clancy was one of his greatest rivals but clancey never had anything bad to say about Shore's ability.

There is a lot of objective evidence out there if you look for it.

 

[pappyline]

The difference is I don't disrespect the players before my time in any way. I don't think SML disrespected them in his post either.

Of course, i know you guys respect the players of the past. Also, I agree it is difficult to rate players of the past. However, as Kyle McMahon mentioned, you can compare based on era dominance.

 

[SLAPSHOT723]

scott stevens (?)

 

[greatgazoo]

Langway did win back to back Norris in 83 & 84 with a combined 65 points! He was probably the best defensive d-man that I saw. Honorable mentions going to:

Ken Morrow
Kevin Lowe
Jamie Macoun
Scott Stevens
Adam Foote
Vlad Konstantinov

 

[canucks4ever]

Ulf Samuelsson, he literally stopped Cam Neely and Brian Bellows from scoring, lol. If I was a coach, i would love to have him on my blueline.

 

[Koivu84*]

Ulf Samuelsson, he literally ended Cam Neely's career

fixed

 

[Dark Shadows]

Ulf Samuelsson, he literally stopped Cam Neely and Brian Bellows from scoring, lol. If I was a coach, i would love to have him on my blueline.

lol. Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

Samuelsson was incapable of cleanly stopping Cam Neely from scoring. That is why he always targeted Cam's legs. Samuelsson was a decent Defensive Dman, but he always prepared himself for intentional knee contact, wore metal pads(Hence the nickname robocop) and it never hurt him. Had they been accidental knees, it would have hurt him just as much.

If I recall Correctly, he took a knee on knee at Bellows too in the same cup run, but Bellows went down, resulting in a penalty and he scored on the same powerplay.