Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[tarheelhockey]

ok. if we use your numbers this means Lidström scores 75% of what bourque scores per game while playing roughly 78% of what Bourque plays per game (using 7,5 minutes more) in the regular season. this in a much lower scoring era. this while also playing less PP than Bourque. I don´t think this makes sense. doesn´t these numbers suggest that Bourque was not that much more dangerous (pointswise) when on the ice?

But again there is the matter of both players getting most of their points through assists -- one in a supporting role on an offensive powerhouse, the other as the sole star of a team that was only occasionally a contender.

We can adjust the numbers to high heaven, but it balances out in the end.

 

[pluppe]

Lidstrom plays a supporting offense game as opposed to a creating offense game. This I already covered. I don"t see any team leading offensive finishes on Lidstrom's resume. Nor can I remember a time I saw an opposing coach double cover Lidstrom the way coaches double covered Bourque simply because he was the largest threat to score and create offense on the ice.

Lidstrom's transition game and ability to make the first pass after retrieving the puck is amazing. It does create offense in amazing ways. But it it not what I am getting at when I say "creating offense". And playing that particular style requires, well, teammates and options to pass to that will lead to offense.

I will question this a little since it is something that is brought up once in a while. If this was the case should it not be quantifiable in some way. I´m not saying that it´s not true but I would like some "proof" if you will. if this is true I would guess Bourque would have a higher ratio of first assists. does anybody have these stats?

I think it also is used in the Lemieux Gretzky debates. Lemieux looks better and rushes better. Gretzky lets his vision do the job and passes the puck. if the result is the same, why pick one way of playing over the other.

Bourque should also have a higher ratio of goals. this is true and he does. but he doesn´t in the playoffs. did he stop creating then. my guess is that it has to to with the things you say. teams zooming in on him but you could argue that this is a tactic that would not work against Lidström since he has that calm first pass speciality.

sure part of his troubles were that his teammates were worse but saying that there were no options that he could pass to for offence is almost disrespectful to his teammates.

and you can´t both say Bourque had to do it all and was focused on more because of much worse teammates and at the same time give him credit for leading his team more in points than Lidström.

 

[Rhiessan71]

and at what point will you understand that Lidström plays in a system era and Bourque did not. No defenceman today is allowed to do things that Orr, Potvin, Bourque did. Coaches just won't allow it. Lidström, Niedermeyer, Keith, Weber, Chara, hell even lessers like Tverdovsky and Visnovsky has shown that they are very good at rushing the puck end-to-end and score. They are all victims of an era that doesnt allow them to do it. Of course to different extent, I'm not saying Tverdovsky is equal to the all time greats.

and before you say that Bouque did it after the high scoring era. Well, would you really want to be the coach that tells Bourque to not play the way he always played?

Funny, I seem to recall Lidstrom coming into the league in '91, when D-men DID still rush the puck a lot more and I don't remember Lidstrom doing it then either.

So basically you want to impose a restriction on Bourque that changes the way he plays the game, while that restriction has no effect on Lidstrom at all because that's the way he plays in the first place.

By all means though, lets continue to heap the praises on Lidstrom for playing to his "era's" strength while criticizing Bourque for doing the same

And seriously, at what point does it sink that they played in the league at the same time for a full decade!

 

[Fredrik_71]

and at what point will you understand that Lidström plays in a system era and Bourque did not. No defenceman today is allowed to do things that Orr, Potvin, Bourque did. Coaches just won't allow it. Lidström, Niedermeyer, Keith, Weber, Chara, hell even lessers like Tverdovsky and Visnovsky has shown that they are very good at rushing the puck end-to-end and score. They are all victims of an era that doesnt allow them to do it. Of course to different extent, I'm not saying Tverdovsky is equal to the all time greats.

and before you say that Bouque did it after the high scoring era. Well, would you really want to be the coach that tells Bourque to not play the way he always played?

This is a valid point in my opinion. We will never see another Orr or Gretzky simply because hockey has changed. Teams playing the trap has shown that with less you can do more.

Lids was never a rushing d-man simply because he doesn't have the wheels for it. His greatest strength is his hockey IQ which is on par with the greatest ever. I think Lids could probably have had way more points but I think the aim for the Red Wings is not allowing goals to a bigger extent. His ridiculous +/- stats are a testament to that.

/Cheers

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

and at what point will you understand that Lidström plays in a system era and Bourque did not. No defenceman today is allowed to do things that Orr, Potvin, Bourque did. Coaches just won't allow it. Lidström, Niedermeyer, Keith, Weber, Chara, hell even lessers like Tverdovsky and Visnovsky has shown that they are very good at rushing the puck end-to-end and score. They are all victims of an era that doesnt allow them to do it. Of course to different extent, I'm not saying Tverdovsky is equal to the all time greats.

and before you say that Bouque did it after the high scoring era. Well, would you really want to be the coach that tells Bourque to not play the way he always played?

This is a very interesting point. I think it will take us a few years after he retires to really place Lidstrom in a historical context. If we go a decade after Lidstrom retires and nobody comes close to his dominance, well, there's a good case that your theory is correct. Look at how much Jagr's stock has risen in recent years when we realize just how special it was for him to win 5 Art Rosses, now that nobody can even win 2.

 

[overpass]

Erik Karlsson has the green light to go in Ottawa. He's not playing "within" a system, he is the system. He's the single biggest reason Ottawa has gone from one of the lowest scoring teams in the league to one of the highest scoring teams.

We'll see if Karlsson keeps it up or goes wherever Mike Green went, but I think he's a good counterexample to the idea that it's impossible for d-men to be offensive catalysts in today's NHL.

Although you could argue that Karlsson couldn't have done what he's doing now in the dead puck era.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

and at what point will you understand that Lidström plays in a system era and Bourque did not. No defenceman today is allowed to do things that Orr, Potvin, Bourque did. Coaches just won't allow it. Lidström, Niedermeyer, Keith, Weber, Chara, hell even lessers like Tverdovsky and Visnovsky has shown that they are very good at rushing the puck end-to-end and score. They are all victims of an era that doesnt allow them to do it. Of course to different extent, I'm not saying Tverdovsky is equal to the all time greats.

and before you say that Bouque did it after the high scoring era. Well, would you really want to be the coach that tells Bourque to not play the way he always played?

I think a lot of people have the misconception that Bourque was all over the ice, rushing from one end to the other. That was Orr, not Bourque. Bourque really did not rush the puck much. Mainly when his team was down in the 3rd period, but for most of his career he pretty much used the outlet pass like Lidstrom from his own zone.

As for Chara, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen him score on an end-to-end rush in his years in Boston.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This is a very interesting point. I think it will take us a few years after he retires to really place Lidstrom in a historical context. If we go a decade after Lidstrom retires and nobody comes close to his dominance, well, there's a good case that your theory is correct. Look at how much Jagr's stock has risen in recent years when we realize just how special it was for him to win 5 Art Rosses, now that nobody can even win 2.

We are already seeing it though. If you open your eyes.
Karlsson, only 22, is well on his way to dwarfing Lidstrom's offense totals over the last decade and is already more creative and more dangerous than Lidstrom was even at his absolute peak.
Shea Weber is just turning 27 and you would have a hard time picking Lidstrom's first 5 years over Weber's first 5 years.
Not to mention his partner Suter, a Lidstrom clone in the making for sure and he's only 22 and already getting recognition.
Don't forget about Doughty either. Yes, he took a step back after breaking in with such a splash but he's still only 22, still a very good hockey player and still getting better.

Quite frankly I'm glad too because the previous 10 years have been dreary time for d-men in the NHL.

And don't forget, what happens in the next decade or so could also drop Lidstrom in the rankings. What happens if this Karlsson kid puts up a PpG or better over that time while playing solid defense?
We shall have to see.

I'm sorry but if Lidstrom is the pinnacle of what an offensive D-man is today, we're in a sorry state folks. We're talking about a guy plays defense first like a religion, only really produces on the PP or from outlet passes and rarely does anything out of, lets face it, a fairly limited offensive comfort zone.
That is a defensive D-man that can run a PP and make good lead passes, that is NOT an offensive D-man.
A good offensive D-man is a guy that thinks offense first but doesn't neglect his defensive responsibilities, not the other way around.

I think a lot of people have the misconception that Bourque was all over the ice, rushing from one end to the other. That was Orr, not Bourque. Bourque really did not rush the puck much. Mainly when his team was down in the 3rd period, but for most of his career he pretty much used the outlet pass like Lidstrom from his own zone.

As for Chara, I'm pretty sure I haven't seen him score on an end-to-end rush in his years in Boston.

And don't forget it's not just about rushing the puck, it's also about pinching, holding the line and imo most importantly, getting your shot on net through traffic of which I don't think I have seen better than Bourque at how and when to do any of that successfully and with the least risk. Well, with the exception of holding the line, Larry Murphy was prolly the best I ever saw at that particular task.

Even with Orr, it wasn't always about rushing the puck, it was more about puck control. Orr had no issue with making like he was going to rush, backing the entire other team into their own zone and then casually turning around and skating back to his own. He was famous for doing it shorthanded but he did it at even strength quite regularly as well.

Like I have said previously, there's more to being classified as an actual offensive d-man then just running a PP and making good outlet passes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

We are already seeing it though. If you open your eyes.
Karlsson, only 22, is well on his way to dwarfing Lidstrom's offense totals over the last decade and is already more creative and more dangerous than Lidstrom was even at his absolute peak.
Shea Weber is just turning 27 and you would have a hard time picking Lidstrom's first 5 years over Weber's first 5 years.
Not to mention his partner Suter, a Lidstrom clone in the making for sure and he's only 22 and already getting recognition.
Don't forget about Doughty either. Yes, he took a step back after breaking in with such a splash but he's still only 22, still a very good hockey player and still getting better.

Quite frankly I'm glad too because the previous 10 years have been dreary time for d-men in the NHL.

And don't forget, what happens in the next decade or so could also drop Lidstrom in the rankings. What happens if this Karlsson kid puts up a PpG or better over that time while playing solid defense?
We shall have to see.



And don't forget it's not just about rushing the puck, it's also about pinching, holding the line and imo most importantly, getting your shot on net through traffic of which I don't think I have seen better than Bourque at how and when to do any of that successfully and with the least risk. Well, with the exception of holding the line, Larry Murphy was prolly the best I ever saw at that particular task.

Even with Orr, it wasn't always about rushing the puck, it was more about puck control. Orr had no issue with making like he was going to rush, backing the entire other team into their own zone and then casually turning around and skating back to his own. He was famous for doing it shorthanded but he did it at even strength quite regularly as well.

Like I have said previously, there's more to being classified as an actual offensive d-man then just running a PP and making good outlet passes.

If Karlsson maintains his level of offense for 10 years, while improving his defense, we'll talk. It's definitely possible. But it's also possible he's another Phaneuf.

Weber hasn't even reached Lidstrom's level of offense, let alone surpassed it.

 

[Rhiessan71]

If Karlsson maintains his level of offense for 10 years, while improving his defense, we'll talk. It's definitely possible. But it's also possible he's another Phaneuf.

Weber hasn't even reached Lidstrom's level of offense, let alone surpassed it.

Weber is only 27, the exact same age that Lidstrom broke out.
And you're not seriously going to make ME break out the adjusted stats to show how many points Lidstrom "really" has in comparison to Weber in their first 5 years are ya?
It's about a 30 point difference total and that's with adjusted stats giving Lidstrom credit for a full season in '95 while Weber gets hurt by his injuries in 07/08.
And Weber has 22 more goals in those 5 years than Lidstrom.

So I say again, are their first 5 seasons really that far apart if much at all?

On top of it all, an argument could also be made that Weber in his first 5 years was better defensively than Lidstrom was in his first 5


Time will definitely tell.

 

[thehangover]

We are already seeing it though. If you open your eyes.
Karlsson, only 22, is well on his way to dwarfing Lidstrom's offense totals over the last decade and is already more creative and more dangerous than Lidstrom was even at his absolute peak.
Shea Weber is just turning 27 and you would have a hard time picking Lidstrom's first 5 years over Weber's first 5 years.
Not to mention his partner Suter, a Lidstrom clone in the making for sure and he's only 22 and already getting recognition.
Don't forget about Doughty either. Yes, he took a step back after breaking in with such a splash but he's still only 22, still a very good hockey player and still getting better.

Quite frankly I'm glad too because the previous 10 years have been dreary time for d-men in the NHL.

And don't forget, what happens in the next decade or so could also drop Lidstrom in the rankings. What happens if this Karlsson kid puts up a PpG or better over that time while playing solid defense?
We shall have to see.

I'm sorry but if Lidstrom is the pinnacle of what an offensive D-man is today, we're in a sorry state folks. We're talking about a guy plays defense first like a religion, only really produces on the PP or from outlet passes and rarely does anything out of, lets face it, a fairly limited offensive comfort zone.
That is a defensive D-man that can run a PP and make good lead passes, that is NOT an offensive D-man.
A good offensive D-man is a guy that thinks offense first but doesn't neglect his defensive responsibilities, not the other way around.



And don't forget it's not just about rushing the puck, it's also about pinching, holding the line and imo most importantly, getting your shot on net through traffic of which I don't think I have seen better than Bourque at how and when to do any of that successfully and with the least risk. Well, with the exception of holding the line, Larry Murphy was prolly the best I ever saw at that particular task.

Even with Orr, it wasn't always about rushing the puck, it was more about puck control. Orr had no issue with making like he was going to rush, backing the entire other team into their own zone and then casually turning around and skating back to his own. He was famous for doing it shorthanded but he did it at even strength quite regularly as well.

Like I have said previously, there's more to being classified as an actual offensive d-man then just running a PP and making good outlet passes.

Actually, Ryan Suter turns 27 this very day.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Weber is only 27, the exact same age that Lidstrom broke out.
And you're not seriously going to make ME break out the adjusted stats to show how many points Lidstrom "really" has in comparison to Weber in their first 5 years are ya?
It's about a 30 point difference total and that's with adjusted stats giving Lidstrom credit for a full season in '95 while Weber gets hurt by his injuries in 07/08.
And Weber has 22 more goals in those 5 years than Lidstrom.

So I say again, are their first 5 seasons really that far apart if much at all?

On top of it all, an argument could also be made that Weber in his first 5 years was better defensively than Lidstrom was in his first 5


Time will definitely tell.

At this point, I have to think you're about the only one who cares this much about Lidstrom's first five years. Weber has a long way to go to reach the level that Lidstrom maintained for over a decade.

 

[Rhiessan71]

At this point, I have to think you're about the only one who cares this much about Lidstrom's first five years. Weber has a long way to go to reach the level that Lidstrom maintained for over a decade.

And why shouldn't I?
It's an absolutely HUGE point in Bourque's favour over Lidstrom and by HUGE I mean monumental.

Then with Weber, you're perfectly fine playing down Weber's accomplishments and place in the league in his first 5 1/2 years compared to Lidstrom now but fail to mention how Lidstrom was no further ahead at the same point in his career.

In either case, neither player is even on the same planet as Bourque after 5 years and Bourque has another 17 more to go, Lidstrom 15.

It's funny though, if, like you suggest, that if Weber is able to get to and maintain the same kind of level over the next decade that Lidstrom did, Weber will be right there with him but still be far behind Bourque.
How does that work exactly?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's funny though, if, like you suggest, that if Weber is able to get to and maintain the same kind of level over the next decade that Lidstrom did, Weber will be right there with him but still be far behind Bourque.
How does that work exactly?

That's an awfull big "if."

 

[Rhiessan71]

That's an awfull big "if."

Never said it wasn't and I thought we were kind of playing the "what if" game when you said what happens in the next decade after Lidstrom retires would determine his final legacy.

At least right now we have some players showing they might have the potential to match Lidstrom. That's a hell of a lot better than what we were looking at 10 years ago when Lidstrom ruled the roost pretty much uncontested with little or no competition on the horizon.


Oh and answer me this, if, as you say, that Weber has a long way to go before reaching Lidstrom's level, then how come he came within a few votes of winning the Norris over him last year?
How exactly does that jive with your previous statement that you still consider Lidstrom an elite D-man?
Is Weber an elite D-man or not?

 

[Hardyvan123]

We are already seeing it though. If you open your eyes.
Karlsson, only 22, is well on his way to dwarfing Lidstrom's offense totals over the last decade and is already more creative and more dangerous than Lidstrom was even at his absolute peak.
Shea Weber is just turning 27 and you would have a hard time picking Lidstrom's first 5 years over Weber's first 5 years.
Not to mention his partner Suter, a Lidstrom clone in the making for sure and he's only 22 and already getting recognition.
Don't forget about Doughty either. Yes, he took a step back after breaking in with such a splash but he's still only 22, still a very good hockey player and still getting better.

Quite frankly I'm glad too because the previous 10 years have been dreary time for d-men in the NHL.

And don't forget, what happens in the next decade or so could also drop Lidstrom in the rankings. What happens if this Karlsson kid puts up a PpG or better over that time while playing solid defense?
We shall have to see.

I'm sorry but if Lidstrom is the pinnacle of what an offensive D-man is today, we're in a sorry state folks. We're talking about a guy plays defense first like a religion, only really produces on the PP or from outlet passes and rarely does anything out of, lets face it, a fairly limited offensive comfort zone.
That is a defensive D-man that can run a PP and make good lead passes, that is NOT an offensive D-man.
A good offensive D-man is a guy that thinks offense first but doesn't neglect his defensive responsibilities, not the other way around.



And don't forget it's not just about rushing the puck, it's also about pinching, holding the line and imo most importantly, getting your shot on net through traffic of which I don't think I have seen better than Bourque at how and when to do any of that successfully and with the least risk. Well, with the exception of holding the line, Larry Murphy was prolly the best I ever saw at that particular task.

Even with Orr, it wasn't always about rushing the puck, it was more about puck control. Orr had no issue with making like he was going to rush, backing the entire other team into their own zone and then casually turning around and skating back to his own. He was famous for doing it shorthanded but he did it at even strength quite regularly as well.

Like I have said previously, there's more to being classified as an actual offensive d-man then just running a PP and making good outlet passes.

I agree with TDMM here on Karlsson, lets see how he develops and if any defensive game comes into play with him.

As for Weber's 1st 5 years I'll take Lidstrom's hands down and even if you don't include Weber's 28 game stint in his rookie season and count the next 5 seasons it's still Lidstrom.

No idea on what metric you are choosing Weber over Lidstrom unless it's the Don Cherry metric.

Suter is a very good under rated player and we will see how he develops as well. ditto for Doughty who oozes potential but since his rookie year hasn't developed to the type of player that some think that he can be...time will tell

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh and answer me this, if, as you say, that Weber has a long way to go before reaching Lidstrom's level, then how come he came within a few votes of winning the Norris over him last year?
How exactly does that jive with your previous statement that you still consider Lidstrom an elite D-man?
Is Weber an elite D-man or not?

Yes, Weber is an elite dman.
No, he is not as good as Lidstrom was a few years ago.
Yes, in the best season of Weber's career (so far), he was the equal to a Nicklas Lidstrom who had lost a step, but was still elite.
Yes, the fact that Lidstrom could lose a step and still be among the league's elite shows just how dominant he used to be.

 

[Hardyvan123]

And why shouldn't I?
It's an absolutely HUGE point in Bourque's favour over Lidstrom and by HUGE I mean monumental.

Then with Weber, you're perfectly fine playing down Weber's accomplishments and place in the league in his first 5 1/2 years compared to Lidstrom now but fail to mention how Lidstrom was no further ahead at the same point in his career.

In either case, neither player is even on the same planet as Bourque after 5 years and Bourque has another 17 more to go, Lidstrom 15.

It's funny though, if, like you suggest, that if Weber is able to get to and maintain the same kind of level over the next decade that Lidstrom did, Weber will be right there with him but still be far behind Bourque.
How does that work exactly?

You can try to downplay Lidstrom 1st 5 years all you want but they were still very good to excellent seasons.

In fact, I bet you would be hard pressed to name me 10 guys who had better 1st 5 years than Lidstrom did, keeping Bourque and Orr out of the equation. and let's look at actual play and not just take the easy way out and start counting all star selections in weak eras or something.

And that's his 1st 5 season, never mind all that he did after that.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You can try to downplay Lidstrom 1st 5 years all you want but they were still very good to excellent seasons.

In fact, I bet you would be hard pressed to name me 10 guys who had better 1st 5 years than Lidstrom did, keeping Bourque and Orr out of the equation. and let's look at actual play and not just take the easy way out and start counting all star selections in weak eras or something.

And that's his 1st 5 season, never mind all that he did after that.

Remind me again the name of this thread

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yes, Weber is an elite dman.
No, he is not as good as Lidstrom was a few years ago.
Yes, in the best season of Weber's career (so far), he was the equal to a Nicklas Lidstrom who had lost a step, but was still elite.
Yes, the fact that Lidstrom could lose a step and still be among the league's elite shows just how dominant he used to be.

So by that very same criteria, Bourque was still elite in 2001 then right?

Like I said before, you and I have different meanings to the word Elite.
I have it more of a you are or you aren't and you seem to have this whole Elite-A, Elite-B, Elite-C thing going on.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So by that very same criteria, Bourque was still elite in 2001 then right?

No. Bourque had a comeback season in 2001 after several years of declining play, when he was still very good but not among the league's elite. So sure, Bourque was elite in 2001. But he wasn't "still" elite.

I already went over this. Feel free to disagree, but it's pointless having a conversation if you keep making me repeat myself.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No. Bourque had a comeback season in 2001 after several years of declining play, when he was still very good but not among the league's elite. So sure, Bourque was elite in 2001. But he wasn't "still" elite.

I already went over this. Feel free to disagree, but it's pointless having a conversation if you keep making me repeat myself.

But this is the thing I don't understand. If you consider Bourque's 98/99 and 99/00 years as on the decline and not elite.
What is the difference between those years for Bourque and Lidstrom's last 2 years???
They are both in decline and both are playing about the same level in those years.

The only difference is that there were guys like Lidstrom, like Leetch, like MacInnis, like Pronger, like Blake to take advantage of Bourque's declining play.
That is NOT the case now.
Lidstrom is elite by default not because of his level of play, which is noticeably lower than 5 and 10 years ago.

 

[thehangover]

But this is the thing I don't understand. If you consider Bourque's 98/99 and 99/00 years as on the decline and not elite.
What is the difference between those years for Bourque and Lidstrom's last 2 years???
They are both in decline and both are playing about the same level in those years.

The only difference is that there were guys like Lidstrom, like Leetch, like MacInnis, like Pronger, like Blake to take advantage of Bourque's declining play.
That is NOT the case now.

We don't know were guys like Suter, Weber, Keith, Chara will end up when summing their careers later on. If you looked at those name you are listing at that time I think they seem quite a bit less impressive than they do now.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But this is the thing I don't understand. If you consider Bourque's 98/99 and 99/00 years as on the decline and not elite.
What is the difference between those years for Bourque and Lidstrom's last 2 years???
They are both in decline and both are playing about the same level in those years.

The only difference is that there were guys like Lidstrom, like Leetch, like MacInnis, like Pronger, like Blake to take advantage of Bourque's declining play.
That is NOT the case now.
Lidstrom is elite by default not because of his level of play, which is noticeably lower than 5 and 10 years ago.

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Remind me again the name of this thread

ok name 10 other guys than bourque or Orr it's jsut a question heck there should be 50 guys since lidstrom wasn't that good in his 1st 5 years.

Actually Lidstrom was a damn fine player in his 1st 5 years finishing 9th in Dman scoring |(first on his team by a full 26 points over the next 2 Dmen, not to mention a high of plus 36 from Dmen. To be sure Konstantinov had the harder assignments but Lidstrom was already excellent defensively and played quite a bit on the PK as well right from the start).

Some of his 1st 5 seasons can be overlooked by a slight sophomore blip and then the offensive addition of Coffey and the strong defensive play by Vlad but one can make an extremely strong argument that Lidstrom was the best 2 way Dman in Detroit during that time period in both the regular season and playoffs.

Lidstrom showed what he could do offensively in his rookie season and his stats would have been greater if not for the wings getting Coffey for that specific purpose. so the better supporting cast argument actually hurts Lidstrom in this regard for his 1st 5 years, outside of his rookie season.

Feel free to carry on that Lidstrom was some average to slightly above average Dmen during his 1st 5 years, the evidence doesn't support your argument.

In Lidstrom's 1st 5 seasons he was 11th in Dman scoring and look at some of the stud guys ahead of him in their primes or peaks

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

Just for reference he is 2nd in plus/minus, and 7th in PS (just relax TDMM, it's for reference purposes, we know he was playing quality minutes back then).

People who saw him play in Detroit knew what a great young player he was back then and it took the league a while to figure out that while his style was different he was an excellent Dman who later had a huge run on greatness.