Bourque vs Lidstrom: Who's better and why

[Hardyvan123]

I went back and read thsoe 3 quotes and Cynthia Lambert in 94 wites about Lidstrom's stick checks, perhaps she is more of a don cherry fan of defesnemand, perhaps soemone in detroit with a breadth of knowlegde on her writing s could elberate.

The 2nd writer talking specifically about the playoffs, John Niyo writes that "The first-year All-Star was, at times, awful in the playoffs, particularly against Colorado. The pairing of Lidstrom and Coffey does nothing defensively. He has learned plenty of tricks from Fetisov and Coffey (particularly on the power play) and now needs to establish himself as a leader, in addition to shoring up the play in his own end. He and Konstantinov are the two closest things to an untouchable on defense for Detroit.

Why would a guy that does nothing defensively be on anyone's untouchable list?

Was this article written in the heat of an emotional loss.

Lidstrom was a plus 2 in those playoffs and Coffey a minus 3 but they were both equally at fault defensively?

Did Nik scramble to the bench 5 times to leave Coffey hanging with the minus or what?

Mitch Albom chips in as well

"So they followed the playoff textbook, went with muscle over finesse, and in the end, the Wings did indeed do themselves in. Who has to answer for this? Certainly Scotty Bowman[/B], who seems to devise wonderful finesse teams that can't tough it out to the finish line. Certainly Fedorov, who should study guys like Sakic, and realize that Cups mean more than trophies. Certainly Keith Primeau, who was in a terrible slump, and Slava Fetisov, who often specialized in turnovers, and Paul Coffey and Nicklas Lidstrom , who are wonderful offensive threats, but often seem to be defensive liabilities.

What is Mitch trying to say here and it's interesting the order he lists the blame at.

Bowman tops the list (and we all know his level of success before that), then Federov, Primeau, Fatisov and then Coffey and Lidstrom who often seem to be defensive liabilities now either Lidstrom is a defensive liability or he isn't, or perhaps he is talking about the pairing of Coffey and Lidstrom.

I mean the 4 previous guys he mentions as individuals why the last two together?

But I guess if one wants to infer something then one can, can't they?

My guess is that these 3 writers if asked at that time and not in the future if Lidstrom and Coffey were on the same level defensively they would all have answered no it's not close Nik is way better. I don't need any quotes to back my opinion of that up, it's the way I saw it unfold in the early part of Nik's career and it's backed by alot of evidence (refer back to my link of how he stacked up in those 1st 5 years with those other guys).

The 3 articles quoted are talking in a specific time and place and I'm not sure how much thought, or serious reflection, was put into those articles and they are not directly comparing Coffey and Lidstrom defensively anywhere.

 

[Hardyvan123]

LMAO.

Do you even know who she is?

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/cynthia-lambert-nehr/13/232/b38

It's funny how much better defensively Lidstrom looked just one year later against Lindros and the legion of Doom.

What Coffey wasn't there, it must have been the defensive awareness of Murphy that helped him right?

Why isn't Murphy getting ranked higher?

Or maybe he really was pretty good the year before and the writers were wrong in their heat of the moment speculation.

Good thing Bourque actually won the cup the only year it was expected of him.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You certainly are backing away from your earlier inference on the matter.

By all means, look up my previous posts on the same articles, I have never changed my view of them, not there and not here.

You're the one inferring a meaning out of my post that I never put there.
The article mentions them in the same breath and I have even gone on record (even before this thread) as saying I do not believe that is fair to Lidstrom but the cogitation is there none the less.

The entire point of even mentioning it at all was not to show that Lidstrom was as bad defensively as Coffey. It was to show that he was NOT the defensive phenom then that he would become LATER.

It was to deflate any revisionist bull**** to project a 1999 and later Lidstrom onto the 1996 and earlier Lidstrom.

You can overblow what meaning YOU think I was implying but the actual point I was making is valid and still stands.

 

[tarheelhockey]

I'll ask tarheelhockey the same question as you R71, name the season where Coffey is better than Lidstrom defensively?

I've already said I don't think that Lidstrom was as much of a one-way player as Coffey in '96. I watched the Wings quite closely at the time. Coffey's defensive ineptitude left a strong impression on everyone.

My issue is with the implication that Lidstrom was already in Norris form in those seasons. He wasn't, plain and simple. He grew and developed over a number of years, and arrived as a Norris quality player later.

The constant denial of that growing process, even when presented with direct contemporary evidence from Detroit beat writers, is disturbing in my opinion.

 

[toob]

I mean i agree with the general point being made about Lidstrom really becoming consistently elite defensively after Konstantinov's accident but i hope you guys realize that the 96 playoffs was one of the times that Lids was playing a more offensive role on purpose. I even noted it as one of the times Lids was playing more aggressive offensively in response to a request for examples for that sort of thing...

One of the main reasons why the Wings needed more offense from Coffey and Lidstrom is because the team as a whole except Yzerman was massively underachieving so especially when Stevie gets hurt right at the beginning of the series the slack needs to be picked up. Fedorov was (somewhat unfairly) very harshly criticized the entire playoff run for his lack of production and at least he got going in game 3 when put alongside Stevie. So when Stevie is hurt and Feds is having trouble (really getting unlucky) offensively and Primeau isnt even doing anything you will need to compensate from somewhere.

Also you do have to blame Coffey more for the bad defense of the pairing though you also have to be fair and praise him more for the good offense.

 

[Hardyvan123]

By all means, look up my previous posts on the same articles, I have never changed my view of them, not there and not here.

You're the one inferring a meaning out of my post that I never put there.
The article mentions them in the same breath and I have even gone on record (even before this thread) as saying I do not believe that is fair to Lidstrom but the cogitation is there none the less.

The entire point of even mentioning it at all was not to show that Lidstrom was as bad defensively as Coffey. It was to show that he was NOT the defensive phenom then that he would become LATER.

It was to deflate any revisionist bull**** to project a 1999 and later Lidstrom onto the 1996 and earlier Lidstrom.

You can overblow what meaning YOU think I was implying but the actual point I was making is valid and still stands.

Read below, he answers clearly

I've already said I don't think that Lidstrom was as much of a one-way player as Coffey in '96. I watched the Wings quite closely at the time. Coffey's defensive ineptitude left a strong impression on everyone.

My issue is with the implication that Lidstrom was already in Norris form in those seasons. He wasn't, plain and simple. He grew and developed over a number of years, and arrived as a Norris quality player later.

The constant denial of that growing process, even when presented with direct contemporary evidence from Detroit beat writers, is disturbing in my opinion.

While other might suggest that he was Norris worthy, I don't believe he was either until after 98ish.

What he was though was in the top 5-10 range as early as 95 and that means he was still very very good considering the guys ahead of him at that time and where they were in their careers.

I don't buy the anti Swedish argument but his style of play was definitely harder for voters to come around to than Konstanitinov's for instance.

His 1st 5 seasons are extremely impressive for a Dman IMO.

Part of the gap between Bourque's 1st 5 seasosns and Lidstrom's can be explained by the weaker overall pool of talent for Dmen and their health and age status when Bourque broke in.

I covered that area in an earlier post.

 

[BraveCanadian]

*Update for Hardy*

I went and found the thread in question for you because I like doing research.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=39214669#post39214669

All credit to Tarheel for finding and presenting it all in the first place.




...you were saying Hardy?

Clearly, that while Lidstrom is being recognized as having a lot of potential, he IS NOT the player then that he would become and still had a lot to work on first.

Revisionism....the door is that way----->

Except that the same author praises him by age 25, too:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=39224887&postcount=241

Lidstrom was a upper level all around defender by ~ Jan '96 @ age 25 if we are believing tarheel's own source - just an underappreciated one.

 

[danincanada]

I went back and read thsoe 3 quotes and Cynthia Lambert in 94 wites about Lidstrom's stick checks, perhaps she is more of a don cherry fan of defesnemand, perhaps soemone in detroit with a breadth of knowlegde on her writing s could elberate.

The 2nd writer talking specifically about the playoffs, John Niyo writes that "The first-year All-Star was, at times, awful in the playoffs, particularly against Colorado. The pairing of Lidstrom and Coffey does nothing defensively. He has learned plenty of tricks from Fetisov and Coffey (particularly on the power play) and now needs to establish himself as a leader, in addition to shoring up the play in his own end. He and Konstantinov are the two closest things to an untouchable on defense for Detroit.

Why would a guy that does nothing defensively be on anyone's untouchable list?

Was this article written in the heat of an emotional loss.

Lidstrom was a plus 2 in those playoffs and Coffey a minus 3 but they were both equally at fault defensively?

Did Nik scramble to the bench 5 times to leave Coffey hanging with the minus or what?

Mitch Albom chips in as well

"So they followed the playoff textbook, went with muscle over finesse, and in the end, the Wings did indeed do themselves in. Who has to answer for this? Certainly Scotty Bowman[/B], who seems to devise wonderful finesse teams that can't tough it out to the finish line. Certainly Fedorov, who should study guys like Sakic, and realize that Cups mean more than trophies. Certainly Keith Primeau, who was in a terrible slump, and Slava Fetisov, who often specialized in turnovers, and Paul Coffey and Nicklas Lidstrom , who are wonderful offensive threats, but often seem to be defensive liabilities.

What is Mitch trying to say here and it's interesting the order he lists the blame at.

Bowman tops the list (and we all know his level of success before that), then Federov, Primeau, Fatisov and then Coffey and Lidstrom who often seem to be defensive liabilities now either Lidstrom is a defensive liability or he isn't, or perhaps he is talking about the pairing of Coffey and Lidstrom.

I mean the 4 previous guys he mentions as individuals why the last two together?

But I guess if one wants to infer something then one can, can't they?

My guess is that these 3 writers if asked at that time and not in the future if Lidstrom and Coffey were on the same level defensively they would all have answered no it's not close Nik is way better. I don't need any quotes to back my opinion of that up, it's the way I saw it unfold in the early part of Nik's career and it's backed by alot of evidence (refer back to my link of how he stacked up in those 1st 5 years with those other guys).

The 3 articles quoted are talking in a specific time and place and I'm not sure how much thought, or serious reflection, was put into those articles and they are not directly comparing Coffey and Lidstrom defensively anywhere.

In those articles they are bashing the whole team - even Bowman and Fedorov. You have to realize the disappointment in Detroit at that time. They got swept in the finals against the Devils in '95 then went on to have one of the greatest seasons of all-time in '96, only to run into Roy and the Avalanche in the WCF. The media was even questioning Yzerman's leadership skills back then because they couldn't get the job done. Should we hold this against Yzerman's career?? It was never fair to the Red Wings skaters IMO because they never had a superstar goalie to back them up like a Brodeur or Roy. They really had to dominate games and hope Vernon/Osgood would rise to the occasion in order to win.

Lidstrom didn't suddenly flip a switch and become a great shut-down D in '97. It was there all along...maybe it needed some refinement but Coffey was obviously the main problem in Bowman's eyes. Afterall, he was shipped out just months after those articles were written and then they went on to win in '97 with Lidstrom as their #1 guy on the back end. I don't think it could be any clearer than that because we saw what happened with Coffey gone and Lidstrom as their go to guy.

I'm sensing some real desperation to take Lidstrom down a notch here.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I just don't see him belonging in the company of the others. When I see people place him among them, I can't help but feel that people are just shoe-horning a defenseman in there - just to have a defenseman. And that's just one defenseman of the four who receives an All-Star Selection spot each season at the end of Lidstrom's career. Chara is to old Lidstrom what young Lidstrom was to 1998/2000 Ray Bourque. Is there an equivalent of a Stevens, MacInnis, Blake, Niedermayer, Chelios, or Pronger fighting for those spots against old Lidstrom the way they did against old Bourque? Not really.

Even though Chara is the captain of my Bruins and I love the leader he has become, I have to agree with this.

 

[tarheelhockey]

The media was even questioning Yzerman's leadership skills back then because they couldn't get the job done. Should we hold this against Yzerman's career??

Of course we should. Why wouldn't we?

Lidstrom didn't suddenly flip a switch and become a great shut-down D in '97. It was there all along...maybe it needed some refinement

An appropriate way to characterize Lidstrom's early seasons is that he began as an offensive prodigy, developed a strong defensive game beside Coffey, and beside Murphy he filled out as a true #1, all-situations player. Between 97-99 he developed from a good #1 into an elite, Norris-winning type.

 

[toob]

Of course we should. Why wouldn't we?

Because we dont look at things in a ridiculously oversimplified fashion just as we dont hold it against Bourque that he couldnt win anything until he went to a powerhouse team and even then he had to wait for an even better defenseman to join in.

An appropriate way to characterize Lidstrom's early seasons is that he began as an offensive prodigy, developed a strong defensive game beside Coffey, and beside Murphy he filled out as a true #1, all-situations player. Between 97-99 he developed from a good #1 into an elite, Norris-winning type.

How does the early season 93 slump fit before Coffey into that narrative? Or the fact that Lidstrom improved both offensively and defensively when Coffey arrived?

 

[danincanada]

Of course we should. Why wouldn't we?

Uh, because Yzerman later proved that he could captain a team to a Cup? Not just 1 actually but 3 and now most consider him one of the better leaders of all-time. That type of thing typically trumps the major question marks the player had early on.

An appropriate way to characterize Lidstrom's early seasons is that he began as an offensive prodigy, developed a strong defensive game beside Coffey, and beside Murphy he filled out as a true #1, all-situations player. Between 97-99 he developed from a good #1 into an elite, Norris-winning type.

You're making this up as you go along now. Lidstrom was very strong defensively as early as his rookie season playing alongside McCrimmon - anyone who watched him closely knew he wasn't just an offensive prodigy like Karlsson is at the moment. He was always very conscious of being good defensively. I recall the Red Wings play by play guys pointing out how Lidstrom would stop a rush or breakaway by tying up the forwards stick without taking a penalty and how he was great at this.

I'm pretty sure Marc Bergevin was paired with Coffey for most of one season ('95-96). I think Lidstrom may have played with Rouse at those times but I can't remember clearly. I don't think Lidstrom developed anymore defensively while playing with Coffey than any of his other early D partners. It was a learning process just like any young defenseman.

By regular season standards sure, '98 could be considered his first Norris worthy one. But his performance in the '97 playoffs was just as note worthy and he really was hidden behind the offensive Coffey and the physical Konstantinov prior to that. Trading Coffey and giving Lidstrom the #1 role (with Konstantinov not far behind) gave him more responsibilities. He flourished with a larger role. After the Konstantinov accident Lidstrom got even more opportunity and took it to another level again. We could even speculate that if he got that opportunity sooner he would have flourished earlier in his career. Bowman sure seemed comfortable making the Coffey trade so he must have had some idea.

Bourque was not a finished product right away either. If he was dominant defensively and anywhere close to Langway then I don't see how they could give Langway those Norris' considering the difference in offense. I still think early 80's NHL was quite a weak product even compared to early 90's NHL just 10 years later. If you watch games from that era there just seems to be a lot of fringe players who were not strong skaters or good puck handlers. This helped Bourque early on while Lidstrom played in what most consider the deepest group of elite defenseman.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Because we dont look at things in a ridiculously oversimplified fashion just as we dont hold it against Bourque that he couldnt win anything until he went to a powerhouse team and even then he had to wait for an even better defenseman to join in.



How does the early season 93 slump fit before Coffey into that narrative? Or the fact that Lidstrom improved both offensively and defensively when Coffey arrived?

Both of the above seem to ignore that players change with time. It's not "ridiculously oversimplified" to say that Yzerman became a great leader late in his career --he was not always that way. If he stops playing in 1996, he is the Joe Thornton of his generation.

Pretending that his later accomplishments are the sum total of his career -- THAT is oversimplified.

Likewise, Lidstrom didn't come into the league as a fully-developed player. Of coure he improved with Coffey... he was in the period when defensemen are supposed to improve. Getting top-pairing minutes and long playoff runs next to a Norris winner will do that. I'm not sure why that would seem like a problem.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Uh, because Yzerman later proved that he could captain a team to a Cup? Not just 1 actually but 3 and now most consider him one of the better leaders of all-time. That type of thing typically trumps the major question marks the player had early on.

Again, the fact that Yzerman LATER matured into a great leader doesn't change his early career. Why would we take the point of view that one event "trumps" another? That's pretty much the definition of revision -- accomplish something tomorrow and we'll pretend yesterday never happened.

You're making this up as you go along now.

I'm really not. This is almost identical to the conversation from 2 months ago.

I don't think Lidstrom developed anymore defensively while playing with Coffey than any of his other early D partners. It was a learning process just like any young defenseman.

Lidstrom filled a very specific role next to Coffey, playing the role of conservative partner and focusing his offense around breakout passes and taking advantage of opportunities on the PP. Doesn't that strike you as being very closely connected to what he later became.

Bourque was not a finished product right away either.

Wasn't implying that he was.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I mean i agree with the general point being made about Lidstrom really becoming consistently elite defensively after Konstantinov's accident but i hope you guys realize that the 96 playoffs was one of the times that Lids was playing a more offensive role on purpose. I even noted it as one of the times Lids was playing more aggressive offensively in response to a request for examples for that sort of thing...

One of the main reasons why the Wings needed more offense from Coffey and Lidstrom is because the team as a whole except Yzerman was massively underachieving so especially when Stevie gets hurt right at the beginning of the series the slack needs to be picked up. Fedorov was (somewhat unfairly) very harshly criticized the entire playoff run for his lack of production and at least he got going in game 3 when put alongside Stevie. So when Stevie is hurt and Feds is having trouble (really getting unlucky) offensively and Primeau isnt even doing anything you will need to compensate from somewhere.

Also you do have to blame Coffey more for the bad defense of the pairing though you also have to be fair and praise him more for the good offense.

Wait, are you asking us to give Lidstrom credit for playing a more offensive role because that is what he was asked to do?

Funny, Bourque was asked and required to play that role for his entire career in Boston and yet it is the first thing picked on by Lidstrom fanboi's in these debates.

Cake and eat it too, much

 

[Lazlo Hollyfeld]

Of course we should. Why wouldn't we?


An appropriate way to characterize Lidstrom's early seasons is that he began as an offensive prodigy, developed a strong defensive game beside Coffey, and beside Murphy he filled out as a true #1, all-situations player. Between 97-99 he developed from a good #1 into an elite, Norris-winning type.

That's a terrible characterization. Think about what you're claiming. Lids was an offensive prodigy, so they paired him with one of the greatest offensive D men of all time? And that's where he learned his exceptional defensive game, from Paul Coffey???

Lidstrom was strong offensively but always had a well rounded game. It was more a function of him adjusting to the north american game and building confidence. He was never some Mike Green-like player that learned to play D.

His hockey IQ is the key to his game and was high when he came into the league. It improved with experience and confidence.


It's a fruitless argument here at hfboards though. Lids will always be ranked behind Bourque here because he's not a physical Canadian player. In the more measured view of hockey history though, I think a lot of you will be disappointed where people place the two.

 

[hcdt]

When is it enough?

Rhiessan71 and Tharheel, both can answer

Do you consider Lidstrom Better than Bourque career value wise if Lidstrom wins 1 more Norris trophy and leads Detroit to very good season and boosts his postseason stats a bit more?

Do you consider Lidstrom better than Bourque career value wise if Lidstrom wins 2 more Norris trophy and leads Detroit to very good 2 seasons and gets 2 great postseasons?

Do you consider Lidstrom bettern than Bourque career value wise if Lidstrom wins 2 or more Norris trophy, Stanley cup and plays 3 more years and practically starts to top all possible defencemen top lists available?

If you answer no to 3 questions atleast i know i dont need to take you anymore seriously but im interested to hear the answers

Also i consider Shore and Harwey to be completely inferior compared to either one of these 2 modern time players so i dont give a s**t about those 2

 

[tarheelhockey]

That's a terrible characterization. Think about what you're claiming. Lids was an offensive prodigy, so they paired him with one of the greatest offensive D men of all time? And that's where he learned his exceptional defensive game, from Paul Coffey???

Gee, it sounds so much more ridiculous when you turn it into a giant strawman.

I'm not in any way saying that Coffey taught him to play D. That's ridiculous. He was placed with Coffey because he had offensive talent, and his role was to be the more conservative partner. THAT is where he developed his game.

Lidstrom was strong offensively but always had a well rounded game. It was more a function of him adjusting to the north american game and building confidence. He was never some Mike Green-like player that learned to play D.

Nobody said he was a Mike Green.

The Red Wings and the Mario/Jagr Pens were by far the highest-octane teams of the past 20 years. It's easy to forget how much the game has changed since then. Lidstrom was a decent defensive player, but it was his offensive skill that nearly won him the Calder and I'm sorry, but denying that the defense developed over a number of years is just outright revisionism.

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I didn't even see the play tonight, but Lidstrom is the best I've ever seen at the bank shot off the boards to a teammate. It's more popular now for other defensemen to do it, but Lidstrom has been doing it for years.

I take Bourque over Lidstrom (by a little bit) myself, but you guys are really bending over backwards to take credit away from Lidstrom.

Edit: On the other hand, I have no idea what that one single play has to do with Lidstrom vs. Bourque, haha.

I find comments like these funny. How many times have you ever seen him do such a thing? Funny how perspective can change things.

I had a good chuckle at the board banking post, thanks. I bet you he called it like a billiards player going cross side too.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Rhiessan71 and Tharheel, both can answer

I don't know if you've picked up on this yet, but I'm not into counting Cups and awards as the definition of career value. Say the Wings won in 95, 96 and 09. Lids would have, what, 7 Cups I think... yet nothing changed about his game. Yet according to "career value", he's supposed to go up in the rankings?

I will say this, I'd see Lidstrom differently if he'd ever done it all by himself. I'm not convinced he could play his style of game in Bourque's situation, having to take risks as the primary offensive force on his team. And if it's Bourque instead of Lidstrom on the early-90s Wings, I think they are a 3- or 4- year dynasty. There's no way Coffey wins a Norris out from under him, that's for sure.

 

[toob]

Wait, are you asking us to give Lidstrom credit for playing a more offensive role because that is what he was asked to do?

Funny, Bourque was asked and required to play that role for his entire career in Boston and yet it is the first thing picked on by Lidstrom fanboi's in these debates.

Cake and eat it too, much

No im not asking anyone to give Lidstrom credit for anything im pointing out why he was playing more offensively in that playoff year. Also im not one of these Bourque bashing Lidstrom "fanbois" so i will pass on the cake. Please direct your condescension somewhere else.

On the other hand tarheelhockey clearly asked earlier for examples where Lidstrom could play offensively aggressively and i cited the 96 playoffs but now that example is used to show that Lidstrom wasnt as good defensively...

theres no winning with you guys is there?

The simple fact is using Lidstrom's 96 playoffs as a normative example of his defensive play or even as an example of his inconsistency at that stage in his career like you and tarheelhockey did is a bad idea because it is more a special exception to the case as shown in this very thread by the fact the same writer who criticized Lids for his D in the playoffs praised him for his D in the season.

Both of the above seem to ignore that players change with time. It's not "ridiculously oversimplified" to say that Yzerman became a great leader late in his career --he was not always that way. If he stops playing in 1996, he is the Joe Thornton of his generation.

Pretending that his later accomplishments are the sum total of his career -- THAT is oversimplified.

No it is an oversimplification to tie in team playoff failures to individual leadership which is pretty much the only way one can interpret your statement to the statement you quoted. Especially the 96 playoffs of all examples. I mean while people stupidly criticized Yzerman for playoffs before that nobody would be Pejorative Slured enough to criticize him after the 96 playoffs after the way he played. This is probably exactly why the Detroit News put out the book Steve Yzerman: Heart of a Champion after that playoff run which had as its major theme that Stevie was a winner no matter if he got the Cup or not.

It IS ridiculous to compare Yzerman to Thornton. For starters, where is Thornton's great playoff run early in his career? Yzerman has his run in 87. By the way Thornton has now become a poor leader on top of being a choker (something that itself is so overstated)? Or is this just you conflating the two again?

Nobody is saying players dont change with time. People are just less willing to but the crap of certain elements in the media simplistically saying so and so is a choker or a poor leader.

As for Yzerman "becoming" a great leader later on he certainly was a great leader when he was winning those cups (leading by example, calling out the team when necessary, taking paycuts to sign good players, treating new European players well to help them adjust, etc) but what you obviously are missing is how good of a leader he was before all of that.

After all it is easy to be seen as a great leader when youre on a great team with a lot of consummate future hall of famers and veterans. It is much harder when your teammates including your linemates are going out and breaking curfew, having tons of substance abuse problems, and facing many legal issues, yet you still carry the team almost singlehandedly. You should really read Bob Probert's book. In several places he discusses Yzerman's leadership glowingly including in relation to how Yzerman dealt with Probert's own personal problems. Other teammates and even coaches get ripped apart by Probie as being backstabbers or not caring or not helping but not Yzerman. Bob Probert left the Wings in 94 so hes not talking about later Yzerman at all.

It is great leadership for Yzerman to sell the defensive system Bowman wanted played to his teammates by being the first to buy into it. This happened before any cups and the defensive system didnt even result in cups immediately.

It is great leadership to man up and deal with all of the crap elements in management are giving you and continue playing. Especially when so many of your teammates who are getting similar crap are slumping or being difficult themselves and holding out and demanding trades. This happened in the mid 90s before Yzerman won anything also.

Likewise, Lidstrom didn't come into the league as a fully-developed player. Of coure he improved with Coffey... he was in the period when defensemen are supposed to improve. Getting top-pairing minutes and long playoff runs next to a Norris winner will do that. I'm not sure why that would seem like a problem.

Yeah ok... your point? Youre saying something completely different here than your original narrative of Lidstrom's development which was definitely problematic as i noted.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No im not asking anyone to give Lidstrom credit for anything im pointing out why he was playing more offensively in that playoff year. Also im not one of these Bourque bashing Lidstrom "fanbois" so i will pass on the cake. Please direct your condescension somewhere else.

On the other hand tarheelhockey clearly asked earlier for examples where Lidstrom could play offensively aggressively and i cited the 96 playoffs but now that example is used to show that Lidstrom wasnt as good defensively...

theres no winning with you guys is there?

The simple fact is using Lidstrom's 96 playoffs as a normative example of his defensive play or even as an example of his inconsistency at that stage in his career like you and tarheelhockey did is a bad idea because it is more a special exception to the case as shown in this very thread by the fact the same writer who criticized Lids for his D in the playoffs praised him for his D in the season.

See the difference though and the point you're missing is that even with what you're saying here, Lidstrom played either offensively or defensively and couldn't do both.
When Lidstrom was being aggressive on the offense his defense suffered hugely. When he was playing his uber defense, his offense suffered and was relegated to what he did on the PP and who could take one of his outlet passes and put the puck in the net.

Bourque did both. He could put up more offense than Lidstrom ever could while also maintaining a very high level of defense.

As I've said before, Lidstrom might of been able to come close to or even matching Bourque's offense but he would fallen well below Bourque's defensive level to do it.

Bourque's risk management and ability to control BOTH ends of the ice AT THE SAME TIME is what separates him greatly from Lidstrom.


As for as all the "what ifs" being presented, how about this one...What if Bourque is traded to the Av's in '96 instead of '00?
Who has more cups now and are we even having a debate over the two?


Here's another thing. For the amount of firepower, depth, league finishes and sheer point finishes that Lidstrom's Wings have enjoyed year to year during his career. How does he only have 4 Cups?

How is Bourque diminished for not winning any on what was a predominantly average, sometimes good team for 20 years yet Lidstrom is only able to win 4 on what has been overwhelmingly the best team in the league over the last 20 years?

 

[toob]

See the difference though and the point you're missing is that even with what you're saying here, Lidstrom played either offensively or defensively and couldn't do both.
When Lidstrom was being aggressive on the offense his defense suffered hugely. When he was playing his uber defense, his offense suffered and was relegated to what he did on the PP and who could take one of his outlet passes and put the puck in the net.

Bourque did both. He could put up more offense than Lidstrom ever could while also maintaining a very high level of defense.

As I've said before, Lidstrom might of been able to come close to or even matching Bourque's offense but he would fallen well below Bourque's defensive level to do it.

Bourque's risk management and ability to control BOTH ends of the ice AT THE SAME TIME is what separates him greatly from Lidstrom.

I find it very hard to believe that Bourque or any defenseman really could keep playing at such an offensively involved level while remaining elite defensively.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I find it very hard to believe that Bourque or any defenseman really could keep playing at such an offensively involved level while remaining elite defensively.

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
It actually happened for the better part of 20 years

 

[toob]

Whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
It actually happened for the better part of 20 years

Bourque isnt Orr. He isnt anywhere near Coffey's level offensively. Coffey used to be carrying the puck up himself or skating alongside with the forwards. He would play down low or even behind the net at times. This is why he was so sucky defensively when the play broke up in these situations. I doubt Bourque played like this as much as Coffey did and when Bourque did play like this i bet he got caught up like Coffey did.