Leetch vs Bourque in their prime

[Kocur26]

Funny how Leetch instantly became good again defensively when he went to Toronto. Ever consider the fact that Leetch played with beer leaguers the last few years of his career on the Rangers and maybe that's why his numbers dropped off?

You don't go from being a well rounded dman (which Leetch was his entire prime) to a defensive bum overnight.

And by the way, read the original post again. IN THEIR PRIME. Stop talking about Leetch when he was old and playing on garbage teams.

He wasn’t old … he aged miserably… Like Benjamin button… Like Wade redden

 

[Baby Punisher]

This isn't even debatable. It's Bourque.
The only question is could he play in the spotlight of New York and still be successful.

 

[Bryce Newman]

I’d take Lidstrom and Pronger before taking Leetch. Could even make a case for Blake.

How about Phil Bourque too while you're at it?

Any other B-level Leetch’s you'd like to mention? Or have you trolled enough for one day?

 

[Bryce Newman]

This isn't even debatable. It's Bourque.
The only question is could he play in the spotlight of New York and still be successful.

Yet another poster who failed to comprehend the original post.

Bourque couldn't even handle the spotlight of Boston. Zero cups, in case you forgot.

Lock the thread mods. This obviously isn't the place for intelligent hockey discussion.

 

[Bryce Newman]

He wasn’t old … he aged miserably… Like Benjamin button… Like Wade redden

More like the Rangers aged miserably. Leetch lead the league in scoring in 2001 for Defensemen and was terrific in his brief stint in Toronto. He was by far the best player night in and night out on those putrid Ranger teams.

You are clueless. You probably think Adam Fox is better than prime Leetch.

Educate yourself.

 

[Cag29]

I love Leetch but Bourque was all round better.
Leetch better on the point on PP.
Bourque better at PK and more physical.
I Think Lidstrom of Detroit was the best of that era.

 

[Hitch16]

Wow it is getting intense in here. Brian Leetch is my all time favorite Ranger which I am fairly certain I am not the only one. You guys bring up some interesting points. For me, I always viewed Leetch's Rangers career split pre and post 1997. I know eveyone is aware that when Messier left for the Canucks in 97, Leetch was named "captain" which was a great choice at the time I thought, Graves would have been the other (I don't think Gretzky would have taken it as his relationship to Mess - that is an entire thought in itself). It is probably an entirely different factor but Leetch did captain Team USA's team that upset Canada in the 96 World Cup.

Back to Leetch - I am curious what you guys think contributed to his decline besides the cruel timeline of an aging athlete.

1. Rangers captain after Messier
2. Leetch getting older
3. Aging players / less talented teams

Bourque - who is a great player himself - finally got his cup playing on that amazing Avalanche team.

 

[Machinehead]

Wow it is getting intense in here. Brian Leetch is my all time favorite Ranger which I am fairly certain I am not the only one. You guys bring up some interesting points. For me, I always viewed Leetch's Rangers career split pre and post 1997. I know eveyone is aware that when Messier left for the Canucks in 97, Leetch was named "captain" which was a great choice at the time I thought, Graves would have been the other (I don't think Gretzky would have taken it as his relationship to Mess - that is an entire thought in itself). It is probably an entirely different factor but Leetch did captain Team USA's team that upset Canada in the 96 World Cup.

Back to Leetch - I am curious what you guys think contributed to his decline besides the cruel timeline of an aging athlete.

1. Rangers captain after Messier
2. Leetch getting older
3. Aging players / less talented teams

Bourque - who is a great player himself - finally got his cup playing on that amazing Avalanche team.

It's because of horse shit teams.

In 2000-01, Leetch had 79 points, played nearly 30 minutes a game, and I calculated had about a +10 GF% rel, which is absolutely insane (this experiment was lost to the server migration, so you'll have to just take my word for it).

He wasn't even a finalist for the Norris because the Rangers missed the playoffs.

You know who was nominated? Scott Stevens who had a laughable 31 points, but he was +40 on the best team in the league.

 

[CasusBelli]

How about Phil Bourque too while you're at it?

Any other B-level Leetch’s you'd like to mention? Or have you trolled enough for one day?

No need for hostility or insults. I’ve been watching this sport for decades. It’s just my observation.

 

[NickyFotiu]

It's because of horse shit teams.

In 2000-01, Leetch had 79 points, played nearly 30 minutes a game, and I calculated had about a +10 GF% rel, which is absolutely insane (this experiment was lost to the server migration, so you'll have to just take my word for it).

He wasn't even a finalist for the Norris because the Rangers missed the playoffs.

You know who was nominated? Scott Stevens who had a laughable 31 points, but he was +40 on the best team in the league.

You are right the team, and the goaltending declined much more than Brian. Only thing that got Brian occasionally was injuries.

In regards to Stevens not everything is about points or stats. Stevens dominated the ice. In fact Stevens dominated much more as a defensive crazy intimidating hitter 30 point guy than when he started in the league as a 20 goal 65 point guy. I hated the guy. He seemed psychotic but holy crap did he own his side of the ice. Trouba had a run of games with big hits. Stephens was doing that for seasons at a time. Few were going to his side with their head down. If they did they sadly were knocked out of games often.

Funny side note is late in Stevens career somebody gave him a 5th place vote for the Lady Byng trophy. That made me laugh. It must have been a joke.

 

[Machinehead]

You are right the team, and the goaltending declined much more than Brian. Only thing that got Brian occasionally was injuries.

In regards to Stevens not everything is about points or stats. Stevens dominated the ice. In fact Stevens dominated much more as a defensive crazy intimidating hitter 30 point guy than when he started in the league as a 20 goal 65 point guy. I hated the guy. He seemed psychotic but holy crap did he own his side of the ice. Trouba had a run of games with big hits. Stephens was doing that for seasons at a time. Few were going to his side with their head down. If they did they sadly were knocked out of games often.

Funny side note is late in Stevens career somebody gave him a 5th place vote for the Lady Byng trophy. That made me laugh. It must have been a joke.

Points and stats aren't everything but he received a great deal of fanfare and accolades during a time when he was playing half the game for a team that was lighting the league up offensively. The myth that the late 90's and early 00's Devils weren't scoring is just that. In 2000-01, Stevens was playing 24:37 a game for a team that led the NHL with 295 goals, a stonking 3.59 per game in an era where most teams were struggling to get to 2. That included a healthy dose of powerplay time. To be in a situation like that and put up only 31 points is frankly, almost impossible. He was capital B, capital A, capital D BAD offensively at that point in his career. I don't care if he's committing mass murder and doesn't give up a shot all season in his own zone; a Norris contender should not be bad at offense.

Everyone points out his production earlier in his career, and fair enough, I guess, but that's not really the point. He received seven top-10 Norris finishes during a stretch of his career where he was absolutely lethargic offensively. He was never Brian Leetch before 30 and he was never Brian Leetch after 30. He was never Brian Leetch, period.

 

[brachyrynchos]

Wow it is getting intense in here. Brian Leetch is my all time favorite Ranger which I am fairly certain I am not the only one. You guys bring up some interesting points. For me, I always viewed Leetch's Rangers career split pre and post 1997. I know eveyone is aware that when Messier left for the Canucks in 97, Leetch was named "captain" which was a great choice at the time I thought, Graves would have been the other (I don't think Gretzky would have taken it as his relationship to Mess - that is an entire thought in itself). It is probably an entirely different factor but Leetch did captain Team USA's team that upset Canada in the 96 World Cup.

Back to Leetch - I am curious what you guys think contributed to his decline besides the cruel timeline of an aging athlete.

1. Rangers captain after Messier
2. Leetch getting older
3. Aging players / less talented teams

Bourque - who is a great player himself - finally got his cup playing on that amazing Avalanche team.

I remember a thread in the History boards regarding the Rangers and the late '90's teams. The roster turnover was absurd, I had written down all the players coming in and going out but gave up trying to figure out just who stuck around the most during that span. Alot of good players but too much. turnover across the board. Different goalies, different forwards, and for
Leetch some different defense partners. Factor in coaching changes and Smith leaving (should be in Hall of Fame) -Sather taking over and it was quite a bit of transition/adjustment/instability and not enough cohesion going on.
Didn't mind Leetch as Captain, he was always professional and led by example on the ice. Maybe a bit too 'reserved' or not outspoken enough but not necessarily his fault considering Messier had a different persona.
I'd take Bourque but certainly won't disagree with those who go with Leetch.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Points and stats aren't everything but he received a great deal of fanfare and accolades during a time when he was playing half the game for a team that was lighting the league up offensively. The myth that the late 90's and early 00's Devils weren't scoring is just that. In 2000-01, Stevens was playing 24:37 a game for a team that led the NHL with 295 goals, a stonking 3.59 per game in an era where most teams were struggling to get to 2. That included a healthy dose of powerplay time. To be in a situation like that and put up only 31 points is frankly, almost impossible. He was capital B, capital A, capital D BAD offensively at that point in his career. I don't care if he's committing mass murder and doesn't give up a shot all season in his own zone; a Norris contender should not be bad at offense.

Everyone points out his production earlier in his career, and fair enough, I guess, but that's not really the point. He received seven top-10 Norris finishes during a stretch of his career where he was absolutely lethargic offensively. He was never Brian Leetch before 30 and he was never Brian Leetch after 30. He was never Brian Leetch, period.

You would have hated Rod Langway. Stevens was a dominant player. NJ would not have won the cups without him. I think their cup winning coaches knew exactly what effect he had on that ice and why they played him so many minutes. Im not saying he was better than Brian. I have Brian in my top 10 all time but judging Stevens based on points os almost as useless as judging point guards by blocked shots. Stevens was elected to the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. Apparently he fooled a lot of people who probably know how many goals he did or did not score.

 

[Machinehead]

You would have hated Rod Langway. Stevens was a dominant player. NJ would not have won the cups without him. I think their cup winning coaches knew exactly what effect he had on that ice and why they played him so many minutes. Im not saying he was better than Brian. I have Brian in my top 10 all time but judging Stevens based on points os almost as useless as judging point guards by blocked shots. Stevens was elected to the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. Apparently he fooled a lot of people who probably know how many goals he did or did not score.

I wouldn't hate Rod Langway nor I do think Stevens was undeserving of his HOF nomination. I just wouldn't compare either of them to Brian Leetch. It's insulting to Leetch.

 

[Crease]

I mean, Leetch might have peaked higher (debateable), but Bourque's prime lasted like 15 years.

 

[CasusBelli]

You would have hated Rod Langway. Stevens was a dominant player. NJ would not have won the cups without him. I think their cup winning coaches knew exactly what effect he had on that ice and why they played him so many minutes. Im not saying he was better than Brian. I have Brian in my top 10 all time but judging Stevens based on points os almost as useless as judging point guards by blocked shots. Stevens was elected to the hall of fame in his first year of eligibility. Apparently he fooled a lot of people who probably know how many goals he did or did not score.

Stevens was also an offensive powerhouse for the first decade of his career. If memory serves me right, he had a few 70-point seasons and more than a few 60-point seasons. Only later (presumably when his wheels started to go) did he become so unequivocally defensive-minded.

 

[NickyFotiu]

Stevens was also an offensive powerhouse for the first decade of his career. If memory serves me right, he had a few 70-point seasons and more than a few 60-point seasons. Only later (presumably when his wheels started to go) did he become so unequivocally defensive-minded.

Stevens was a guy that could score for sure as a Cap. He was really good in those years but he actually became a more dominant player as his scoring declined. He basically shut down his side of the ice in many Devils games. The Caps were losers before Stevens. I think Stevens fought Barry Beck as a rookie. That took guts. Many thought Beck was the strongest guy in the NHL back then with rumors he benched 500 pounds. It was not much of a fight. They both could not get lose but for a 18 or 19 year old to have the strength to hold Barry off was impressive. I looked at Stevens as kind of psychotic. He just had a mean streak but I can understand why guys avoided his side of the ice.

 

[CasusBelli]

Stevens was a guy that could score for sure as a Cap. He was really good in those years but he actually became a more dominant player as his scoring declined. He basically shut down his side of the ice in many Devils games. The Caps were losers before Stevens. I think Stevens fought Barry Beck as a rookie. That took guts. Many thought Beck was the strongest guy in the NHL back then with rumors he benched 500 pounds. It was not much of a fight. They both could not get lose but for a 18 or 19 year old to have the strength to hold Barry off was impressive. I looked at Stevens as kind of psychotic. He just had a mean streak but I can understand why guys avoided his side of the ice.

Can't disagree with any of that! The guy was a man possessed -- unfortunately for us.

 

[Crease]

Stevens was the defenseman version of Messier. He also had an underrated offensive game the first half of his career. Hate the guy, very much respect the player.

 

[Baby Punisher]

Yet another poster who failed to comprehend the original post.

Bourque couldn't even handle the spotlight of Boston. Zero cups, in case you forgot.

Lock the thread mods. This obviously isn't the place for intelligent hockey discussion.

SMH

 

[AlternateSideParking]

Leetch effectively ended Bourque's stranglehold on the Norris. Bourque won four in five years between 1987 and 1991 then only one from 1992 onward, and that one was in 1994 when Scott Stevens clearly deserved it. Bourque never had a playoff run like Leetch in 1994, which is the greatest postseason by any defenseman in the post-expansion era. Leetch also was snubbed from the 2001 Norris because of plus-minus.

Include the playoffs, and here's who had the better season (excluding 1993 when Leetch was hurt)

1991 - Bourque
1992 - Leetch
1994 - Leetch
1995 - Leetch
1996 - Leetch
1997 - Leetch

Bourque got a lot of sympathy and reputation votes in awards but he was abysmal in the playoffs for so many series, and he was solely responsible for crushing series-changing goals against. Superman in the regular season but barely above average in the playoffs (outside of 1988, 1990, and maybe 2001 in his swan song)

 

[Danny46]

Leetch, he had a extra gear that i never saw on Bourque....

 

[NickyFotiu]

People forget how big Ray Bourque was he was built like a mail truck… Strong powerful trunk… And he was tremendous defensively… And could hurt people with his checks ….

People also forget the last five years of Brian Leetch’s NYR career he was the worst defensemen in the NHL on the penalty kill…

He was on ice for more goals against than any other defenseman in that span.

Obviously not all his fault but the end of each his career was awful very similar to Messier.

He was on the ice for all those goals against because he was the best player on bad teams with bad goaltending. Brian was not as good as Ray but Brian was always on the ice in the last minute of games because he was one of our best defensively.

 

[chosen]

Tim Sweeney was recently asked which NHL Defenseman would he take in his prime: Leetch or Bourque?



I saw this on the main forum and thought I'd pose the question here for older Ranger fans. Notice the question is "in their prime" and not who had the better career.

For me, I'll take Leetch. His prime years of 1992-1997 were a notch higher than Bourque at his best.

Undoubtedly Bourque had the better overall career (in large part, sadly, because of the Rangers "dark years" after Messier left) but we all saw what prime Leetch did in the regular season of 92 (102 points) and playoffs of 94 (34 points and Conn Smythe).

What do you think? Would love to hear older Rangers fans opinions on this.

Leetch was great and Bourque was easily better. Bourque was that good.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

At their peak, Leetch was better offensively. Maybe the best I've seen when his team was down a goal late.

Overall, even at peak, Bourque was the better all-around player.