Lidstrom - Stevens vs. Bourque - Pronger | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Lidstrom - Stevens vs. Bourque - Pronger

Reds4Life

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,896
333
I just had a good discussion with a friend of mine about this. I would like to know what you guys think. Which defensive pair would you chose for a playoff run and why?

Nick Lidstrom - Scott Stevens
vs.
Ray Bourque - Chris Pronger
 
Lidstrom - Stevens that combination would be marginally better than Bourque - Pronger I think. Stevens is better defensively than Pronger while still able to put up some real solid numbers. Lidstrom is marginally better than Bourque defensively he can still produce good offense combined with stevens. Pronger just took too many stupid penalties.
 
Bourque is the best defenseman on that list. Followed by Lidstrom. Followed likely by Stevens. Then Pronger.

As far as helping your team win I think I would have to choose Lids-Stevens. Pronger is the reasoning for that. It bothered me that you never really knew which Pronger you were going to get throughout his career. Lidstrom and Stevens would be a much more solid combo.
 
Consider Pronger's peak years, he was a playoff beast several times. This just for one playoff run.
Bourque vs Lidstrom - you can flip a coin as far as playoffs go.
Stevens vs Pronger - both physical, intimidating, mean players, very comparable too.
 
Reds4Life said:
Consider Pronger's peak years, he was a playoff beast several times.
Click to expand...

even though winning with the ducks he was still a liability with stupid mean streaks. The hits on McAmmond and Holmstrom comes to mind.
 
jkrx said:
even though winning with the ducks he was still a liability with stupid mean streaks. The hits on McAmmond and Holmstrom comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Yes, occasional stupid play, but he makes up for it in other areas.
 
Reds4Life said:
Yes, occasional stupid play, but he makes up for it in other areas.
Click to expand...

Well Stevens didnt have to make up for it as he wasnt as "stupid" thats why Stevens>Pronger in this case. Lidstrom=/=Bourque.
 
While on the career list, it probably goes Bourque, Lidstrom, Stevens, Pronger, at his absolute best Pronger was probably as good as Lidstrom. But that was really only in his Hart Trophy year (though I wonder how much better he could have been without his wrist injury).

If we're looking at a general prime, then Bourque and Lidstrom are pretty close, with a slight edge to Bourque, with Stevens and Pronger being pretty close as well. Pronger's offence may make him a bit better, but his penalty and suspension trouble make him more of a liability than Stevens was in the same regard. If I'm defending a lead, I probably take Stevens and Lidstrom. If I'm down by a goal, I probably take Bourque and Pronger.

It's a close call, but the OP said playoffs, and while Bourque and Pronger have had their share of playoff success, I think I'll go with the guys with 2 Conn Smythes
 
I would take Lidstrom-Stevens in the playoffs. The two best defensive defensemen of their era and probably the two best playoff performing defensemen of their era.

Lidstrom adds offense and puck movement, Stevens adds intimidation.

They just compliment each other better than Bourque/Pronger, in my opinion.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
I would take Lidstrom-Stevens in the playoffs. The two best defensive defensemen of their era and probably the two best playoff performing defensemen of their era.

Lidstrom adds offense and puck movement, Stevens adds intimidation.

They just compliment each other better than Bourque/Pronger, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I remember the rumours about Red Wings trying to sign Stevens in 95(?). Just think if that had happened :O
 
Bourque and Lidstrom are pretty close, but I take Stevens over Pronger quite easily. Stevens was intimidating yet very disciplined as well. I don't think Pronger brought the same ominous presence despite his nastiness, because opponents knew he'd find himself in the box if he got too aggressive. Stevens was a very poised leader while Pronger was more of a loose cannon at times.

The argument in Pronger's favour is that be brought offense along with his defense, something Stevens didn't by the time he became Captain Crunch. But with Bourque and Lidstrom on the other side of the ice, neither would be counted on for a great deal of offensive support.
 
All great players. Lidstrom/Stevens have 7 Cups between them. Bourque/Pronger have 2. Give me Lidstrom/Stevens.
 
Kyle McMahon said:
Bourque and Lidstrom are pretty close, but I take Stevens over Pronger quite easily. Stevens was intimidating yet very disciplined as well. I don't think Pronger brought the same ominous presence despite his nastiness, because opponents knew he'd find himself in the box if he got too aggressive. Stevens was a very poised leader while Pronger was more of a loose cannon at times.

The argument in Pronger's favour is that be brought offense along with his defense, something Stevens didn't by the time he became Captain Crunch. But with Bourque and Lidstrom on the other side of the ice, neither would be counted on for a great deal of offensive support.
Click to expand...
I was thinking exactly along those lines. Ideally, a Bourque/Stevens combo would be perfect for each other here.

In this debate, I think I would take Lidstrom/Stevens for this very reason. It is hard to say no to the side with Bourque, but Pronger just does not go as well in this scenario as Stevens does in the supporting partner role.
 
Pronger is in his mid 30's and he's still productive and performing well in the playoffs. It's only a matter of time before the gap between him and stevens closes. I already have him above leetch, leetch was worthless during the deadpuck era.
 
Lids and Stevens.

Bourque is the best here, but Lids and Stevens just match better than Bourque/Pronger. Besides, not much difference between Lids and Bourque, while the gap is significantly bigger between Stevens and Pronger.
 
Good debate. I think I might choose Bourque/Pronger, and the deciding factor would be the power play. Bourque, Lidstrom, and Pronger all were/are elite power play players. Stevens was not.

I think Pronger and Bourque would fit together fine. Pronger isn't and wasn't a rushing defenceman. He can play conservatively at even strength while Bourque rushes the puck.

That said, Lidstrom/Stevens would be an incredible shutdown pairing.
 
I'm taking Ray Bourque and Chris Pronger.

Having two elite two-way defenders is better than one. And with Pronger, you get a more consistent threat than Stevens who didn't really have a HOF profile until he was with the Devils -- prior to which he was racking up 200 penalty minutes in a season like it was going out of style. But, Pronger's always been Pronger. He just got a lion's share of the blame when the St. Louis Blues failed.
 
albertGQ said:
I take Bourque and Pronger. Easily.
Click to expand...

Could you elaborate? I mean this should not be an easy choice.



Other than that, solid reasoning, thanks for the read guys :)


Clown Baby said:
I'm taking Ray Bourque and Chris Pronger.

Having two elite two-way defenders is better than one. And with Pronger, you get a more consistent threat than Stevens who didn't really have a HOF profile until he was with the Devils -- prior to which he was racking up 200 penalty minutes in a season like it was going out of style. But, Pronger's always been Pronger. He just got a lion's share of the blame when the St. Louis Blues failed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you should consider peak years, ie. Stevens best years were in NJ.
 
I would take Bourque-Pronger.

To me, Pronger was the best player in the playoffs in back to back years for Edmonton and Anaheim. His peak value, IMO, is at the same level as Stevens and Bourque is a step ahead of Lidstrom.
 
Lidstrom first, and then anyone else on your lists.

He's clearly the best out of that group. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom