Lidstrom Vs. Potvin

[Bear of Bad News]

Stop making personal attacks on one another. There won't be another warning.

 

[Rhiessan71]

So basically it's ok to judge players based on raw numbers in isolation, cup wins, and using the proper context that had Bossy been playing on more offensive teams, of course he would have had 70 or 80 goals. No consideration of how Bossy played with two elite linemates consistently, and Kovalchuk so far in his whole career, has played with no average first liners consistently except one year. However, presenting data made to compare players across eras, is just insane. Amusing to say the least.

...and yet a lot of you younger folk have absolutely no problem dismissing Yzerman despite his 155 point season while playing with a bunch of scrubs.

Who is this other elite linemate? Gillies was not an elite player, he was good but his job was to protect and make room for the other two, certainly not an elite player.
Also if what you say were true then Bossy's and Trottier's production should of suffered when one of them didn't play and that is proven to not be the case either.

You seem to think that us "old guard" have a problem letting go of the older players. I would submit that we simply give credit where credit is due and have more to go on than just what a stats book says.
If we're guilty of anything, it would maybe be that we don't give some of the younger folks opinions like yourself enough respect but then again, when day after day we come here and read postafter post of how Sid and OV are better than Gretzky or Lemieux....can you really blame us

 

[Infinite Vision*]

...and yet a lot of you younger folk have absolutely no problem dismissing Yzerman despite his 155 point season while playing with a bunch of scrubs.

Who is this other elite linemate? Gillies was not an elite player, he was good but his job was to protect and make room for the other two, certainly not an elite player.
Also if what you say were true then Bossy's and Trottier's production should of suffered when one of them didn't play and that is proven to not be the case either.

You seem to think that us "old guard" have a problem letting go of the older players. I would submit that we simply give credit where credit is due and have more to go on than just what a stats book says.
If we're guilty of anything, it would maybe be that we don't give some of the younger folks opinions like yourself enough respect but then again, when day after day we come here and read postafter post of how Sid and OV are better than Gretzky or Lemieux....can you really blame us

Denis Potvin. Teammate whatever. Best offensive defenseman during his time. Anyways...that's besides the point. Not once did I say Kovalchuk is better than Bossy. It's just people are acting like I'm crazy for comparing them as goal scorers. Show me one person here on this history board who said Crosby and Ovechkin are better than Gretzky and Lemieux. I honestly don't see it anywhere.

 

[redbull]

The wording of this is a bit confusing. It sounds like you are claiming there was a time period where Lidstrom was not at or above the same level as the names listed, which in the case of Pronger and Niedermayer is completely ridiculous (and in the cases of MacInnis and Stevens it would be due to them already being established stars when Lidstrom first broke in - he passed Stevens in the late 90s and MacInnis in the late 90s/early 2000s). I can't think of any time period where Lidstrom was below Niedermayer and/or other than one isolated season for each of them.

I absolutely think Lidstrom was underrated and underappreciated early in his career. I remember arguing his merits in the discussion of great NHL defensemen back even before the wings were winning cups. Having Coffey, Larry Murphy, and Fetisov/Konstantinov on those teams pushed Lidstrom to the background, Leetch, Chelios, Bourque stood out as the better defensemen in the league and Lidstrom didn't get the respect early on.

He was always solid, but wasn't always the big-minute defenseman, the identity of the defensive unit, etc.

I think Lidstrom grew as a player into that leader. He started his ascension into being recognized for his efforts but I feel he didn't really start getting his due until maybe his 3rd cup!

 

[Rhiessan71]

Denis Potvin. Teammate whatever. Best offensive defenseman during his time. Anyways...that's besides the point. Not once did I say Kovalchuk is better than Bossy. It's just people are acting like I'm crazy for comparing them as goal scorers. Show me one person here on this history board who said Crosby and Ovechkin are better than Gretzky and Lemieux. I honestly don't see it anywhere.

I think it was more about how you used adjusted stats to be your main point on that.
Using adjusted stats has its' place as a guide but when used at face value or as the main point in an argument, some folk (myself included obviously) tend to get pissy about it.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Fair enough.

 

[pluppe]

Of course they could. Many would still be the best player, while others would be not quite as dominant, but every single star player would still be a factor a decade later. Ask a basketball fan if they think that Michael Jordan would not be a factor today if they pulled him out of a time machine from the mid-'90s. Ask the same question of a baseball fan about Pedro Martinez, or a football fan about Steve Young or Marshall Faulk. They'd probably all consider your questions ridiculous.

If you don't believe that, just look at the 1999 track and field championships vs. the 2009 track and field championships. There are 22 men's events (excluding race walking, because who cares about that). In 9 of those 22 events the gold medallist from 1999 would have won the gold medal in 2009 as well, and in 18 out of 22 (82%) the gold medallist in 1999 would have won at least a medal in 2009. Of the 4 exceptions, 3 of them were long distance events where the pace the runners set has a big impact on the final time.

If you drop the endurance events and look only at the strength and speed events, the events most analogous to hockey, you have only 1 out of 17 events where the results of the 1999 gold medallist would not have earned a medal in 2009. That would be the 200m, where the '99 winner would have ended up in 5th but still only .09 behind anyone not named Usain Bolt.

Athletics is pure physical skill, if your theory was right then all the 2009 times would have just crushed the 1999 times. That obviously didn't happen, which pretty much disproves the theory of hyperevolution in elite athlete physical skill. And since hockey isn't even entirely based on physical skill but on vision and awareness and hockey sense, it makes your argument even weaker IMO.

I thimk these are good points and I would like to add some aswell.

Rationally it feels like it should have been easier to perform in the "old days". it sorta looks funny on tv and since we have much better knowledge today it should make it harder to dominate.

in reality we find over and over that this is not the case. show me an athlete who dominated the 40:s and I bet I can show you one who dominated the 00:s to an even larger extent.

how can Federer win 17 grand slams TODAY. how can Bolt dominate sprinting more than it ever has seen TODAY. how can Armstrong win a record number of TdF TODAY. how can Phelps completely annihalate the record for most olympic golds TODAY. how can Messi and Ronaldo score over 30 goals in their leagues TODAY. how can Tiger be the most dominating golfer ever TODAY. how can Shumacher win more championships than anyone TODAY, and that in a sport were it really should be more equal.

I think there are many reasons for this. one importent thing is goals and recordbreaking. say you and I have a push-up competition. do you want to star or do you want to go second. most people would probably win if they went second since now they know what to push themselves towards. records are most often broken little by little. golden marks are often strived for for a long time until somebody breaks it, then many do it in a short period of time. when the mental block is lifted.

in the case of Potvin/Lidström I think this plays a part. what did Potvin have to strive for. he had won it 4 times in a row. his team was no longer as competitive and the NHL was changing. he was already the highest scoring defenceman of all time. he had had it all. it was enough. he even said so himself. thats only human. competitors want to compete. he had and he won.

Lidström instead do not hold any points-records. nor will he. and his wins have been more spread out and his team has stayed more competitive. (I also think the lockout might have had a positive effect on his career, though that is pure speculation). so he has more to strive for. this is not Potvins fault but it should be seen as a plus for Lidström if it made him strive longer.

some people don´t have this and just shatter records (see Gretzky) but for many it is a factor. I know it´s one of the things that drive Kobe (Jordan) and Tiger (Nicklaus), Phelps (Spitz) to name a few.

another is innovation. there is always room to be groundbreaking and if you are that person you will always be superior. see Bobby Orr and his rushing (of course helped by his incredible skating but he would not have dominated to the same extent if the others were prepared. See Tiger with his new focus on physicality or Lance and his incredible single minded focus on TdF and teamwork. or Roy and the Butterfly soon others will catch up and you wont be as superior unless you continue to lead the way but you will have a head start.

since most people don´t innovate you are always just one innovation away from being one innovation in front. no matter the quality of competition.

I also think Lidström should get extra points for this because in a way he showed a new way of defending with more stay at home, stick work, first pass focus and less brutal physicality.

I feel most who choose Potvin are people who rate this more traditional approach to defending higher. and thats fine. it might actually be more effective. but then again it might not. and I think Lidström has at least had an advantage in that forwards aren´t as used to this way.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Fair enough.

Yeah, it's not that us "old guys" don't appreciate and/or respect the new crop like Lidstrom, Sid, OV, Kovalchuk and Malkin.
I just think we have a more reserved opinion as this isn't the first rodeo we've been to or even the best.

I don't think you're going to find one of "us" that isn't willing to agree that Sid and OV could end up making a significant dent in some all time best lists but they haven't yet and that's the bottomline here.

What can I say, we're stubborn old b******* and they'll get their respect when it's deserved and not a second sooner

 

[overg]

I absolutely think Lidstrom was underrated and underappreciated early in his career. I remember arguing his merits in the discussion of great NHL defensemen back even before the wings were winning cups. Having Coffey, Larry Murphy, and Fetisov/Konstantinov on those teams pushed Lidstrom to the background, Leetch, Chelios, Bourque stood out as the better defensemen in the league and Lidstrom didn't get the respect early on.

Agreed. I'm aware of Bowman's comments to the contrary, but I'm still very much of the opinion that Lidstrom was better than Konstantinov pretty much every year they played together. Vlad was indeed a first rate defenseman, had an awesome synergy with the Russians (the year he played a lot with the Russian 5 may be the one year I'd put him above Nik), and was as nasty as they came. But he also made a lot more mistakes than Lidstrom did. He took dumb penalties, pinched at bad times, and got himself out of position trying to make hits. Lidstrom was still pretty damn error free even early in his career. It just took him wiping the floor with Lindros before people realized just how quietly awesome he really was. Once he got on people's radars it still took another three years before they realized that while he'll almost never show up on a highlight real, he makes an astonishingly high percentage of good decisions, and that he was indeed the best defenseman in the league.

I've always thought that Lidstrom's game was just always making the right decision given the situation presented. He didn't create situations with amazing skating (Coffey), a booming shot (McGinnis), crushing hits (Blake), or chippy play (Chelios). He just analyzed the situation in front of him, and made the right decision.

Heck, there are still tons of posters around here (more on the main boards than in the history section, where I think his style is much better understood) who look at you funny if you call Lidstrom a stay at home or defensive defenseman. They still don't get just how insanely good the guy was in his own end, and think his legacy was determined by his offensive numbers.

 

[bleeney]

I feel that this question is generally unfair towards Lidstrom. Any sports fan could watch Potvin play and tell he was a great player. He was skilled, tough, well-rounded. Lidstrom's dominance is more subtle; he doesn't catch your eye at first. He does the little things so perfectly, that he becomes dominant. Only a more expert fan taking a step back can appreciate what Lidstrom does, IMO.

It is a little like the Lemieux vs. Gretzky debate. Lemieux was the more talented one in its accepted definition, but Gretzky's production was inarguabley superior.

I lean towards Potvin, a dominant player on a dominant dynasty. I acknowledge that like other players of his time, he faded a bit in his mid-30s (he retired while his play was at a high level because he had lost some of the passion he had for the game, but I think even if he had continued playing his body couldn't have supported his style of play), while Lidstrom is the freak of any time period of hockey's history with excellent hockey play into his 40s, but I'd prefer Potvin just slightly...

This is why I have Lidstrom ranked below Potvin.

Potvin was a rock in his own end. He used his incredible skill-set to put up league-leading offensive numbers, while at the same time being more than capable of physically handling any situation on the ice. He was a genuinely mean player who didn't just hit; he punished people. He was an aggressive, disruptive presence on the ice. Guys had their heads on a swivel when he was out there. Potvin could change the course of a game with a big hit. And let's not forget the added bonus of players coughing the puck up early out of self-preservation, or that it's much harder to get back into the play when you're picking yourself up after being wiped out by a bone-jarring hit.

Sure, Lidstrom has had a longer career than Potvin, but that is specifically because of his style of play, which has always been non-physical. As Wayne Gretzky said:
"I've stayed healthy because I'm not a banger and a crasher. Guys who bang and crash wear down and I think the body can't keep repairing itself".
-from THN Top 100; pg 16

Lidstrom is at the bottom end of the scale when it comes to things like hits and blocked shots; you know, the dirty work. Over the last five years he's averaged just 35 hits and 79 blocked shots. These aren't the numbers of a guy who lays his body on the line. His being so effective despite his lack of physical play is a testament to his hockey IQ when it comes to positioning, defensive zone coverage, and his ability to move the puck. But there are times when it's necessary for Dmen to physically knock guys off the puck in the corners, block shots, clear the slot etc. There's a huge gap between him and Potvin in those areas.

I don't view Lidstrom's longevity in the same regard as someone like Tim Horton or the ultimate survivor, Gordie Howe. Those guys were warriors. A longevity based largely upon not getting involved physically... I don't really view that as a huge positive. Especially when it's a defenseman.

 

[norrisnick]

You make it sound like Nick would run and hide. He goes into the corners with anyone, he just happens to be able to take the puck and get it out of his end without having to obliterate the other guy. He takes pucks off of guys before they manage to get a shot off, which cuts down on a few of those blocked shots. Same with deflecting passes before they get to someone who can take the shot. The Wings have owned the shots for/against differential for years, and it's because they stop the shots before they even get taken.

A lot of guys fear the bangers on D, but there have been just as many quotes and stories about guys not wanting to square off against Lidstrom. In the last 2-3 years I remember Nash, Crosby, Kane, and I think Iginla making such comments that they'd rather face a D that likes to go for the hit because that's something they can compete with. Having the other guy just remove you from the puck and force you to chase is more frustrating.

 

[redbull]

I thimk these are good points and I would like to add some aswell.

Rationally it feels like it should have been easier to perform in the "old days". it sorta looks funny on tv and since we have much better knowledge today it should make it harder to dominate.

in reality we find over and over that this is not the case. show me an athlete who dominated the 40:s and I bet I can show you one who dominated the 00:s to an even larger extent.

how can Federer win 17 grand slams TODAY. how can Bolt dominate sprinting more than it ever has seen TODAY. how can Armstrong win a record number of TdF TODAY. how can Phelps completely annihalate the record for most olympic golds TODAY. how can Messi and Ronaldo score over 30 goals in their leagues TODAY. how can Tiger be the most dominating golfer ever TODAY. how can Shumacher win more championships than anyone TODAY, and that in a sport were it really should be more equal.

I think there are many reasons for this. one importent thing is goals and recordbreaking. say you and I have a push-up competition. do you want to star or do you want to go second. most people would probably win if they went second since now they know what to push themselves towards. records are most often broken little by little. golden marks are often strived for for a long time until somebody breaks it, then many do it in a short period of time. when the mental block is lifted.

in the case of Potvin/Lidström I think this plays a part. what did Potvin have to strive for. he had won it 4 times in a row. his team was no longer as competitive and the NHL was changing. he was already the highest scoring defenceman of all time. he had had it all. it was enough. he even said so himself. thats only human. competitors want to compete. he had and he won.

Lidström instead do not hold any points-records. nor will he. and his wins have been more spread out and his team has stayed more competitive. (I also think the lockout might have had a positive effect on his career, though that is pure speculation). so he has more to strive for. this is not Potvins fault but it should be seen as a plus for Lidström if it made him strive longer.

some people don´t have this and just shatter records (see Gretzky) but for many it is a factor. I know it´s one of the things that drive Kobe (Jordan) and Tiger (Nicklaus), Phelps (Spitz) to name a few.

another is innovation. there is always room to be groundbreaking and if you are that person you will always be superior. see Bobby Orr and his rushing (of course helped by his incredible skating but he would not have dominated to the same extent if the others were prepared. See Tiger with his new focus on physicality or Lance and his incredible single minded focus on TdF and teamwork. or Roy and the Butterfly soon others will catch up and you wont be as superior unless you continue to lead the way but you will have a head start.

since most people don´t innovate you are always just one innovation away from being one innovation in front. no matter the quality of competition.

I also think Lidström should get extra points for this because in a way he showed a new way of defending with more stay at home, stick work, first pass focus and less brutal physicality.

I feel most who choose Potvin are people who rate this more traditional approach to defending higher. and thats fine. it might actually be more effective. but then again it might not. and I think Lidström has at least had an advantage in that forwards aren´t as used to this way.

this is an excellent post. (along with CenterShift's before)

i'd agree with everything except the last 2 paragraphs. I don't think what Lidstrom does is at all unique or groundbreaking as in "a new way to defend" - it's just simply his style. I think what makes Lidstrom unique is in his ability to be effective on both offense and defense, with or without the puck, in on ice decisions and instinct (in reading the play and reacting, in meaningless games and meaningful games, with the most consistent level of confidence and poise. And as I said before, I believe he's gotten better with age.

On Potvin, hard to say what's more effective. I'd say Potvin brought way more to the table in most areas. Much better offensively, much more physical and intimidating, was "the #1 guy" on defense for that Islander team from game 1 until his last, effective and dominant on bad teams and great teams. Potvin's game was deliberate, it stood out, he was a target on the ice, you didn't beat the Islanders if you didn't neutralize (hit hard, target, limit offensively/defensively, force into penalties, etc) Potvin.

That's why he was the better player IMO. Albeit over a shorter timeframe and it's true, Potvin didn't improve as he got older - the wear and tear took its toll, but he had earned some hardware and the respect of the hockey world on the way.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You really need to stop showing this Umberger video as evidence of anything concerning Lidstrom and how he plays defense cause it's very misleading. AGAIN, cause I've stated this to you many times, this was from a regular season game in the dog days of the season between the 1st place Red Wings and the last place Flyers in 2007. The whole Red Wings team, Lidstrom included, forgot to show up in the 3rd period of that game and got shelled 6-1. Games like this happen, even to the best of them, but you can't keep pointing to this play as evidence that Lidstrom just angles forwards off and let's the opponent take shots at his goalie.

During Lidstrom's prime the Red Wings generally give up the least shots in the league and it's not because Lidstrom allows teams free shots on his goalie. It's because they control the play with their puck possession style and Lidstrom and the defense try to not allow any shots on net. They don't give free passes for shots at their goalie because generally their goaltending is a weak spot on the team.

Even if you were right it would be a lot better to angle off players than to commit totally like Bourque does here and it doesn't matter what era we're talking about. I don't see him rubbing May or Goring into the boards and pinning them like you say and these examples were from playoff games where the Bruins got elminated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0xxSsEqjIk&feature=related

...and here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDy78Qg1BXI

Someone already answered this pretty clearly

Both goals - Goring and the May Day, Ray Bourque is trying to cover for the mistakes made by his defensive partner. In both instances Bourque defensive partner is caught too far outside - blatant in the May Day goal, giving up the middle and in both instances the partner is too high - a defensive pairing should always be on a line parallel to the lines dividing the zones. If the pairing is on a diagonal they are poorly positioned. Caused by the higher man getting caught up ice.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Nicklas Lidstrom - Tom Wandell

An interesting video. Nicklas Lidstrom bodychecking Tom Wandell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82K59UETcTc

At face value a devastating hit on an NHL rookie by Nicklas Lidstrom.

But it also shows that Nicklas Lidstrom does not have proper body checking technique. Surprising for an elite defenseman. It also goes a long way towards an explanation as to why Nicklas Lidstrom does not hit more than he does.

Proper technique would see Nicklas Lidstrom make a partial turn so that the main force of the hit would come from his right shoulder on down to the right hip, rubbing Wandell into the boards with equal or greater force BUT leaving Lidstrom in position to play the puck at the same time within a couple of strides. Done properly the danger posed by the rush is converted into an attacking transition by a proper hit and pass within a couple of steps.

The hit, as it was, lets the puck slide free while Lidstrom temporarily is out of the play and would have to scramble back into the play. Either his defensive partner would have to come over and play the puck or the puck would be up for grabs race between the rushing forwards and supporting defensive forwards.

Basically Lidstrom plays within the limitations of his skills. Which is basic to optimum hockey. Regardless, the limitations should be recognized and acknowledged.

Similar to the Umberger video, dog days of the season. No player will ever be 100% regardless of his skill level. Just a question of observing and appreciating the strengths and limitations of each player.

 

[Reds4Life]

That's like saying Potvin's stickwork is not that great so he needs to hit people to get the puck. Surprising for an elite defenseman.

 

[danincanada]

Someone already answered this pretty clearly

That's an answer? Both examples show 1 offensive player rushing in on 2 defenders with Bourque being the last line of defense before the goalie. Sure his partners looked terrible and forced Bourque to make a quick (and bad) decision but he still committed too soon and let May and Goring walk right in on his goalie pretty much unharrassed.

The Lidstrom hit on Tom Wandell doesn't show much other than looking like it hurt. We don't even know what happened after that so that seems like too much analysis to me.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Realistic Analysis

That's an answer? Both examples show 1 offensive player rushing in on 2 defenders with Bourque being the last line of defense before the goalie. Sure his partners looked terrible and forced Bourque to make a quick (and bad) decision but he still committed too soon and let May and Goring walk right in on his goalie pretty much unharrassed.

The Lidstrom hit on Tom Wandell doesn't show much other than looking like it hurt. We don't even know what happened after that so that seems like too much analysis to me.

If a defenseman has to come from his side of the rink to cover for an out of position partner there is never a right time since he is trying to cover the responsibilities of two players.

Lidstrom on Wandell. If you know what to look for one clip is enough while all the clips in the world will not help if you do not know what to look for. If I were to make the comment that Wandell is a player who cannot appreciate the fact that an average player cannot beat a typical let alone an elite NHL defenseman to the outside from the initial inside path that he took no one says boo because it is a rookie vs a veteran.

 

[danincanada]

If a defenseman has to come from his side of the rink to cover for an out of position partner there is never a right time since he is trying to cover the responsibilities of two players.

Both plays have 1 forward rushing against 2 dmen to begin. Once the 2nd dman is out of the picture it is Bourque's job to try to defend when it becomes a 1 on 1 rush but instead he over commits badly and takes himself right out of the play. No matter what his partner did Bourque misplayed the two rushes horribly. There's no excuse for it and, although I agree he was put in a tough spot, he also didn't position him well to play either May or Goring and didn't show any patience in challenging them. He made a quick decision and lost and let the forward go right in on his goalie.

Lidstrom on Wandell. If you know what to look for one clip is enough while all the clips in the world will not help if you do not know what to look for. If I were to make the comment that Wandell is a player who cannot appreciate the fact that an average player cannot beat a typical let alone an elite NHL defenseman to the outside from the initial inside path that he took no one says boo because it is a rookie vs a veteran.

It's a nothing play really and you're trying to nitpick Lidstrom based on it. Lidstrom doesn't throw body checks very often and doesn't need to. He's as effective defensively as anyone I've ever seen play the game and not getting physical hasn't seemed to hurt him. It actually seems to make him more valuable because he's avoided injury and penalties due to his style.

 

[Epsilon]

Both plays have 1 forward rushing against 2 dmen to begin. Once the 2nd dman is out of the picture it is Bourque's job to try to defend when it becomes a 1 on 1 rush but instead he over commits badly and takes himself right out of the play. No matter what his partner did Bourque misplayed the two rushes horribly. There's no excuse for it and, although I agree he was put in a tough spot, he also didn't position him well to play either May or Goring and didn't show any patience in challenging them. He made a quick decision and lost and let the forward go right in on his goalie.



It's a nothing play really and you're trying to nitpick Lidstrom based on it. Lidstrom doesn't throw body checks very often and doesn't need to. He's as effective defensively as anyone I've ever seen play the game and not getting physical hasn't seemed to hurt him. It actually seems to make him more valuable because he's avoided injury and penalties due to his style.

Some people simply cannot accept the fact that hockey (like many other sports) has evolved and become a more subtle affair than it once was, and that there are more ways to play the game, than the cookie-cutter, stereotypical, "old-school" style of play. It (that line of thinking, not Potvin vs. Lidstrom specifically) reminds me of a joke I once saw in baseball, where a table listed Alex Rodriguez's stats against Darrin Erstad's (Rodriquez beating him handily in just about everything important), but then at the bottom there was a line "Played the game the right way" with a Yes for Erstad and a No for A-Rod, then the next line down was "Hall of Famer" with the same Yes/No entries.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Accuracy

Both plays have 1 forward rushing against 2 dmen to begin. Once the 2nd dman is out of the picture it is Bourque's job to try to defend when it becomes a 1 on 1 rush but instead he over commits badly and takes himself right out of the play. No matter what his partner did Bourque misplayed the two rushes horribly. There's no excuse for it and, although I agree he was put in a tough spot, he also didn't position him well to play either May or Goring and didn't show any patience in challenging them. He made a quick decision and lost and let the forward go right in on his goalie.


It's a nothing play really and you're trying to nitpick Lidstrom based on it. Lidstrom doesn't throw body checks very often and doesn't need to. He's as effective defensively as anyone I've ever seen play the game and not getting physical hasn't seemed to hurt him. It actually seems to make him more valuable because he's avoided injury and penalties due to his style.

Not so. May Day is a transition rush from the Buffalo zone where the Bruin winger gets caught against the boards.Watch the final end view. Two Sabres on Bourque's defensive partner who is out of position, freeing May with Bourque having to come across. The Goring goal is the result of a pick at the blueline.

In both instances Bourque eliminates the passing or shooting option while allowing himself a checking opportunity.Neither Goring or May went rigth in on the goalie. Both were left with one weak option - cut across the goalie, expectation being that an NHL goalie should be able to execute a basic stick check in such circumstances.
Goalie did not execute.

The Lidstrom video is actually an appreciation of his style, not nitpicking. If a player cannot execute the proper and optimum hit in any given circumstance then he contributes more by doing what he is best suited to do.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm preparing my self to receive tomatoes for this one but I can't keep it for myself anymore , I think the fact that Nicklas Lidstrom as won so many Norris Trophies is what put him so high on everybody's list ( not that he wouldn't be high anyway that's not what i'm trying to say ) but when I realise people are really thinking Lidstrom can be better than Denis Potvin or Ray Bourque I think there's something wrong in all of this.There is no doubt both of them were more powerful force on a hockey rink than Lidstrom , with all due respect.Lidstrom won so many Norris but does somebody doubt that Bourque or Potvin , if playing at the exact same time as Lidstrom against the same competition , ( excluding Lidstrom to put them in the same position ) wouldn't have won all the Norris Lidstrom won + the one Niedermayer took?

And in Potvin's case , from my own experience playing Hockey ( 15 years + ) , a defenseman like Lidstrom is annoying to play against because you can't really make something happen on his side , but a big , nasty and elite defenseman like Potvin is just the toughest thing to face , everytime.That's also why I would also take Robinson before Lidstrom but I know this one is more borderline.

 

[danincanada]

Not so. May Day is a transition rush from the Buffalo zone where the Bruin winger gets caught against the boards.Watch the final end view. Two Sabres on Bourque's defensive partner who is out of position, freeing May with Bourque having to come across. The Goring goal is the result of a pick at the blueline.

In both instances Bourque eliminates the passing or shooting option while allowing himself a checking opportunity.Neither Goring or May went rigth in on the goalie. Both were left with one weak option - cut across the goalie, expectation being that an NHL goalie should be able to execute a basic stick check in such circumstances.
Goalie did not execute.

Are you watching the same videos as me? I could care less about what happens to create the rush. I'm talking about how Bourque deals with the one rushing forward in a 1 on 1 where he is the last line of defense before the goalie. Bourque didn't eliminate any attempted pass or shot, he only eliminates himself. You can't possibly be serious that the goalies are the ones at fault for not stick checking May and Goring - both got to walk right in.

 

[Briere Up There*]

These are some pretty good isolated plays guys, I guess Bourque and Lidstrom are frauds. Rory Fitzpatrick for Hockey Hall of Fame.

 

[BraveCanadian]

These are some pretty good isolated plays guys, I guess Bourque and Lidstrom are frauds.

Seriously.. hey Bourque and Lidstrom both made some mistakes during their combined 3000+ NHL games.. news at 11!

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm preparing my self to receive tomatoes for this one but I can't keep it for myself anymore , I think the fact that Nicklas Lidstrom as won so many Norris Trophies is what put him so high on everybody's list ( not that he wouldn't be high anyway that's not what i'm trying to say ) but when I realise people are really thinking Lidstrom can be better than Denis Potvin or Ray Bourque I think there's something wrong in all of this.There is no doubt both of them were more powerful force on a hockey rink than Lidstrom , with all due respect.Lidstrom won so many Norris but does somebody doubt that Bourque or Potvin , if playing at the exact same time as Lidstrom against the same competition , ( excluding Lidstrom to put them in the same position ) wouldn't have won all the Norris Lidstrom won + the one Niedermayer took?

And in Potvin's case , from my own experience playing Hockey ( 15 years + ) , a defenseman like Lidstrom is annoying to play against because you can't really make something happen on his side , but a big , nasty and elite defenseman like Potvin is just the toughest thing to face , everytime.That's also why I would also take Robinson before Lidstrom but I know this one is more borderline.

Good post.

Though I wouldn't take Robinson over Lidstrom, I did vote Potvin here. You expressed why very well, thank you.