Mario Lemieux defensive play

[OldTimeChel]

anybody know what Mario Lemieux was like in the defensive end

Click to read more...

 

[BenchBrawl]

Nobody knows, as he never entered it in his career.

 

[Albatros]

 

[BraveCanadian]

Nobody knows, as he never entered it in his career.

Ok, this made me laugh.

But yeah, Lemieux was not much defensively, at all.

He often stayed high and cheated towards offense. Although his reach and anticipation made him dangerous intercepting passes -- especially shorthanded.

 

[frisco]

Mario Lemieux, in the playoffs, was an absolute beast on defense. Came back hard and constantly played physical. With his talent and when he raised his intensity (i.e. playoffs) there literally was no better defensive player. Sounds like hyperbole but true.

My Best-Carey

 

[TheAngryHank]

Mario Lemieux, in the playoffs, was an absolute beast on defense. Came back hard and constantly played physical. With his talent and when he raised his intensity (i.e. playoffs) there literally was no better defensive player. Sounds like hyperbole but true.

My Best-Carey

Think he means Mario , not Claude.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Like a lot of great players, he was capable of stripping the puck away from his opponents when he was really determined to do so. But Mario was out there with one purpose in mind, so you didn't often see him giving high levels of effort defensively.

Comparable in today's game might be Kessel. He has a horrible defensive reputation but I've seen him make plenty of strong defensive plays... when he felt like it.

 

[VanIslander]

The other four skaters had one mission: Recover the puck and give it to Mario.

'Nuff said.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mario Lemieux tended to be re-active defensively as opposed to pro-active.

If the opportunity came to him he would make the proper solid defensive play but he would not look for or extend himself to play defensive hockey.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Mario Lemieux, in the playoffs, was an absolute beast on defense. Came back hard and constantly played physical. With his talent and when he raised his intensity (i.e. playoffs) there literally was no better defensive player. Sounds like hyperbole but true.

My Best-Carey

Just a little overboard there, Frisco.

However, especially in the two Cup runs, Mario did play much more of a complete game in the playoffs.

Even saw him (live) play deep into the defensive zone during the 2004 World Cup. Stunning.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mario Lemieux, in the playoffs, was an absolute beast on defense. Came back hard and constantly played physical. With his talent and when he raised his intensity (i.e. playoffs) there literally was no better defensive player. Sounds like hyperbole but true.

My Best-Carey

That is true when he exerted himself defensively in the playoffs. Which was apparently true in 1992 with Bowman as coach. By 1996... he was was not paying attention to defense much at all, even in the playoffs... maybe his back problems were bothering him by then.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think great offensive players suck defensively if they have a gun to their head.But defensive play is largely a matter of will.

 

[dr robbie]

If one truely believes that the greatest defense is a strong offense, then he was tops

Seriously though, defense wasn't his strong point. He did play on the PK a lot though, but it was mostly because he was incredibly dangerous on turnovers. He had a long reach and could anticipate plays well. Made him quite dangerous. On 5v5 situations, he was usually hanging around the points waiting for a stretch pass or picking off a pass to one of the defensemen.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Mario Lemieux tended to be re-active defensively as opposed to pro-active.

If the opportunity came to him he would make the proper solid defensive play but he would not look for or extend himself to play defensive hockey.

Yeah...this is about as close as we're probably gonna get to an agreeable answer...

 

[Killion]

That is true when he exerted himself defensively in the playoffs. Which was apparently true in 1992 with Bowman as coach. By 1996... he was was not paying attention to defense much at all, even in the playoffs... maybe his back problems were bothering him by then.

.... yet..... "Were always talking about the offensive side of this club, but I say Mario with that reach & his instincts is the best defensive player in the game, and when he started doing it everyone else followed suit".... Eddie Johnston, Coach of the Penguins, May 1996 after the Penguins eliminated the Rangers in the ECF.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

.... yet..... "Were always talking about the offensive side of this club, but I say Mario with that reach & his instincts is the best defensive player in the game, and when he started doing it everyone else followed suit".... Eddie Johnston, Coach of the Penguins, May 1996 after the Penguins eliminated the Rangers in the ECF.

Heh. Maybe I have my time frame wrong.
(I assume you mean after the EC semis).

 

[Killion]

Heh. Maybe I have my time frame wrong.
(I assume you mean after the EC semis).

Thats right.

 

[Big Phil]

Maybe it is just me but when he came back in 2000 I saw a much more responsible defensive Mario. Look, Mario always COULD play defense. Some have mentioned on here that he did so during the Cup runs. This is true. Mario's career was a lot like the dynasty Oilers in my mind. Not terribly responsible defensively in the regular season but come playoff time he could tighten his belt if he had to.

That being said, this is a guy who literally came within a point of 200 in his career and has at least a couple other seasons where he is at or near 200 points on a per game basis. Do you really want him sacrificing his offense for you? The approach with Mario was that his plan all along was to get the puck back when he was on the ice. It worked didn't it? More times than not, that's for sure.

 

[Asheville]

With Mike Bossy still on the board as the Islanders prepared to make the No. 15 overall selection of the 1977 Draft, Al Arbour said to Bill Torrey, 'Let's take the scorer, I can teach him to check. I can't teach the checker how to score.'"

The object is to score more than your opponent. When you produce at the levels Wayne and Mario did, you're never a liability in your end. Absurd offensive production doubles as defense. Having to outscore those two must have been very discouraging.

 

[The Panther]

No doubt in my mind, Mario could have been like Rod Langway or Ray Bourque defensively, and been a great D-man. He was an enormous man, and limber.

The thing is: players can be taught defense, but no one can be "taught" to score 80 goals.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Maybe it is just me but when he came back in 2000 I saw a much more responsible defensive Mario. Look, Mario always COULD play defense. Some have mentioned on here that he did so during the Cup runs. This is true. Mario's career was a lot like the dynasty Oilers in my mind. Not terribly responsible defensively in the regular season but come playoff time he could tighten his belt if he had to.

That being said, this is a guy who literally came within a point of 200 in his career and has at least a couple other seasons where he is at or near 200 points on a per game basis. Do you really want him sacrificing his offense for you? The approach with Mario was that his plan all along was to get the puck back when he was on the ice. It worked didn't it? More times than not, that's for sure.

I could never understand this line of thought.

For a center to play responsible defense, it hurts their offense? How good were centers like Trottier and Clarke offensively if this were true? Could they have been scoring 160+ points by just being less responsible defensively?

Does Mario's 161 point, +10 season (95-96) do more for his team than a Trottier 134 point, +76 season (78-79)? Or Clark's 119 point, +83 season (75-76)?

 

[robertmac43]

Do you need to play defense when you have the puck in the O zone all day?? :p

 

[Thenameless]

I could never understand this line of thought.

For a center to play responsible defense, it hurts their offense? How good were centers like Trottier and Clarke offensively if this were true? Could they have been scoring 160+ points by just being less responsible defensively?

Does Mario's 161 point, +10 season (95-96) do more for his team than a Trottier 134 point, +76 season (78-79)? Or Clark's 119 point, +83 season (75-76)?

Yes, concentrating on good defensive play will hurt the offense of an offensive player. Some guys just have more energy and endurance than others, especially the two you mention above - Trottier and Clarke. These guys could give it their all on the back end, which would then help them to generate their own scoring chances. Guys like Gretzky and Lemieux are like predators lying in the weeds, conserving their energy (think of snakes or cheetahs); when you make a mistake, they pounce, and more often than not they make you pay dearly.

To answer your other questions, I don't think Trottier and Clarke would have scored much more by concentrating just on offense. As I've said above, they generated their own offense in a different way. As grinders if you will. They played to their strengths just like Gretzky/Lemieux as they should.

To answer your bottom question, I'd rather have the Trottier and Clarke seasons that netted a +76 and a +83. I know points are valuable, but that's too large of a disparity to ignore.

 

[Big Phil]

I could never understand this line of thought.

For a center to play responsible defense, it hurts their offense? How good were centers like Trottier and Clarke offensively if this were true? Could they have been scoring 160+ points by just being less responsible defensively?

Does Mario's 161 point, +10 season (95-96) do more for his team than a Trottier 134 point, +76 season (78-79)? Or Clark's 119 point, +83 season (75-76)?

I think we can all agree Datsyuk scores a bit more if he concentrates his energy more on offense right? In other words, maybe he is cheating on the rush a bit more.

Yzerman couldn't score 155 points and have a Selke trophy like he did in 2000. This doesn't mean Yzerman in 1989 was a liability because you know full well when a guy like that is on the ice, but it means that he might be doing different assignments that take away from some offense. Maybe checking a top line for example.

Is Fedorov not another guy we can agree on that probably would have scored more? Clarke and Trottier had pretty good peak years, but keep in mind even though they were always great scorers, they weren't as good as their 1976 and 1979 seasons year after year. And they both burned out pretty quickly around the age of 30. Still effective, but they definitely lost their offense. At 30 years old Mario scored 69 goals.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Do you need to play defense when you have the puck in the O zone all day?? :p

I could never understand this line of thought.

For a center to play responsible defense, it hurts their offense? How good were centers like Trottier and Clarke offensively if this were true? Could they have been scoring 160+ points by just being less responsible defensively?

Does Mario's 161 point, +10 season (95-96) do more for his team than a Trottier 134 point, +76 season (78-79)? Or Clark's 119 point, +83 season (75-76)?

Rather obvious that with a +10 on 161 points Mario Lemieux dd not keep the puck in the offensive zone very well.

To match a +76 Lemieux would have to play much better defence, negating 66 ESGA goals while he was on the ice or contributing to an extra 66 ESGF.