Poll: Lidstrom vs Bourque (All-Time)

[Moose Head]

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

NHL players picked Bourque as the best defensive dman at least a couple of times. How much better was he supposed to be?

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If you could rank the following defenseman just in terms of leadership, Denis Potvin, Larry Robinson, Chris Chelios, and of course, Lidstrom and Bourque, in what order would you put them in?

Not sure any of them are considered great leaders.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Not sure any of them are considered great leaders.

Yeah, like…

I don’t question anyone of them being a great captain, all things considered. But I don’t know about leaders, I think maybe Chelios would have been my favorite and most respected captain as a teammate?

Lidstrom was a gold standard defenseman on a gold standard team, but in the light of the Babcock controversies for example I’m not sure I fully appreciate him in the role of a leader on those teams. Lead by example, sure: you suit up for him and play like you mean it, and he’ll do his job like clockwork. But I don’t have the sense he was the bridge between his teammates and the coaches that I would ask from a “great leader”. It’s totally based on anecdotal evidence, but what isn’t when we’re evaluating “leadership”?

Chelios spoke his mind and just seems like someone I’d play hard for and would appreciate for having in my corner. Based on what I’ve heard, Zetterberg was much more the captain I would have wanted than Lidstrom was. I think it was Chelios I heard talking about the Babcock stuff, that he himself was an old geezer getting a few shifts every other game and not having much authority at the latter stage of his career, and seeing Babcock sending Franzén on his umpteenth concussion into a panic attack, praising Zetterberg for getting into “f*** you”-matches with Babs and—this is my inference—combining being a leader by example with just being a good teammate and someone speaking strength to power or whatnot.

I don’t think any of us really know, and as stated previously it’s mostly based on anecdotes, but I don’t necessarily have the sense that any of the mentioned defensemen live up to my expectations of “great leadership”. They all seem limited.

What they have in common, is great commitment to their game, while being gold standards at their position. Those qualities will make for great captains, definitely: imagine making their team and showing anything less than their dedication despite having a fraction of the talent.

But then I feel Bourque and Lidström are both awkwardly brown nosed guys from an era where you wouldn’t question authority, and Potvin’s an arrogant prick, and Chelios is perhaps too irreverent, and Robinson… Well, I don’t have any anecdotes on his leadership, but I don’t think he was ever a captain either so I don’t know.

 

[Sentinel]

Lidstrom accomplished quite a bit more.

 

[VanIslander]

Lidstrom faced QUITE A BIT less competition.

Indeed.

Bourque was an 18-time 1st/2nd all-star against MANY more all-time great defensemen than Nik did.

The fact that Hasek is the NHL career save percentage leader without a single great defenseman in front of him is staggering.

Almost 20 years in the NHL, after years of impressive Czechoslovakian play (incl. Canada Cups), equals .... Hasek still #1 in save %.

Roy was once asked about Hasek after a game and he said: ".... off!" CBC replayed it once (and two people lost their jobs).

 

[67 others]

When voters were 40 to 4 in favor of Housley over Chelios it's pretty clear whom they considered to be the better defenseman that year.


Why would you say that defense was particularly weak league wide in 2002 compared to 1992?

Defense was pretty weak a display that year. And 2001....and 2003

If you take Lidstrom's season that year, and the runner up each season and then overlap their seasons with the competition Bourque faced from 1980-1994, and use the mentality of the voters in those 80's seasons, which seasons do you see Lidstrom winning?

Does one of those 2001, 02, 03 seasons win in 1981 when they decided Carlyle winning over a much better Potvin just because he was on a weaker team? no, he wouldn't have even beaten Potvin for 2nd

82 with Doug Wilson Winning? No, Wilson had a career year but deserved it as he was pretty solid two way. Lidstrom might have taken runner up instead of Bourque that season.

83 with Langway winning while barely scoring? The mentality then was "Let's give it back to an old school Dman, enough with these scorers!". Mark Howe was better all around, as was Bourque. Lidstrom may have come 3rd this year. Langway deserved more Hart Recognition, but nobody was touching Gretzky these years so they made sure he was rewarded in other ways.

84? Even tougher. Bourque should have won this year. Rock solid defensive Dman with 96 points. But Langway got it for the same reasons as 83. IMO Bourque was also better than Coffey and his 126 points, because Coffey barely played defense and clicked with Gretzky. Coffey had 30 more points than Bourque but was a 3 out of 10 defensively to Bourque's 9 out of 10. hell, Potvin was 4th and his season was better than any of those Lidstrom seasons. Any of his seasons EVER to be fair.

85? Same thing.

86? Coffey wasn't going to be denied this year. Mark howe was far better a two way Dman, as were Robinson and Bourque, but 138 points had a 56 point gap. He outscored them all by well over half their point totals. Lidstrom may have been able to tie Bourque for 4th place this year

87. Bourque was so good this year that he was the only one close to Gretzky for the Hart. This is one of those seasons where you can look at the runner up's in 2002 and say "Where would they have ranked?" And the answer is, somewhere near Rick Marois in 8th

88? Lidstrom's ain't beating Bourque this year ever

89? no, this is Prime Chelios. Old Man Chelios nearly beat Lidstrom in 2002.

90? lol. Bourque should have also won the Hart this season, so no, Lidstrom doesn't come close.
91? not only does he not beat Bourque, Lidstrom would not have beaten Macinnis this season.

And this is why it took forever for people to recognize how great Lids was. "but he was ultra soft". Yea, Lids showed the world that you don't need to be a neanderthal on the ice to be good at defense which he was superior to Bourque at. Maybe if Bourque realized that he could have been better at playing defense and lead his team to multiple stanley cups instead of chasing one at the end of his career as a hanger on.

It didn't take forever. His style wasn't as effective for the era of smaller pads and standup goalies. They didn't cover as much area so you had to really pick your spots when doing long gap and short gap control and attack the puck carrier. I read a post that covered this pretty thoroughly just a few days ago that I agreed with completely. i need to go searching for it because it had a video....

Found it.
You were expected to have gap control then attack the man at a certain point, or this happened.......a lot


in this video, Osgood should have had that covered. in the 80's and some of the early 90s? lol. was a different time. you had to be more aggressive as a Dman.

Lidstrom faced QUITE A BIT less competition.

Indeed.

Bourque was an 18-time 1st/2nd all-star against MANY more all-time great defensemen than Nik did.

The fact that Hasek is the NHL career save percentage leader without a single great defenseman in front of him is staggering.

Almost 20 years in the NHL, after years of impressive Czechoslovakian play (incl. Canada Cups), equals .... Hasek still #1 in save %.

Roy was once asked about Hasek after a game and he said: ".... off!" CBC replayed it once (and two people lost their jobs).

This.

 

[Albatros]

Defense was pretty weak a display that year. And 2001....and 2003

If you take Lidstrom's season that year, and the runner up each season and then overlap their seasons with the competition Bourque faced from 1980-1994, and use the mentality of the voters in those 80's seasons, which seasons do you see Lidstrom winning?

I don't see any evidence for that, for example shots against were the second lowest in league history in 2002 which is one indicator of exceptionally tight defensive play league wide. If anything, the defensive aspects of the game were much weaker in the 1980s and the early 1990s as plays flowed freely and were countered more with occasional brutality than overwhelming skill or tactical brilliance, even Chelios as of 1992 still played like an undisciplined bonehead that took way more bad penalties than even Pronger at his worst. Celebrating that as since lost excellence is personal nostalgia more than anything else. The game and the players evolved, it's true that also the 1980s voters surely had a different mindset to the extent that it would be good fun to speculate what they might have made of some later stars if one was dropped in their midst, Erik Karlsson or Adam Fox even, but the argument was that 1992 Chelios would have won easily in 2002 and not vice versa.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Defense was pretty weak a display that year. And 2001....and 2003

If you take Lidstrom's season that year, and the runner up each season and then overlap their seasons with the competition Bourque faced from 1980-1994, and use the mentality of the voters in those 80's seasons, which seasons do you see Lidstrom winning?

Does one of those 2001, 02, 03 seasons win in 1981 when they decided Carlyle winning over a much better Potvin just because he was on a weaker team? no, he wouldn't have even beaten Potvin for 2nd

82 with Doug Wilson Winning? No, Wilson had a career year but deserved it as he was pretty solid two way. Lidstrom might have taken runner up instead of Bourque that season.

83 with Langway winning while barely scoring? The mentality then was "Let's give it back to an old school Dman, enough with these scorers!". Mark Howe was better all around, as was Bourque. Lidstrom may have come 3rd this year. Langway deserved more Hart Recognition, but nobody was touching Gretzky these years so they made sure he was rewarded in other ways.

84? Even tougher. Bourque should have won this year. Rock solid defensive Dman with 96 points. But Langway got it for the same reasons as 83. IMO Bourque was also better than Coffey and his 126 points, because Coffey barely played defense and clicked with Gretzky. Coffey had 30 more points than Bourque but was a 3 out of 10 defensively to Bourque's 9 out of 10. hell, Potvin was 4th and his season was better than any of those Lidstrom seasons. Any of his seasons EVER to be fair.

85? Same thing.

86? Coffey wasn't going to be denied this year. Mark howe was far better a two way Dman, as were Robinson and Bourque, but 138 points had a 56 point gap. He outscored them all by well over half their point totals. Lidstrom may have been able to tie Bourque for 4th place this year

87. Bourque was so good this year that he was the only one close to Gretzky for the Hart. This is one of those seasons where you can look at the runner up's in 2002 and say "Where would they have ranked?" And the answer is, somewhere near Rick Marois in 8th

88? Lidstrom's ain't beating Bourque this year ever

89? no, this is Prime Chelios. Old Man Chelios nearly beat Lidstrom in 2002.

90? lol. Bourque should have also won the Hart this season, so no, Lidstrom doesn't come close.
91? not only does he not beat Bourque, Lidstrom would not have beaten Macinnis this season.


It didn't take forever. His style wasn't as effective for the era of smaller pads and standup goalies. They didn't cover as much area so you had to really pick your spots when doing long gap and short gap control and attack the puck carrier. I read a post that covered this pretty thoroughly just a few days ago that I agreed with completely. i need to go searching for it because it had a video....

Found it.
You were expected to have gap control then attack the man at a certain point, or this happened.......a lot


in this video, Osgood should have had that covered. in the 80's and some of the early 90s? lol. was a different time. you had to be more aggressive as a Dman.

Not the first time I've seen this video- and (aside from the obvious point that the beaten goalie was NOT Osgood, but was instead someone named Joey MacDonald, shown here showing off his career negative 32+ Goals Saved Above Average form), I'll call as witnesses the neutral announcers- who stated "no question that Joey MacDonald would like another shot at this one: that shouldn't get through, he wasn't squared up..."

Even on a "bad" Lidström play, the attacker's path was to a lower danger area- and the result was more of an indictment of the netminder than of Lidström.

 

[67 others]

Not the first time I've seen this video- and (aside from the obvious point that the beaten goalie was NOT Osgood, but was instead someone named Joey MacDonald, shown here showing off his career negative 32+ Goals Saved Above Average form), I'll call as witnesses the neutral announcers- who stated "no question that Joey MacDonald would like another shot at this one: that shouldn't get through, he wasn't squared up..."

Even on a "bad" Lidström play, the attacker's path was to a lower danger area- and the result was more of an indictment of the netminder than of Lidström.

Yes. And in the Era of stand-up and weaker goaltending being the norm since they could not cover as much, the way to counter this was to more aggressively attack the puck carrier.

Hence, this is why his style did not work as well earlier, not because it was "unappreciated " as some try to indicate. Because that goal would happen more often than not in the old days unless the defenseman more aggressively went at the man

 

[67 others]

I don't see any evidence for that, for example shots against were the second lowest in league history in 2002 which is one indicator of exceptionally tight defensive play league wide. If anything, the defensive aspects of the game were much weaker in the 1980s and the early 1990s as plays flowed freely and were countered more with occasional brutality than overwhelming skill or tactical brilliance, even Chelios as of 1992 still played like an undisciplined bonehead that took way more bad penalties than even Pronger at his worst. Celebrating that as since lost excellence is personal nostalgia more than anything else. The game and the players evolved, it's true that also the 1980s voters surely had a different mindset to the extent that it would be good fun to speculate what they might have made of some later stars if one was dropped in their midst, Erik Karlsson or Adam Fox even, but the argument was that 1992 Chelios would have won easily in 2002 and not vice versa.

Lol. "how dare this Supreme agitator who was voted a top offensive and defensive dman in the league just behind Bourque by the coaches polls take so many penalties!" Nevermind a huge chunk of them being last 30 seconds of 3rd period 15 min misconducts when the game was over, designed to make folks want to take revenge on him next game. Half the time star players retaliating against Chelios was the goal because they went to the box too. ill never forget Hextall trying to Decapitate him lol. Yeah it was a different game back then.

Implying it was a weakness to his game and hurt his team......hurt them all the way to the cup finals that year. Nobody was beating Lemieux for the Smythe that year, but if you had to choose an opposing team member, it was Chelios and his huge agitator game with perfect defense and excellent offense.

Yes, 30 year old Chelios was a far superior player to 40 year old Chelios who almost beat Lidström in 2002.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i am one of those truthers that believes that the absolute peak performances of chelios was the best dman i’ve seen in my lifetime (i missed potvin), so a little better than even bourque and lidstrom, and i guess pronger’s spike performances would be the other one i’d put in that echelon.

all to say, imo chelios stole norrises from bourque’s potentially harvey/lidstrom-like run not because of voter fatigue (leetch) or points (coffey) or injury (ok, 1989 chelios) but because he was just that good.

there was not a better player defensively that i have seen, and that includes lidstrom and new jersey stevens. (langway was before my time.)

 

[Albatros]

Lol. "how dare this Supreme agitator who was voted a top offensive and defensive dman in the league just behind Bourque by the coaches polls take so many penalties!" Nevermind a huge chunk of them being last 30 seconds of 3rd period 15 min misconducts when the game was over, designed to make folks want to take revenge on him next game. Half the time star players retaliating against Chelios was the goal because they went to the box too. ill never forget Hextall trying to Decapitate him lol. Yeah it was a different game back then.

Implying it was a weakness to his game and hurt his team......hurt them all the way to the cup finals that year. Nobody was beating Lemieux for the Smythe that year, but if you had to choose an opposing team member, it was Chelios and his huge agitator game with perfect defense and excellent offense.

Yes, 30 year old Chelios was a far superior player to 40 year old Chelios who almost beat Lidström in 2002.

I wouldn't even include that kind of shenanigans, but talking about misconduct penalties there were games when Chelios took one in every period and it was often far from methodical. Chelios was a good agitator, yes, but he was also about just as easy to agitate. Especially against divisional rivals the games were often unruly, even ugly. It was only Scotty Bowman in Detroit that made him more disciplined and yes, that made him a better player. Cup winner rather than loser, too.

 

[67 others]

I wouldn't even include that kind of shenanigans, but talking about misconduct penalties there were games when Chelios took one in every period and it was often far from methodical. Chelios was a good agitator, yes, but he was also about just as easy to agitate. Especially against divisional rivals the games were often unruly, even ugly. It was only Scotty Bowman in Detroit that made him more disciplined and yes, that made him a better player. Cup winner rather than loser, too.

Whatever fits the false narrative in your fantasy bud.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so in 2002, the canucks were poised to upset the most ringerful team of our time, the hasek/chelios/hull/robitaille red wings. was that team good enough to win a cup? absolutely not. but they were talented enough and had enough mojo and momentum to pull off a ziggy palffy or js giguere-esque upset.

to recap, that was the deepest of all the naslund/bertuzzi teams, with morrison recently promoted to the top line, playoff linden slotting in on three lines and two positions, a still good andrew cassels, the forgotten defensive beast artem chubarov, and a very young henrik sedin.

naslund morrison bertuzzi
hlavac cassels linden
cooke chubarov/linden letowski
sedin sedin warriner/linden

ohlund sopel
lachance jovanovski
helmer baron

in the subsequent naslund/bertuzzi years, after cassels left and linden fell down the lineup, it was a huge disappointment that the pre-lockout sedins didn't grow to fill those holes (or, depending on who you ask, that marc crawford didn't play them in that role).

but just as important as the depth was the momentum. as everyone knows, that team was legendarily fragile. but in the second half of the season, jan 1 on, bertuzzi absolutely murdered the league.

	games	goals	assists	pts	+/-
bertuzzi	40	26	34	60	25
naslund	39	23	30	53	19
kovalev	42	20	31	51	1
iginla	42	25	24	49	5
allison	43	11	35	46	9
jagr	37	18	27	45	5
modano	42	17	27	44	3
palffy	43	24	19	43	3
bure's last stand	37	23	19	42	4

cloutier was 17-5-2 going into the playoffs, and while his counting stats were far from elite, he wasn't losing them games.

the team was 26-8-3-3, tied for first with LA from jan 1 on, and way ahead of anyone with a win percentage of .725, 0.51 ahead of LA, 0.54 ahead of detroit.

why am i telling you all this? because detroit was in big trouble going to vancouver down 2-0. bertuzzi was unstoppable. the lidstrom/chelios pair was out against him every time and he was just barreling his way to the net every time. there was a disallowed goal in game one where bertuzzi is just ragdolling lidstrom in the crease, while chelios is whacking him from behind. two of the 12 best dmen of all time, both first team all-stars that season, with hasek in net, and there's nothing they can do. bert just casually retrieved his own rebound with two guys on him and kicked it into the net with hasek down and out.

the rest of the team was cooking too. canucks captains past, present, and future had all scored: linden tied it late in the third period of game one to force overtime, and henrik scored his first playoff goal to win it. naslund scored an absolutely beauty to put it away near the end of game two, after detroit scored one to make it a two goal game; part of why naslund was so open was because the entire team was watching bertuzzi, but still, what a gorgeous shot by naslund. andrew cassels, normally allergic to goals, scored in both games. even cloutier was looking sharp, sporting a 2.24 GAA / .930 SV% (vs hasek's 3.60 / .822).

three things happened in game 3. one was lidstrom and chelios were separated. the second, everybody remembers: lidstrom scoring from center ice and destroying cloutier forever. the third was instead of trying to contain him, chelios, paired with jiri fischer, challenged bertuzzi physically and got the big idiot more interested in running around looking for the big hit than doing his job and scoring goals. the next season, the book on bertuzzi was definitely out because barrett jackman and willie mitchell borrowed it in their respective series against the canucks.

the proof is in the pudding right? games 3 through 6:

	goals	assists	pts	+/-	PIM
bertuzzi	1	1	2	-3	10
chelios	1	5	6	+5	2

 

[wetcoast]

so in 2002, the canucks were poised to upset the most ringerful team of our time, the hasek/chelios/hull/robitaille red wings. was that team good enough to win a cup? absolutely not. but they were talented enough and had enough mojo and momentum to pull off a ziggy palffy or js giguere-esque upset.

to recap, that was the deepest of all the naslund/bertuzzi teams, with morrison recently promoted to the top line, playoff linden slotting in on three lines and two positions, a still good andrew cassels, the forgotten defensive beast artem chubarov, and a very young henrik sedin.

naslund morrison bertuzzi
hlavac cassels linden
cooke chubarov/linden letowski
sedin sedin warriner/linden

ohlund sopel
lachance jovanovski
helmer baron

in the subsequent naslund/bertuzzi years, after cassels left and linden fell down the lineup, it was a huge disappointment that the pre-lockout sedins didn't grow to fill those holes (or, depending on who you ask, that marc crawford didn't play them in that role).

but just as important as the depth was the momentum. as everyone knows, that team was legendarily fragile. but in the second half of the season, jan 1 on, bertuzzi absolutely murdered the league.

	games	goals	assists	pts	+/-
bertuzzi	40	26	34	60	25
naslund	39	23	30	53	19
kovalev	42	20	31	51	1
iginla	42	25	24	49	5
allison	43	11	35	46	9
jagr	37	18	27	45	5
modano	42	17	27	44	3
palffy	43	24	19	43	3
bure's last stand	37	23	19	42	4

cloutier was 17-5-2 going into the playoffs, and while his counting stats were far from elite, he wasn't losing them games.

the team was 26-8-3-3, tied for first with LA from jan 1 on, and way ahead of anyone with a win percentage of .725, 0.51 ahead of LA, 0.54 ahead of detroit.

why am i telling you all this? because detroit was in big trouble going to vancouver down 2-0. bertuzzi was unstoppable. the lidstrom/chelios pair was out against him every time and he was just barreling his way to the net every time. there was a disallowed goal in game one where bertuzzi is just ragdolling lidstrom in the crease, while chelios is whacking him from behind. two of the 12 best dmen of all time, both first team all-stars that season, with hasek in net, and there's nothing they can do. bert just casually retrieved his own rebound with two guys on him and kicked it into the net with hasek down and out.

the rest of the team was cooking too. canucks captains past, present, and future had all scored: linden tied it late in the third period of game one to force overtime, and henrik scored his first playoff goal to win it. naslund scored an absolutely beauty to put it away near the end of game two, after detroit scored one to make it a two goal game; part of why naslund was so open was because the entire team was watching bertuzzi, but still, what a gorgeous shot by naslund. andrew cassels, normally allergic to goals, scored in both games. even cloutier was looking sharp, sporting a 2.24 GAA / .930 SV% (vs hasek's 3.60 / .822).

three things happened in game 3. one was lidstrom and chelios were separated. the second, everybody remembers: lidstrom scoring from center ice and destroying cloutier forever. the third was instead of trying to contain him, chelios, paired with jiri fischer, challenged bertuzzi physically and got the big idiot more interested in running around looking for the big hit than doing his job and scoring goals. the next season, the book on bertuzzi was definitely out because barrett jackman and willie mitchell borrowed it in their respective series against the canucks.

the proof is in the pudding right? games 3 through 6:

	goals	assists	pts	+/-	PIM
bertuzzi	1	1	2	-3	10
chelios	1	5	6	+5	2

Great recap.

I'm going off memory here so I can't recall which game it was but Bert just rocked Chelios on a play and I though Chris was in la la land but that hit seemed to wake him up and Chelios just turned the game around after that hit.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Great recap.

I'm going off memory here so I can't recall which game it was but Bert just rocked Chelios on a play and I though Chris was in la la land but that hit seemed to wake him up and Chelios just turned the game around after that hit.

that was game three. it happened midway through the second, with the game tied 1-1. bertuzzi had tied it minutes earlier on a beautiful PP goal off a set play, goes in all alone and takes hasek to his backhand, nothing but water bottle. that was bertuzzi's last goal of the series and his last point other than a second assist on a PP goal in game six.

at the end of the game, down 3-1, bertuzzi is hauled down from behind by lidstrom, but hasek stones him on the penalty shot.

but that penalty shot aside, this is bertuzzi of it all, right? game's tied 1-1, canucks are on the PP, and bertuzzi takes five strides to get both hands right on the two numbers on the back of chelios' jersey and plaster him into the end boards, ramming chelios' head right into the red lip at the top of the boards so hard his helmet came flying off. as it happened, there was no call on that play and in the ensuing confusion hasek got a delay of game for pushing the net off its supports. but still, that was a selfish play by a guy whose head chelios had clearly gotten into.

and then midway through the third, down 3-1, bertuzzi takes offsetting cross-checking/slashing minors with jiri fischer. and after the failed penalty shot, 1:58 left in the game and down two, bertuzzi goes rogue and takes a double minor to close out the game going after kirk maltby (the second penalty for punching maltby from behind as he's skating away from him, eerily foreboding of the steve moore punch).

the other thing people forget is until that lidstrom goal in the last minute of the second period, cloutier was putting on an absolute clinic against the red wings, who came out flying that game.

 

[wetcoast]

that was game three. it happened midway through the second, with the game tied 1-1. bertuzzi had tied it minutes earlier on a beautiful PP goal off a set play, goes in all alone and takes hasek to his backhand, nothing but water bottle. that was bertuzzi's last goal of the series and his last point other than a second assist on a PP goal in game six.

at the end of the game, down 3-1, bertuzzi is hauled down from behind by lidstrom, but hasek stones him on the penalty shot.

but that penalty shot aside, this is bertuzzi of it all, right? game's tied 1-1, canucks are on the PP, and bertuzzi takes five strides to get both hands right on the two numbers on the back of chelios' jersey and plaster him into the end boards, ramming chelios' head right into the red lip at the top of the boards so hard his helmet came flying off. as it happened, there was no call on that play and in the ensuing confusion hasek got a delay of game for pushing the net off its supports. but still, that was a selfish play by a guy whose head chelios had clearly gotten into.

and then midway through the third, down 3-1, bertuzzi takes offsetting cross-checking/slashing minors with jiri fischer. and after the failed penalty shot, 1:58 left in the game and down two, bertuzzi goes rogue and takes a double minor to close out the game going after kirk maltby (the second penalty for punching maltby from behind as he's skating away from him, eerily foreboding of the steve moore punch).

the other thing people forget is until that lidstrom goal in the last minute of the second period, cloutier was putting on an absolute clinic against the red wings, who came out flying that game.

I remember watching that play and wondered how Chelios was still standing.

I think this might be the hit here but I remember seeing the angle from a closer opposite view.

 

[cole von cole]

Great recap.

I'm going off memory here so I can't recall which game it was but Bert just rocked Chelios on a play and I though Chris was in la la land but that hit seemed to wake him up and Chelios just turned the game around after that hit.

Was it this hit?

 

[norrisnick]

Was it this hit?

The clip at the very end of Cheli taking the 1st star lap, in Vancouver, after the Canucks got eliminated? *chef's kiss* Has there been a douche-ier on-ice move than that?

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I remember watching that play and wondered how Chelios was still standing.

I think this might be the hit here but I remember seeing the angle from a closer opposite view.

the part that shows you what chelios is made of is without even taking a beat he is already getting back up on his skates. like this 250 lb monster threw him headfirst into the boards with almost an entire zone’s worth of runway before the collision and chelios basically gets himself back up in the same motion as he bounces off the ice. by the time bertuzzi gets to the front of the net—remember the canucks are on a power play—chelios is already there battling him with no helmet on.

most people would have been dead.

 

[wetcoast]

the part that shows you what chelios is made of is without even taking a beat he is already getting back up on his skates. like this 250 lb monster threw him headfirst into the boards with almost an entire zone’s worth of runway before the collision and chelios basically gets himself back up in the same motion as he bounces off the ice. by the time bertuzzi gets to the front of the net—remember the canucks are on a power play—chelios is already there battling him with no helmet on.

most people would have been dead.

I imagine the Canuck players feeling like wow he is invincible out there.

 

[wintersej]

While it’s an easy point to make to wonder what Bourque’s offensive totals may have been in a different era, it’s interesting to consider how good Lidstrom’s defense would have been in an era where goalies could get beaten from anywhere and there was much less structure. Playing defense was much more physical and less about using positioning to put people into a harder area to score from given shooters could score from anywhere.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

Lidstrom faced QUITE A BIT less competition.

Indeed.

Bourque was an 18-time 1st/2nd all-star against MANY more all-time great defensemen than Nik did.

The fact that Hasek is the NHL career save percentage leader without a single great defenseman in front of him is staggering.

Almost 20 years in the NHL, after years of impressive Czechoslovakian play (incl. Canada Cups), equals .... Hasek still #1 in save %.

Roy was once asked about Hasek after a game and he said: ".... off!" CBC replayed it once (and two people lost their jobs).

I think the bolded is a bad take.

When Lidstrom was in it was a bigger league, more skill injected due to the iron curtain coming down and more European players joining, and scoring dipped considerably during a systems and goaltending revolution in the league. Still had to compete against a lot of the big names from the 80s and early 90s. Was THE dominant defenseman in the new era of the NHL.

 

[67 others]

While it’s an easy point to make to wonder what Bourque’s offensive totals may have been in a different era, it’s interesting to consider how good Lidstrom’s defense would have been in an era where goalies could get beaten from anywhere and there was much less structure. Playing defense was much more physical and less about using positioning to put people into a harder area to score from given shooters could score from anywhere.

Yes you were expected to attack the man more directly then. Folks could routinely beat a goalie with a snapshot from the blueline, so closing and forcing was more critical than angles and gap control.

Earlier I posted a video of umberger scoring because the goalie didn't properly play. But Lidstrom let him walk in. That was on the goalie in the later 90s. But would be on the defenseman circa 1950-1994.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Can't ignore Bourque's lackluster or un-Bourque-ian postseason play from a large sample -- 1991 to 1999, and you can add the Habs' series meltdowns between 1984 and 1987. There were plenty of clunkers in there on both an individual and team level. But it really started going downhill for Bourque in Game 5 of the 1991 Wales final IMO, as a bad pinch led to a Stevens breakaway that nullified a 1-0 lead. Obviously there were good showings later on (1994 ECQF, Avs years), but most of the rest were rather nightmarish, and that isn't hyperbole when you consider the B's were the favorites and had home ice. Richer, Mogilny, Jagr, Stevens, Sheppard all had their way matched up against Bourque, and then you have all those series-clinching or critical goals-against Bourque was directly responsible for (Naslund twice, May, Nicholls, Richer, Lindsay, et al.). Game 4 in Round 2 in 1994, at home vs NJD -- B's up 4-3 later in 3rd and 2-1 in the series, and Bourque from behind his net tries a breakout that gets picked off, Devils score right after to make it 4-4 then B's lose in OT and eventually drop the series. Plenty of other examples to list.

Bourque has the better individual numbers thanks to his high shot volume, the offensive era, and lesser supporting cast, but what Lidstrom did at the end of his career was far, far more impressive. Don't think Bourque has anything on his playoff resume that can touch what Lidstrom did to peak Lindros in 1997 or Crosby in 2008 and 2009.