RANK! Better Career: Bourque vs Lidstrom vs Coffey vs Stevens

[Hobnobs]

I guess what I'm saying is that Detroit's core remained much intact, but it was management's ability to keep filling in the gaps later on (Championship teams usually lose one or two key players) that kept them winning their Cups. Let's face it, poor management leads to poor results - think Islanders during the Milbury years.

But Bowman was the coach in 95. What they did was get rid of Sheppard and Primeau and replaced them with Shanahan and Larionov. The former couldnt perform in the playoffs while the latter could.

 

[danincanada]

That's just wrong, and disingenuous to Robitaille. When Robitaille signed with Detroit, he knew what he was doing -- signing-up to be a 2nd-line kind of winger, on a 4-line rotation team, for the first time in his life. He had never done that before, and he wanted to do it -- i.e., sacrifice ice-time and stats -- for a chance at the Cup.

The previous season (2000-01) with L.A., Robitaille scored 37 goals in 18:42 ice-time per game. With the Wings in 2001-02, he scored 30 goals in 14:51 ice-time per game. The goals-per-minute ratio (if we must get all technical) is virtually identical.

I don't know about you, but I would say scoring 30 goals (at age 35) with 14 or 15 minutes' ice-time per game, at the height of the dead-puck era, is rather impressive.

I think most Wings fans weren't impressed by Robitaille. He was very one-dimensional (goal scorer) and didn't bring much else to the table. We were pretty demanding and spoiled with two-way players by then. It ended up working out for both sides obviously.

He scored 30 goals but his point totals went from 88 the season before with the Kings to 50 with the Wings so his production took a big hit along with his ice-time. Somehow he was a minus player on that stacked '02 team with a -2 even though the team was +64. The following season after the Cup win he completely fell off the map and then left town. That may skew our memories a tad as well.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's just wrong, and disingenuous to Robitaille. When Robitaille signed with Detroit, he knew what he was doing -- signing-up to be a 2nd-line kind of winger, on a 4-line rotation team, for the first time in his life. He had never done that before, and he wanted to do it -- i.e., sacrifice ice-time and stats -- for a chance at the Cup.

The previous season (2000-01) with L.A., Robitaille scored 37 goals in 18:42 ice-time per game. With the Wings in 2001-02, he scored 30 goals in 14:51 ice-time per game. The goals-per-minute ratio (if we must get all technical) is virtually identical.

I don't know about you, but I would say scoring 30 goals (at age 35) with 14 or 15 minutes' ice-time per game, at the height of the dead-puck era, is rather impressive.

That's a good point. As I mentioned up thread, the Red Wings brought in guys with pedigree who were willing to play within their team concept and win.

Robitaille certainly did that, and you're right that losing 4 minutes a game probably completely explains what looks like a big drop off in production. He played even less in the playoffs.

I'm sure he's quite happy to have done that for the ring, through.

 

[danincanada]

Just my perspective.

The early Av's team was better - as in the first one to win the Cup. Top end talent - check. Depth - check. Later on, the Av's lost a lot of their depth guys, and had to rely on their top end talent which wasn't enough - kinda like the Penguins today.

The early Red Wings weren't as good, as evidenced by their losses to New Jersey and the Av's. I think their top end talent "matured" and actually got better. But, the big key for them was Bowman. He managed the team impeccably, and my observation is that they did win because of their greater depth. This was achieved through a combination of great scouting and drafting, and some good trade deadline acquisitions.

Note that Scotty's now with Chicago, and look how they've done.

I agree that Bowman was a key, especially that he got the right pieces he wanted in place. This includes shipping Coffey and Primeau for Shanny and making Lidstrom the #1 guy on the backend though. The fact that you point to their top end talent "maturing" is very telling because that screams Lidstrom. Somehow Bowman knew, or at least was very confident, Lidstrom would be ready in '97 as the top guy on D. This is a credit to Bowman and Lidstrom.

 

[The Panther]

I agree that Bowman was a key, especially that he got the right pieces he wanted in place. This includes shipping Coffey and Primeau for Shanny and making Lidstrom the #1 guy on the backend though. The fact that you point to their top end talent "maturing" is very telling because that screams Lidstrom. Somehow Bowman knew, or at least was very confident, Lidstrom would be ready in '97 as the top guy on D. This is a credit to Bowman and Lidstrom.

I don't think anyone supporting Bourque in this discussion is suggesting that Lidstrom was not the Wings' top D-man.

I know that. I agree with that. What I'm saying is that Bourque was the go-to guy, whereas Lidstrom was not (normally).

The difference can be explained like this -- if Lidstrom was removed from the Wings' lineup in his prime, the Wings could still have competed for the Cup (particularly in '02, but maybe also in '97 and '98). If Bourque was removed from the Bruins' lineup in '88 or '90, the Bruins could NOT have competed for the Cup and made it to the Final.

Of course, this difference in itself does not mean that Bourque was 'better'. However, according to my way of thinking, it does make this kind of comparison difficult.

 

[The Panther]

Actually, following up from my previous post, it occurs to me that one more 'fair' way to compare the two D-men would be to compare them near the end of their careers -- in Bourque's case with Colorado in 2000-01.

I say this because in 2000-01 Bourque played with the kind of stacked, well-coached personnel that Lidstrom played with for much of his career.

Of course, this isn't really fair either, because we have only one season of Bourque's to work from, and he's already 40.

Aged 40 (2001), Bourque had 59 points and was +25, playing 26 minutes a night. He was 2nd in Norris voting. I mean, that is incredible. Actually, that is nearly unbelievable.

And if you compare those raw numbers to Lidstrom's numbers in his last 3 or 4 seasons (aged 38 to 41, say), they're virtually identical.

 

[Thenameless]

I'm not really weighing in on the Bourque vs Lidstrom debate. I'm more of a Stevens guy and understand that he can't possibly win this poll.

I am agreeing with the idea that Detroit was able to maintain superior depth than their competition during their good years. Be it the Avs or teams from the east.

As a side note, it seemed like the Flyers were also trying very hard during that time (during trade deadlines and free agency) but somehow the team just could never put it together like Detroit.

 

[Fugu]

That's just wrong, and disingenuous to Robitaille. When Robitaille signed with Detroit, he knew what he was doing -- signing-up to be a 2nd-line kind of winger, on a 4-line rotation team, for the first time in his life. He had never done that before, and he wanted to do it -- i.e., sacrifice ice-time and stats -- for a chance at the Cup.

The previous season (2000-01) with L.A., Robitaille scored 37 goals in 18:42 ice-time per game. With the Wings in 2001-02, he scored 30 goals in 14:51 ice-time per game. The goals-per-minute ratio (if we must get all technical) is virtually identical.

I don't know about you, but I would say scoring 30 goals (at age 35) with 14 or 15 minutes' ice-time per game, at the height of the dead-puck era, is rather impressive.

Agreed. Dont know what Fugu is on about here.

Oh? Did you know the Wings opted to buy out Robitaille after that second year?

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/25/sports/sp-kings25

Robitaille had 30 goals and 20 assists in his first season with the Red Wings and helped Detroit win the Stanley Cup. But he had one goal in last season's playoffs, which ended quickly for Detroit after a first-round sweep by the Mighty Ducks.
Almost immediately after the season, Red Wing officials told Robitaille they would be exercising a $1-million buyout of his contract.

No, scoring 30 G in Detroit certainly wouldn't indicate to me we're talking about the Dead Puck era. That put Lucky in the 4th spot for Goals Scored-- Shanny led with 37, Feds with 31, then Hull and Lucky Luc with 30 apiece. Points for the four were: 75 Pt, 68, 63, 50, respectively.

Digging a bit further, ES Goals were Shanny, 22, Hull, 22, Feds, 21, Luc, 17, Draper!, 13; PP is where Luc made a feast of it-- Luc, 13, Shanny, 12 (and he had 3 shorties!), Feds, 10, Hull, 7, Holmstrom, 6.

Luc was mostly a PP specialist, with 11:22 ES TOI/G; and 3:27 PP TOI/G. The other forwards (Yzerman, Shanny, Feds, Hull) had slightly more PP IT/game--- but they all pulled top SH IT/G as well. Yzerman, Draper, Maltby and Feds all had 2+ min per game; even Hull was getting 1:35 SH IT/G!!! Brett Hull playing on the PK!

In the playoffs in 2002.... Luc falls to 11th for ES TOI/G, at 10:15; and 5th for PP TOI/G at about 3:00 min.

Yzerman, Shanny, Feds and Hull are the top scorers, by G and Pts, and PP goals in blue:
Hull........... 10G/18Pts 3
Shanahan....8 G/19 1
Holmstrom..8 G/11 3
Yzerman.....6 G/23 4
Fedorov......5 G/19 2
Larionov.....5 G/11 0
Robitaille....4 G/9 1


Robitaille was a passenger during the playoffs.

Btw, Lidstrom was playing 5:04 min/gm on the PP, 5:41 min/gm on the PK, and about 20:24 ES in the playoffs. 5 G/16 pts, which put him in 5th, behind the big four forwards.

 

[danincanada]

I don't think anyone supporting Bourque in this discussion is suggesting that Lidstrom was not the Wings' top D-man.

I know that. I agree with that. What I'm saying is that Bourque was the go-to guy, whereas Lidstrom was not (normally).

The difference can be explained like this -- if Lidstrom was removed from the Wings' lineup in his prime, the Wings could still have competed for the Cup (particularly in '02, but maybe also in '97 and '98). If Bourque was removed from the Bruins' lineup in '88 or '90, the Bruins could NOT have competed for the Cup and made it to the Final.

Of course, this difference in itself does not mean that Bourque was 'better'. However, according to my way of thinking, it does make this kind of comparison difficult.

I'm not so sure about that. Lidstrom played the most minutes and played in all crucial situations so he was the "go-to guy" on the backend. He just had more help up front than Bourque and played more of a defense-first role, which is what Bowman wanted from him.

Are the Wings really contenders without Lidstrom? Apart from '02 they never had an elite goalie. As pointed up thread, having the best defender in the game made up for lacking that elite goalie. The Avs had Roy, the Devils had Brodeur, and the Stars had Belfour. This becomes a much more glaring problem for the Wings without Lidstrom.

I don't understand how so many in this section assume Bourque would have the same, or more if they really believe he was better, success than Lidstrom if put in the same situation. That's a huge assumption and I don't think we can go by assumptions or projections, we have to go by what actually happened. Otherwise it results in downplaying what Lidstrom and his teams accomplished over 20 years and that is criminal. People could do the same with Doug Harvey and his stacked Habs teams but I've yet to see it happen.

 

[Hobnobs]

Oh? Did you know the Wings opted to buy out Robitaille after that second year?

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/jul/25/sports/sp-kings25



No, scoring 30 G in Detroit certainly wouldn't indicate to me we're talking about the Dead Puck era. That put Lucky in the 4th spot for Goals Scored-- Shanny led with 37, Feds with 31, then Hull and Lucky Luc with 30 apiece. Points for the four were: 75 Pt, 68, 63, 50, respectively.

Digging a bit further, ES Goals were Shanny, 22, Hull, 22, Feds, 21, Luc, 17, Draper!, 13; PP is where Luc made a feast of it-- Luc, 13, Shanny, 12 (and he had 3 shorties!), Feds, 10, Hull, 7, Holmstrom, 6.

Luc was mostly a PP specialist, with 11:22 ES TOI/G; and 3:27 PP TOI/G. The other forwards (Yzerman, Shanny, Feds, Hull) had slightly more PP IT/game--- but they all pulled top SH IT/G as well. Yzerman, Draper, Maltby and Feds all had 2+ min per game; even Hull was getting 1:35 SH IT/G!!! Brett Hull playing on the PK!

In the playoffs in 2002.... Luc falls to 11th for ES TOI/G, at 10:15; and 5th for PP TOI/G at about 3:00 min.

Yzerman, Shanny, Feds and Hull are the top scorers, by G and Pts, and PP goals in blue:
Hull........... 10G/18Pts 3
Shanahan....8 G/19 1
Holmstrom..8 G/11 3
Yzerman.....6 G/23 4
Fedorov......5 G/19 2
Larionov.....5 G/11 0
Robitaille....4 G/9 1


Robitaille was a passenger during the playoffs.

Btw, Lidstrom was playing 5:04 min/gm on the PP, 5:41 min/gm on the PK, and about 20:24 ES. 5 G/16 pts, which put him in 5th, behind the big four forwards.

What has ice-time to do with anything he did on the ice? Nobody said he was THE star.

 

[Fugu]

What has ice-time to do with anything he did on the ice? Nobody said he was THE star.

It has everything to do with my contention that he was superfluous to the team's 2002 Cup victory.

 

[The Panther]

It has everything to do with my contention that he was superfluous to the team's 2002 Cup victory.

Eh? What does being bought-out in 2003 have to do with the 2002 victory?

Also, nobody is saying Robitaille carried Lidstrom or that Robitaille was the Wings' MVP in 2002. We're saying that the Red Wings were so stacked that the highest scoring LW in history (well, apart from Bobby Hull) could go there, score 30 goals, and be considered a fringe player.

That's how stacked the Wings were. (Which of course doesn't take anything away from Lidstrom, but it's a consideration in comparing these two D-men.)

 

[Rhiessan71]

Eh? What does being bought-out in 2003 have to do with the 2002 victory?

Also, nobody is saying Robitaille carried Lidstrom or that Robitaille was the Wings' MVP in 2002. We're saying that the Red Wings were so stacked that the highest scoring LW in history (well, apart from Bobby Hull) could go there, score 30 goals, and be considered a fringe player.

That's how stacked the Wings were. (Which of course doesn't take anything away from Lidstrom, but it's a consideration in comparing these two D-men.)

Bingo!
Glad this point wasn't lost on everyone

Look, at the end of the day, all Lidstrom was counted on to do was to sit back and defend at even strength, run the point on a stacked power play and kill penalties (and wasn't even the #1 penalty killer at times after Chelios arrived).

Now compare that to Bourque where it's easier to list what he wasn't asked to do in Boston to which the answer is the only thing he wasn't asked to do was play as a forward heh

IMO, if you switch these two players, Lidstrom can't step into Bourque's skates and do what Ray did but Bourque can and did play a Lidstrom-like role more than a few times.
And again, this is not an insult to Lidstrom as I can count on one hand the number of Dmen that actually could do what Bourque did in Boston.

 

[Fugu]

`

Yzerman was entering the end phase years of his career, having played in the league since 83-84. Lidstrom was in or entering his prime.
Highly subjective.

No, not subjective at all but representative of what was happening in the NHL with star salaries at the time. They were escalating quite rapidly, thanks to expansion and the competition for talent increasing. Yzerman had been the Wings highest paid player during that time, with only the Fedorov offer sheet upsetting that cart. The reason he sat out most of 1997-98 season is because they essentially had low-balled him. AND-- this is critical, the UFA age was 31. No one really cashed in until the team got that second and third contract out of them as RFAs (aka, repressed salaries given the talent/output).

The average team salary was around 46 million when the salary cap lockout happened. The wings had a Salary of 77+ million because they could trade for and sign expensive hall of fame veterans to boost their depth.

I know you don't mean to cherry pick, but you're cherry picking. You picked the single highest mark for the Wings during Lidstrom's entire career. Here's the actual payroll up to the 2003-04 lockout:

1992-93 11.7
1995-96 28.5
1998-99 48.3
1999-00 43.4 <--- Lidstrom's re-signed 3 yr, $22 MM ($6MM, 7.25, 8.5)
2000-01 54.1
2001-02 64.4
2002-03 68.0 ($10.5MM)
2003-04 77.8 ($10MM)
lockout

Had Selke Candidate centers on at least 2 of 4 of their lines, sometimes 3. No, they were not the only stacked team at the time, but they were usually the most stacked compared to the rest of the teams.

It wasn't a constant, but as others have noted, different teams peaked and abated. Even that 2002 had a tough time with [exceptional] Colorado and Vancouver teams. Were they in the top echelon? Yes. Were they alone, like the 1970s Canadiens or 1980s Oilers? No, not in my opinion. They were consistently there however.

 

[Fugu]

Eh? What does being bought-out in 2003 have to do with the 2002 victory?

Also, nobody is saying Robitaille carried Lidstrom or that Robitaille was the Wings' MVP in 2002. We're saying that the Red Wings were so stacked that the highest scoring LW in history (well, apart from Bobby Hull) could go there, score 30 goals, and be considered a fringe player.

That's how stacked the Wings were. (Which of course doesn't take anything away from Lidstrom, but it's a consideration in comparing these two D-men.)

Yes, indeed, apart from Brett Hull.

He didn't do much to further their Cup efforts, and thus was superfluous. If you really want to dig into why and how that team worked, just compare his results and IT with Hull's. His regular season results were clearly enhanced by time on the PP, and he's the only top tier forward who stands out if you dissect the IT and points results.

I'm amazed none of you think it's significant that Brett Hull was playing on the PK-- and thriving!

 

[Fugu]

I think most Wings fans weren't impressed by Robitaille. He was very one-dimensional (goal scorer) and didn't bring much else to the table. We were pretty demanding and spoiled with two-way players by then. It ended up working out for both sides obviously.

He scored 30 goals but his point totals went from 88 the season before with the Kings to 50 with the Wings so his production took a big hit along with his ice-time. Somehow he was a minus player on that stacked '02 team with a -2 even though the team was +64. The following season after the Cup win he completely fell off the map and then left town. That may skew our memories a tad as well.

My recollection as well. Very good regular season, PP specialist, and then not in the same tier for the playoffs. Completely fell off the next year. I just don't remember him being a factor during the Cup run, really a bit of an observer.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yes, indeed, apart from Brett Hull.

He didn't do much to further their Cup efforts, and thus was superfluous. If you really want to dig into why and how that team worked, just compare his results and IT with Hull's. His regular season results were clearly enhanced by time on the PP, and he's the only top tier forward who stands out if you dissect the IT and points results.

I'm amazed none of you think it's significant that Brett Hull was playing on the PK-- and thriving!

C'mon man, are you just purposefully missing the point here or what?

Just answer a simple question then...how stacked does a team have to be to have the luxury of calling a 30 goal scorer on a Cup team, a "fringe player"?

 

[danincanada]

Bingo!
Glad this point wasn't lost on everyone

Look, at the end of the day, all Lidstrom was counted on to do was to sit back and defend at even strength, run the point on a stacked power play and kill penalties (and wasn't even the #1 penalty killer at times after Chelios arrived).

Now compare that to Bourque where it's easier to list what he wasn't asked to do in Boston to which the answer is the only thing he wasn't asked to do was play as a forward heh

IMO, if you switch these two players, Lidstrom can't step into Bourque's skates and do what Ray did but Bourque can and did play a Lidstrom-like role more than a few times.
And again, this is not an insult to Lidstrom as I can count on one hand the number of Dmen that actually could do what Bourque did in Boston.

Talk about downplaying what Lidstrom did for his team. [MOD] He could defend like no other and transitioned the puck up ice just as flawlessly. Bourque didn't have the body (height and reach) or defensive abilities to be the shut-down guy Lidstrom was. He was great but just a mere mortal compared to Nick.

btw, I polished off Harvey's biography last night. [MOD] I came away liking Harvey as a person and he was obviously a brilliant player but he had far more blemishes in his career than Lidstrom. In fact, it's not even close.

 

[Killion]

btw, I polished off Harvey's biography last night. I came away liking Harvey as a person and he was obviously a brilliant player but he had far more blemishes in his career than Lidstrom. In fact, it's not even close.

... ya, great read that, and a seminal Defenceman. Changed the way the position was played like Shore before him, Orr after, and I believe Lidstrom has as well but as its still early days post his retirement the affects of his legacy may take awhile to really show~up in the generations that grew up watching (and idolizing) him at the NHL level. We do see a bit of it in the more recent crops.

 

[danincanada]

... ya, great read that, and a seminal Defenceman. Changed the way the position was played like Shore before him, Orr after, and I believe Lidstrom has as well but as its still early days post his retirement the affects of his legacy may take awhile to really show~up in the generations that grew up watching (and idolizing) him at the NHL level. We do see a bit of it in the more recent crops.

Yup, I'd recommend it to anyone who likes hockey or just likes a good biography. Harvey was a different type of guy for sure but you have to respect him for it. Standing up for the players like that and taking on management. I couldn't get over reading that he wouldn't stay on the ice to celebrate winning the Cup...went straight to the dressing room while his teammates basked in it. Sounded like a fun guy to be around though and he was a good man even though he was misunderstood by many.

 

[Fugu]

C'mon man, are you just purposefully missing the point here or what?

Just answer a simple question then...how stacked does a team have to be to have the luxury of calling a 30 goal scorer on a Cup team, a "fringe player"?

I know that's what you're trying to say for that 2002 team, and yes, very stacked.

My original point was merely to say that Robitaille did not really end up contributing to that team in any meaningful way. The only UFA who did make a difference was Hull. The rest of the team was all home-grown Wings, and the three guys that got added over the years by massive trades of Wing roster players and draft picks, most notably Shanny pre-Cup Wings; and then Cheli and Hasek after the 1998 Cup.

When it got down to the playoffs, the Wings core + Hull drove that team to the Cup. Had Robitaille never been signed, I doubt it would have made one iota of difference. Hull fit and was able to win IT and opportunities, but Robitaille somehow did not. Now, I don't have the game by game records to see how his scoring was spread out during the season, but I seem to recall mainly that by the end of the season and playoffs, that he was marginalized.

So it's not just a matter of being stacked, but that he wasn't the Luc everyone remembers by the time he got there, and that the core Wings players were better in the playoffs in their system. They might not have been as prolific on another team. A guy like Ray Whitney was another decent player who just never found his groove either on a stacked Wings team.

Some guys fit, some don't, and really my original quip was that Robitaille was superfluous on THAT team and for THAT Cup run. Not every top player would have thrived under Bowman and that system. Many actually hated it, and even Yzerman had to be retrained.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Bingo!
Glad this point wasn't lost on everyone

Look, at the end of the day, all Lidstrom was counted on to do was to sit back and defend at even strength, run the point on a stacked power play and kill penalties (and wasn't even the #1 penalty killer at times after Chelios arrived).

Now compare that to Bourque where it's easier to list what he wasn't asked to do in Boston to which the answer is the only thing he wasn't asked to do was play as a forward heh

IMO, if you switch these two players, Lidstrom can't step into Bourque's skates and do what Ray did but Bourque can and did play a Lidstrom-like role more than a few times.
And again, this is not an insult to Lidstrom as I can count on one hand the number of Dmen that actually could do what Bourque did in Boston.

At times as in twice. You make it sound like he routinely was counted on more often than Lidstrom to play PK minutes. Lidstrom was either #1 or right up there with Chelios every single year.

Also: "All Lidstrom had to do was sit back..." Really?

 

[Rhiessan71]

At times as in twice. You make it sound like he routinely was counted on more often than Lidstrom to play PK minutes. Lidstrom was either #1 or right up there with Chelios every single year.

Also: "All Lidstrom had to do was sit back..." Really?

Yes but remember, we're not comparing Lidstrom to Joe Average. We're comparing him to what Bourque not only did but what Bourque HAD TO DO in Boston.
So yeah, compared to what Bourque had to do to make his team successful, Lidstrom most certainly got to "sit back" as it were.

 

[overg]

Yes but remember, we're not comparing Lidstrom to Joe Average. We're comparing him to what Bourque not only did but what Bourque HAD TO DO in Boston.
So yeah, compared to what Bourque had to do to make his team successful, Lidstrom most certainly got to "sit back" as it were.

Wow. Although a little on the zealous side, I thought your points were fairly reasonable until you went there. You may have had some semblance of an argument if the Red Wings only achieved the same level of success as the Bruins. Lidstrom could have sat back, and the Wings could have only matched the Bruins' success. But the Wings far exceeded what the Bruins did, in great part because Lidstrom did not in any way, shape, or form sit back. He pushed himself to be one of the top 5 or so defensemen of all time.

Bourque may have been a better player when all is said and done, but there is no way it was because Lidstrom "sat back."

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Wow. Although a little on the zealous side, I thought your points were fairly reasonable until you went there. You may have had some semblance of an argument if the Red Wings only achieved the same level of success as the Bruins. Lidstrom could have sat back, and the Wings could have only matched the Bruins' success. But the Wings far exceeded what the Bruins did, in great part because Lidstrom did not in any way, shape, or form sit back. He pushed himself to be one of the top 5 or so defensemen of all time.

Bourque may have been a better player when all is said and done, but there is no way it was because Lidstrom "sat back."

I think you're misinterpreting what he means by "sit back". As I'm reading it, it's seems to me that he's indicating that Lidstrom had luxury of being able to play positional defense full-time without having to worry about driving the play or controlling the puck. Bourque didn't have that luxury.

I'm I reading this correctly Rhiessan?