my bad, the main responsibility of a d-man is to join the rush and rack up points.
- Status
my bad, the main responsibility of a d-man is to join the rush and rack up points.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Huh???
What does this have to do with you saying Bourque's offense wasn't that great and me saying it most certainly was?
I'm not even sure what point you're making or how it fits into what was being discussed.
The highest bourque has ever finished in a scoring race is 9th, and he has a few other years where he cracked the top 20. He's got 2 seasons based on adjusted stats that are better offensively than the rest of Lidstrom's years. Which is 1987 and 1994, but um the rest of his seasons are pretty much on par with Lidstrom's years if you go by adjusted stats.
There's a huge difference between putting up 80-90 point seasons when the league averages 7.4 goals per game and when the league averages 5.4 goals per game.
Another reason why i see offense as a moot point is because most of his points were assists. I'm sorry but backchecking and preventing your team from scoring is way more important for a defencemen than racking up secondary points.
Red Kelly and Brad Park were actually better offensively than bourque based on adjusted stats, they just dont have the freakish longevity because of weak advances in technology back then. Everyone in the 70s had a shorter career.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Explain
Please explain the bolded comment. Involved with hockey for over 50 years and this is the first time I see mention that defensemen have to backcheck and prevent their own team from scoring.
Please explain the bolded comment. Involved with hockey for over 50 years and this is the first time I see mention that defensemen have to backcheck and prevent their own team from scoring.
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
Funny then how not only does Bourque have almost TWICE as many goals as Lidstrom but he is also beating him by almost 100 in +/- and that's playing on inferior and sometimes vastly inferior teams.
...and don't give me that crap that Lidstrom played against the other teams best all the time either because Bourque did the exact same thing and did it at a time (as you're quick to point out) when scoring was up and team defense was no where near where it is now. In other words, Bourque did it with much less help and support than what Lidstrom has.
Also, I think I did a pretty good job earlier of showing that even using the most biased in Lidstrom's favour system of stat adjustments, Bourque is still waaaaaaayyy out in front with like still 300+ more points in just 200 more games.
Like I have said many times, I think these two guys overall are pretty close with the edge to Bourque.
I have no argument with anyone saying that Lidstrom holds the edge defensively between the two but I refuse to accept that Bourque is only slightly better offensively.
Last edited:
revolverjgw
Registered User
What a weird argument (even weirder if that line about "preventing your team from scoring" wasn't a typo). Bourque is a d-man, and like any d-man, he's going to carry the puck in to stimulate offense, throw out breakout passes to kickstart a rush, etc. They get a lot of secondary assists, but they create these opportunities. Bourque has the most assists of any d-man ever, you can go ahead and adjust it and he still will, and they weren't handed to him any easier than they were handed to any other puckmoving d-man. Anyway, I'd wager Bourque had a greater percentage of first-assists than Lidstrom did, but this is just speculation based on his style and shot accuracy.
He was also a much better goal-scoring d-man than Lidstrom ever was, no matter how you adjust the numbers. Plus, 35% of Bourque's points were goals, which seems incredibly high for a d-man. A HUGE amount more than Lidstrom's 22%. Bourque was a goal scoring beast. He had 18 goals when he was 39, in the deadpuck era... Lidstrom hasn't scored that many since he was 32. Bourque was an incredible offensive leader by any d-man standard. He wasn't collecting points, he earned them the hard way and usually was the main drive behind his team's offense.
ushvinder said:
Park? Where are you getting your stats from? Bourque's adjusted numbers beats Park's numbers in a walk. It's not even close, really. Beats Kelly's, too, but it's harder to compare their numbers, totally different eras.
Sure, but basing an opinion based on penalty minutes is prettty weak. I don't mind a guy who mixes it up and takes the odd penalty. It's not like Bourque was in the box very often.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
This argument is getting ridiculous to the point it is making me laugh. Especially since you are so bi-polar with your arguments. A little while ago, you were arguing Bourque as being the #2 Defenseman ever based on his incredible two way defensive and offensive ability and longevity + hart finishes.
This is Ray Bourque we are talking about. Not Phil Housley. Ray Bourque who was universally hailed as one of the best defensive defenseman of all time, who could also carry a teams offense on his own.
You above all people making these comments makes me laugh. YOU. The guy always harping about people who played with offensively challenged teammates and how they would gain tons more points if they had better teammates. Talking about how Bourque had it easy because he played in the 80's when his top scoring forwards rarely broke 85 points in an era when many top forwards were scoring 130+ and most top teams had 2+ 90 or more point players. You are harping about how his offense was not so great when he holds the defenseman record for leading his team in scoring.
If ever there is a case to be made about how a player could benefit more from better offensive teammates, it is the defenseman who can make the breakout pass and who he is passing to.
And you are too young to have seen them play in their primes, Making assumptions based on stats and logs, which I have no problem with if you are informed, but you change your opinion every week and have no clue what you are talking about. Macinnis was a great defenseman. On both ends. Not Bourque or Lidstrom caliber, but still exceptional.
Chelios was a beast. At least as good defensively as Lidstrom in his best years, and not only that, but as was custom at the time. He put the fear of god into people crossing his blueline. Which was a huge factor back then. People would cough the puck up and away just to avoid being in the same corner as Chelios, and Forwards would avoid the front of his net entirely at times. He took stupid penalties. Yes, but he also made other people take stupid Penalties. I do agree the year he took near 300 PIM, Bourque should have won the norris(It was close), but most other years, like when he lead the weak offense Hawks in scoring, was a different story.
The majority of Bourque's offense came from just over the opposing teams blueline, and Lidstrom almost certainly was more of a Secondary assist collector than Bourque. Not that I think that is a bad thing for a transition game defenseman. A defenseman who can cover their own end like Lidstrom and Bourque, while either skating the puck up or making that breakout pass is bound to collect a ton of secondary assists. But Many of Bourque's assists were not gained in that way. They were gained by his ability to gain the zone and use his incredible range of slaps, Snaps and wrist shots, while his usually less than Finesse players would drive the net to bury the rebounds. Or he would feign a shot and make a ridiculous saucer pass to the open man while the goalie was screened. The team was built around him and his ability to do these things. They had to be since Boston's Forwards often lacked the ability to create their own opportunities.
This is Ray Bourque we are talking about. Not Chris Chelios.
No, It is very marginally better. As much as you talk up his Penaltyless style, it would not have served the same in the 80's.
Regarding Lidstrom's physicality being a weakness, I do not agree completely, depending on the context. Take this goal for example.
Lidstrom does what he does here. Takes away the angle of the shot and the goaltender SHOULD have made that save. However, Umberger had no forward help at the time and 2 other wings were back.
Ray Bourque would have taken Umberger to the boards and pinned him as he entered the zone knowing their was no forechecking help coming for Umberger and either his Defensive partner or the backcheking wing could have retrieved the puck and moved to break out.
I know it might be hard for you to swallow, but while that angle cutting move works well with modern goaltenders and their huge pads, it would NOT have worked as well in the 80's, where goaltenders still let shots from the outside in rather often with their smaller pads and stand up style. You HAD to take him to the boards often. Not just angle off and poke check.
Langway was such a great defensive defenseman in the 80's because he attacked like a wild man and had the size, strength and reach and stickwork to take on ANYONE.
Again, coming from you, who whines about every player who played without more offensively talented teammates and how they would score 30 more points if they had better help
Exactly. Among other things, also the number of two way Selke caliber Hart caliber forwards the wings have had over the years.
It is hilarious to hear you talk about players you never saw play in their primes like they are Mike Green.
Again, this is Ray Bourque. The best most consistent defensive two way defenseman of his time. Not Phil Housley.
Red Kelly has more top 10 and top 20 finishes than bourque, he was the better offensive defensemen. He beats park because he played longer, park was just as good or better offensively in terms of where they placed in the scoring race.
This argument is getting ridiculous to the point it is making me laugh. Especially since you are so bi-polar with your arguments. A little while ago, you were arguing Bourque as being the #2 Defenseman ever based on his incredible two way defensive and offensive ability and longevity + hart finishes.
This is Ray Bourque we are talking about. Not Phil Housley. Ray Bourque who was universally hailed as one of the best defensive defenseman of all time, who could also carry a teams offense on his own.
You above all people making these comments makes me laugh. YOU. The guy always harping about people who played with offensively challenged teammates and how they would gain tons more points if they had better teammates. Talking about how Bourque had it easy because he played in the 80's when his top scoring forwards rarely broke 85 points in an era when many top forwards were scoring 130+ and most top teams had 2+ 90 or more point players. You are harping about how his offense was not so great when he holds the defenseman record for leading his team in scoring.
If ever there is a case to be made about how a player could benefit more from better offensive teammates, it is the defenseman who can make the breakout pass and who he is passing to.
And you are too young to have seen them play in their primes, Making assumptions based on stats and logs, which I have no problem with if you are informed, but you change your opinion every week and have no clue what you are talking about. Macinnis was a great defenseman. On both ends. Not Bourque or Lidstrom caliber, but still exceptional.
Chelios was a beast. At least as good defensively as Lidstrom in his best years, and not only that, but as was custom at the time. He put the fear of god into people crossing his blueline. Which was a huge factor back then. People would cough the puck up and away just to avoid being in the same corner as Chelios, and Forwards would avoid the front of his net entirely at times. He took stupid penalties. Yes, but he also made other people take stupid Penalties. I do agree the year he took near 300 PIM, Bourque should have won the norris(It was close), but most other years, like when he lead the weak offense Hawks in scoring, was a different story.
The majority of Bourque's offense came from just over the opposing teams blueline, and Lidstrom almost certainly was more of a Secondary assist collector than Bourque. Not that I think that is a bad thing for a transition game defenseman. A defenseman who can cover their own end like Lidstrom and Bourque, while either skating the puck up or making that breakout pass is bound to collect a ton of secondary assists. But Many of Bourque's assists were not gained in that way. They were gained by his ability to gain the zone and use his incredible range of slaps, Snaps and wrist shots, while his usually less than Finesse players would drive the net to bury the rebounds. Or he would feign a shot and make a ridiculous saucer pass to the open man while the goalie was screened. The team was built around him and his ability to do these things. They had to be since Boston's Forwards often lacked the ability to create their own opportunities.
This is Ray Bourque we are talking about. Not Chris Chelios.
No, It is very marginally better. As much as you talk up his Penaltyless style, it would not have served the same in the 80's.
Regarding Lidstrom's physicality being a weakness, I do not agree completely, depending on the context. Take this goal for example.
Lidstrom does what he does here. Takes away the angle of the shot and the goaltender SHOULD have made that save. However, Umberger had no forward help at the time and 2 other wings were back.
Ray Bourque would have taken Umberger to the boards and pinned him as he entered the zone knowing their was no forechecking help coming for Umberger and either his Defensive partner or the backcheking wing could have retrieved the puck and moved to break out.
I know it might be hard for you to swallow, but while that angle cutting move works well with modern goaltenders and their huge pads, it would NOT have worked as well in the 80's, where goaltenders still let shots from the outside in rather often with their smaller pads and stand up style. You HAD to take him to the boards often. Not just angle off and poke check.
Langway was such a great defensive defenseman in the 80's because he attacked like a wild man and had the size, strength and reach and stickwork to take on ANYONE.
Again, coming from you, who whines about every player who played without more offensively talented teammates and how they would score 30 more points if they had better help
Exactly. Among other things, also the number of two way Selke caliber Hart caliber forwards the wings have had over the years.
It is hilarious to hear you talk about players you never saw play in their primes like they are Mike Green.
Again, this is Ray Bourque. The best most consistent defensive two way defenseman of his time. Not Phil Housley.
First of all, i love it how you like to assume which players i watched and which ones i didn't. I saw plenty of bourque on cbc from 94-2001, dont need to hear the 'you never saw him ********'.
Secondly, Bourque had his best seasons in 1990, 91 and 94. You know the seasons where he had cam neely, and then adam oates. The boston bruins were a very good offensive team in the mid 80's, so dont give me crap like he always played with nothing.
So, Chris Chelios had better norris years because he would make people fear him, nice logic. Lidstrom shut eric lindors down in 1997 with the use of technqie and positioning, you dont need to be a goon in order to be effective.
Another thing, the only argument you use against lidstrom, is that other had better offense. You said that when comparing him to potvin and now you're saying the same thing here. Offense is seconday when comparing defencemen. Did Langway win his norrises because he could rack up points? No, he won them because how how effective he was smartass.
Going by your logic dark shadows, bourque was superior to harvey offensively and he did it longer, so that would make him better wouldn't it? Use any method, top 20 finishes, adjusted stats, w/e. Bourque would come out ahead of harvey, yet you will claim harvey's peak is too big for bourque to make up for the gap. Yeah, you contradict yourself too.
By the same logic, there is no way langway would have won either norris trophy, if other people outscored him by huge margins. I'm not the only one using double standard here,lol.
By the same logic, there is no way langway would have won either norris trophy, if other people outscored him by huge margins. I'm not the only one using double standard here,lol.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
A few months ago, you told us you were 21 years old. God forbid I question how much of those players primes you really saw and understood at ages 5-11.
The Bruins top scorers in Bourque's best years, when he set the record for the amount of times a Defenseman lead a team in scoring rarely broke 80 points. Neely was a phenomenal power forward, but he was not an Yzerman/Fedorov(Nor were Linseman, Kasper, or Janney for that Matter), nor did his teams have nearly the scoring depth of those powerhouse Wings teams on the 2nd and third lines by the time Oates arrived and Neely was always out half a season or more.
And offensively, they were not comparable to the powerhouse red wings.
Year/Team + League place in goals for
--------------------------------------------
07-08: Detroit 3rd
06-07: Detroit 10th
05-06: Detroit 2nd
03-04: Detroit 2nd
02-03: Detroit 1st
01-02: Detroit 2nd
00-01: Detroit 5th, Colorado 3rd
99-00: Detroit 1st, Boston(65 games:23rd), Colorado(14 games: 11th)
98-99: Detroit 3rd, Boston 13th
97-98: Detroit 2nd, Boston 12th
96-97: Detroit 6th, Boston 15th
95-96: Detroit 3rd, Boston Tie 4th
94-95: Detroit 3rd, Boston Tie 9th
93-94: Detroit 1st, Boston 8th
92-93: Detroit 1st, Boston 8th
91-92: Detroit 4th, Boston 13th
90-91: Boston 5th
89-90: Boston 11th
88-89: Boston 14th
87-88: Boston Tie 7th
86-87: Boston 6th
85-86: Boston Tie 12th
84-85: Boston 12th
83-84: Boston 7th
82-83: Boston 5th
81-82: Boston 9th
80-81: Boston 9th
79-80: Boston 5th
Bourque led Boston in scoring 5 times, and was top 2-3 in scoring on his teams an additional 8 times for a total of 13 years where he was a top scorer on his team.
He did all this while being rock solid on the blueline among the leagues best defensive Defensemen. His peak was incredible for a Defenseman, and easily the best since Orr. 2 Hart Runner up's, one of which really won because he had more 1st and second place votes than Messier and lost due to Edmonton journalists leaving his name off the ballot, denying him several of the 1 x 3rd-4th place point it would have taken to win it, and the other against Gretzky in a year he scored 183 points, and all in an era, just like now, where it is extremely difficult to get Hart votes as a defenseman.
No, you don't in the modern game, and I addressed this in the "angles" comments regarding modern goaltenders. Although the success of the devils rested largely on the fact that people were scared spitless to cross Scott Stevens blueline combined with his excellent defensive play. If you
Actually, I openly stated that I take Lidstrom over Potvin at this point. But that Potvin's peak was better. Which it was. Potvin was also a monster on both ends of the ice, combined with Chelios' nastiness and ability to put the fear of god into opponents. Not quite so good defensively as Bourque or Lidstrom, but nearly so, and worth as Bourque at his best on a per game basis much of the time.
The Langway conversations have been done to death around here as well.
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Red Kelly? Yes he does. One of the best of all time, and a definite top 20 player of all time. His prime as a defenseman was cut short, and he became a very very good center on those Leaf squads. But not near as good as when he was a defenseman.
Park? Also one of the best of all time. But he did not beat Bourque out amongst defensemen in scoring finishes, nor was he as good defensively, although he was stellar in his own end. Both played against the top 2 offensive defensemen of all time(Park vs Orr, and Bourque vs Coffey), but their scoring finishes among defensemen are still in Bourque's favor.
Bourque's top 10 scoring finishes amongst defensemen are 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, T-2nd, 3rd 3rd.
Park's was 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 8th
Dark Shadows
Registered User
I have always valued Peak over Longevity.
Harvey is the greatest defensive defenseman and Pker of all time. Ahead of anyone I have ever seen. And Simultaneously, was among the best offensive defensemen of all time, while being one of the greatest playoff performers of all time. the best player on that Habs Dynasty. Ahead of Bourque or Lidstrom. Not hard to see why I rate Harvey ahead of Bourque. At all.
For the record, Harvey's top 10 scoring finishes amongst defenseman(Despite facing Red kelly, who is probably the 3rd best offensive defenseman of all time tied with Shore) are 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd 3rd, 3rd, 4th
+ here is the graph Hockey Outsider did detailing just how much Harvey's scoring increased in the playoffs during their cup wins compared to the other Habs.
Offensive Production: regular season PPG vs playoffs PPG on the 11 Stanley Cup winning teams
Minimum 250 RS games and 40 PO games
Doug Harvey | 0.56 | 0.82 | 46.4
J.C. Tremblay | 0.52 | 0.75 | 44.2
Bernie Geoffrion | 1.11 | 1.39 | 25.2
Dickie Moore | 1.03 | 1.16 | 12.6
Maurice Richard | 0.94 | 1.05 | 11.7
Yvan Cournoyer | 0.88 | 0.94 | 6.8
Jacques Lemaire | 0.86 | 0.91 | 5.8
Jacques Laperriere | 0.41 | 0.43 | 4.9
Jean Beliveau | 1.16 | 1.19 | 2.6
Terry Harper | 0.19 | 0.18 | -5.3
Ralph Backstrom | 0.6 | 0.54 | -10
Henri Richard | 0.83 | 0.74 | -10.8
Ted Harris | 0.28 | 0.24 | -14.3
Claude Provost | 0.62 | 0.51 | -17.7
John Ferguson | 0.56 | 0.46 | -17.9
Bobby Rousseau | 0.91 | 0.64 | -29.7
Tom Johnson | 0.35 | 0.24 | -31.4
Don Marshall | 0.4 | 0.27 | -32.5
Jean-Guy Talbot | 0.27 | 0.18 | -33.3
Claude Larose | 0.44 | 0.25 | -43.2
Bob Turner | 0.18 | 0.09 | -50
There were five players that significantly increased their scoring rate in the playoffs. This includes Harvey (clearly the Habs best defensemen), Tremblay, and three of their four best forwards (Geoffrion, M. Richard and Moore).
But we already had this argument a little while ago when you were trying to promote Bourque as the 2nd greatest defenseman of all time. Now it seems your flavor of the month has shifted. you are NOT going to convince many people Bourque was better than Harvey or Shore, so don't bother.
Last edited:
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Red Kelly
During his time with the Red Wings, Red Kelly played a fair amount at center as evidenced by the following team stats from the 1950 season:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1950.html
After his trade to Toronto he played almost exclusively at center other than the odd emergency shift.
His stats from his seasons with Detroit have to be taken in context since no one has been able to separate his stats into defenseman and center components.
During his time with the Red Wings, Red Kelly played a fair amount at center as evidenced by the following team stats from the 1950 season:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/DET/1950.html
After his trade to Toronto he played almost exclusively at center other than the odd emergency shift.
His stats from his seasons with Detroit have to be taken in context since no one has been able to separate his stats into defenseman and center components.
I'm just going to take both guys on my team and call it a day. Both are legends, both are amazing at what they do. Bourque edges Liddy in physicality and not much else. This coming from a Bruins fan.
I never said that I rank lidstrom above bourque all time, bourque still has him beat on longevity, i just said offense is not the best way to rank defensemen. Lidstrom can still close the gap, especially if he keeps racking up AST selections and wins a few more cups.
There are many legit ways in which bourque can be ranked above harvey and shore, cherry picking peaks and ignoring their whole career is not going to convince everyone that harvey and shore a league above him. The last hoh top 100 list had all 3 very close to one another, so dont make it sound like everyone ranks harvey above bourque, cuz they don't.
revolverjgw
Registered User
It's not just longevity. Park numbers are inferior all-around. He has less elite seasons with less adjusted points and a far inferior adjusted PPG.
Plus Bourque had to deal with more Europeans. Kelly and Park in his prime never saw players like Stastny, Kurri, Loob, Naslund, Fedorov, Bure, etc. Bourque had to compete with the best North American players plus all of these players. When comparing relative scoring finishes, Bourque was at a handicap because there were more teams with more good players getting chances to play. Park wouldn't have finished 9th in a league with these players.
Once again top 10 finishes in a 6 team league are easier to come by than top 10 finishes in a 21-30 team league.
Harvey was a great Dman in his time but both Bourque and Lidstrom are better IMO. Too many guys can't take the context and skill level of the modern NHL when comparing to players from the 50's and 60's when the NHL was a 6 team league. I love the all time lists but decade or 2 decade lists would keep players in their context and people would not have to ignore or downplay the context of the times certain players played in when posting on here IMO.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,975
- 333
So now I know for sure Bourque would stop Umberger, because you said so. Cool.
Seriously, it is arguable that Lidstrom is better than Bourque and you are making it sound like Lidstrom sucks compared to Bourque.
So now I know for sure Bourque would stop Umberger, because you said so. Cool.
Seriously, it is arguable that Lidstrom is better than Bourque and you are making it sound like Lidstrom sucks compared to Bourque.
Yeah on top of that, Lidstrom captained a team to the cup, he can make all the excuses he wants, bourque always came up short. The boston bruins of 83-85 were solid teams, same with the 94 and 95 bruins, yet he couldnt get the job done. In 1984 and 1993, the boston bruins had an excellent record in the regular season and they had offensive talent and goaltending. Yet bourque chocked in the playoffs both times and they got eliminated in the first round. Even in 1995, great team in the regular season, bourque chokes in the playoffs.
The 2008 red wings weren't even that stacked of a team.Datsyuk and zetterberg arent even as good as a 1993-1995 version of adam oates. Andy Moog is a better goalie than osgood, yet bourque just couldn't win as the leader.
If lidstrom wins another cup as a captain with a strong playoff run, he pretty much has a better career than bouque.
Last edited:
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Yeah he always thinks his opinion is the correct one in every discussion. Another thing he always brings up is competition. Does anyone really think guys like stevens, macinnis, and leetch are gonna stop lidstrom from winning norrises in his prime? I doubt it. Lidstrom was robbed in 98 and he could have won it in 99 too. If carlyle, wilson and langway can win norrises in the so called 'deep era', why would lidstrom have any troubles?
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
Speculation: Another year of this Bluc **** (The 2024-25 season thread)- Latest: SaltyElkHunter
-
Upcoming events
-
Preliminary Final Port Adelaide Power vs Sydney Swans - SCG, SydneyWagers: 7Staked: $15,262.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-