Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[BraveCanadian]

If carlyle, wilson and langway can win norrises in the so called 'deep era', why would lidstrom have any troubles?

This is actually a really good point.

Those are good defensemen.. certainly not of the elite variety like the other competition we're talking about here.

 

[finchster]

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.

This pretty much tells me you have no idea what you are talking about

 

[RabbinsDuck]

I weigh actual defense from a defenseman more than I do offense. I similarly weigh offense from forwards more than defense. Even this past year, Lidstrom at 40 was voted by NHLers as the best defensive defenseman in the league, and stats back it up. I value that more than if he had scored 15 more points.

Bourque did not do that, neither did Harvey or Shore (or Orr). Amongst the top defenseman of all-time only Harvey was at Lidstrom's level defensively, and Lidstrom has more years at that level.

I really do not think there is much separating Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Lidstrom. Let's also remember Lidstrom is also considered the best *player* of an entire decade, period. I also give bonuses for him being the consumate iron man, and for rarely putting his team at a disadvantage with a PK with their best PKer off the ice.

I think we will also find being an integral part of 4 Cup winning teams will be incredibly rare in a league of around 30 teams.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I weigh actual defense from a defenseman more than I do offense. I similarly weigh offense from forwards more than defense. Even this past year, Lidstrom at 40 was voted by NHLers as the best defensive defenseman in the league, and stats back it up. I value that more than if he had scored 15 more points.

Bourque did not do that, neither did Harvey or Shore (or Orr). Amongst the top defenseman of all-time only Harvey was at Lidstrom's level defensively, and Lidstrom has more years at that level.

I really do not think there is much separating Harvey, Shore, Bourque and Lidstrom. Let's also remember Lidstrom is also considered the best *player* of an entire decade, period. I also give bonuses for him being the consumate iron man, and for rarely putting his team at a disadvantage with a PK with their best PKer off the ice.

I think we will also find being an integral part of 4 Cup winning teams will be incredibly rare in a league of around 30 teams.

At 40, Bourque played more total minutes (regular season + playoffs) than any other player in the league. He was +25 with 59 points, only 48 PIM, +9 in the playoffs. His team won the Stanley Cup. He was a first team all-star. Not too bad.

Considering some teams didn't even play against Detroit last season, perhaps the players vote may go somewhat on reputation?

 

[CC Chiefs*]

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.

Here is how Bourque and Bruins faired prior to Lidstrom coming to the NHL. They had some very good teams and records and Bourque failed to lead them a SC win:

79-80 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
80-81 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
81-82 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
82-83 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs Conference finals
83-84 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs 1st round
84-85 4th Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
85-86 3rd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
86-87 3rd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
87-88 2nd Adams division lost SC finals
88-89 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
89-90 2nd Adams/Conference lost SC finals
90-91 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs Conference finals

 

[Canadiens1958]

Optimal Defensive Choices and Tactics

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.

DS thank you for resurrecting the Umberger video. Valuable teaching aid.

The basic objective for any defenseman is to eliminate scoring chances whenever possible. The goalie is asked to make the save only if the defenseman fails to eliminate the scoring chance.. Lidstrom failed. No one is perfect but what matters is the reason that Lidstrom failed. He once again refused to play the body. A forward who refuses to use part of a within the rules skill set would be criticized and downgraded. Likewise a goalie. This refusal to use all the his legal skills is what lowers Nicklas Lidstrom a number of pegs when comparing him to all time greats.

The play that you suggest Ray Bourque would have made is one of the weakest options.

The optimum play - given that Bourque was a LHS, would be to angle the forward and rub him out against the boards while simultaneously gaining control of the puck and transitioning.

If you saw the Don Cherry Story there was a vignette where Eddie Shore is trying to teach this to Don Cherry. In the O6 era this was one of the main differences between and NHL defenseman and a minor leaguer.NHL defensemen could execute such a play the minor leaguer rarely could.

When a defenseman pins a forward against the boards as you suggest he effectively removes himself from the play. Another player then has to come into proximity to play the puck and transition. This effectively puts the team at an offensive disadvantage in terms of space and manpower. The optimum move as described has the opposite effect.Rubbing the winger along the boards creates a temporary manpower advantage for the team about to transition. When the defenseman,an simultaneously comes away with the puck space is saved on the transition rush since the other players are further up ice, especially the one that does not have to come back to get the puck.

Ray Bourque was a master of this move. Just as he was a master of the stick check and transition he would readily bodycheck into transition. Nicklas Lidstrom was never willing to do so.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

DS thank you for resurrecting the Umberger video. Valuable teaching aid.

The basic objective for any defenseman is to eliminate scoring chances whenever possible. The goalie is asked to make the save only if the defenseman fails to eliminate the scoring chance.. Lidstrom failed. No one is perfect but what matters is the reason that Lidstrom failed. He once again refused to play the body. A forward who refuses to use part of a within the rules skill set would be criticized and downgraded. Likewise a goalie. This refusal to use all the his legal skills is what lowers Nicklas Lidstrom a number of pegs when comparing him to all time greats.

The play that you suggest Ray Bourque would have made is one of the weakest options.

The optimum play - given that Bourque was a LHS, would be to angle the forward and rub him out against the boards while simultaneously gaining control of the puck and transitioning.

If you saw the Don Cherry Story there was a vignette where Eddie Shore is trying to teach this to Don Cherry. In the O6 era this was one of the main differences between and NHL defenseman and a minor leaguer.NHL defensemen could execute such a play the minor leaguer rarely could.

When a defenseman pins a forward against the boards as you suggest he effectively removes himself from the play. Another player then has to come into proximity to play the puck and transition. This effectively puts the team at an offensive disadvantage in terms of space and manpower. The optimum move as described has the opposite effect.Rubbing the winger along the boards creates a temporary manpower advantage for the team about to transition. When the defenseman,an simultaneously comes away with the puck space is saved on the transition rush since the other players are further up ice, especially the one that does not have to come back to get the puck.

Ray Bourque was a master of this move. Just as he was a master of the stick check and transition he would readily bodycheck into transition. Nicklas Lidstrom was never willing to do so.

When you bring Don Cherry into the mix you're showing the bias. Canada vs the world.

This whole thread stinks soooooo bad of the Canadian agenda.

 

[danincanada]

From what I saw with my own 2 eyes, Bourque's top 5-6 years are decisively better than Lidstrom's best 5 years, and he has several more years which are on par with Lidstrom's best.

This is only opinion of course and when you say "years" I hope you're only talking about the regular season play cause there's no way you can disregard the great playoff runs Lidstrom has put together which are bigger accomplishments than Bourque's best.

Well hurrah for Team trophies and accomplishments. And again, the guy who only comes to this section to talk about Lidstrom every time he sees his name come up should not be calling others on bias. I was very critical of Bourque when others tried to place him above Harvey or Shore, whom I do not think he has a case over.

Yeah, I only post in this section when it's concerns Lidstrom and you're always here too backing your boy Ray. I find you to be very disingenuous, pretending like you have no bias when you clearly are a huge fan of Bourque and tout opinions like they are facts.

The reason why I don't post here more is the bolded part. Some of the people in this history section would argue that Jesse Owens was a better sprinter than Usain Bolt if it were a track and feild board. You simply can't compare the players of today with the guys from the past cause the game has evolved so much and there are so many more athletes to choose from due to population.

 

[Reds4Life]

Considering some teams didn't even play against Detroit last season, perhaps the players vote may go somewhat on reputation?

Hmm then you can doubt any "best" awards that have ever been awarded. Was Shore really that good, or he got all the hardware based on his reputation? How about Maurice Richard, was he really that good, or is he just glorified one dimensional goal scorer?

Ray Bourque was a master of this move. Just as he was a master of the stick check and transition he would readily bodycheck into transition. Nicklas Lidstrom was never willing to do so.

Is that a question of will or need? Lidstrom did not need to be physical to handle (big) players. He lost some of his speed, so of course he makes more mistakes now, but in his prime he was able to handle anyone. The idea that defensemen must be physical is ridiculous and stupid. If you are good enough with your stick, you do not need to play the body.
Everyone makes mistakes, there is even a video that makes Bobby Orr look like he knows nothing about defence and only cares about scoring points. Is he punished for that? Mike Green looks better than Orr in that video.
One YouTube play is useless and irrelevant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Don Cherry

When you bring Don Cherry into the mix you're showing the bias. Canada vs the world.

This whole thread stinks soooooo bad of the Canadian agenda.

Just explained one of the reasons why Don Cherry was a career minor league player who wasn't even good enough to be considered in 1967 for the expanded NHL.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

When you bring Don Cherry into the mix you're showing the bias. Canada vs the world.

This whole thread stinks soooooo bad of the Canadian agenda.

Canadiens1958 makes the best inside hockey post in this thread and you reply with the stupidest.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

At 40, Bourque played more total minutes (regular season + playoffs) than any other player in the league. He was +25 with 59 points, only 48 PIM, +9 in the playoffs. His team won the Stanley Cup. He was a first team all-star. Not too bad.

Considering some teams didn't even play against Detroit last season, perhaps the players vote may go somewhat on reputation?

Are you suggesting we dismiss it when both player voting and stats back it up? Bourque, again, was better offensively at their respective ages, but Bourque was definitely not considered the best defensive defenseman in the league at 40. I personally value defense more, unlike most here, apparenty.

Lidstrom's defensive edge narrows the offensive gap significantly in my rating.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Hmm then you can doubt any "best" awards that have ever been awarded. Was Shore really that good, or he got all the hardware based on his reputation? How about Maurice Richard, was he really that good, or is he just glorified one dimensional goal scorer?





Is that a question of will or need? Lidstrom did not need to be physical to handle (big) players. He lost some of his speed, so of course he makes more mistakes now, but in his prime he was able to handle anyone.
Everyone makes mistakes, there is even a video that makes Bobby Orr look like he knows nothing about defence and only cares about scoring points.
One YouTube play is useless and irrelevant.

Here's a few counter views:



This one shows many many many plays that counter that one Umberger play.

 

[danincanada]

DS thank you for resurrecting the Umberger video. Valuable teaching aid.

The basic objective for any defenseman is to eliminate scoring chances whenever possible. The goalie is asked to make the save only if the defenseman fails to eliminate the scoring chance.. Lidstrom failed. No one is perfect but what matters is the reason that Lidstrom failed. He once again refused to play the body. A forward who refuses to use part of a within the rules skill set would be criticized and downgraded. Likewise a goalie. This refusal to use all the his legal skills is what lowers Nicklas Lidstrom a number of pegs when comparing him to all time greats.

The play that you suggest Ray Bourque would have made is one of the weakest options.

The optimum play - given that Bourque was a LHS, would be to angle the forward and rub him out against the boards while simultaneously gaining control of the puck and transitioning.

If you saw the Don Cherry Story there was a vignette where Eddie Shore is trying to teach this to Don Cherry. In the O6 era this was one of the main differences between and NHL defenseman and a minor leaguer.NHL defensemen could execute such a play the minor leaguer rarely could.

When a defenseman pins a forward against the boards as you suggest he effectively removes himself from the play. Another player then has to come into proximity to play the puck and transition. This effectively puts the team at an offensive disadvantage in terms of space and manpower. The optimum move as described has the opposite effect.Rubbing the winger along the boards creates a temporary manpower advantage for the team about to transition. When the defenseman,an simultaneously comes away with the puck space is saved on the transition rush since the other players are further up ice, especially the one that does not have to come back to get the puck.

Ray Bourque was a master of this move. Just as he was a master of the stick check and transition he would readily bodycheck into transition. Nicklas Lidstrom was never willing to do so.

Yeah, let's look at the Umberger goal which was the 1st place Red Wings playing against the last place Flyers in a nothing game in the dog days of the regular season where the the entire Detroit team forgot to show up. I remember that game well.

If you want a valuable teaching tool as to how not to play a rushing forward Bourque has some doozies. These are both important playoff games about 10 years apart.

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

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

 

[Canadiens1958]

Youtube

Hmm then you can doubt any "best" awards that have ever been awarded. Was Shore really that good, or he got all the hardware based on his reputation? How about Maurice Richard, was he really that good, or is he just glorified one dimensional goal scorer?





Is that a question of will or need? Lidstrom did not need to be physical to handle (big) players. He lost some of his speed, so of course he makes more mistakes now, but in his prime he was able to handle anyone. The idea that defensemen must be physical is ridiculous and stupid. If you are good enough with your stick, you do not need to play the body.
Everyone makes mistakes, there is even a video that makes Bobby Orr look like he knows nothing about defence and only cares about scoring points. Is he punished for that? Mike Green looks better than Orr in that video.
One YouTube play is useless and irrelevant.

And if you would find one YouTube video of Lidstrom playing physical it would not be useless and irrelevant.

A defenseman has to be willing to use all the tools in the toolbox. Physicality is one of the tools.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Just explained one of the reasons why Don Cherry was a career minor league player who wasn't even good enough to be considered in 1967 for the expanded NHL.

But to mention Cherry in the same thread with Lidstrom beyond goofy.

 

[Reds4Life]

And if you would find one YouTube video of Lidstrom playing physical it would not be useless and irrelevant.

Why? Everyone knows Lidstrom is not physical. He does not need to be. It has benefits too - low PIM, no injuries.

A defenseman has to be willing to use all the tools in the toolbox. Physicality is one of the tools.

Because you say so? I guess Lidstrom could not make it to your lesson. Too bad for him, he might have the potential to win a Norris trophy...oh wait

 

[jkrx]

We also have bourques idiotic crosschecking penalty against oilers in 86 and his "Woops Im caught out of position again so I'll just grab this guy from behind"-move in the '90s finals. But I guess those penalty minutes were good for that physical defenseman.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Hmm then you can doubt any "best" awards that have ever been awarded. Was Shore really that good, or he got all the hardware based on his reputation? How about Maurice Richard, was he really that good, or is he just glorified one dimensional goal scorer?





Is that a question of will or need? Lidstrom did not need to be physical to handle (big) players. He lost some of his speed, so of course he makes more mistakes now, but in his prime he was able to handle anyone. The idea that defensemen must be physical is ridiculous and stupid. If you are good enough with your stick, you do not need to play the body.
Everyone makes mistakes, there is even a video that makes Bobby Orr look like he knows nothing about defence and only cares about scoring points. Is he punished for that? Mike Green looks better than Orr in that video.
One YouTube play is useless and irrelevant.

This was in response to a player's vote, not an awards vote. Players aren't making any analysis. Someone probably asked them in the locker room before a game and off the top of their heads they give a name. Not the same as actual voting for a league award.

As for the video, you are right. One play can make anyone look like a bum. Off the top of my head I can think of the "May Day" play, the shorthanded Mario goal and an Yzerman 1 on 1 that make Bourque look like Paul Coffey's rookie year.

But its still a legit example of a style of defense.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Yeah, let's look at the Umberger goal which was the 1st place Red Wings playing against the last place Flyers in a nothing game in the dog days of the regular season where the the entire Detroit team forgot to show up. I remember that game well.

If you want a valuable teaching tool as to how not to play a rushing forward Bourque has some doozies. These are both important playoff games about 10 years apart.

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

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

Fixed it for you.




Both of these video's show Bourque making totally crappy player. I do believe the guy caught out of position/got beat was wearing #7/77. OKAY get the excuse machine rolling.

 

[Reds4Life]

This was in response to a player's vote, not an awards vote. Players aren't making any analysis. Someone probably asked them in the locker room before a game and off the top of their heads they give a name. Not the same as actual voting for a league award.

As for the video, you are right. One play can make anyone look like a bum. Off the top of my head I can think of the "May Day" play, the shorthanded Mario goal and an Yzerman 1 on 1 that make Bourque look like Paul Coffey's rookie year.

But its still a legit example of a style of defense.

IMHO players award is much more valuable than a trophy from media, how many of them actually do any analysis at all? After looking at some of the voting, quite a lot of those expert journalists do not deserve to have the right to vote. (ironically, they robbed Bourque and gave Hart to Messier, what a joke)

 

[jkrx]

And if you would find one YouTube video of Lidstrom playing physical it would not be useless and irrelevant.

A defenseman has to be willing to use all the tools in the toolbox. Physicality is one of the tools.

When is he not willing? He steps up his physical play in playoffs when the games matter. Why should he play physical in a nothing game during a huge grind against non-conference teams?



Big hits is not a part of Lidströms game but saying he's not playing physical at all is just beyond stupid.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

And if you would find one YouTube video of Lidstrom playing physical it would not be useless and irrelevant.

A defenseman has to be willing to use all the tools in the toolbox. Physicality is one of the tools.

Risk vs. Reward
If a defenseman breaks up a play physically he can strike fear into the opposing team, but he can also get a penalty, put himself out of position or injure himself.

Breaking up a play without risking injury, penalties and position can be just as valuable.

Lidstrom can be docked points for rarely putting the hurt on, but he better gain points for rarely missing a game and for almost alway available to kill penalties.

 

[RabbinsDuck]

This was in response to a player's vote, not an awards vote. Players aren't making any analysis. Someone probably asked them in the locker room before a game and off the top of their heads they give a name. Not the same as actual voting for a league award.

As for the video, you are right. One play can make anyone look like a bum. Off the top of my head I can think of the "May Day" play, the shorthanded Mario goal and an Yzerman 1 on 1 that make Bourque look like Paul Coffey's rookie year.

But its still a legit example of a style of defense.

I don't put 100% stock in player votes either, but when stats, player votes and my own personal observations point to Lidstrom as the best defensive defenseman in the league I am willing to present it as fact.

Are you making the case Bourque was better defensively later in their respective careers? I find that hard to back up.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Here is how Bourque and Bruins faired prior to Lidstrom coming to the NHL. They had some very good teams and records and Bourque failed to lead them a SC win:

79-80 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
80-81 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
81-82 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
82-83 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs Conference finals
83-84 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs 1st round
84-85 4th Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
85-86 3rd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
86-87 3rd Adams division out of the playoffs 1st round
87-88 2nd Adams division lost SC finals
88-89 2nd Adams division out of the playoffs 2nd round
89-90 2nd Adams/Conference lost SC finals
90-91 1st Adams/Conference out of the playoffs Conference finals

Are you honestly trying to blame Bourque for not winning a Cup from 80-92 against 2 of the 4 greatest dynasty teams in the history of the league and then over the powerhouse Pens in 91 and 92....seriously?

Lidstrom couldn't even lead a team that finished with the second most points in league history to the Cup and you're blaming Bourque for not being able to lead underdog teams to it.