Ray Bourque vs Nik Lidstrom all time

[Rhiessan71]

Here is the 1st post I made to you on the videos. Note "your supporters".

Well since I have always said I consider Lidstrom with the edge defensively over Bourque, you can hardly call me a Bourque supporter on that now can you?

So I'll accept that apology now, thanks.

But a strong argument can be made Lidstrom was the best player in all 4 SC wins.

Again, that's the difference, you can argue he "might" of been out of half a dozen candidates .
With Bourque, there is no argument, he was the best player on most of those teams because he had no where near the supporting cast Lidstrom did.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Well since I have always said I consider Lidstrom with the edge defensively over Bourque, you can hardly call me a Bourque supporter on that now can you?

So I'll accept that apology now, thanks.

Yes, but I didn't callout you individually like you claimed from the start.

Now it sure would be nice for the Umnberger poster to come back and address the Bourque videos. But it's not likely.

 

[jkrx]

Let's get this thread back on track - examining birth certificates is not part of the agenda.

The overlooked element in the Bourque / Lidstrom discussion is coaching.

Nicklas Lidstrom had a distinct advantage for the vast majority of his career in Detrroit because he was supported with elite coaching first by Scotty Bowman, then by Mike Babcock. Scotty Bowman in particular had the ability to recognize strengths and weaknesses.He would overcome weaknesses by modifying team styles or compensating with linemates or thru defensive pairings. Prime example being Guy Lafleur who was not all that interested in the defensive side of things. Bowman managed to work around this trait by matching Lafleur with Jacques Lemaire who took care of the defensive side of things. Lafleur and the team flourished as a result. Bowman did the same with Lidstrom - evidenced the 1997 playoffs against Philadelphia. Lidstrom had superior quickness compared to Lindros with the sense to avoid a physical confrontation with a frustrated Lindros. Lindros was deflated as a result.

Conversely Ray Bourque with the Bruins had to make do with weak coaching. Seriously doubt that any of his coaches with the Bruins pre 1995 would make the top 100 of coaches.Going into a playoff series against the Bruins more often than not was a question of preparation and in game adjustments. Significant edge to the opponent.

Yet, Lidström still won Norris with Dave Lewis as coach and I don't see what Bowman did to improve Lidströms game? Matching him with the ultra physical Larry Murphy?

As opposed to his GM skills, Milbury was actually a pretty good coach for the Bruins. Cheevers and O'Reilly wasn't exactly bad either. None of them are in Bowman class though.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Yet, Lidström still won Norris with Dave Lewis as coach and I don't see what Bowman did to improve Lidströms game? Matching him with the ultra physical Larry Murphy?

As opposed to his GM skills, Milbury was actually a pretty good coach for the Bruins. Cheevers and O'Reilly wasn't exactly bad either. None of them are in Bowman class though.

Look, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to look up the rosters of Lidstrom's teams and Bourque's teams and come to the factual conclusion that Lidstrom had the benefit of vastly superior supporting casts over the years.

Again, the only time Bourque played on a team that was the caliber of the the teams Lidstrom played on was with the Av's.

Trying to blame Bourque for not winning any Cups with the Bruins is no different than trying to blame Yzerman for not winning any in the 80's and early 90's.

 

[canucks4ever]

Look, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to look up the rosters of Lidstrom's teams and Bourque's teams and come to the factual conclusion that Lidstrom had the benefit of vastly superior supporting casts over the years.

Again, the only time Bourque played on a team that was the caliber of the the teams Lidstrom played on was with the Av's.

Trying to blame Bourque for not winning any Cups with the Bruins is no different than trying to blame Yzerman for not winning any in the 80's and early 90's.

You dont consider rick middleton, pete peeters, barry pederson and brad park as quality teammates. These guys were all all stars at the time, the bruins were winning a bunch of games in the regular season, yet they would get eliminated in the playoffs.

I would also say 1992-1996 version of adam oates is better than an over the hill yzerman. Andy Mogg was a better goalie than osgood. By the time Lidstrom was in his prime, yzerman and fedorov were no longer elite players. Bourque played with cam neely, adam oates, rick middleton, pete peeters and andy moog when they were superstars.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bourque Videos

Yes, but I didn't callout you individually like you claimed from the start.

Now it sure would be nice for the Umnberger poster to come back and address the Bourque videos. But it's not likely.

Both goals - Goring and the May Day, Ray Bourque is trying to cover for the mistakes made by his defensive partner. In both instances Bourque defensive partner is caught too far outside - blatant in the May Day goal, giving up the middle and in both instances the partner is too high - a defensive pairing should always be on a line parallel to the lines dividing the zones. If the pairing is on a diagonal they are poorly positioned. Caused by the higher man getting caught up ice.

I'll throw in a video of Mario Lemieux first goal on his first NHL shift:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nrc7OlT6r9w

The great will beat the great. Henri Richard picked Bobby Orr's pocket in 1971 leading to one of the biggest upsets in hockey history.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Coaching 101

Yet, Lidström still won Norris with Dave Lewis as coach and I don't see what Bowman did to improve Lidströms game? Matching him with the ultra physical Larry Murphy?

As opposed to his GM skills, Milbury was actually a pretty good coach for the Bruins. Cheevers and O'Reilly wasn't exactly bad either. None of them are in Bowman class though.

Crafting the optimum style for the team offensively and defensively and using each player in roles where they were the most effective.

With the Red Wings Murphy was the ideal match for Lidstrom because they were so similar and had an understanding of what the other was doing in any given situation.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You dont consider rick middleton, pete peeters, barry pederson and brad park as quality teammates. These guys were all all stars at the time, the bruins were winning a bunch of games in the regular season, yet they would get eliminated in the playoffs.

Sure they were and even with them, those Bruin teams stacked up against the Isles and Oilers of that time how exactly?
It's all well and good to list all the years in the 80's that the Bruins had a pretty good team and that works ok until you say...oh btw, you have to beat the 80-83 Isles and then the 84-90 Oilers to win a cup. No problem right

I would also say 1992-1996 version of adam oates is better than an over the hill yzerman. Andy Mogg was a better goalie than osgood.

Ok so the Bruins had Oates, Bourque, Neely for a few years.

The Wings had Fedorov, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Chelios, Vernon, Hasek, Murphy, Chaison, Zetterberg, Dats, Coffey ect ect ect the list goes on and on and on and on.

Gimme a break already, obvious is obvious.

Lidstrom couldn't even win the Cup with the '96 Wings which was virtually an allstar team and then ask how come Bourque couldn't win a Cup with what he had.....really?

Oh and before I forget....Stevie Y had 137 points in 92/93, 82 points in just 58 games in 93/94 and then another 95 points in 95/96....over the hill my ass.
Oates prolly does get the edge for those years but it's by such a slight margin.

 

[Padan]

Lidstrom also has a significant edge in international play

Lidstrom has never been that great on the national team (save 2006 Olympics), which is the main reason why he's not as appreciated by Swedish media as Mats Sundin and Peter Forsberg are.

 

[jkrx]

Lidstrom has never been that great on the national team (save 2006 Olympics), which is the main reason why he's not as appreciated by Swedish media as Mats Sundin and Peter Forsberg are.

Well... that's not entirely true. He's good internationally on small rinks.

 

[Reds4Life]

Lidstrom has never been that great on the national team (save 2006 Olympics), which is the main reason why he's not as appreciated by Swedish media as Mats Sundin and Peter Forsberg are.

Yes, because Sundin played a lot more games because he has not made playoffs every year like Lidstrom. Lidstrom still won both Olympic gold (and scored the gold winning goal) and World Championship anyways.

 

[jkrx]

Look, you don't have to be a rocket scientist to look up the rosters of Lidstrom's teams and Bourque's teams and come to the factual conclusion that Lidstrom had the benefit of vastly superior supporting casts over the years.

Again, the only time Bourque played on a team that was the caliber of the the teams Lidstrom played on was with the Av's.

Trying to blame Bourque for not winning any Cups with the Bruins is no different than trying to blame Yzerman for not winning any in the 80's and early 90's.

I didn't blame anyone for anything. I was just responding to a reply that Lidström had a huge benefit from better coaching. Bowman might be strategic genious but he doesnt improve individual skill. He improves the team. If he improved individual skill he would have won the cup with the sabres. Lidström is great because Lidström is great same with Bourque.

Bowman doesnt inflate players stats either (well not star players) as he demands complete obidience to the system and do not as canadiens said "work around it" unless its the absolute last resort. Examples of this would be the trading of Coffey, Dino etc and ofcourse the Penguins players refusal to play under him.

 

[CC Chiefs*]

Sure they were and even with them, those Bruin teams stacked up against the Isles and Oilers of that time how exactly?
It's all well and good to list all the years in the 80's that the Bruins had a pretty good team and that works ok until you say...oh btw, you have to beat the 80-83 Isles and then the 84-90 Oilers to win a cup. No problem right



Ok so the Bruins had Oates, Bourque, Neely for a few years.

The Wings had Fedorov, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Chelios, Vernon, Hasek, Murphy, Chaison, Zetterberg, Dats, Coffey ect ect ect the list goes on and on and on and on.

Gimme a break already, obvious is obvious.

Lidstrom couldn't even win the Cup with the '96 Wings which was virtually an allstar team and then ask how come Bourque couldn't win a Cup with what he had.....really?

Oh and before I forget....Stevie Y had 137 points in 92/93, 82 points in just 58 games in 93/94 and then another 95 points in 95/96....over the hill my ass.
Oates prolly does get the edge for those years but it's by such a slight margin.

Your list is a little miss-leading. Chaisson and Vernon were traded for each other. Coffey and Shanahan were trade for each other. In different thread you talked about how slow and ineffective Murphy was and how he needed a partner, and now you list him as reason why the DRW did well.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

We're done here. I'm not spending all weekend babysitting this thread, and it's been proven that there are too many folks in here who can't behave themselves.

More to the point, we're going in circles now.