Top 10 NHL Defensemen All-Time Ranked By Fans

[VanIslander]

A solid list.

But...

Leetch, Coffey over that *** from Chicago Chelios?

(Fetisov discounted due to his Soviet years Canada Cups ignored, k..?)

It has 6 of the real top 10 and certainly all top 20 (er, dunno if i'd pick Leetch over Pronger in any situation).

 

[Henry Gill]

A solid list.

But...

Leetch, Coffey over that *** from Chicago Chelios?

(Fetisov discounted due to his Soviet years Canada Cups ignored, k..?)

It has 6 of the real top 10 and certainly all top 20 (er, dunno if i'd pick Leetch over Pronger in any situation).

It depends on what type of player you're a fan of, really. I prefer watching Leetch/Coffey over Chelios, personally. A heavy hitter is great, but nothing beats watching pure skill at work.

 

[67 others]

What exactly is your point as it pertains to this list? The first five were noted as elite defensively, as was Robinson. The only player who, as far as I know, was heavily criticized for his defence is Coffey, but Coffey was no more one-dimensional than Langway was, and I'd say less one dimensional come playoff time. Realistically one player can't have a defensive impact to equal Coffey's offensive impact.

If anything Langway is very fortunate to be remembered as much as he is, and I say that as someone who highly regards his defensive game. He was very, very fortunate to be given two Norris trophies even if someone wanted to give the trophy only to players who were elite defensively.

Langway was amazing. But his Norris trophies were part of a blowback campaign to reward rugged old school defenders after Carlyle won.

Realistically Ray Bourque should have won 1 of those as he was close to as good defensively and far superior offensively, and Mark Howe the other for the same reason.

 

[rmartin65]

It depends on what type of player you're a fan of, really. I prefer watching Leetch/Coffey over Chelios, personally. A heavy hitter is great, but nothing beats watching pure skill at work.

Reducing Chelios to just "a heavy hitter" is disingenuous. He was not as offensively skilled as Leetch or Coffey, but he was far superior defensively (not just hitting) and was still a solid offensive contributor from the blueline (at least early in his career).

Additionally- HoH is not "flipping out over Leetch's placement" on this list, as you stated in this thread you created on the Rangers board.

Brian Leetch was ranked 6th best Defenseman of All-Time by hockey fans over on Ranker.com:

The Best Defensemen in NHL History

The best NHL defensemen of all time include Norris Trophy winners, Stanley Cup winners and some of the most talented players to ever put on a pair of skates. These professional hockey defensemen aren't just the best to ever man the blue line in the National Hockey League but also some of the best...

www.ranker.com

So I made a post about the Top 10 Greatest Defensemen, as ranked by the fans, over of the History Forum. They really liked the list EXCEPT for the fact that Leetch was on it (surprise, surprise). The way Leetch is crapped on over there is unbelievable.

This is the post: Top 10 NHL Defensemen All-Time Ranked By Fans

I mean, is it really that shocking that Leetch would make the Top 10? I feel as if he has every right to at least be in the conversation about it. I can't speak for players of the past I didn't see, but I used to watch a lot of hockey in the 90s. Not just the Rangers. And NOBODY was better in the 90s than Leetch as far as Defensemen go.

I guess it shouldn't irk me, but it does. Stupid comments like "Leetch sucked at defense!" NO HE DIDN'T!!! One of the things that made Leetch special was how he controlled BOTH ends of the ice! Why do some people over there continue to INSIST he couldn't play D?

Anyway, at least the fans on Ranker got it right. It's actually a really good Top 10. But man, they really HATE Leetch on the History Forum, LOL!

You may disagree, but people here seem to think that Leetch's superior offense does not make up for the superior defensive ability that other defensemen brought to the table. It doesn't make us wrong any more than it makes you right- it is merely a difference of opinion, and nothing to get worked up over.

 

[JackSlater]

Langway was amazing. But his Norris trophies were part of a blowback campaign to reward rugged old school defenders after Carlyle won.

Realistically Ray Bourque should have won 1 of those as he was close to as good defensively and far superior offensively, and Mark Howe the other for the same reason.

I am not sure who I would have given it to in 1984, probably Coffey but maybe Bourque or Potvin. 1983 should have been Howe though.

 

[67 others]

I am not sure who I would have given it to in 1984, probably Coffey but maybe Bourque or Potvin. 1983 should have been Howe though.

Bourque had 96 points to Coffey's 126, so Coffey certainly takes offense there. On a scale of 1 to 10, coffey was an 11 and his season was well above the norm and Bourque was a 9. But I could be argued Bourque's totals likely look a bit better had his transition game been applied on the oilers with the guns he would be passing to and defensively Coffey was a 5 out of 10 where Bourque was a 9 out of 10.

Coffey's arrogance, while earned, was a turn off for me as he often stated he was as good as or better than Orr and did the same things as Orr defensively and that wasn't the case. Coffey was a guy who would make me scream at the TV, playing the puck and not the man lol. His speed could help his backcheck and often got him back in time, but defensively he was not as good as he said or thought

 

[Henry Gill]

Reducing Chelios to just "a heavy hitter" is disingenuous. He was not as offensively skilled as Leetch or Coffey, but he was far superior defensively (not just hitting) and was still a solid offensive contributor from the blueline (at least early in his career).

Additionally- HoH is not "flipping out over Leetch's placement" on this list, as you stated in this thread you created on the Rangers board.


You may disagree, but people here seem to think that Leetch's superior offense does not make up for the superior defensive ability that other defensemen brought to the table. It doesn't make us wrong any more than it makes you right- it is merely a difference of opinion, and nothing to get worked up over.

I thought it was funny lol, that's all. I'm not worked up. I just hate reading things here that are untrue, like how Leetch "wasn't physical" when in fact he was. Or that he "sucked at D" when he was in fact above average. His ridiculously low PIM is a testament to that. But it's not surprising because whenever a player is as talented offensively as Leetch was, it's just "assumed" that he must suck a defense.

Outside of HF Leetch is a lot more respected though. I remember a poll on Reddit, Leetch vs Coffey, and Leetch won by a mile. Even some Oiler fans were picking Leetch. But on HF it was the exact opposite. It's cool.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Leetch at his absolute peak was a Top 10 talent, but his peak didn't last long enough.

 

[JackSlater]

I thought it was funny lol, that's all. I'm not worked up. I just hate reading things here that are untrue, like how Leetch "wasn't physical" when in fact he was. Or that he "sucked at D" when he was in fact above average. His ridiculously low PIM is a testament to that. But it's not surprising because whenever a player is as talented offensively as Leetch was, it's just "assumed" that he must suck a defense.

Outside of HF Leetch is a lot more respected though. I remember a poll on Reddit, Leetch vs Coffey, and Leetch won by a mile. Even some Oiler fans were picking Leetch. But on HF it was the exact opposite. It's cool.

It's very interesting. There have been so many random users who pop up and have half or more of their posts about Leetch, usually focusing on how he was better than the general consensus and how in fact he was fairly physical and good at defence. The low PIM as evidence of his defensive prowess is new though. Too bad those several other similar accounts aren't here to back you up.

 

[67 others]

I thought it was funny lol, that's all. I'm not worked up. I just hate reading things here that are untrue, like how Leetch "wasn't physical" when in fact he was. Or that he "sucked at D" when he was in fact above average. His ridiculously low PIM is a testament to that. But it's not surprising because whenever a player is as talented offensively as Leetch was, it's just "assumed" that he must suck a defense.

Outside of HF Leetch is a lot more respected though. I remember a poll on Reddit, Leetch vs Coffey, and Leetch won by a mile. Even some Oiler fans were picking Leetch. But on HF it was the exact opposite. It's cool.

lol. Outside of HF most opinions are the same. leetch is never as highly touted as you seem to think. Maybe on the NYR reddit.

And i watched him play his entire career. Even when he was in the dog days of Boston bruins

I have never seen a list where Leetch is ahead of Coffey on any forum unless it is focusing on the single best year. Even then it is rare. And i am harder on Coffey than most

 

[Heritage Hockey]

lol. Outside of HF most opinions are the same. leetch is never as highly touted as you seem to think. Maybe on the NYR reddit.

And i watched him play his entire career. Even when he was in the dog days of Boston bruins

I have never seen a list where Leetch is ahead of Coffey on any forum unless it is focusing on the single best year. Even then it is rare. And i am harder on Coffey than most

I dunno. Leetch beat Coffey pretty easily on Reddit's hockey forum. Read the comments too.

Outside of HF BOARDS, Leetch's peak seems to carry more weight and his defense is held in higher regard than it is here, it would seem.

 

[JackSlater]

I dunno. Leetch beat Coffey pretty easily on Reddit's hockey forum. Read the comments too.

Outside of HF BOARDS, Leetch's peak seems to carry more weight and his defense is held in higher regard than it is here, it would seem.

Interesting post. User @Henry Gill made a very similar thread the other day about Leetch and how he is judged on "HFBOARDS"

Brian Leetch vs Paul Coffey opinions on HFBOARDS vs other Forums

But it looks like you've already found and posted (and agreed) with that user's posts/threads on the Rangers board.

 

[Heritage Hockey]

Interesting post. User @Henry Gill made a very similar thread the other day about Leetch and how he is judged on "HFBOARDS"

Brian Leetch vs Paul Coffey opinions on HFBOARDS vs other Forums

But it looks like you've already found and posted (and agreed) with that user's posts/threads on the Rangers board.

I guess a lot of people feel the same way, especially based on how high Leetch is ranked.

He really beat Coffey like a rented mule, eh?

 

[LightningStorm]

I think Robinson is rated about right. He's very elite, but wouldn't reside in the top-six or seven. Number ten feels about right.

I could definitely make space for Scott Stevens here, towards the end of the '10'. He just had everything you could want, including consistent longevity.

I think Stevens and Leetch are the same tier. Stevens is higher due to better longevity, though I'd give Leetch the edge in peak. I don't think a top 10 case exists for neither though.

Speaking of Stevens, I never understood the seemingly widespread HOH belief that he was better than Pronger. I'd take Pronger over Stevens without thinking twice.

In the end though, the one d-man who's a lock for my top 10 who's not on the Ranker list provided by the OP is Chelios.

 

[JackSlater]

I guess a lot of people feel the same way, especially based on how high Leetch is ranked.

He really beat Coffey like a rented mule, eh?

Oh yeah, there are probably 10ish totally unique users who have popped up in this section making the same arguments who totally agree. I wonder if any other users will suddenly pop up in the coming days to agree and post in the same style?

 

[Heritage Hockey]

Oh yeah, there are probably 10ish totally unique users who have popped up in this section making the same arguments who totally agree. I wonder if any other users will suddenly pop up in the coming days to agree and post in the same style?

Did you read the Reddit link? More than 10 people, buddy.

 

[JackSlater]

Did you read the Reddit link? More than 10 people, buddy.

I was thinking more along the lines of the 10ish accounts who have signed up here saying the exact same things about Leetch and little else.

 

[Heritage Hockey]

I think Stevens and Leetch are the same tier. Stevens is higher due to better longevity, though I'd give Leetch the edge in peak. I don't think a top 10 case exists for neither though.

Speaking of Stevens, I never understood the seemingly widespread HOH belief that he was better than Pronger. I'd take Pronger over Stevens without thinking twice.

In the end though, the one d-man who's a lock for my top 10 who's not on the Ranker list provided by the OP is Chelios.

Leetch clearly better than Stevens. Stevens could not even play in today's NHL. He'd be suspended constantly.

As for Chelios, talent wise Leetch was clearly better and many have him rated higher than Chelios. Outside of HF of course.

 

[Maurice of Orange]

1. Bobby Orr < The GOAT could skate like the wind and blow right by for a goal almost at will.
2. Doug Harvey < Could do everything but his passing and skating were ahead of his time.
3. Ray Bourque < All around defender that could do everything.
4. Nick Lidstrom < European and modern version of Harvey + endurance.
5. Paul Coffey < 2nd best offensive D-man ever, almost like a 4th forward
6. Larry Robinson < One of the great hockey IQ’s
7. Denis Potvin < Was a great leader and offensive force for NYI
8. Scott Niedermayer < Offensive brilliance mixed with defensive dominance.
9. Rod Langway < One of the greatest defensive D-man of all time
10. Chris Pronger < Massive D-man, played physical and logged big minutes.

HM’s: Brad Park, Pierre Pilote, Borje Salming, Al MacInnis and Chris Chelios

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

lol. Outside of HF most opinions are the same. leetch is never as highly touted as you seem to think. Maybe on the NYR reddit.

And i watched him play his entire career. Even when he was in the dog days of Boston bruins

I have never seen a list where Leetch is ahead of Coffey on any forum unless it is focusing on the single best year. Even then it is rare. And i am harder on Coffey than most

Ahead of Coffey?

Hell, he's ahead of Eddie Shore on this list.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

jesus christ top ten all time? he’s the sixth best dman of his own freakin’ generation

but yes, he was the best player in hockey’s most endlessly mythologized cup run because it happened in the world’s biggest media market

 

[Heritage Hockey]

jesus christ top ten all time? he’s the sixth best dman of his own freakin’ generation

but yes, he was the best player in hockey’s most endlessly mythologized cup run because it happened in the world’s biggest media market

"Brian Leetch went on to become perhaps the best NHL defensemen of his era." -Featured Hockey Legend: Brian Leetch

No surprise at all Leetch is Top 10 for people who know the game.

 

[jigglysquishy]

Every couple of weeks we get a new poster who jumps into HoH to boost their favourite player as a kid using dubious data until they disappear after the discussion dies down.

This week, Leetch.

Next week, Lanny MacDonald getting boosted as the best player on the 89 Flames

 

[Hockey Outsider]

"Brian Leetch went on to become perhaps the best NHL defensemen of his era." -Featured Hockey Legend: Brian Leetch

No surprise at all Leetch is Top 10 for people who know the game.

You're quoting Joe Pelletier, who published his own Top 100 list (link) and ranked Leetch 21st all-time among defensemen, behind four defensemen from his own era (Bourque, Coffey, Chelios & Stevens). I don't think a flowery quote from one of his articles carries more weight than his Top 100 project, which he worked on for years.

I agree Leetch was the best defenseman of his era, if "era" is defined to be mid April to mid June 1994.

 

[quietbruinfan]

Bourque, even a fading 95-97 Bourque, over Leetch all day, every day. The fading version for two years is close. 90-94 is not.