Was Adam Foote underrated?

[SeanMoneyHands]

One of my favourite defenseman to watch play as an Av. He won 2 cups and was a huge part in the Avs playoff success. He was always in the shadows of Bourque, Blake, Ozolinsh but he was tough as nails and was vicious in the corners and along the boards. I believe many players feared playing against him. Always saw him as a Scott Stevens lite. He made Team Canada for a reason.

 

[LightningStorm]

Always viewed Foote along the lines of Derian Hatcher during that era. Mean, physical defensive d-man on a western conference powerhouse. I ranked Hatcher a little higher at the time though.

 

[MadLuke]

Would be surprising if a spectacular good old big body tough Canadian boy defenceman of that type to have been underated in that era, specially in the market, he was on a powerhouse during his prime for everyone to see during the playoff.

He was a fan favorite, loved by the media, his coachs, made team Canada on the big ice in 98-02 and even 06 at 34, big standing ovation during his last shift to a team that brought him back, peaked at 4.1 millions a year salary in 2001-2002 significantly more than guy like Gonchar 3.2-3.5 or Zubov 3.325 around that time that would be hard to rank below him.

Having to pick one way or the other if he was not correctly rated overall, I would almost certainly pick overrated, that could be going too far and it would not have been by much, but I do not see the first way and by who Foote would have been underrated.

Also I do not remember him being fully in the shadow during the Blake-Bourque era for example, I remember quite well the talk being a big 3, not a big 2:

[TABLE=collapse]
[TR]
[TH]Rk[/TH]
[TH]Player[/TH]
[TH]Age[/TH]
[TH]Pos[/TH]
[TH]GP[/TH]
[TH]G[/TH]
[TH]A[/TH]
[TH]PTS[/TH]
[TH]+/-[/TH]
[TH]PIM[/TH]
[TH]EV[/TH]
[TH]PP[/TH]
[TH]SH[/TH]
[TH]GW[/TH]
[TH]EV[/TH]
[TH]PP[/TH]
[TH]SH[/TH]
[TH]S[/TH]
[TH]S%[/TH]
[TH]TOI[/TH]
[TH]ATOI
▼[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]1[/TH]
[TD]Patrick Roy*[/TD]
[TD]35[/TD]
[TD]G[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD]1451[/TD]
[TD]63:05[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]2[/TH]
[TD]Rob Blake*[/TD]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]83[/TD]
[TD]7.2[/TD]
[TD]677[/TD]
[TD]29:26[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]3[/TH]
[TD]Ray Bourque*[/TD]
[TD]40[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]21[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]49[/TD]
[TD]8.2[/TD]
[TD]599[/TD]
[TD]28:32[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]4[/TH]
[TD]Adam Foote[/TD]
[TD]29[/TD]
[TD]D[/TD]
[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]47[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]28[/TD]
[TD]10.7[/TD]
[TD]652[/TD]
[TD]28:22[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]5[/TH]
[TD]Peter Forsberg*[/TD]
[TD]27[/TD]
[TD]C[/TD]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD][/TD]

[TD]23[/TD]
[TD]17.4[/TD]
[TD]241[/TD]
[TD]21:55[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

And arguably Foote was more fully included in it, than Beauchemin with Pronger-Niedermayer, maybe because it was Bourque last moments, but still.

 

[quietbruinfan]

Nah, I think Foote got his due. He really benefited leaving Quebec when coming into his prime. I am not a huge fan of almost purely defensive d, but he was smart and physically solid, I became a fan.

 

[norrisnick]

I'd say Foote is pretty fairly rated. Couple throw-away AS and Norris votes here and there. Never really in consideration to be a top 10 or maybe even 20 guy in any season as he wasn't that dominant defensively where he could take over a game. But an absolute rock that you could put next to anyone and let them do their thing.

Chiarot might be a good modern comparable if he was a stalwart on a perennial contender.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Meh, I don't know about underrated. I'm a little skeptical of defensive defensemen of the era actually, they probably got a little too much media love because of big hits and what not. I feel like Foote was a little different than some of the other defensive, physical guys of that era...maybe it was team circumstances a little bit too. The Avs had their D jump up into the play more than some other teams (NJ, Dallas, Detroit), this led to Foote defending a little bit more in the NZ (which I like). The only thing that was a little tough about Foote - to my recollection - is the depth of DZ play. He would sometimes get puck watching, and while it generally didn't lead him into corners inefficiently/ineffectively, it sometimes left him a little flat-footed and unaware of what was going on behind him.

But he was good...he got confident with the puck as he got comfortable with the DPE.

I'd take him over, say, Vlad Konstantinov...

 

[norrisnick]

Meh, I don't know about underrated. I'm a little skeptical of defensive defensemen of the era actually, they probably got a little too much media love because of big hits and what not. I feel like Foote was a little different than some of the other defensive, physical guys of that era...maybe it was team circumstances a little bit too. The Avs had their D jump up into the play more than some other teams (NJ, Dallas, Detroit), this led to Foote defending a little bit more in the NZ (which I like). The only thing that was a little tough about Foote - to my recollection - is the depth of DZ play. He would sometimes get puck watching, and while it generally didn't lead him into corners inefficiently/ineffectively, it sometimes left him a little flat-footed and unaware of what was going on behind him.

But he was good...he got confident with the puck as he got comfortable with the DPE.

I'd take him over, say, Vlad Konstantinov...

You are out of your gd mind... with all due respect. That's like taking Kirk Maltby over Sergei Fedorov...

 

[LightningStorm]

He was a fan favorite, loved by the media, his coachs, made team Canada on the big ice in 98-02 and even 06 at 34, big standing ovation during is last shift to a team that brought him back, peaked at 4.1 millions a year salary in 2001-2002 significantly more than guy like Gonchar 3.2-3.5 or Zubov 3.325 around that time.

Interestingly, I thought Zubov was better than Foote and Hatcher (who, as you saw, I compared Foote to). Of the Stars D, Hatcher got the attention due to being captain and his physical presence, but I thought Zubov was their most effective d-man overall.

Having to pick one way or the other if he was not correctly rated overall, I would almost certainly pick overrated, that could be going too far and it would not have been by much, but I do not see the first way and by who Foote would have been underrated.

I tend to agree. He's properly rated, but more likely to be over than underrated due to the great team he played on.

Also I do not remember him being fully in the shadow during the Blake-Bourque era for example, I remember quite well the talk being a big 3, not a big 2:

I also remember them being called the big 3, since Foote was their #1 D before those 2 arrived. Also, it would be hard for him to be considered in the shadow since Bourque and Blake were only teammates for 36 games (13 RS, 23 PO) with Blake not arriving until the trade deadline of Bourque's final season in 2001. After those 36 games Foote went right back to being the Avs #2 D.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

if anything maybe foote was a little overrated, at least around the turn of the millennium and the first few years after. i remember a lot of talk about him deserving serious norris consideration as a pure defensive shutdown guy, but imo the only pure defensive guy of that era who was impactful enough defensively to deserve norris consideration in the same breath as desjardins, blake, and later niedermayer and early chara was derian hatcher.

on the other hand, i think foote was also a little mis-appreciated. for a defensive guy, prime early 2000s foote moved the puck better and more than people acknowledged.

 

[Michael Farkas]

You are out of your gd mind... with all due respect. That's like taking Kirk Maltby over Sergei Fedorov...

That seems extreme. Konstantinov was a much bigger risk taker...more of a wild card. That's fine enough on a team with reliable players like Lidstrom and Murphy and what not...they could cover for him more readily and let him play his game. Foote also wasn't a guaranteed minor penalty in every game, as strange as that is to say...just a smarter player, but still tough as nails and capable of 25, 30 points in his prime.

I'm not asking anyone to side with me, I know it won't be super popular...but it's less Maltby:Fedorov and more like...I don't know...Modano's best over Roenick's best or something...

 

[DingerMcSlapshot]

Bit over rated if anything.

 

[norrisnick]

That seems extreme. Konstantinov was a much bigger risk taker...more of a wild card. That's fine enough on a team with reliable players like Lidstrom and Murphy and what not...they could cover for him more readily and let him play his game. Foote also wasn't a guaranteed minor penalty in every game, as strange as that is to say...just a smarter player, but still tough as nails and capable of 25, 30 points in his prime.

I'm not asking anyone to side with me, I know it won't be super popular...but it's less Maltby:Fedorov and more like...I don't know...Modano's best over Roenick's best or something...

Sometimes you gotsta rumble in the Hyper Bowl to make a point.

Konstantinov was the risk taker the same way that Dominik Hasek was a risk taker. Shift to shift it looks insane but the overall picture shows that he very rarely 'took a risk' when there was a likelihood of losing. Konstantinov attacked when the opposition was vulnerable or already committed to whatever move they were making. And Foote's penalty rate was only marginally lower than Konstantinov's, that's hardly a selling point.

Also Konstantinov never played with Murphy or Lidstrom. Murphy because they were both RD and Lidstrom because as both being defense first they never clicked (same reason Lidstrom and Chelios never paired together apart from PK). Konstantinov played primarily with Chiasson early on and then the corpse of Fetisov when he joined the Wings.

I guess, it's just strange how visible the 90s Wings were, but there are still misconceptions on the players. Likely a function of availability of coverage at the time. No internet, no on demand clips, you were either there or relied on reporters. The idea that Konstantinov was not smart out there is legitimately baffling.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I've seen Lidstrom and VK paired in certain situations, not regularly, but they did some matchup stuff at times. But regardless...he wasn't Hasek, because Hasek was advanced about vertical angles. There was a method to it.

VK was a little bit more of a wildcard for me. Not that I want to compare the brains of goalies and skaters for these purposes...I recently went into a shift by shift detail of a period of hockey for VK. It's a mixed bag. I think he would have aged poorly. Certainly the least efficient regular d-man on the 97 Wings...

I agree - one of the big misconceptions is that VK was tracking towards being a star d-man. And that we didn't have something special in Nick Lidstrom.

 

[Hobnobs]

I've seen Lidstrom and VK paired in certain situations, not regularly, but they did some matchup stuff at times. But regardless...he wasn't Hasek, because Hasek was advanced about vertical angles. There was a method to it.

VK was a little bit more of a wildcard for me. Not that I want to compare the brains of goalies and skaters for these purposes...I recently went into a shift by shift detail of a period of hockey for VK. It's a mixed bag. I think he would have aged poorly. Certainly the least efficient regular d-man on the 97 Wings...

I agree - one of the big misconceptions is that VK was tracking towards being a star d-man. And that we didn't have something special in Nick Lidstrom.

That was very rarely. And I think you are underrating Konstantinov based on highlight reels of his hits now...

 

[Michael Farkas]

I've watched a handful of 90's Wings games over the past few weeks (zero highlight reels) to see if I was misremembering...he has better games than others, but he's a way better Kasparaitis - not a better Foote for me...

We all would have been better off if the voters figured out how good Lidstrom was earlier on...in '96 the D AS voting was 4, 5, 6 all Red Wings d-men in the reverse order of how it should have been. And then again in '97, VK is, what, a single second place vote away from finishing 5th instead of 2nd (he gets a lot of mileage out of that vote in the romanticizing of his would-be 30+Former-Soviet career), and finishes back to back with 5/6 with Lidstrom in the AS D voting.

Konstantinov with a couple of 6th place finishes on a dynamo team is like uhhhhh...I don't know...Christian Ehrhoff level voting record...

But it didn't break that way for whatever reason, and now his legacy is more relevant, it's a little harder to claim Lidstrom over Bourque, we ended up with like a Rob Blake revenge Norris out of it the next year, blah blah blah...I don't know, it just left things messier than need be in my opinion...and maybe only mine...which is fine.

 

[Hobnobs]

I've watched a handful of 90's Wings games over the past few weeks (zero highlight reels) to see if I was misremembering...he has better games than others, but he's a way better Kasparaitis - not a better Foote for me...

We all would have been better off if the voters figured out how good Lidstrom was earlier on...in '96 the D AS voting was 4, 5, 6 all Red Wings d-men in the reverse order of how it should have been. And then again in '97, VK is, what, a single second place vote away from finishing 5th instead of 2nd (he gets a lot of mileage out of that vote in the romanticizing of his would-be 30+Former-Soviet career), and finishes back to back with 5/6 with Lidstrom in the AS D voting.

Konstantinov with a couple of 6th place finishes on a dynamo team is like uhhhhh...I don't know...Christian Ehrhoff level voting record...

But it didn't break that way for whatever reason, and now his legacy is more relevant, it's a little harder to claim Lidstrom over Bourque, we ended up with like a Rob Blake revenge Norris out of it the next year, blah blah blah...I don't know, it just left things messier than need be in my opinion...and maybe only mine...which is fine.

It would still be better than Footes voting record though... So I'm not sure why you bring up his inflated voting record (which I agree on).

 

[Michael Farkas]

Sure, but that doesn't make him a better player. That just means that one has a better voting record, of course. Foote isn't the player type to get that kind of attention anyhow...

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Foote was fairly rated imo, and he was the model of consistency over a long career. He made five (five!) best-on-best Team Canadas - 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004, 2006 - which is fairly remarkable for a guy that topped-out with a 10th place Norris finish. Of course, he had no business at all making the 2006 team on international ice....

Foote was simply a hard-nosed, durable, very good defensive defenseman that every GM and coach would love to have on their team.

 

[Voight]

I'd say Foote is pretty fairly rated. Couple throw-away AS and Norris votes here and there. Never really in consideration to be a top 10 or maybe even 20 guy in any season as he wasn't that dominant defensively where he could take over a game. But an absolute rock that you could put next to anyone and let them do their thing.

Chiarot might be a good modern comparable if he was a stalwart on a perennial contender.

Lol not even close.

 

[MS]

Hugely underrated, and the takes in this thread just confirm it.

To me, he was a top 5-10 NHL defender for a decade, but has a solitary 10th place finish in Norris voting to show for it. He was a far better player than Sergei Gonchar, and then compare their Norris finishes.

Part of that is injuries. Most of it is the fetishizing of guys who rack up 25-30 PP points/season to look good on the back of a hockey card over the guys who tilt the ice for their team in 25 hard minutes against top players.

If you could give me prime, healthy Adam Foote or prime, healthy Rob Blake for an NHL playoff series, I take Foote. And I realize that nobody will agree with me, for the record.

 

[norrisnick]

Hugely underrated, and the takes in this thread just confirm it.

To me, he was a top 5-10 NHL defender for a decade, but has a solitary 10th place finish in Norris voting to show for it. He was a far better player than Sergei Gonchar, and then compare their Norris finishes.

Part of that is injuries. Most of it is the fetishizing of guys who rack up 25-30 PP points/season to look good on the back of a hockey card over the guys who tilt the ice for their team in 25 hard minutes against top players.

If you could give me prime, healthy Adam Foote or prime, healthy Rob Blake for an NHL playoff series, I take Foote. And I realize that nobody will agree with me, for the record.

I would 100% take Foote (or Gonchar) over Blake.

 

[Hobnobs]

Sure, but that doesn't make him a better player. That just means that one has a better voting record, of course. Foote isn't the player type to get that kind of attention anyhow...

Maybe, maybe not. I'm not sure what Foote was better at. And Im one of the "Foote was underrated people".

Both are elite #2 on contenders. However I'd say Konstantinov has the edge in mobility, puck handling and offense. While Foote might be a better crease clearer.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Foote was a better crease clearer. Don't sell prime Foote short on his mobility either. Foote was more predictable, especially in NZ defense and rush absorption. Better hockey sense. I'd be really curious to see who allowed more PPO's for the opposition too...I'd bet that it's VK by a significant margin.

 

[Albatros]

Hugely underrated, and the takes in this thread just confirm it.

To me, he was a top 5-10 NHL defender for a decade, but has a solitary 10th place finish in Norris voting to show for it. He was a far better player than Sergei Gonchar, and then compare their Norris finishes.

I don't know what the point of that comparison should be. Gonchar was an excellent offensive defenseman that could also play defense well enough to consider him something of a two-way one. Foote was a defensive defenseman that was perhaps a bit better defensively but couldn't contribute much offensively.

 

[norrisnick]

I don't know what the point of that comparison should be. Gonchar was an excellent offensive defenseman that could also play defense well enough to consider him something of a two-way one. Foote was a defensive defenseman that was perhaps a bit better defensively but couldn't contribute much offensively.

I mean, in reality a Gonchar/Foote pairing would have been ridiculous. Perfectly complementary. One guy great offense, good enough defense. The other guy great defense, good enough puck mover to get it to the offense. Righty, lefty roughly same age. Good to go.