| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 12/22/2007 : 11:40:29
Place your comments in this section...
I don't necessarily agree with everything I say.
- - Marshall McLuhan
|
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 13:22:48
Just joking around, of course, but thanks for the responses. I might not feel quite so "smashy" about the Gainey snubbing if there was not, at the same time, almost universal Gainey-bashing going on in the threads regarding the Huet trade. I've read from at least two people that Bob deserves NO credit for the success the Habs have had this year! I think this only shows that Bob's unassuming and quiet character have allowed him to exist somewhat under the radar, considering the successes he has been a big part of. I will consider laying off the Bob lobby for a bit, but as they say in Quebec, "je me souvien".
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 11:43:52
Oil, nice lobbying bud! I should have thought of that for Lidstrom! hah! 
I know you're probably joking around but I still want to say it just in case others are thinking it. Let's not bargain our list away. We'll end up skewing our results and its credibility (for what it's worth) will be shot. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/10/2008 : 07:26:54
Oil - I know where you are coming from with emphasizing the value of a guy like Gainey. I love that you recognize that stats are not everything and I think that point sends a great message to guys on this site (I'm not necessarily talking about guys on this thread, but generally the younger guys who are on the site).
I must say though that I too am not quite ready for Gainey yet. I'm not sure when I'll be ready but my guess is not for at least 5 to 10 more rounds. I might be ready to nominate him a little earlier than that, but his electability chances are probably fairly small. Maybe that is something for you to consider too. Are there other guys you strongly feel should be on the board already who might be more electable? You might want to nominate them instead. And I'm not talking about Park. I wouldn't want you throwing your support at him if you actually thought Chelios or some other guy was more deserving for example.
Remember too that Gainey ended up about 34th on the Hockey News List (41st actually, but there were about 7 goalies counted in front of him). There are still quite a few rounds til 34 and I think if we do end up putting him a few rounds before his ranking there, that would be a nice testament to him and the point you are making in his favor. I'm not necessarily saying we will end up doing that, but I am saying that there is still a fair bit of room for a placement that you, as obviously a huge Gainey believer, could feel at least a little satisfied with.
If I'm wrong about that, and you are already on the verge of smashing some antique lamp given to you by your grandmother unless Bob gets on the board, all I can say is, choose something some ex-girlfriend gave you instead (never mess with stuff given by a grandmother - it's just not right).
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/09/2008 : 21:14:17
quote:
[i]Originally posted by OILINONTARIO[/i]
[br]Andyhack and Willus. Make me a deal here. I will go hard for Brad Park until he gets in if one of you or both will help me with my Gainey lobby. I'm starting to freak out a bit, but I hear at least a little bit of understanding from the two of you. Please consider. I hope you understand my sincerity in this matter.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009.
I'd love to help you out OIO, I really would. You're one of my favourite posters here. You've actually made me laugh out loud on numerous occasions. Unfortunately I can't be on board with Gainey yet. He was a great player but I don't quite rate him as highly as the Russians did. I have quite a few players ahead of him yet. He is definitely one of the best defensive forwards all time but he actually isn't ahead of everyone in that category either. Not for me anyway. Had the Selke been around before him you'd have guys like Keon, Mikita, Clarke and Westfall being recognized a lot more.
Now, had you helped vote Orr in as #1 then maybe...
Kidding.
I sympathize with you plight but I have to rate these guys honestly.  |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 03/09/2008 : 17:28:23
Andyhack and Willus. Make me a deal here. I will go hard for Brad Park until he gets in if one of you or both will help me with my Gainey lobby. I'm starting to freak out a bit, but I hear at least a little bit of understanding from the two of you. Please consider. I hope you understand my sincerity in this matter.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 16:50:57
Sounds good Andy. I can appreciate what you're saying. So it sounds like in the case of Park he might have had a little more "peak" value and a little more of a physical game in your opinion (which I also think is important - it's one of the reasons why I love Iginla so much!)
As for offense their numbers are remarkably similar but the edge does go to Park. I looked up Robinson's too since we're on the subject:
Park - 896 points in 1113 games
Lidstrom - 868 points in1176 games
Robinson - 958 points in 1384 games |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 16:32:28
Leigh-san - I spent the day getting over myself and now I am ready to respond.
I think for me the "little bit more" for Park is on offense (particularly puck-rushing and powerplay quarterbacking) and body checking/physical play (including fighting which he had to stop doing on Cherry's orders).
People forget that before his knee problems, and before being reigned in by Cherry, Park was a very good puck rushing defenceman. To me there is a significant edge there. I think Park's offensive peak beats Lidstrom on the basis of actual facts, but if I imagine what Park's numbers would have been with a more offensive minded coach and better knees, the difference goes up another notch. To me, whatever edge Lidstrom has defensively, if any (particlularly considering Park's edge in physical play), does not make up for the edge Park has offensively.
As for nostalgia, you know what, I plead guilty to this to a certain degree, but a very small degree. I do agree, as Ken Dryden once said, that we all tend to think that the guys we watched when we were kids are the best. But I am trying as much as possible to not let this affect me here. Do I care whether Lidstrom beats out Park? No, not really. Do I want people to consider the question of who was better even though Lidstrom has the Norris trophies and the Cups, and Park doesn't, absolutely yes.
|
| leigh |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 11:04:16
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Hey Leigh - some points to consider:
1) While what you say about getting the best of both worlds with Lidstrom is true, is it not VERY possible that the same can be said about guys like Robinson and Park, and that they may have brought even a little bit more to the table?
Leigh - Yes, of course it is true. I watched both play and both were incredible players. I'm not saying this is an easy decision,I think that we are at a very difficult decision here. Maybe you can not see him in a more favourable light because his career is not yet over and he is not yet inducted. Or perhaps you can explain what the "little bit more" is you speak of?
2) I think older guys like me, Willus and Pucknuts probably view the name "Brad Park" a bit differently than some younger guys (not that you are a spring chicken, I know, but think about the ages we were when we watching these guys in the '70s). I can certainly see all the arguments you make about Lidstrom, but keep in mind that for many fans of the '70s, Park was very very elite. You make it sound like it is an insult to Lidstrom to be ranked below Park (or Robinson). I think just the opposite - it's a compliment to him simply that we are talking about them together.
Leigh - I understand your point....and you make it sound like you're doing him a favour by considering him in the same company. Get over yourself (that was a joke Andy...love ya buddy!  ) Seriously though, Lidstrom has earned his right to be in that group and for many reasons to be considered ahead of them. Do not underestimate the power of nostalgia Andy. I am old enough at 37 to understand it's intoxicating effects. I'm not saying that it is nostalgia that is jettisoning your boys ahead of mine, simply that it may be enough to tip them in your favour. Originally when I was thinking about this several rounds ago I wanted to nominate Robinson ahead of Lidstrom (just barely) but I wanted to double check my figures because it was such a close call in my mind. What I realized was that my mind was clouded by my strong memories of Robinson. After further research I changed my mind.
I know - you think we have it backwards and that Lidstrom is the underrated one. That's fair enough. I'm just trying to point out a slightly different way of looking at what has transpired on the list so far. What I mean is that it's possible that, even if one disagrees with the result, Lidstrom being ranked behind Robinson, and maybe Park too, isn't really showing any disrespect to the guy.
Leigh - I have no disagreement with that statement, and the same could be said the other way around too (if Robinson or Park was considered below Lidstrom in your mind)
3) Coffey is a special case. Lidstrom vs. Coffey is a great example to me where it is important to point out that we are not making a "Defenceman" list but a "Player" list here. Even then, I certainly can see a strong argument for Lidstrom, BUT, for me a bit less so than some of the other guys (and part of that is I think the other guys, Bourque, Potvin, Park and Robinson were better offensively than Lidstrom).
Leigh - Again I agree, and you might have misunderstood my point there. I brought up Coffey merely on a points issue with Beans. While I don't think he was a great defensemen (if defending were the criteria) I do think he is an extremely gifted offensive player who played a hybrid role and therefore belongs very high on this list. No argument from me.
4) You mention the Hockey News List and how high Lidstrom was ranked there. Obviously a lot of us think they were wrong, but even if we have gone too much in the other direction on that point, I'd argue that to err in that direction is better because it shows that we are taking a broad view of hockey history, not just looking at who currently is the best.
Leigh - Agreed, and that is essentially what I eluded to (that it is not our measurement indicator) I have not been using it to base my decisions on. In fact I haven't used it at all until now...out of interest I wanted to see where they placed Lidstrom (after all it was the motivation for this very intriguing forum thread). I will say that it does make a nice barometer of sorts, an indicator that if we are that much different maybe - just maybe - we need to double check out figures before making our votes.
5) Lidstrom is likely going to get on the board in the next few rounds (maybe even next round, who knows) and be ranked around 20th overall in the last 40 years. I think it's still a very good ranking, and a compliment to one of the greatest defencemen ever to play the game.
In the grand scheme of things even being on this list is a great testament to a player's abilities. And top 20 is excellent, but as much as I loved Robinson growing up, I can't put him ahead of Lidstrom without more tangible evidence. Not that my mind can't be changed, I think I've proven myself to be a flexible guy in these forums, I just can't see it right now and nobody has given me anything more than "he has less competition" (which is bunk!) and "he had that special something!"
|
| shinnyafterschool |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 08:25:49
If the defensemen were so good in the 80's why was the scoring so high?..
"Desire is the most important factor in the success of any athlete. " |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/08/2008 : 04:57:48
Hey Leigh - some points to consider:
1) While what you say about getting the best of both worlds with Lidstrom is true, is it not VERY possible that the same can be said about guys like Robinson and Park, and that they may have brought even a little bit more to the table?
2) I think older guys like me, Willus and Pucknuts probably view the name "Brad Park" a bit differently than some younger guys (not that you are a spring chicken, I know, but think about the ages we were when we watching these guys in the '70s). I can certainly see all the arguments you make about Lidstrom, but keep in mind that for many fans of the '70s, Park was very very elite. You make it sound like it is an insult to Lidstrom to be ranked below Park (or Robinson). I think just the opposite - it's a compliment to him simply that we are talking about them together.
I know - you think we have it backwards and that Lidstrom is the underrated one. That's fair enough. I'm just trying to point out a slightly different way of looking at what has transpired on the list so far. What I mean is that it's possible that, even if one disagrees with the result, Lidstrom being ranked behind Robinson, and maybe Park too, isn't really showing any disrespect to the guy.
3) Coffey is a special case. Lidstrom vs. Coffey is a great example to me where it is important to point out that we are not making a "Defenceman" list but a "Player" list here. Even then, I certainly can see a strong argument for Lidstrom, BUT, for me a bit less so than some of the other guys (and part of that is I think the other guys, Bourque, Potvin, Park and Robinson were better offensively than Lidstrom).
4) You mention the Hockey News List and how high Lidstrom was ranked there. Obviously a lot of us think they were wrong, but even if we have gone too much in the other direction on that point, I'd argue that to err in that direction is better because it shows that we are taking a broad view of hockey history, not just looking at who currently is the best.
5) Lidstrom is likely going to get on the board in the next few rounds (maybe even next round, who knows) and be ranked around 20th overall in the last 40 years. I think it's still a very good ranking, and a compliment to one of the greatest defencemen ever to play the game.
|
| leigh |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 21:49:28
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Leigh, how many of those guys listed are HOFer's??
More importantly, how many of those guys are Hall Of Famers in their Prime while Lidstrom is winning these awards??
Consider this. Here is the list of the Norris winners from 1980-1990:
1980–81 Randy Carlyle Pittsburgh Penguins
1981–82 Doug Wilson Chicago Black Hawks
1982–83 Rod Langway Washington Capitals
1983–84 Rod Langway Washington Capitals
1984–85 Paul Coffey Edmonton Oilers
1985–86 Paul Coffey Edmonton Oilers
1986–87 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
1987–88 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
1988–89 Chris Chelios Montreal Canadiens
1989–90 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
Seriously, can you even say with a straight face that Lidstrom has had anywhere near this competion? And this is only the guys who won! What about the others that didn't but were solid players?? .....
Let me shorten the list for you....
Ray Bourque (HOF)
Brian Leetch (future HOF)
Rob Blake (future HOF)
Al MacInnis (HOF)
Chris Pronger (future HOF)
Phil Housley (future HOF)
Scott Niedermayer (future HOF)
Scott Stevens (HOF)
Chris Chelios (future HOF)
Maybe to solidify your argument you can dig up all the competitors for the 80's? Keep in mind that several others on my longer list will probably end up with HOF careers.
Ok Beans you often use stats in your arguments for other players...raw points...although I haven't done my research here, I would argue that Lidstrom is probably in the top 10 defensemen in that category. And to top that off he is known as a defensive (or "stay at home") defensman. He is the best of both worlds, a point getter who is defensively responsible. Unlike your beloved Coffey who was a defensive liabilty (but a special player none-the-less)
Maybe he's just not flashy enough for you? 
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 20:29:54
Leigh, how many of those guys listed are HOFer's??
More importantly, how many of those guys are Hall Of Famers in their Prime while Lidstrom is winning these awards??
Consider this. Here is the list of the Norris winners from 1980-1990:
1980–81 Randy Carlyle Pittsburgh Penguins
1981–82 Doug Wilson Chicago Black Hawks
1982–83 Rod Langway Washington Capitals
1983–84 Rod Langway Washington Capitals
1984–85 Paul Coffey Edmonton Oilers
1985–86 Paul Coffey Edmonton Oilers
1986–87 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
1987–88 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
1988–89 Chris Chelios Montreal Canadiens
1989–90 Ray Bourque Boston Bruins
Seriously, can you even say with a straight face that Lidstrom has had anywhere near this competion? And this is only the guys who won! What about the others that didn't but were solid players??
Lidstrom, albeit a great hockey player, doesn't make my top 5 defensemen all time, maybe not even my top 10. And that is only defensemen. In case you ask the question, my top defensemen in no real order are:
Orr, Coffey, Bourque, Park, Potvin, Harvey, Chilios, Howe, Robinson, and Pilote.
Of those guys, 2 played before 67 so Lidstrom might make #8 on my list since 67. That being said, there are many forwards I can think of that deserve the nod over these defensemen on an overall list.
I love Lidstrom, I just don't think he is as good as he looks as he has no competition. I think he doesn't stand head and shoulders above the rest i any other era in hockey.
Just My Opinion. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 17:31:39
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
......Point is that the Norris trophy is not a great tool to judge a defensemen's historic status......
I know, I've heard it all before.....neither are goals, neither are assists, neither are +/-, neither are blocked shots, neither are Con Smythes, neither are Stanley Cups,...blah blah blah. If not these, then what? "He just had a certain charisma about him". Is that a reason then? No single stat is good on its own, we can all agree on that, but when you add them all up they mean something. And his numbers (and charisma) add up to a hell of lot.
I was curious where the Hockey News placed Lidstrom on their list, so I just checked, not that we need to follow them in our decisions, but it should give us pause for thought. They had him placed in the TOP 10 at 9th spot. And their list included 2 goalies in the top 10 too! We are now discussing the 18th spot (with no goalies) and somehow with his credentials we can't find a spot for him yet??? Crazy talk.
Willus you said that in some of his Norris wins he barely beat some of his opponents...it's pretty hard to beat future hall of famers with their skill...and even popularity...but he did. I wouldn't say that Scott Niedermayer was anywhere near the end of his career in 2001 when Lidstrom beat him (afterall it's 2008 now and Scotty won his first and only Norris in 2004)
By the way here is a list of Norris Winners - Other than Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey no one has won more total or more consecutively:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/history/news/story?page=nhlnorris
Oh and here are just some of the guys he has been up against since about 2001 (he's won it 5 times since then). Surely they weren't all too old (or too young) and having bad years at the same time. Pretty shabby bunch really:
Brian Leetch,
Rob Blake
Ray Bourque
Sergei Gonchar
Al MacInnis
Brian Rafalski
Chris Pronger
Adrian Aucoin
Mat Schneider
Brian Campbell
Wade Redden
Roman Hamrlik
Alexi Zhitnik
Dan Boyle
Sergei Zubov
Phil Housley
Tomas Kaberle
Dion Phaneuf
Zdeno Chara
Scott Niedermayer
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 15:30:32
I'm gone until Sunday. If you're not waiting on anyone else, please proceed without me for nominations and voting. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 03/07/2008 : 00:26:27
Fellas, Firstly I am sorry for not being around much this week. We are doing major changes at work and after a 16 hour day I Don't feel much like spending time on the Comp!
That being said, I completely agree with Willus on the Lidstrom thing. He has had competition of solid defensemen but most at the end of their career. He's basically fought against Pronger and Neidermayer for the past 5 years.
Consider that Brad Park would have had 5 or 6 Norris Trophies in the 70's if Mr. and Mrs. Orr would have played scrabble rather than going to bed that night.
Point is that the Norris trophy is not a great tool to judge a defensemen's historic status. The Norris means he was the best that year, and the competion each Norris winner had is very imprortant. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 15:55:43
quote:
Originally posted by OILINONTARIO
Right place at the right time could apply to anyone on this list, if you talk fast enough, and have the right statistics at your fingertips.
Yes and no in Park's case I think. Yes, in the sense that you can make arguments that he was on very good teams throughout his career. No, in the sense that even stronger arguments can be made that he had the unfortunate timing of playing in a decade when the greatest defenceman ever, and other arguably top 5 ever greatest ever defencemen played. And also the unfortunate timing of running into tremendously great opponents in the playoffs, whether it be the Orr/Espo Bruins of teh early 70s or the Habs of the late 70s.
I do agree with a lot of your thoughts on Gainey. |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 15:37:42
quote:
historically speaking (think of the guys on the opposite end of the spectrum - the Ken Drydens, Henri Richards and Paul Coffeys of the world - they were greats, yes, but they were also very much in the right place at the right time)
Right place at the right time could apply to anyone on this list, if you talk fast enough, and have the right statistics at your fingertips. Both Park and Robinson excelled on excellent teams. If we can look beyond personal achievements, and focus on what each player actually brought to the game, I think we will find that Bob Gainey not only added fuel to a dynasty, but created a new roleplaying position that will always be essential to any successful team.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs in 2009. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 15:01:33
My nod to Park is more a comment on him being underrated than a knock against Lidstrom. Aside from just thinking Park was better overall (for example, physically and offensively - actually he was reigned in quite a bit offensively by Cherry, and also by his knees), I also think Brad faces a number of obstacles stacked against him on a list like this, so it can't be a bad thing to give the edge to a guy who, let's face it, kind of got stiffed a little historically speaking (think of the guys on the opposite end of the spectrum - the Ken Drydens, Henri Richards and Paul Coffeys of the world - they were greats, yes, but they were also very much in the right place at the right time).
Actually, I thought about Park over Robinson too. I think there is a good argument for it but ultimately Robinson's size, toughness when necessary and, for lack of a better word, presence, gave him the slight edge to me.
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 11:41:21
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
....Who was Lidstrom beating when he won his Norris Trophies? In 2001, the other finalists were Bourque (in his last season) and Stevens (who was just shy of turning 40). In 2002, first runner-up was Chelios, who was 40. (And Lidstrom barely beat Chelios). In 2003, it was MacInnis in his last full season. In 2006 and 2007, it was Niedermayer. He has beat three guys who were about 40 at the time, and a defenceman who is an HHOFer, but not a top 25 all-time defenceman, or a top 100 all-time player.
He also wasn't winning these Norris's by large margins. Fairly close voting most years.
If you want to go further back to 1998, when Lidstrom had his three first all-star season, he lost in lop-sided fashion to MacInnis and Pronger. And he lost to Blake....
You're right Willus, what was I thinking? He only beat out Bourque, Stevens, Chelios and MacInnis. Just 3 hall of famers and a future inductee really. Then when he did lose he lost to Blake and Pronger - 2 more future hall of famers. Thanks for straightening me out, I guess Lidstrom sucks.
The point was he beat guys who were all old and past their prime and that the level of competition is very relevant. The point was not to say that he sucks. He is outstanding and definitely warrants consideration. Just not before Robinson and Park in my opinion.
And no offence guys but Sittler does not belong anywhere near this position on this list. He actually doesn't make my list at all. |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/06/2008 : 11:00:21
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
....Who was Lidstrom beating when he won his Norris Trophies? In 2001, the other finalists were Bourque (in his last season) and Stevens (who was just shy of turning 40). In 2002, first runner-up was Chelios, who was 40. (And Lidstrom barely beat Chelios). In 2003, it was MacInnis in his last full season. In 2006 and 2007, it was Niedermayer. He has beat three guys who were about 40 at the time, and a defenceman who is an HHOFer, but not a top 25 all-time defenceman, or a top 100 all-time player.
He also wasn't winning these Norris's by large margins. Fairly close voting most years.
If you want to go further back to 1998, when Lidstrom had his three first all-star season, he lost in lop-sided fashion to MacInnis and Pronger. And he lost to Blake....
You're right Willus, what was I thinking? He only beat out Bourque, Stevens, Chelios and MacInnis. Just 3 hall of famers and a future inductee really. Then when he did lose he lost to Blake and Pronger - 2 more future hall of famers. Thanks for straightening me out, I guess Lidstrom sucks. |
| MSC |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 19:58:48
The Ol Defese have been pretty popular lately.
pretty good spelling of defense up there I know.... |
| MSC |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 18:13:40
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
I'm on vacation after 7 months over seas in afghanistan.....I'm trying to get on as much as usual but it just isn't working out...
If you were over there in a military capacity, it's good to see you're home.
I didn't mean it was just you being slow by the way. I just meant in general we have slowed our pace.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright
I was there with the military and thank you.....I'm slow on the best of days though so no worries |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 12:33:09
Before you vote him in for #17 consider the level of competition he faced at his position.
Who was Lidstrom beating when he won his Norris Trophies? In 2001, the other finalists were Bourque (in his last season) and Stevens (who was just shy of turning 40). In 2002, first runner-up was Chelios, who was 40. (And Lidstrom barely beat Chelios). In 2003, it was MacInnis in his last full season. In 2006 and 2007, it was Niedermayer. He has beat three guys who were about 40 at the time, and a defenceman who is an HHOFer, but not a top 25 all-time defenceman, or a top 100 all-time player.
He also wasn't winning these Norris's by large margins. Fairly close voting most years.
If you want to go further back to 1998, when Lidstrom had his three first all-star season, he lost in lop-sided fashion to MacInnis and Pronger. And he lost to Blake. Eric DesJardins, who was a really good defenceman, but won't be confused with an all-time great, was a second-team all-star twice in those years.
Right now there just aren't any stand out defencemen.The defencemen from the 1994-2001 drafts have done very little to really distinguish themselves.
Lidstrom is the best of a weak crop of defensemen. Against the stiffer competition of the 70's, 80's and 90's he is an also ran.
He is a screamin' good guy though.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| leigh |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 11:47:15
Ok I'm making my 17th round push for Lidstrom:
Aside from the fact he is a classy guy on and off the ice has there every been a defensive defensman with these kinds of numbers?
Personal Awards:
- Norris Trophy (2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007) (not to mention he has been a finalist everyo ther year too!)
- Conn Smythe Trophy (2002)
- Calder runner up in 91
- NHL All-Rookie Team (1992)
- NHL First All-Star Team (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007)
- NHL Second All-Star Team (1996, 2004, 2007)
- 3 Stanley Cups (and he didn't ride the pine in any of them!)
Stats:
1176 Games / 202 goals / 666 assists / 868 points / +353
15 years on the same team, that is a rare sign of loyalty these days!
What's not to love! Vote him in for the 17th round fellas! You know you want to!
|
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 11:27:42
Here are the days for each round...
1st 9 days
2nd 10 days
3rd 4 days
4th 3 days
5th 6 days
6th 5 days
7th 8 days
8th 2 days
9th 3 days
10th 3 days
11th 3 days
12th 3 days
13th 2 days
14th/15th 6 days
16th 5 days...
It would be great to keep it at three or under...We had a good stretch there from 8th to 13th.
I knew that MSC was not going to be around from the 19th-27th of Feb, but he still managed to make an appearance.
[img]http://www.maldesigns.ca/top%2050%20since%201967%20banner.jpg[/img] |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 11:08:16
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
I'm on vacation after 7 months over seas in afghanistan.....I'm trying to get on as much as usual but it just isn't working out...
If you were over there in a military capacity, it's good to see you're home.
I didn't mean it was just you being slow by the way. I just meant in general we have slowed our pace.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| MSC |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 10:54:37
I'm on vacation after 7 months over seas in afghanistan.....I'm trying to get on as much as usual but it just isn't working out... |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/05/2008 : 08:27:02
It seems we have slowed considerably. Are we all lacking motivation lately? Maybe we need a coach.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/04/2008 : 10:23:20
Andyhack, you are correct in saying there is a very good case to be made for Park winning the Norris in 78 over Potvin.
What he was doing in Boston was pretty outstanding actually. When you look at the other defencemen he was working with and then his point totals and plus/minus rating it's impressive indeed. Less points than Potvin but a better plus/minus should tell you a bit about how good Park was defensively.
Also that year in the playoffs, had the Bruins beat Montreal Park would have a Conn Smythe. Robinson won it because Montreal won. I watched a vintage game recently from that series and the commentators were saying that Park was the favourite to win the Smythe.
He was also 5th in Hart voting that season.
78 was Park's year and he should have been recognized for it.
For me Park is always in the discussion when rating defencemen when it gets to Potvin and Robinson and Lidstrom for that matter.
I'd take Park over Lidstrom in every situation. Park had better offense, and defence at least as good as Lidstrom, possibly better while also bringing a physical presence Lidstrom doesn't.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| willus3 |
Posted - 03/04/2008 : 09:59:37
I understand how one might rate Coffey higher as a player as opposed to a defenceman but I feel I have to rate him at how he played his position. If he were like Red Kelly and also played as a centre then I would be able to rate his talent a little better. As it is he only played defence and wasn't all that great at the defensive part but was outstanding at the offensive part. That said, he wouldn't make my list for awhile yet.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| andyhack |
Posted - 03/04/2008 : 08:34:05
Willus, I know where you are coming from with Coffey. But, Coffey is a bit trickier in this question than a poll that is just focussing on "Best Defenceman" I think. In a Best Defenceman poll one has to say to oneself "how can I possibly call a guy who was not really THAT good in the defensive part of the game a better DEFENCEman than a guy like Larry Robinson (who in addition to his offenisve talents, was a monster defensively)." In this case though, the question is broader. In a weird way the question here elevates Coffey I believe because there is no denying that his offensive abilities were extremely special.
I don't agree with him being ranked ahead of Larry but I can understand it on this list a lot more than a list of the best defencemen ever. That probably is kind of a wacky way of looking at it for some but I think there is something to that way of thinking.
Oh well, at least Bourque and Potvin are ranked higher than him. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 16:07:51
I'd rather not have ties as well.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| PuckNuts |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 15:50:57
I agree with the tie situation, and have no problem amending the list with andyhack's suggestion...
[img]http://www.maldesigns.ca/top%2050%20since%201967%20banner.jpg[/img] |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 15:36:04
Brad Park
- Named to the First All-Star Team in 1970, 1972, 1974, 1976 and 1978.
- Named to the Second All-Star Team in 1971 and 1973.
- Runner up in Norris Trophy voting in 1970, 1971, 1972, 1974, 1976 and 1978 (most runner-ups ever!)
In a decade which included Bobby Orr, Denis Potvin and Larry Robinson (as well as Salming, Lapointe and Savard), this guy was considered one of the best four defenceman every year except 1975 (only because he missed almost a quarter of the season - still had a pretty good year by the way), 1977 (only because of very stiff competition) and 1979 (only because by then his knees were all but gone).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
On a separate note, and this is just a suggestion, but I wonder if we shouldn't try to remove the tie from last round. Just think maybe the list would look better without ties.
On that note, unless any of the other guys who voted for Potvin strongly object, I'd be willing to give Dionne the nod for #14 and put Potvin in at 15 - we could perhaps make a note of the tie with an asterisk, but I prefer the idea of having one guy as 14, and one guy as 15.
Thoughts, condemnations, threats against the lives of my loved ones?
|
| willus3 |
Posted - 02/28/2008 : 12:02:40
Larry Robinson's credentials.
Conn Smythe Trophy (1978)
First All-Star Team Defense (1977, 1979, 1980)
James Norris Memorial Trophy (1977, 1980)
Second All-Star Team Defense (1978, 1981, 1986)
Leading player in all time +/-
He was even a plus player on the weak defensive LA teams with Gretzky.
Robinson's game was as complete as they get. He was solid in his own end and could produce great numbers offensively.
He could hit like a train:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKd4HJNSbQg
He could fight like few others I've see. He didn't fight a lot but heaven help the guy who set him off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmRWz_Dyk0&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJC2lx5bpBM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQx_iyUuCt8&feature=related
A very good skater for a guy his size. Great offensive instincts as well.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9rp-ewJ8mI
Robinson may only have 2 Norris trophies, but he was up against very stiff competition his entire career. Potvin, Bourque , Chelios...
Throw Larry in the mix with Lidstrom while he won his 5 Norris trophies and I would bet copious amounts of krugerrand that Lidstrom would have nary a one.
"I broke a mirror in my house. I'm supposed to get 7 years of bad luck but my lawyer thinks he can get me 5."
-- Steven Wright |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/20/2008 : 06:16:55
The problem I have with Jagr is that no matter how talented he was/is, as a coach I would always be at least a little worried if tonight was the night he decided to just loaf around rather than give 110% Clarke, Potvin, Sakic ... -like effort.
Don't get me wrong, I know he has had absolutely tremendous moments, and produced extremely well offensively considering he played in the dead puck era. I don't think he should be ranked WAY down there, but I do think closer to 16th to 20th (rather than about 10th) would have been more appropriate.
I also think that, even putting aside the potential floating thing with Yammy, a guy like Dionne should squeak by him on this list anyway, based simply on Marcel's incredible offensive numbers and talent. This to me, more than a Guy comparison, is an example of where Marcel is underrated.
* though I admit that Marcel is a tricky one to figure out for this list - for me, some of the more difficult placement choices we have are Marcel, Coffey, Forsberg and Neely |
| MSC |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 23:26:26
I don't see how Jagr was an error....please enlighten....just a reminder I'm starting some travelling today and won't be back around until probably 27 or 28 Feb...good luck |
| OILINONTARIO |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 14:56:50
Very nice assessment. I think it crystalizes the reality that this forum will be the result of many opinionated individuals to reach a consensus, which is not to say that all agree on the results, but that all played a part in deciding the results.
The Oil WILL make the playoffs. |
| andyhack |
Posted - 02/19/2008 : 14:29:06
It's interesting how we all have different perspectives on this.
In my mind, our putting Trots and Guy significantly higher than the Hockey News guys had them was a very good (check that, GREAT) move by us, but keeping Jagr so high repeats the same error made by those guys. I'm also wondering if we are overrating my favorite player, Mr. Bourque, by putting him so far ahead of Mr. Potvin.
-I'm sure PuckNuts thinks Yzerman is lower than he should be and is reviewing all the stats books to confirm this opinion.
-MSC thinks the same about Bossy - sounds like he had some form of an attack while all that was going on .
-Leigh thinks Espo got pushed down too much and probably blames that guy who started the "Is Espo overrated" poll.
-Beans is asking "Hey, what about Coffey? "
-Oil is like ready to explode with anger over the Gainey snubbing.
-Willus is still secretly campaigning to Pucknuts to somehow discretely reverse the Number 1 and 2 positions.
-Irvine insists that Gordie Howe deserves not to only be on this list but high on it despite only a few post 67 years(albeit pretty impressive ones) .
-Patchy is still debating Bossy vs Espo in his mind even though both are up on the board (yes, that flip flop was noted) .
And finally Mr. PainTrain - he simply seems to be a generally content young man, just soaking it all in and enjoying talking about all these greats. You gotta love that! |
| MSC |
Posted - 02/18/2008 : 20:33:36
Trots got a hefty promotion in the world of hockey legends |
|
|
