Well, this should get everybody upset at me I reckon.
In terms of 11 years, Lidstrom is the man. If we are talking 9 yrs, Orr is the man. Consistency...... consistency. Orr was injured for the last two years.
Lidstrom really did not get the top pairing until Konstantinov went down after the 1997 Cup. He and Fetisov were the Men on the blue line in Hockeytown until then. Lidstrom took full advantage of the opportunity presented to him AFTER that tragedy.
I don't like comparing eras either, but you can make a great case the Bourque was a better d-man even for his era. He had a better 20 year career, but Lidstrom had a better prime. I say that b/c when you look at the D partners that Lidstrom had, it was FAR superior to anything Bourque had to work with. I've seen both play probably dozen times up close on the glass. I have a preference for Bourque b/c of what he did away from the puck- including communicating with his teammates while play was going on; but I totally realize that these decisions are personal choices. Tough to go wrong with either frankly.
In terms of scoring, the GPG during Orr's prime and Lidstrom's prime are virtually identical. So, I don't buy the scoring (dead puck) argument for Lidstrom.
To me, Orr is the best to ever play the game (including Gretzky, Lemieux, and Howe), even with his so-called defensive deficiencies. He literally changed the way the game was played and how it is played today. When Orr came into the league, forwards scored 90% of the goals, now they score 85%. How d-men even come close to the scoring title much less win them like Orr did?
In terms of Norris voting for this year, SensArmy, I see your point. Since the hockey writers only get to vote for (I believe) 5 people, I get what you're driving at. I still might put Yandle in the top 5, but I can be on board with you.
redwings1969: So, did Lidstrom deserve the Norris based on his work for 2010/11?
Norris and Great Defensemen
Posted on: March 23, 2012 11:43 am