GMRwings1983

Well, you have a different definition then I do, apparently. There are a lot of different posts in this thread saying he is or isn't a legit #1, so it's an interesting subject. Why 20?

And Nyquist and Pulkinnen win most of their puck battles? How about Kindl? Say what you want about the Red Wings, but winning puck battles isn't really our strength.

Not really. The point is that you and I know those guys are legit #1 defensemen and don't need to be justified with stats. Kronwall is a tweener and his performances flat out don't help. I mean don't you want more from him in big games? Were you satisfied with his last few playoff performances? Do you think Weber and Suter are more established top tier defensemen than him? This isn't a complicated topic.

Well, it's a long thread already, so I think participation has been fine.

Mantha should come out and say: "Well, I'm not as disappointing as Nyquist and Smith were in the playoffs".

I didn't know Holland was Polish. Fire him!

Three seasons is enough of a sample size. I doubt he's going to be any younger next season. He may have been a better #1 a few years before Lidstrom retired. Maybe not. But at this point, what exactly is Kronwall's upside? That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. I just wish Kronwall's playoff performances backed up your statement.

It's not a black and white thing. How many posters would say Holland deserves no blame whatsoever? 95%? I doubt it. Of course he should get at least some blame.

What's the difference between being vice president and senior vice president? Vice president by itself signifies second in command, except now there's a senior on top of that. Very confusing for us non-corporate folk. I guess in the Mafia, he would be underboss. But I thought that was Holland?

Where did I say that? I'd rather have Lidstrom. I was just refuting your post about how Lidstrom has done something nobody else has ever done for so long. Your post ignored Bourque completely. Bourque was elite and important to Boston for a long time. And Cups are a team stat. They're also a product of the era you play in. Did Lidstrom ever have to go up against Gretzky's Oilers or Mario's Penguins in the playoffs? No he didn't. Lidstrom's Cups were won in seasons where Detroit had the best roster in the league, bar none. Bourque never had the best roster in the league, bar none, until he went to Colorado to play on his own superstar laden team. The number of teams isn't relevant either. It's the names I mentioned that are relevant dispersed throughout those teams. There are more HOF, Norris trophy caliber defensemen playing in Bourque's prime than in Lidstrom's. Just look at those names. Lidstrom would have won Norris trophies in that era too, just not likely to win as many. Trophies depend on the era you play in. Yzerman never won a Hart trophy because his peak was during Gretzky's and Lemieux's peaks. Scott Stevens has won fewer Norris trophies than Duncan Keith. I suppose Keith is better? Al MacInnis won as many Norris trophies as Erik Karlsson. I suppose they're on equal footing now? Of course not. You're right about us not winning a Cup without Lidstrom in 2002. Who says we would have? My point was simply that we won the Cup because we had so much talent. Not because we could have subtracted him and still won. Same thing with Hasek, Fedorov and Yzerman's contribution to those teams. We don't win without any of those players. So to sum up, Bourque was elite for just as long as Lidstrom and just as important to his team. Lidstrom won two more Norris trophies likely because he had less competition, not because he was far better. Winning Cups is a team stat. Those are my only arguments here. I believe I've backed them up sufficiently.

I don't know about those teams, but this team needs a #1 defenseman who can move the puck and score goals. We can't win on grinding or crashing the net. We're trying to play a puck possession game which has to start from the back end. But hey, if those stats Kronwall has put up in the playoffs are satisfying to you, then I digress. I just don't think he's a legit #1 defenseman and his stats in big moments back that up for me. I thought you were joking at first but now I see you're actually serious. Ray Bourque "was" the Boston Bruins for 20 years. Nickas Lidstrom never had that kind of title or pressure. You could argue he was the best Wing for over a decade, but he had other help. He never played on teams that didn't have lots of talent and weren't a Cup contender. Bourque played with some good players, but never had the teams around him Lidstrom did on an annual basis. The fact that Lidstrom won more Cups doesn't mean he was more important to his team than Bourque. That's silly since it's a team stat. Would Lidstrom have carried Boston past Edmonton in 1988 and 1990. I think not. The Norris trophies you have to look in context. Lidstrom had to compete against Pronger, MacInnis, Blake, Chara, Keith and Niedermayer. Bourque had to compete against Coffey, Potvin, MacInnis, Robinson, Stevens, Chelios, Langway and Leetch. Who do you think had the tougher competition for Norris trophies?

Be honest. How much money would you pay to watch that team play?

How would Jim Devellano define the Red Wings playoff performances over the last few years, including how the moves they've made (Weiss, Legwand, etc) have turned out? Very disappointing?

Ray Bourque? Guy didn't have the talent around him that Lidstrom did and made 19 All Star games. I'd say he was pretty consistent and did as much, if not more for his team than Lidstrom did. To answer your question, the definition of a #1 is a guy that is in the upper echelon of defensemen in the league. Playing on the top pairing alone doesn't make you a #1. Otherwise, Jeff Beukeboom would be a top tier defenseman back in the Rangers Cup run. Same thing with Olausson during our run in 2002. However you define it, I have a hard time thinking of Kronwall as a legit #1 defenseman. It's like in wrestling when a guy tries to hit a guy with a chair, and he moves out of the way and someone else gets hit instead. They guy who got hit still blames it on the guy who threw the chair shot. So yes, I do.

Still better than the last game 7 he actually played in.

One was bald and and the other had a manly mustache. Can't beat that experience.

Vince McMahon would be proud of Devellano's burial of this kid.

Him and Jamie Macoun are still the greatest 3rd pairing in Wings history. Back then, men were men. Not like the milksops we have nowadays.

This franchise never calls out players publicly for playing like garbage, and they pick on this kid? How about calling out Smith or Nyquist the last few playoffs? How about calling out Weiss or Kindl?

This is true, his teammates do suck. At the same time, you want your #1 defenseman (and in his case captain), to make others around him better. I don't think Phaneuf ever really did this. He ended up being a waste of time for the Leafs. He's scored as many goals into his own net during that time than the other team's net. His problem is, his shot seems to have gotten worse over time. Not talking about power, but accuracy. He either misses the net completely or hits the shot blocker. Granted, he was never a huge goal scorer from the blue line, but the last few postseasons he hasn't taken the bull by the horns being the number one point man on the powerplay.

You'd think so, but Phaneuf's goal scoring numbers this season make Bob Rouse look like a scorer.

This makes me feel even worse about losing to TB. Seems like Montreal is playing like garbage. Or does TB just match up better against them? They sure didn't last season in the playoffs.

Weiss needs a raise.

Based on what? Nyquist > nobody in April

Nyquist will come back looking like these guys.