Lidstrom

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Senseless barbs? No, I'll cut right to the chase: you're a hack job.

Good hockey rests on the foundation of good defense. It's a cliche now, but: offense wins games, defense wins championships. Anyone who knows hockey knows this and therefore knows the true value of a guy like Nick Lidstrom -- just ask the Pens.

It's no coincidence that guys like Stevie Y and Feds became infinitely more lauded players when they committed themselves to more defense-oriented play.

LOL. Taking the high road, huh?

You know what's cliche Dab. How often the "you don't know hockey" whine manifests itself on message boards.

You view everything inside of a bubble. Yes, those players became much more "well-rounded" when they started to focus on D. And they (THE TEAM as well) enjoyed more success when the team bought into team defense.

The bottom line is that you cannot pinpoint who is best, what is most important when it comes to winning. Some say its defense. Others say its offense. Some will say its goaltending. Whatever.

I have stated my OPINION that I favor forwards in a more offensive minded NHL today. ******* shoot me for pete's sake.

I'm a hack job for delivering my OPINION? I'm not forcing it down anybody's throat.

Quite to the contrary you on the other hand think i'm a "hack" and "don't know hockey" in essence is what you're saying because of it.

Well aren't you an arrogant little s***. This entire debate is opinion only and I haven't seen conclusive evidence to support anybody, including my argument of who is the best.

I'm not trying to pawn off my opinion as fact and I'm not telling anyone that Nick isn't a good pick. Just not mine. So do me a favor, get over yourself and f*** off already.

How's that for cutting to the chase?

Just to further my point that this is all opinion and none of the so called "facts" can be viewed within a bubble...you know, like the one your head is shoved up....it's called your ass Dab

06-Carolina wins Stanley Cup with 3rd ranked offense, 19th ranked defense

04-Tampa wins Stanley Cup with 3rd ranked offense, 11th ranked defense

Nobody would call either of these teams defensive powerhouses. And i'm sure Eva could throw out plenty of stats showing top defensive teams win Stanley Cups too, like Detroit for instance.

But other than the Devils, very rarely does a defensive team that cannot score take home the bacon. Hence, whilst I understand the importance of strong defensive play, I tend to favor the ability to score more than the other guy should defense go to s***, bad bounces break your back, etc.....

There's no fact in there, its all just my humble opinion.

Edited September 8, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Dabura 12,232]

The bottom line is that you cannot pinpoint who is best, what is most important when it comes to winning.

Yes, you can. This is Hockey 101.

Thankfully, we have a very fresh example to work off here: the Pens' collapse in the SCF. Their meltdown serves as a perfect example of the notion that offensive firepower can only get you so far, even with a hot goalie. Their two biggest stars are offensive dynamos, but they, as is symptomatic of the entire Pens team, don't know how to play defense. That's how Hank was able to embarrass Crosby, and that's why Crosby bitched out Hank -- not because Hank was lighting the lamp more often than Crosby, but because the gaping hole in Crosby's game had been exposed and he was now quite clearly not the best overall player in the series -- let alone the world. (The guy doesn't even play on the PK. In my mind, PK work is a prerequisite for "best player in the world" consideration.)

And that's saying nothing of Malkin's disappearing act. For all of the talk about his explosive goal-scoring game, he was rendered completely useless -- in a few instances, even a liability -- by a stifling defensive system. He completely disappeared. Poof, gone.

Hossa, being the Pens' best two-way forward (and, by no coincidence, the biggest threat to the Wings in the series) summed it up nicely when he said that the Wings were owning his team because they were playing a much better defensive game. There was no ambiguity, no "Well, there are a lot of different ways you can go about winning" copout lines. He was owning up to what everyone student of the game knows: defense is paramount.

Naturally, then, defense is everything to the Wings. Their entire "puck-possession" system depends first and foremost on the D -- specifically, on the D's ability to move the puck (protecting the net being a given, of course). To that end, management decided it wasn't enough to have living legend Nick Lidstrom, elite veteran Brian Rafalski, and hot up-and-comer Niklas "Nick Jr." Kronwall in the top-4, passing up on all the forwards at the trade deadline in favor of a second-pairing scrub. Why? Because defense is paramount, and a solid top-4 is the engine of any good defensive machine. Babcock knows it, management knows it, and all the teams the Wings steamrolled over en route to the Cup certainly know it now.

Defense is everything. It's not even up for debate.

[Doc Holiday 0]

06-Carolina wins Stanley Cup with 3rd ranked offense, 19th ranked defense

04-Tampa wins Stanley Cup with 3rd ranked offense, 11th ranked defense

Nobody would call either of these teams defensive powerhouses.

And I would like to ask just how many times they have made the playoffs since their cup wins?

And doesn't New Jersey play the trap anyhow?

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Defense is everything. It's not even up for debate.

Actually it is. When you grow up you'll realize 2 things. The world doesn't revolve around you. And 2. that you aren't as smart as you think you are. Arrogant? Yes. Smart? Now that's debatable.

How did Carolina win?

How did Tampa win?

You can call them aberrations if you like but show me how many teams were better defensively than they were offensively that won the cup?

Conversely, show me how many teams were better offensively than they were defensively that won the Cup.

The topic is debatable.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

And I would like to ask just how many times they have made the playoffs since their cup wins?

And doesn't New Jersey play the trap anyhow?

Doc, don't be like Dab. Don't live in the Red Wings bubble. Which is what you're doing. We have the luxury of being the best organization, with the best people, with the most well-rounded team. You can't compare everyone to the Wings because the Wings are not like everyone else.

The point isn't that they weren't able to sustain success like the Wings have. And that can be contributed to more than simply defense. I know that's where you're going with your question so I just put it out there.

The point is that they proved you can win more with offense than with defense. In fact, I think if the stats are broken down it will show the vast majority of teams that won the Cup were better offensively (rankings wise) than they were defensively. Furthermore, i'm not positive but I would venture to guess most of those teams were not as good in both offense and defense as Detroit typically is.

My point? Statistically I feel it can be proven that more often than not teams with more potent offense and only average defenses win the cup more than teams with stellar defenses and only average offense.

PS: Here, I did it myself, NHL.com for the past 10 years

Detroit O-3rd D-1st

Anaheim O-9th D-7th

Carolina O-3rd D-19th

Tampa O-4th D-11th

New Jersey O-14th D-1st

Detroit O-2nd D-4th

Colorado O-4th D-4th

New Jersey O-2nd D-7th

Dallas O-8th D-1st

Detroit O-2nd D-7th

Average offensive rank: 5.1

Average defensive rank: 6.2

Of course this is all relative but it shows that on average, teams that won the cup had to be at least as good offensively as they were defensively. Which, in my mind makes me question this notion that defense IS EVERYTHING, THE ONLY THING, blah, blah, blah...and the only way to win championships. If you look at Jersey's 2 cups. 1 year they did prove defense is everything. And then another year they finished 2nd in offense and 7th in d. Still pretty good but certainly not the strongest defensive team in the league. Carolina and Tampa furthermore show by the largest disparity on the lists that a superior offense can overcome defensive shortcomings.

Now where is there a 19th ranked offense and a top flight defense on this list? The worst is the New Jersey cup where they were only 14th offensively but 1st in D. To me, that's like the Baltimore Ravens or the Bears when they went to the big one recently. A shoddy offense can get you to the promised land, but only if you defense is other-worldly.

Whatever, this isn't proof of anything other than GS&T may have a point that the cliche of offense wins you games but d wins you championships may indeed be nothing more than a cliche and entirely groundless.

Edited September 8, 2008 by GordieSid&Ted

[Doc Holiday 0]

Doc, don't be like Dab. Don't live in the Red Wings bubble. Which is what you're doing. We have the luxury of being the best organization, with the best people, with the most well-rounded team. You can't compare everyone to the Wings because the Wings are not like everyone else.

The point isn't that they weren't able to sustain success like the Wings have. And that can be contributed to more than simply defense. I know that's where you're going with your question so I just put it out there.

The point is that they proved you can win more with offense than with defense. In fact, I think if the stats are broken down it will show the vast majority of teams that won the Cup were better offensively (rankings wise) than they were defensively. Furthermore, i'm not positive but I would venture to guess most of those teams were not as good in both offense and defense as Detroit typically is.

My point? Statistically I feel it can be proven that more often than not teams with more potent offense and only average defenses win the cup more than teams with stellar defenses and only average offense.

Invalid answer. Please try again.

[Echolalia 2,961]

Fixed.

Refresh my memory. When did an opposing team's goalie outplay our entire team to single-handedly eliminate us from the playoffs?

[Doggy 130]

My point? Statistically I feel it can be proven that more often than not teams with more potent offense and only average defenses win the cup more than teams with stellar defenses and only average offense.

PS: Here, I did it myself, NHL.com for the past 10 years

Detroit O-3rd D-1st

Anaheim O-9th D-7th

Carolina O-3rd D-19th

Tampa O-4th D-11th

New Jersey O-14th D-1st

Detroit O-2nd D-4th

Colorado O-4th D-4th

New Jersey O-2nd D-7th

Dallas O-8th D-1st

Detroit O-2nd D-7th

Average offensive rank: 5.1

Average defensive rank: 6.

GS&T, just a reminder - playoff performance wins the Cup.

Cup winners ranked on average 2.5 in D and 2.6 in O for the playoffs. Runners up averaged 3.5 in D and 6th in O.

That tells a much better story I think. Offense only gets you so far. Of course there are exceptions but you get my point.

Edit: Forget to mention, those stats are based on the past ten years.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Doggy

[SouthernWingsFan 854]

Refresh my memory. When did an opposing team's goalie outplay our entire team to single-handedly eliminate us from the playoffs?

You can make a serious case that Giguere (pad jokes aside) single-handedly did this to the Wings in 2003, because the Ducks rarely could score worth a hoot that playoff season. They certainly didn't against the Red Wings in the 1st round.

Kipprusoff the following playoff year to the Wings, although to a somewhat lesser degree that Giguere the year before. But when your goalie gets back-to-back shutouts to help your team clinch a playoff series, I'd say the goalie had a pretty big hand in helping them win.

And to the least extent, Roloson in 2006. He ripped some saves out of his rear end, but for most of the series Edmonton as a team outworked the Wings even though they might have had less shots.

And what I'm going to say here has absolutely nothing to do with "being in a Red Wings bubble" or being "Red Wing homers". I'm also of the mindset that 9 times out of 10 defense wins championships, in pretty much any sport. Hell, I can just site a single game in football already this season of the college I went to. They won their season opener 26-3, but none of their offensive scoring drives went no more than 35 yards. The defense gave them short fields just about the entire game and just pistol-whipped the other team almost every series. The offense could and probably should have had at least 40 points if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot a few times. Defense wins championships, but at the same time you can't win games if you don't score, so it never hurts to have a few offensive stars or playmakers. I'm not fully on board with GordieSid&Ted in his theories here, but he does have legit points.

[Echolalia 2,961]

You can make a serious case that Giguere (pad jokes aside) single-handedly did this to the Wings in 2003, because the Ducks rarely could score worth a hoot that playoff season. They certainly didn't against the Red Wings in the 1st round.

Kipprusoff the following playoff year to the Wings, although to a somewhat lesser degree that Giguere the year before. But when your goalie gets back-to-back shutouts to help your team clinch a playoff series, I'd say the goalie had a pretty big hand in helping them win.

And to the least extent, Roloson in 2006. He ripped some saves out of his rear end, but for most of the series Edmonton as a team outworked the Wings even though they might have had less shots.

And what I'm going to say here has absolutely nothing to do with "being in a Red Wings bubble" or being "Red Wing homers". I'm also of the mindset that 9 times out of 10 defense wins championships, in pretty much any sport. Hell, I can just site a single game in football already this season of the college I went to. They won their season opener 26-3, but none of their offensive scoring drives went no more than 35 yards. The defense gave them short fields just about the entire game and just pistol-whipped the other team almost every series. The offense could and probably should have had at least 40 points if they didn't shoot themselves in the foot a few times. Defense wins championships, but at the same time you can't win games if you don't score, so it never hurts to have a few offensive stars or playmakers. I'm not fully on board with GordieSid&Ted in his theories here, but he does have legit points.

While I'll agree with you that each of these goalies had some remarkable saves, the vast majority of our loosing games I remember as the Wings taking weak shots from the perimeter and creating few quality scoring opportunities (especially when compared to our overall shot total, which is always skewed high), as opposed to being robbed game in and game out. These were the consecutive years that the Wings were facing the trap, as well as mighty Dave Lewis who couldn't solve it behind the bench, so there were much more problems going on besides a hot goalie. Also, you can't win a playoff game on saves alone. At some point there was some offense that beat our team's and eventually scored.

[egroen 384]

While I'll agree with you that each of these goalies had some remarkable saves, the vast majority of our loosing games I remember as the Wings taking weak shots from the perimeter and creating few quality scoring opportunities (especially when compared to our overall shot total, which is always skewed high), as opposed to being robbed game in and game out. These were the consecutive years that the Wings were facing the trap, as well as mighty Dave Lewis who couldn't solve it behind the bench, so there were much more problems going on besides a hot goalie. Also, you can't win a playoff game on saves alone. At some point there was some offense that beat our team's and eventually scored.

Those goalies had more to do with the Wings losses, individually, than any other player on those teams.... and they continued to do so, right up until the Cup finals in each case. I doubt you disagree with me.

That was my whole point - I take a goalie first 9 times out 10.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Invalid answer. Please try again.

Sheesh.....seriously man, I can't dumb this down for you any more. You either comprehend or you don't.

[Doc Holiday 0]

Sheesh.....seriously man, I can't dumb this down for you any more. You either comprehend or you don't.

Give me a straight answer instead of some "dont be a Redwing homer" bull.

I had two simple questions that needed only simple answers, nothing more.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

Give me a straight answer instead of some "dont be a Redwing homer" bull.

I had two simple questions that needed only simple answers, nothing more.

What would be the point of answering your two, trivial questions?

Doesn't New Jersey play the trap? What point are you trying to make? The question is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't understand its importance of it so maybe if you enlighten me I might be able to address it. As it stands I can't see any connection you are trying to make with it so its pointless to answer IMO.

How many times did they make the playoffs since their cup wins? I don't know, i'm going to guess zero..???? Again, what is your point? That you cannot sustain success without good defense? Who ever said you could? I sure didn't. So what necessity does your question serve? Those teams proved you could win it all w/o defense. They didn't prove you could do it every year w/o defense. Just like the Wings have proven that even if you have one of the best offenses and defenses you can't win it all every year.

This is getting redundant. If your questions had any relevance to the point that would be something. But they don't. You're trying to make other points.

[Shutemdown 23]

Did you completely miss like a decade of hockey or something? When was the league defense? Have you missed all of the meetings the past years covering goalie movement, goalie pad restrictions, the removal of the two-line pass, more offense, less obstruction, etc..... Were you in hibernation or something?

The league was dead offensively for years. I'm sure you can google it and get up to speed.

You say offensively minded teams have been defeated. Well the flip side of that coin will show you that so have the defensively minded ones the past few years. You see New Jersey or Minnesota hoisting the Cup lately? I don't think so.

Detroit has 2 of the most offensively prolific guys on offense in Dats and Z. 2 of the most offensive D men in Nick and Rafs. Another in Kronner. Fantastic 2nd and 3rd line offensive support in Homer, Franzen, Clearly, Hudler, Flip, Samuellson. Yes, these players play into Babcock's system of strong individual and team defense. But stop kidding yourselves. These guys are offensive weapons. The Wings just happen to be good at both ends of the rink. But they are always one of the top offensive teams in the league.

How can anybody gloss over the fact that the wings usually finish 1st, 2nd or 3rd in offense every single year? All this weight is placed upon Nick's defense being the key and defense, defense, defense wins it for you.

That argument would be more suitable if Nick played for New Jersey. The Wings are an offensive juggernaut. Don't forget that. Without Dats, Z and Rafs. The Wings would be a 2nd tier team with the best Dman on the planet. They wouldn't win championships and Nick wouldn't have the numbers he does. Never forget how much OFFENSE plays a gigantic role in us winning.

I agree with your comments, and I believe that, for the most part, you're correct in your assessment. However, let me remind everyone of last February when Lidstrom suffered his injury, and then look at our record in that stretch.

We were still fielding ALL of our offensive threats, we still had Pav and Hank out there, but it didn't matter. The main reason we fell behind was largely due to the loss of Nick Lidstrom.

There are certain intangibles in every game, but the argument of whether or not this league is based around offense or defense SPECIFICALLY is a moot point. You need to put up some numbers and put your team on the board. You need to keep the opposing team out of your zone. It's an even mix of the two.

No team that is STRICTLY offense will win a championship, and no team that is ONLY defensive will win a championship. It requires an even mix of both.

If it came down to choosing one player, it's a toss-up and will always depend on the person, themself. Some people prefer high scoring games, others prefer solid defensive games.

[toby91_ca 620]

I agree with your comments, and I believe that, for the most part, you're correct in your assessment. However, let me remind everyone of last February when Lidstrom suffered his injury, and then look at our record in that stretch.

We were still fielding ALL of our offensive threats, we still had Pav and Hank out there, but it didn't matter. The main reason we fell behind was largely due to the loss of Nick Lidstrom.

I think you need to do a little more analysis to conclude that the reason the Wings had a bad stretch in February was because of the games Lidstrom was out.

Lidstrom missed 7 games (I'm including the game he got hurt since he only played 3 minutes that game). Their record during his absence was 3-3-1 (not terrible) and in those 4 games they lost (including the SO loss), they scored a grand total of 1 even strength goal. I don't think they lost those games due to their inability to defend. There is no doubt that some of the missing offense was due to not having Lidstrom in the lineup, but not that much.

Consider also, that they lost 6 games in a row (with Lidstrom in the lineup) just before the injury.

I think they simply went through a slump, which started with Lidstrom in the lineup and they actually started coming out of it while Lidstrom was injured.

There is not doubt that they would be in rough shape if he was out for an extended period, but to point to last February's record when he was out of the lineup is absolutely missleading.

[toby91_ca 620]

No team that is STRICTLY offense will win a championship, and no team that is ONLY defensive will win a championship. It requires an even mix of both.

There are likely other examples, probably abberations, but the Pens won 2 cups in a row, with pretty much strictly offense (they were close to the bottom of the league in defense both years).

I'd throw the 80's Oilers out there as well, although they were closer to the middle of the pack in terms of defense, not as bad as the Pens, but there is no question whether it was defense or offense that won them the cups.

[Doc Holiday 0]

What would be the point of answering your two, trivial questions?

Doesn't New Jersey play the trap? What point are you trying to make? The question is irrelevant to the discussion. I don't understand its importance of it so maybe if you enlighten me I might be able to address it. As it stands I can't see any connection you are trying to make with it so its pointless to answer IMO.

How many times did they make the playoffs since their cup wins? I don't know, i'm going to guess zero..???? Again, what is your point? That you cannot sustain success without good defense? Who ever said you could? I sure didn't. So what necessity does your question serve? Those teams proved you could win it all w/o defense. They didn't prove you could do it every year w/o defense. Just like the Wings have proven that even if you have one of the best offenses and defenses you can't win it all every year.

This is getting redundant. If your questions had any relevance to the point that would be something. But they don't. You're trying to make other points.

I honesty don't remember what point I was trying to make, and after looking back I wonder if I was drunk or in my sleep when tryping, cause I haven't made much sense since those questions.

Anywho, the entire argument should be about who ou would rather have on your team, Lidstrom or Ovie.

Start over?

[Dabura 12,232]

How did Carolina win?

How did Tampa win?

What, are you trying to argue that they did it without defense? Because I'm certainly not arguing they did it without offense.

Offense is important, but the backbone of any good system is team defense. Why else would Datsyuk and Zetterberg be placing such an emphasis on two-way play? Walk up to any coach in the National Hockey League -- even the ones overseeing defense-starved units -- and ask him whether the foundation of a Cup-winning team should be offense or defense. Any and every coach would pick the latter, especially after seeing this Wings team storm through the postseason and realizing the teams that arguably gave it the most trouble -- the Preds and Stars -- play tight defensive games. Just look at the Sharks: they know they've got offensive firepower, but they also know they keep coming up short despite it. Enter defense-minded Todd McLellan.

Or what, are the Sharks trapped in this "Wings bubble" you keep referring to? lol

[egroen 384]

Consider also, that they lost 6 games in a row (with Lidstrom in the lineup) just before the injury.

Who was injured during *that* time before Lidstrom's injury?

Hint: It was not the offense.

Lidstrom is a top 5 defender of all time and a top 20 player of all time -- and he is still at a level with his peak/prime. He has consistently been the best player in the NHL for years now, with only Crosby and Ovechkin sporadically throwing out anything competitive with what Lidstrom has been providing year-in-and-year-out.

The only other active player anywhere close to that is Brodeur.... and he may be the second best player in the NHL right now.

If you were to place odds on a player having a "great" season, Lidstrom and Brodeur are your safest bets.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

I honesty don't remember what point I was trying to make, and after looking back I wonder if I was drunk or in my sleep when tryping, cause I haven't made much sense since those questions.

Anywho, the entire argument should be about who ou would rather have on your team, Lidstrom or Ovie.

Start over?

No worries. Lots of people, especially on this board are gonna pick Nick. I have no problem with that. I choose AO and have stated why. I don't need to have anyone agree with me and I don't feel that anybody needs to twist my arm to get me to change my answer to AO.

As the other poster put nicely, it still comes down to what you prefer and what you think helps you win. Toby made some great points about offense and I think that right there proves the cliche defense wins championships is only that...a cliche. Or at least a reflection of the times. Perhaps during the trap happy days, the obstruction days of the NHL I would choose a dman or goalie first. But now, I think the league is tailoring itself more towards scoring and therefore i'm taking the best goal scorer.

The good news for all of us: We all agree that having Nick Lidstrom is about the nicest luxury in the world.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

What, are you trying to argue that they did it without defense? Because I'm certainly not arguing they did it without offense.

Offense is important, but the backbone of any good system is team defense. Why else would Datsyuk and Zetterberg be placing such an emphasis on two-way play? Walk up to any coach in the National Hockey League -- even the ones overseeing defense-starved units -- and ask him whether the foundation of a Cup-winning team should be offense or defense. Any and every coach would pick the latter, especially after seeing this Wings team storm through the postseason and realizing the teams that arguably gave it the most trouble -- the Preds and Stars -- play tight defensive games. Just look at the Sharks: they know they've got offensive firepower, but they also know they keep coming up short despite it. Enter defense-minded Todd McLellan.

Or what, are the Sharks trapped in this "Wings bubble" you keep referring to? lol

Dab, all I am saying is that there are plenty of examples of teams with piss poor defense that have won the Stanley Cup. And they did it with powerful offense. Of course there are examples of teams with great defense and minimal offensive talent that have won as well.

My point is that this mantra of defense is what wins championships, is in my mind a bunch of horse pucky. Another poster said it best, you need a nice mix of both. And I firmly agree with that. I've never said you don't need defense. All i've said, in the context of the original intent of the post, is that I think the league is more offense oriented these days and therefore I think the best player is the one that blows all the others out of the water when it comes to scoring goals.

That doesn't translate to I think only offense is important or that I think defense is worthless. I understand the need for a nice mix. But if I had a choice of having a great offense and average defense or great defense and average offense, i'm going to take the offense. I look at Calgary as an example. Great, big, physical blue liners, talented blueliners, a top flight goalie, but not enough offense so they always fall short.

It's just the way I feel about the league. I agree with Toby's comments so far as the 80's go. You ever watch those games? Those games were not won with defense. Those games, those championships were won by the teams that could score the most (see Edmonton). Years ago I think you could say defense wins championships, especially the way coaches utilized the trap, obstruction, dump and chase, etc....

I think to some extent those days are over. Scoring is going back up, more guys are scoring more goals and putting up bigger offensive numbers. I think its a trend that will continue and that's why I think its more important to have a stronger offense than a defense.

I'm not the one touting offense as the key to winning championships. You on the other hand and a couple others keep going on and on about defense is what wins you championships. There's no clear cut way to determine that. That's all i'm saying. And therefore, i'm entitled to think what I think since the jury is still out IMO.

[egroen 384]

Perhaps during the trap happy days, the obstruction days of the NHL I would choose a dman or goalie first.

In that case, I would tend to value a big, bruising power forward like Bertuzzi at the time. In the days of clutching & grabbing their value was at an all-time high.

Without the trap + clutching & grabbing, a defenseman like Lidstrom is even more valuable -- as the mediocore ones can not just get by from grappling onto forwards.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

In that case, I would tend to value a big, bruising power forward like Bertuzzi at the time. In the days of clutching & grabbing their value was at an all-time high.

Without the trap + clutching & grabbing, a defenseman like Lidstrom is even more valuable -- as the mediocore ones can not just get by from grappling onto forwards.

Yeah, but alot of those guys have adjusted just fine. Phaneuf has no problem. Pronger, dirty yes, but was able to change his style and adjusted fine.

If you can, watch the 91 (I think it was 91) playoffs between Edmonton and Calgary. 7 games of the biggest hitting, dirtiest, most obstruction laden play you will ever see and some of the most exciting hockey you'll ever see. A pure offensive bonanza due mostly in part to goalies not having perfected the butterfly and basically too much stand up style with poor coverage of the lower part of the net. That wasn't really a trapping style that we saw teams like the Devs perfect in the latter 90's. It was more of a get a piece of somebody all over the ice but put your foot to the pedal whenever you have the puck. It wasn't exactly the same type of game in the sense of "trap" or "obstruction". Plus, the players were smaller and their was more ice to work with.

I'll never debate Nick's worth or the fact that he's the top dman in the league and has been for as long as I can remember. I just feel its more important to have a team that has great offense and good defense vs good offense and great defense. It's a personal preference is all.

[Dabura 12,232]

My point is that this mantra of defense is what wins championships, is in my mind a bunch of horse pucky.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, because it's not.

As I've said, offense is fundamentally important, but defense is the foundation on which, ideally, everything is built. That some teams have managed to win the Cup with s***ty defensive squads doesn't change this notion -- it just means some teams have managed to win the Cup with s***ty defensive squads. (Aside: how many of those teams steamrolled over rock-solid blue lines en route to their respective titles?)

Again, ask any coach in the NHL which they'd rather build a serious Cup run on, offense or defense. I guarantee you every single one would say defense.

I'll also reference this past SCF series again. Both teams boasted explosive firepower upfront, the Pens perhaps having a slight edge in terms of raw scoring ability. Both teams boasted good goaltending, the Pens perhaps having a slight edge there as well. Both teams boasted lethal power plays, both teams boasted lauded coaches, both teams were fantastic at home and good on the road. The difference-maker was defense; the Wings, to a man, played it well, while the Pens didn't. Hossa explicitly said so in the middle of the series, admitting that it was costing the Pens the series. Crosby helped the jury put the case to rest when he bitched out Hank for, basically, handing his ass to him through consistently stellar and consistently stifling two-way play.

Crosby is a one-dimensional player at this stage in his career -- all offense, no defense, no PK time. His game will round out with time. In the here and now, however, calling him the best overall player in the world despite his one-dimensional package is lame. Most explosive and dangerous scorer? Quite possibly. But Zetterberg is the better overall player right now, by virtue of his rounded set of assets.

Nick Lidstrom is on another planet altogether. No, he's not going to score 50 goals in a season, but let's turn that offense-first bias on its head and ask if Crosby, Malkin or Ovechkin is going to do what he does any time soon. Last I checked, Nick had put Evgeni Malkin's face on a milk carton and helped reduce Sidney "Christ" Crosby to tears. He's one of the three best defensemen to ever play the game. He's one of the very best players to ever play the game, period. He sees the ice and thinks like no one else in the game today. He can shut down any player in the league -- anytime, anywhere. He anchors the PP, he anchors the PK, he puts up points, he wins Cups -- the guy's a legend. A guy like Ovechkin is simply not on par right now.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Dabura