titanium2 867 Report post Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) It's very hard for a casual fan to appreciate the game of Nick Lidstrom. As Babs and others have said, you have to watch him every day in order to really appreciate him. If I had to pick one trait of Nick to define him, it would be his hockey sense or incredible instincts or whatever you want to call it. They say he "makes the simple, safe play every time." It may sound easy, but with different opponents and different forechecking systems coming at you at great speed, it's hard to know what the simple safe play is every time. Nick will make a pass out of the zone that will make you think, "Wow, he made that passing lane look way wide open. I didn't even see that." According to Bowman, Nick has been the same way ever since he became a Red Wing. I was way too young during his early years. So for those that would know, has Nick really been the same player all this time, even in the years before his prime? I'm curious as to what if message boards existed during Nick's developmental stages? Would he get a "Nick is lazy and he sucks" or a "trade for a sack of Swedish meatballs" comment? Edited May 10, 2009 by titanium2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
titanium2 867 Report post Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) Oops. Edited May 10, 2009 by titanium2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rivalred 630 Report post Posted May 10, 2009 (edited) #5 and #16 were great at what they did and were NHL ready. Use # 55 for example; he spent time in the "minors" as I like to call it to develop even more. If a guy has a full time roster spot, plays 2-3 seasons, and clearly does not progress in his abilities, that is when fans are calling for their heads. Another example, Lang played amazing when he 1st came here. After that, well... You know the answer to that... Edited May 10, 2009 by Rivalred Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
