• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Aznknight

Lidstrom or Orr

Rate this topic

51 posts in this topic

essensa.jpg

Bob Essensa circa 93-94

essensa.jpg

A few years later with the Oilers. The net (and he is deeper in it even) and even the stick look so much smaller than in the pic above.

Dude if you're trying to argue that goalie equipment changed more in the last twenty years than it did in the twenty before that you're insane. You can't make the argument. Visual evidence abounds. Try as you might, you can't blame the increase in goalie equipment size on Bettman. It was a trend that was happening long before he came around. If you want, I'll look up some more goalies from 1973 but I'm fairly sure we all know how that's going to end. Give it up, Bettman didn't increase goalie pad size...it was already happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except, no one besides Orr put up even remotely as many points back then from the blueline. How come nobody else did that if Orr was just taking advantage of poor goaltending? Is it because there were no other good defensemen back then? Hardly.

This argument is flawed, because to me if a guy dominates his era and is far above others, he's truly amazing and could have succeeded in any era with improved modern day training and equipment.

Same thing with people who say that Wilt Chamberlain only dominated because he was so tall compared to others of his era? Well, how come Bill Russell didn't easily score 50 points a season, since he was really tall too?

Relative to their eras and their competition, Orr was twice as good as Lidstrom. And I'd argue there were more good defensemen in Orr's prime than there were in Lidstrom's, as relative competition.

It's the same reason Royce Gracie dominated in the early years of UFC, then proceeded to get dominated by the later generations of fighters.

Was Orr better than his competition of the time? Absolutely, no question. However, his competition is so far below today's NHL that his gaudy numbers would never happen in today's game.

Another good comparison would be Maltby dominating in juniors. He was way better than his competition, but he couldn't dominate like that against higher skilled players.

SiLkK19 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude if you're trying to argue that goalie equipment changed more in the last twenty years than it did in the twenty before that you're insane. You can't make the argument. Visual evidence abounds. Try as you might, you can't blame the increase in goalie equipment size on Bettman. It was a trend that was happening long before he came around. If you want, I'll look up some more goalies from 1973 but I'm fairly sure we all know how that's going to end. Give it up, Bettman didn't increase goalie pad size...it was already happening.

You're right about the size it was atrend that started long before Bettman became commissioner but it has improved in so many other ways, it's much lighter, more flexible, more protective and scientifically designed to absorb rebounds. Pockets in the catchhing glove have increased since Bettman became commish more than ever however. They try to make it look like they're addressing the problem by slightly reducing the goalie pads but the shoulder pads chest protector, gloves have grown a lot more.

And yes I do blame Bettman. Because of Orr and the changing role of defensemen scoring increased in the 70s almost as much as it decreased in the 90s. Bettman has always tried to make it look like he is trying to increase scoring (lot of silly rule changes made to increase scoring when he really didn't want to when all he had to do was reduce goalie equipment and it would have had a bigger difference than any of the rules implemented. The dead puck era (rendered hockey almost unwatchable) was also to decrease scoring and restrict talent and skill to give weaker teams a better chance. And he held hockey hostage until the cap was finally instituted.

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imo Bobby Orr in his prime is the real deal.. but guy played half the years Lidstrom did and subsequently, half the cups.

Lidstrom to build a franchise around, tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the same reason Royce Gracie dominated in the early years of UFC, then proceeded to get dominated by the later generations of fighters.

Was Orr better than his competition of the time? Absolutely, no question. However, his competition is so far below today's NHL that his gaudy numbers would never happen in today's game.

Another good comparison would be Maltby dominating in juniors. He was way better than his competition, but he couldn't dominate like that against higher skilled players.

Not true. There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.

Imo Bobby Orr in his prime is the real deal.. but guy played half the years Lidstrom did and subsequently, half the cups.

Lidstrom to build a franchise around, tbh.

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr. Lemieux has the same argument against him.

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period. But not in this debate. I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short. I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr. Lemieux has the same argument against him.

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period. But not in this debate. I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short. I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position.

Orr career was cut short because he played with reckless abandon and no regard for his body, with today's training and medicine he probably would have been able to play much longer despite being so reckless

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orr career was cut short because he played with reckless abandon and no regard for his body, with today's training and medicine he probably would have been able to play much longer despite being so reckless

Probably.

With today's training and medicine, I think he'd be the best player in the league again. So that's why I don't care about all the goaltending argument crap. Yeah goalies are better now, but Orr would be trained differently now too. It would cut his stats down a little, but he'd still be the best.

Same with Gretzky, who played in the high scoring 80's, when goalies weren't that good either. With today's training, Wayne would still be the best in the world be a wide margin. His vision on the ice was amazing.

Edited by GMRwings1983
Uncle Danny likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom, bar none. Orr didn't play defense. He had a good plus/minus because he put up a zillion points. Tighter defense and better goaltending would expose his "offensive prowess" and his defensive numbers would likewise suffer. Orr's over rated, Lids played in a time when scoring was harder, defensive assignments were tougher, and going "coast to coast" was almost unheard of. Even then he managed to win 7 Norris Trophies and and twice as many Stanley Cups and he was a factor in every one of them. Bobby was good, but score 150 going end to end against Weber, Suter, and Rinne. Not happening buddy.

SiLkK19 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lidstrom, bar none. Orr didn't play defense. He had a good plus/minus because he put up a zillion points. Tighter defense and better goaltending would expose his "offensive prowess" and his defensive numbers would likewise suffer. Orr's over rated, Lids played in a time when scoring was harder, defensive assignments were tougher, and going "coast to coast" was almost unheard of. Even then he managed to win 7 Norris Trophies and and twice as many Stanley Cups and he was a factor in every one of them. Bobby was good, but score 150 going end to end against Weber, Suter, and Rinne. Not happening buddy.

On that logic, Gretzky was overrated too. Score 237 points against Price, Kiprusoff or Lundqvist. Couldn't do it.

Flawed logic. Orr wouldn't score 150 points in today's league, but I firmly believe he'd lead defensemen in scoring easily. If he was that far advanced in his era and that good at reading the game, with today's training and equipment, he'd be ahead of this generation of players as well.

Once again, how come nobody else scored that many points back then on defense? Oh yeah, that's right, because Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Denis Potvin and others were all overrated. :rolleyes: And I could also mention others who played in the 80's, when goalies were even worse and scoring was at its highest.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not true. There were a lot more legendary defensemen in Orr's era than in 2001-2012, which is when Lidstrom won his Norris trophies.

Pronger, Niedermayer and Chara aren't as good as Brad Park, Serge Savard, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, etc.

And today's NHL defensemen are even worse than the previous era.

If Orr played today, he probably wouldn't score 120 points, but I have no doubt that he'd be the leading scorer amongst defensemen by a wide margin every year.

Longevity is in Lidstrom's favor, but there are a multitude of players who had more longevity than Orr. Lemieux has the same argument against him.

That would factor into a Orr vs. Gretzky debate, when we're discussing who the best ever is, period. But not in this debate. I rank Orr ahead of Lidstrom regardless of his career being cut short. I think he was that much better than anyone else at his position.

Orr was great defensively he blocked shots hit, cleared the fron of the net battled in the cornewrs and when he was on the ice the other team rarely had the puck, He was always determined to get it from them and usually did.

No comparison not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different eras indeed.

Both are the best of their eras hands down.

Really wonder if anyone on this forum ever watched Orr play. Not counting highlights. Highly doubt it and if so not in his prime.

League was different then as it is now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Different eras indeed.

Both are the best of their eras hands down.

Really wonder if anyone on this forum ever watched Orr play. Not counting highlights. Highly doubt it and if so not in his prime.

League was different then as it is now.

I watched him. I had a Bobby Orr sweater and lunch box when I was a kid. Even when he played for Chicago he was better than any other player I ever saw and In the 76 Canada Cup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched him. I had a Bobby Orr sweater and lunch box when I was a kid. Even when he played for Chicago he was better than any other player I ever saw and In the 76 Canada Cup.

I'm 32 years old.

How old are you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm I wonder. My pops a die hard Sharks fan and before that a die hard SEALS fan (in the NHL from what 67-76?) says tough call between Orr and Lidstrom. He's not even a Wings fan.

My pops is at the age of 62. 30 years older than me.

Different eras.

He loved Orr as he respected Lids

That's a true hockey fan with much respect.

Carry on dude....

Edited by St. Michael (the Red Wing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 32 years old.

How old are you?

I'm 45 but people can't believe I'm over 30

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On that logic, Gretzky was overrated too. Score 237 points against Price, Kiprusoff or Lundqvist. Couldn't do it.

Flawed logic. Orr wouldn't score 150 points in today's league, but I firmly believe he'd lead defensemen in scoring easily. If he was that far advanced in his era and that good at reading the game, with today's training and equipment, he'd be ahead of this generation of players as well.

Once again, how come nobody else scored that many points back then on defense? Oh yeah, that's right, because Larry Robinson, Brad Park, Denis Potvin and others were all overrated. :rolleyes: And I could also mention others who played in the 80's, when goalies were even worse and scoring was at its highest.

I agree, he was better than any other defenseman in his era. He was the very first "offensive defenseman". That's the reason he scored so much...because he tried to do it. In those days all defensemen were stay-at-home. That's how they played the game. Bobby revolutionized that. HOWEVER, saying that he's the best of his age doesn't then also mean that he's the best ever. Bobby could never do that against today's competition because everybody does it now, and therefore teams plan for it. Lidstrom would score just as many points, no matter what era, because he scored them classically. Point shots and assists. He was just SUPER good at it. But technically speaking he didn't score in a different way than McInnis, Iafrate, etc. etc. etc.

I compare the Bruins with Orr to Bill Walsh's 49ers and their "west coast offense". They tore it up because nobody had seen it or figured it out yet. However, eventually everybody caught up. So now, when a team running a west coast offense puts up gaudy numbers (though still less than the 49ers), it's actually more impressive because it's not succeeding because it's new, it's succeeding because it's executed well.

Edited by kipwinger
Echolalia and Dabura like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, he was better than any other defenseman in his era. He was the very first "offensive defenseman". That's the reason he scored so much...because he tried to do it. In those days all defensemen were stay-at-home. That's how they played the game. Bobby revolutionized that. HOWEVER, saying that he's the best of his age doesn't then also mean that he's the best ever. Bobby could never do that against today's competition because everybody does it now, and therefore teams plan for it. Lidstrom would score just as many points, no matter what era, because he scored them classically. Point shots and assists. He was just SUPER good at it. But technically speaking he didn't score in a different way than McInnis, Iafrate, etc. etc. etc.

I compare the Bruins with Orr to Bill Walsh's 49ers and their "west coast offense". They tore it up because nobody had seen it or figured it out yet. However, eventually everybody caught up. So now, when a team running a west coast offense puts up gaudy numbers (though still less than the 49ers), it's actually more impressive because it's not succeeding because it's new, it's succeeding because it's executed well.

I don't think that west coast offense would be anything special without Montana/Young, Rice and Craig.

Bobby Orr dominated the sport like no other athlete I have ever seen (mind you I only ever regularly watched 2 sports)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it matters how old you are.

I never saw Gretzky in his prime either, but that doesn't mean I'd rank Crosby ahead of him. I don't believe a lot of hearsay, but from looking at Gretzky/Orr's stats, and listening to what people have to say about them from watching them play, I firmly believe they were as good as people say they were.

Most people have Bobby Orr ranked as one of the top 4 NHL players in history. If Lidstrom is above him, that would mean Lidstrom is a top 4 guy. I think that's pushing it too far for Nick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Besides winning the James Norris Memorial Trophy eight times, Mr. Robert Gordon Orr, OC won the Hart Memorial Trophy three times in consecutive seasons. I use this as my "tipping point". I'm looking forward to the release of his autobiography this fall.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gretzky was as great as his stats say he was. The guy got assists from the bench, was a threat every time he stepped over the boards, made players around him better, and usually far more than a PPG player. The years in the mid / late 80's when the Wings played Edmonton in the playoffs was like David and Goliath. He was very very good. That's why they have that nickname for him. The Great One.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gretzkys number is retired LEAGUE wide. Enough said.

Orr is the best defenseman ever. In todays NHL, he plays 10 years longer because they fix his knees right and he plays with better equipment. He becomes the first 2000 point defenseman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gretzkys number is retired LEAGUE wide. Enough said.

Orr is the best defenseman ever. In todays NHL, he plays 10 years longer because they fix his knees right and he plays with better equipment. He becomes the first 2000 point defenseman.

Right or he tries his patented coast to coast b.s. and some defenseman who can actually skate blows him up. Kronwall, Stevens, Konstantinov. They didn't have defensemen that open ice hit like that in Orr's day. Hence, he could skate around and make them look stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Coffey and Brian Leetch didn't seem to have problems going end to end against these big, modern day hitters.

There were plenty of rugged, mean defensemen back in Orr's day. Since Orr was smarter than anyone else in his era, he would have figured out how to adapt to today's game and today's players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right or he tries his patented coast to coast b.s. and some defenseman who can actually skate blows him up. Kronwall, Stevens, Konstantinov. They didn't have defensemen that open ice hit like that in Orr's day. Hence, he could skate around and make them look stupid.

This is 1 player in 1 game

Edited by Johnz96

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0