Orr vs Bourque

[SnowballIsChamp]

Originally Posted by Killah_punk

Bobby Orr is the greatest defenseman to play the game of hockey and maybe the best player period.

I'm taking Orr without much queston. I wasn't around to see him play or his effect on fans/media. But watching him play on game tapes he was amazing. No one touches him. Bourque I wouldnt even have as number 2. He is probably 4th or 5th.

[bigjack]

It's the first I saw of this thread but to me Orr is by far the greatest hockey player EVER!
If he played in Bourque or Coffey's era would of been scoring 200 points a year as a defenseman and he did everything including fighting!
The guy had a plus/minus of +124 one year and was almost a +1 per game for his career meaning if he played 82 games, he'd be a +82. Noone is close to that record and shows how dominate he was at even strength and how he controlled the game and it was his puck!
Noone can carry Orr's jockstrap!
The James Norris Trophy should be called the Bobby Orr Trophy and guys like Bourque are lucky that Orr had to quit early and was done by age 27 or he would of won the Norris from 1967 to 87 if he had remained healthy and guys like Potvin or Robinson would of never won squat!
This thread reminds me of people that would write that Aaron was better than Ruth because he hit more homers! Beyond ridiculous!

[canuck2]

I agree BJ. While bourque was an incredible defenseman he was not even in Orr's universe. Orr revolutionized the game. bourque had no where near that impact.

[MattBurger]

Bobby Orr is the greatest hockey player not named Gretzky.

[bigjack]

Originally Posted by canuck2

I agree BJ. While bourque was an incredible defenseman he was not even in Orr's universe. Orr revolutionized the game. bourque had no where near that impact.

Yeah Orr was the best ever. Amazing physical skills and he controlled the game from the blueline! Think about 1970, the average scoring per game was 5.8 goals and yet Orr scored 120 points. He played on a team that scored 277 goals and yet he led the league as a defenseman with 120 points!
Imagine Orr playing in the wideopen 1980's? He would of been a 200 point man as a defenseman!
Noone is close to that guy!

[Plateworker]

Originally Posted by Isles4life

I don't think there's any question that Orr is the greatest defenseman of all-time. His injury problems may not have allowed him the longevity that a guy like Bourque had, I don't think that in anyway diminishes from how dominant he was on the blue line.

There's a much better debate to be had about who the second best defenseman of all-time is, with Ray Bourque being a very strong candidate for the honor. I'm a huge fan of the guy who was remarkably consistent from start to finish over his long NHL career. I'd say his chief competition for second place is still playing though, in Nicklas Lidstrom.

Uhhh No Lidstrom is not even in the top six all time.

As far as Orr and Bourque. Orr is the obviuos choice here....but. I'll tell you If I was running a team, what do I say to myself Take the best Dman ever for 9 years or take the 2nd best dman ever for 20 years. That is a lot tougher choice than you guys make it out to be. There is a lot to be considered. Your talking about a career twice as long + a few years and a very, very productive one at that. Longevity does count for a lot. Your not getting into the baseball or football hall of fame without it..with very, very few exceptions that is. Its not like Bourque was just an offensive Dman either, the guy was a rock in his own end too. I think the dynamics of Orr seem to way heavily in his favor with some people. He is the best Dman ever and one of the best to ever lace them up (I for one can never, ever say he was the best when Gretzky has almost 1000 more points then anyone else....that in itself ends all comparisons...I don't care how truely amazing Orr was or anyone else) But i do believe it is closer than you think. I look at it as either way I win.

As an Owner-Bourque
As a Fan-Orr

[Isles4life]

Originally Posted by Plateworker

Uhhh No Lidstrom is not even in the top six all time.

Not to derail the point of the thread, but even if you disagree with my statement that Lidstrom is the third best defenseman of all-time, fine, but who are you ranking ahead of him to drop him out of your top 6?

Besides Orr and Bourque, who are you ranking ahead of him? Denis Potvin? Larry Robinson? Paul Coffey who was an outstanding skater and offensive talent but was unspectacular to say the least in his own end of the rink? Doug Harvey and Eddie Shore were dominant back in their respective primes, but the game was a lot different back then. I think it's really difficult to justify clearly ranking them ahead of Lidstrom given all he has accomplished now that the league is full of bigger and faster players.

Among his achievements, Lidstrom is a 6 time Norris trophy winner (only Orr and Harvey won more), 9 time first all-star team selection, and a Conn Smythe trophy from his 4 Stanley Cup victories. He's consistently been the best defenseman in the league for a long time, excelling at both ends of the ice. You don't always notice him in his own end of the ice because he almost never makes a mistake. Even if he plays for the hated, disgustingly soft Red Wings, that shouldn't take away from the great player he is. In my opinion, he is one of the top 3 defensemen to ever play the game and DEFINITELY top 6 material.

[miller29]

Originally Posted by Sam1410

MVP Trophys - Orr (3), Bourque (0)
Scoring titles - Orr (2), Bourque (0)
Norris Trophy's - Orr (8), Bourque (5)
Conn Smythe - Orr (2), Bourque (0)
All Star Games - Orr (7), Bourque (19 straight - all time record)
Highest Yearly point total - Orr (139 - still the record for most points in a year by a defenceman and assists in a year for a D man), Bourque (96).
Highest Goal scoring season - Orr (46), Bourque (31)
Career Numbers - Orr (6th all-time by a defenceman in career goals, 11th in career assists and 9th in points), Bourque (first all time for defenseman in ALL three catagories).

I think is is a tougher call then most guys are saying. Orr was an absolute force of nature, but his knees have to count against him big time. Bourque played at an all star caliber for 19 seasons, Orr for 7. Doesn't the FAR shorter career have to count for something?

I think it depends on what the question is. If it is, who would you take for a season, a game, a playoff, the answer is Orr without a doubt. If the question is who do you want to have for an entire career, you'd have to think hard about taking the guy that played TWICE as long.

Ultimately, I'd choose Orr, but how the hell could you go wrong with the other guy that holds the record for most points, assists, and goals for D???

You can't hold Orr's knees against him, the game was a lot different in the 70's, opposing players could not stop Orr so they went after his knees, Bourque did not have to contend with that.

Orr is easily the best defenseman of all time.

[miller29]

Originally Posted by flex_buff_chest

The question is:

Would you take Orr for 9 Seasons or Bourque for 20?

Tough question, Orr brought Boston 2 cups, Bourque brought none. I'd take Orr.

[bigjack]

Originally Posted by miller29

You can't hold Orr's knees against him, the game was a lot different in the 70's, opposing players could not stop Orr so they went after his knees, Bourque did not have to contend with that.

Orr is easily the best defenseman of all time.

Yeah his like we'll never see again!

Someone mentioned Lindstrom and I see Salming when I watch him play! A great player but not the explosive scorer that an Orr was or even Paul Coffey in his prime!
Salming was a steady 60-70 point man with a ton of assists and played solid defense and Lindstrom is the same way! Solid passer and defender but few goals scored!

[fightingfan]

Originally Posted by clydefrog

OK maybe i should have done that...2nd best.

you give in too easilly

[Plateworker]

Originally Posted by Isles4life

Not to derail the point of the thread, but even if you disagree with my statement that Lidstrom is the third best defenseman of all-time, fine, but who are you ranking ahead of him to drop him out of your top 6?

Besides Orr and Bourque, who are you ranking ahead of him? Denis Potvin? Larry Robinson? Paul Coffey who was an outstanding skater and offensive talent but was unspectacular to say the least in his own end of the rink? Doug Harvey and Eddie Shore were dominant back in their respective primes, but the game was a lot different back then. I think it's really difficult to justify clearly ranking them ahead of Lidstrom given all he has accomplished now that the league is full of bigger and faster players.

Among his achievements, Lidstrom is a 6 time Norris trophy winner (only Orr and Harvey won more), 9 time first all-star team selection, and a Conn Smythe trophy from his 4 Stanley Cup victories. He's consistently been the best defenseman in the league for a long time, excelling at both ends of the ice. You don't always notice him in his own end of the ice because he almost never makes a mistake. Even if he plays for the hated, disgustingly soft Red Wings, that shouldn't take away from the great player he is. In my opinion, he is one of the top 3 defensemen to ever play the game and DEFINITELY top 6 material.

Listen I hear what your saying, but basically your letting stats rule the day for you. I am pretty sure that given a Poll. Robinson (without question), Harvey, Potvin, Stevens and Leetch and possibly Al Mac all finish above Lidstrom. Lidstrm is a great Dman but so very undynamic and unspectacular in everyway. When I play Detroit I do not worry about Lidstrom thats for sure. He is there no doubt but I certainly don't worry about him. Sometimes stats are blown out of proportion. His started winning his Norris trophys when all the other great Dman-Leetch, Stevens, Mac, Bourque, Blake were either old or getting ready to retire. You can name the same 4 Dman that contend for the Norris every year for the past 5 years. Most teams don't even have a clear number 1 or # 2 these days. Bigger and faster does not in anyway mean they are better, especially on D today. He is sort of Like Broduer he won all his vezinas when eveyone else started retiring or was to old. That does not take away from them being great it just puts it in perspective a little. In my Opinion. Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Potvin, Leetch and Stevens cleary go in front of Lidstrom with Possibly Mac, Coffey, Shore, Harvey and Park(who would have most of Orr's Norris trophies if not for the man) Also all of the above were bonified game changers who you made sure as a team you knew exactly where they were at all times on the ice. Sorry but teams don't worry about Lidstrom despite all his achievemants. That is just my opinion of course.

[bigjack]

Originally Posted by Plateworker

Listen I hear what your saying, but basically your letting stats rule the day for you. I am pretty sure that given a Poll. Robinson (without question), Harvey, Potvin, Stevens and Leetch and possibly Al Mac all finish above Lidstrom. Lidstrm is a great Dman but so very undynamic and unspectacular in everyway. When I play Detroit I do not worry about Lidstrom thats for sure. He is there no doubt but I certainly don't worry about him. Sometimes stats are blown out of proportion. His started winning his Norris trophys when all the other great Dman-Leetch, Stevens, Mac, Bourque, Blake were either old or getting ready to retire. You can name the same 4 Dman that contend for the Norris every year for the past 5 years. Most teams don't even have a clear number 1 or # 2 these days. Bigger and faster does not in anyway mean they are better, especially on D today. He is sort of Like Broduer he won all his vezinas when eveyone else started retiring or was to old. That does not take away from them being great it just puts it in perspective a little. In my Opinion. Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Potvin, Leetch and Stevens cleary go in front of Lidstrom with Possibly Mac, Coffey, Shore, Harvey and Park(who would have most of Orr's Norris trophies if not for the man) Also all of the above were bonified game changers who you made sure as a team you knew exactly where they were at all times on the ice. Sorry but teams don't worry about Lidstrom despite all his achievemants. That is just my opinion of course.

Great post and true! We just don't see great defenseman today so when a Lindstrom is around he is thought of as even better than he is! A hell of a player but nowhere near an Orr!

[Isles4life]

Originally Posted by Plateworker

Listen I hear what your saying, but basically your letting stats rule the day for you. I am pretty sure that given a Poll. Robinson (without question), Harvey, Potvin, Stevens and Leetch and possibly Al Mac all finish above Lidstrom. Lidstrm is a great Dman but so very undynamic and unspectacular in everyway. When I play Detroit I do not worry about Lidstrom thats for sure. He is there no doubt but I certainly don't worry about him. Sometimes stats are blown out of proportion. His started winning his Norris trophys when all the other great Dman-Leetch, Stevens, Mac, Bourque, Blake were either old or getting ready to retire. You can name the same 4 Dman that contend for the Norris every year for the past 5 years. Most teams don't even have a clear number 1 or # 2 these days. Bigger and faster does not in anyway mean they are better, especially on D today. He is sort of Like Broduer he won all his vezinas when eveyone else started retiring or was to old. That does not take away from them being great it just puts it in perspective a little. In my Opinion. Orr, Bourque, Robinson, Potvin, Leetch and Stevens cleary go in front of Lidstrom with Possibly Mac, Coffey, Shore, Harvey and Park(who would have most of Orr's Norris trophies if not for the man) Also all of the above were bonified game changers who you made sure as a team you knew exactly where they were at all times on the ice. Sorry but teams don't worry about Lidstrom despite all his achievemants. That is just my opinion of course.

I understand what you're saying about him not being as dynamic as som other guys, but part of that's because he's so well balanced of a player you don't notice one thing in particular. No one is steadier at his position at both ends of the ice in my opinion. While he might not have Scott Stevens' physical presence, Brian Leetch's offensive skills, or Al MacInnis's epic slapshot, I think when you look at his overall game he's a better defenseman than all three of those guys, who were all incredible players. Hell, I think Leetch is the greatest American to ever play the game, but I still don't think he's better than Lidstrom as a defenseman. To me, it's all about the complete package. Teams don't worry about Lidstrom because there's not a lot they can do about him. He relatively quietly gets the job done game after game in his own zone and offense. And since he gets it done without the hand-shattering slapper or bone-crunching body check, his effect on the game is far less easily neutralized.

I do agree that there is a lack of truly elite defensemen in the game today, and while that may make Lidstrom stand out more from his peers, in my mind it doesn't do much to discredit how outstanding of a defenseman he is, even if there isn't one jaw-dropping element of his game. Just my opinion.

[Plateworker]

Originally Posted by Isles4life

I understand what you're saying about him not being as dynamic as som other guys, but part of that's because he's so well balanced of a player you don't notice one thing in particular. No one is steadier at his position at both ends of the ice in my opinion. While he might not have Scott Stevens' physical presence, Brian Leetch's offensive skills, or Al MacInnis's epic slapshot, I think when you look at his overall game he's a better defenseman than all three of those guys, who were all incredible players. Hell, I think Leetch is the greatest American to ever play the game, but I still don't think he's better than Lidstrom as a defenseman. To me, it's all about the complete package. Teams don't worry about Lidstrom because there's not a lot they can do about him. He relatively quietly gets the job done game after game in his own zone and offense. And since he gets it done without the hand-shattering slapper or bone-crunching body check, his effect on the game is far less easily neutralized.

I do agree that there is a lack of truly elite defensemen in the game today, and while that may make Lidstrom stand out more from his peers, in my mind it doesn't do much to discredit how outstanding of a defenseman he is, even if there isn't one jaw-dropping element of his game. Just my opinion.

I think you just answered the question about Lidstrom in a very good way. He is what he is a very good Dman at both ends on the ice but nothing spectacular in either regard. Just by the way he is not nearly as good as Stevens defensive wise or Langway for that matter(who won 2 norris's 83-84in a time of great, great dman with pratically no points scored-33 and 26 points, thats how good a defensive-dman he was, something I don't think that has happened before or after Langway)-and this from a Ranger fan. Like you said all those guys could change a game on a dime. As a goalie you see Leetchie rushing the puck down the ice your first though is Oh S*it, you see Mac wind up on top of the circle your saying this is gonna hurt. If your a forward you know damn well going over the blueline you better have your head up if Stevens is on the ice or you wont have one. Meaning all those guys, teams have something to say or plan about when it comes to playing them. Not so with Lidstrom. Great he is, there is no denying that better than those guys....not in my opinion. I would think if you polled players that have played against just those four mentioned. The consensus would be that Lidstrom is the guy you worry about the least. So in my opinion you cant be considered the 2nd greatest dman ever if no one is worried about playing against you. All those guys I mentioned before brought something to the game Lidstrom just doesn't have, that Little extra something to go along with all their points and other achievements. That is what makes you truly special as a player. He is great but not special.