Lidstrom to announce retirement tomorrow

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

Yeah, elite stick-checker and astronomical hockey IQ. He was disgustingly good at positioning - the best by far of our generation IMO.

How many times can anyone remember him being embarrassed? Maybe 3 times in the last decade plus?

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

Those are all unmeasurables, intangibles. The point is that there was nothing particularly spectacular about his skating, his speed, his shot, his physical play -- nothing about his physical make-up, that is, that accounts for his greatness. When you say he had 'great vision' or 'great hockey IQ,' what you mean is that he thought the game at an elite level. Which is to say exactly what N4L said, that it was his smarts that made him great.

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

Those are all unmeasurables, intangibles. The point is that there was nothing particularly spectacular about his skating, his speed, his shot, his physical play -- nothing about his physical make-up, that is, that accounts for his greatness. When you say he had 'great vision' or 'great hockey IQ,' what you mean is that he thought the game at an elite level. Which is to say exactly what N4L said, that it was his smarts that made him great.

You can measure a player's passing ability. Look in stats under "A."

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

That's all hockey smarts. Like I said, just smarter than everyone he played.

Sad that he's leaving. The greedy fan in me wanted to see him another year.

NEELY wrote:

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

That's all hockey smarts. Like I said, just smarter than everyone he played.

Ya, I agree with that point. As is so often the case, I agreed with your overall point, but had trouble with your hyperbole. I disagreed with your comment that he was "great at nothing." He may not have excelled in most categories, but he was great in many others.

Anything that you can measure, he wasn't great at. You said you can measure a players ability to pass the puck with assists but fact of the matter is you really can't. Being able to move the puck to players or area's of the ice that no one sees is all hockey IQ.

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

Those are all unmeasurables, intangibles. The point is that there was nothing particularly spectacular about his skating, his speed, his shot, his physical play -- nothing about his physical make-up, that is, that accounts for his greatness. When you say he had 'great vision' or 'great hockey IQ,' what you mean is that he thought the game at an elite level. Which is to say exactly what N4L said, that it was his smarts that made him great.

You can measure a player's passing ability. Look in stats under "A."

The point is, if you put Lidstrom on the ice by himself and judge him by his physical hockey abilities, there's nothing particularly remarkable about him. His skating, shot, speed, are all good to above average, but not really elite. If you were to judge him by those things alone, he would be pretty unremarkable.

People talk about how players have elite skills or tools in this or than concrete area -- an elite shot, or elite skating, or whatever. Lidstrom hasd none of those things. He was an elite hockey mind (and, yeah, an elite passer, too -- but the only way to measure that is during game-time, when the player has to process events in real time; it's not something you can evaluate individually, like a shot or skating).

The thing to take from this is that it's the sum of the parts, and not the individual pieces, that matters the most. All the skill in the world won't help if there's no hockey smarts at the centre to unite it all. And it's precisely that that separates the winners from the losers.

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

spader wrote:

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

He had great vision and a great sense of the play. He had great anticipation. He had a great hockey IQ. Great passer.

He was great at a lot.

Those are all unmeasurables, intangibles. The point is that there was nothing particularly spectacular about his skating, his speed, his shot, his physical play -- nothing about his physical make-up, that is, that accounts for his greatness. When you say he had 'great vision' or 'great hockey IQ,' what you mean is that he thought the game at an elite level. Which is to say exactly what N4L said, that it was his smarts that made him great.

You can measure a player's passing ability. Look in stats under "A."

The point is, if you put Lidstrom on the ice by himself and judge him by his physical hockey abilities, there's nothing particularly remarkable about him. His skating, shot, speed, are all good to above average, but not really elite. If you were to judge him by those things alone, he would be pretty unremarkable.

People talk about how players have elite skills or tools in this or than concrete area -- an elite shot, or elite skating, or whatever. Lidstrom hasd none of those things. He was an elite hockey mind (and, yeah, an elite passer, too -- but the only way to measure that is during game-time, when the player has to process events in real time; it's not something you can evaluate individually, like a shot or skating).

The thing to take from this is that it's the sum of the parts, and not the individual pieces, that matters the most. All the skill in the world won't help if there's no hockey smarts at the centre to unite it all. And it's precisely that that separates the winners from the losers.

Fair enough. Like I said, I just bristled at the way that Neely made his point.

NEELY wrote:

rooneypoo wrote:

NEELY wrote:Just shows you how great a player can be if he's just smarter than everyone.

That's really true. Lidstrom was not particularly fast or agile, was not physical, and had a good but not a booming shot. It really was his hockey smarts and his attention to detail that separated him from everyone else.

Yup, great at nothing yet still one of the greatest players to ever play the game.

Good way of looking at it. Impressive that he was so effective for so long. I'll miss people calling him "Lindstrom" though. "Linstrom" is also funny.

Don't worry about Detroit folks, the next wave of players is coming apparently. They are just so good at drafting!

Big Ev wrote:Don't worry about Detroit folks, the next wave of players is coming apparently. They are just so good at drafting!

They do EVERYTHING so perfectly.

Couldn't Lidstrom have told the Wings he was retiring, in private, so they could plan for the summer and wait for the SCF to be over before making an announcement?

SeawaySensFan wrote:Couldn't Lidstrom have told the Wings he was retiring, in private, so they could plan for the summer and wait for the SCF to be over before making an announcement?

SOFA KING selfish.

shabbs wrote:

SeawaySensFan wrote:Couldn't Lidstrom have told the Wings he was retiring, in private, so they could plan for the summer and wait for the SCF to be over before making an announcement?

SOFA KING selfish.

Seems a little gauche for such a perfect franchise.

SeawaySensFan wrote:Couldn't Lidstrom have told the Wings he was retiring, in private, so they could plan for the summer and wait for the SCF to be over before making an announcement?

Patrick Roy did the same thing.....pretty dumb IMO, but I guess its not so un-common

Yah, I think this is the point where the Wings go way down hill. If they don't sign Suter... they are in tough.