CHICO IS GOD Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 This was on the Don Lagreca (sp?) Show on ESPN Radio and he talked about for around an hour and a half. I called in and gave my 2 cents but I'm wondering what other people think (Stevens probably, not that we're biased, ) and why. I said how Stevens is a better 5 on 5 player (never has been minus in his career totalling to plus 390) and that although Leetch is the better offensive player, Stevens still does and used to put up decent number (5 seasons with 60 or more points) Post away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peteyvegas Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 I think Stevens also because of his toughness. If he was with another system, he would also be offensive, like Leetch. He always had good moves and a major league shot. It's just that the offensive portion of his game has atrophied since he's with us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJayDevil Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Stevens because of what you guys said and also cause of his leadership. That being said, I would welcome Leetch on this side of the Hudson this summer. PIPE DREAMS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHICO IS GOD Posted May 3, 2003 Author Share Posted May 3, 2003 I wonder what Derek's take on this will be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langenbrunner15 Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Stevens because he has good leadership qualities and hes like a freakn' brick wall...... u can run into him and think you might be able to go threw him..... but in the end u end up on your ass looking up at him smiling at u... b/c you dared to do something that couldn't be done.... but hes the one that would come up to you afterwards and shake your hand b/c u tried..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted May 3, 2003 Share Posted May 3, 2003 Can't compare the 2. Both are stellar defensemen but they have completely different roles. Every team could use a defensive defenseman like Stevens. As well as an offensive defenseman like Leetch. Both should be first ballot Hall of Famers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleton_devil Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 As well as an offensive defenseman like Leetch. Didn't Stevens once lead the Devils in scoring in the early 90's or has the altitude out here finally got to me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Yes, he did, in 93-94. SBT is right, it's very difficult to compare them. Leetch's clutch scoring ability down the stretch this year will be forgotten by many Ranger fans because they didn't make the playoffs. What is notable is that Leetch was a far worse player with the C than without. And he still makes bad giveaways... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 I wonder what Derek's take on this will be.I knew this topic would arise eventually. My original reply never made it because of site issues. Oh well. I'll try to recap what I said: Both are outstanding Hall Of Fame defensemen who have made a difference in how the game's played. However, their styles are very different. One plays a textbook position based on a nasty physical style and rarely gets beat one-on-one. Beware of their hits coming across the middle of the ice. Fear it. The other is a great overall defenseman who plays the game more aggressively in the offensive end. Never afraid to take chances, they are capable of highlight reel goals and setting up teammates equally. This more aggressive approach can sometimes catch them out of position. However, Leetch has always hustled back on D and will frequently sacrifice his body and block shots and take out opposing players when needed. This part of his game gets overlooked due to how awful his team is. It's unfair to him to just say offensive defenseman. I've seen too many great games by Leetch to take what he does for granted. One is a better Captain/leader. That's Stevens. He was cut out to be a Captain while Leetch wasn't. It wasn't in his personality to be one. Some guys can do it and others can't. Leetch still leads plenty by example wearing an 'A' on his sweater. That's fine by me. Stevens has a much better team surrounding him. It's not just one player on the Devils. It's a lot of great defensive players who support him. The Rangers don't have that and that's ashame for Leetch. The last time the Ranger D was reliable, Leetch played with Beukeboom and Lowe played with Zubov. That was a long time ago. I'll take Stevens on my team anyday as a NJ fan would take Leetch on theirs anyday. Two awesome players who are very different but are the best at what they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylbert Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 We aren't comparing them... its who would you rather have on your team They both are great for different reasons... but, when push come to shove (<--hint) Id take Stevens everytime... When you have someone like Joe Niewendyk giving props to Stevens leadership ability... you just know the guys gold. Stevens changes the outcome of a game, not by scoring, but by playing. Players are more confident when he is in the lineup, opponents change their play when he is on the ice, and as mentioned, Stevens gets it done in the locker room as well... So unquestionably, Id rather have Stevens on my team than Leetch, if I had to pick one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aylbert Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 I'll take Stevens on my team anyday as a NJ fan would take Leetch on theirs anyday. Two awesome players who are very different but are the best at what they do. You cheated... Gotta pick one... geez, can never trust these damn new york fans ... jk of course Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Devil Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Stevens was a complete player in his prime and could light the lamp better then 85% of the other defensemen in the league. St. Louis wanted him badly because he was a terrific powerplay player with his hard shot and could also pass. In fact 74 of Stevens 193 all time regular season goals came off the power play. If both were in their prime I would go with Stevens because even though his offense couldn't quite compare to Leetch, you have to respect a player like who Stevens expectations to play 82 games a year. While Leetch certainly isn't a soft player he has been known to sustain injuries that can shelf him time to time. Stevens will also take care of the defensive business before he ever decides to join a rush. Just his presence on the ice makes the other team play a different game. Yeah I'm biased since Stevens is one of my favorite players all time, but I just see him as a more complete player if both were in their prime. I've seen Leetch make a couple of bad giveaways and get caught up ice once in a while. No offense at all to Leetch who is a sure hall of famer and a terrific leader any time would love to have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SueNJ97 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Here's a thought - can you imagine the kind of season Leetch could have if he played with a defensive d-man like Stevens? I'm not sure he'd have another 100 point season, but he'd have a good chance at 80, as a PLUS player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpeakoftheDevil(s) Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 All things considered. Have to pick one. and it's no contest. Stevens by a landslide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teresa25 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Stevens....the leadership, the ability to change the game with a big hit, the way the team responds to his just being on the ice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsadvocate Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Stevens~ because he is SO much better looking! (OK, I'm ducking!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Is this a joke question???? Lets see? A "defensemen" who can only be utilized on the powerplay and is a hazard in his own end of the ice and a collective -66 in the past 6 years and can only watch the playoffs on TV. Or the legend that opposition teams fear when they skate against him and is a collected +390 over his career. I can't wait for the Elias/Ted Donato poll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sundstrom Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 manta- that is ridiculously unfair. even as a ranger hater, i will admit that brian leetch was NEVER the reason the rangers didn't make the playoffs in any of those years (other than his absence being felt). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MantaRay Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 How is it unfair? Are saying he's just had 6 OFF-Seasons??? He is not even the best overall defensemen on the Rangers. Malakhov is much more valuable palyer and is usually their key player in match-up's if you followed the Rag$. Leetch is a good fantasy player (if you don't include defense) he is not the kind of player that GETS you in the playoffs or makes your team better. Rangers historically have a better record when he isn't in the line-up. I was just stating the fact that he's been a mediocre palyer for the past decade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Manta is one of the most biASED Devil fans I have ever seen. Anyone who takes one guy over the other and thinks it's no comparison is not a rational person. Manta, did you read my post or were you too busy putting on your red and black glasses ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SBT Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Malakhov sucks. If hockey doesn't work out for him, he can become a professional skiier. He's a pretty good skiier. Just ask any Montreal Canadiens fan. Malakhov 'aint an offensive defenseman. He's just offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek21 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 This sums up Manta and his Devil bias: "Leetch is a good fantasy player (if you don't include defense) he is not the kind of player that GETS you in the playoffs or makes your team better. Rangers historically have a better record when he isn't in the line-up." It's nice to know you didn't follow the Rangers this season because it was Leetch who did everything possible playing on a bad ankle to get them in the playoffs after missing significant time. If he never went down, they make it without a question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainScotty Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Wait a minute, step back. Who is more likely to net you a cup? Brian Leetch is an amazing defenseman, I watched the last two ranger games, and he is definitely the real deal. But at the same time, Leetch is definitely the supportive super-talent in the structure of a Stanley Cup winning team, much like our own Niedermayer. You cant argue that both have skills, but you definitely question their leadership and other intangibles. Leetch was the captain of the rangers for a short time, he kind of fizzled in that role. In that case, I'd choose Stevens over Leetch. He's not just a supporting brace on a winning team, he's the entire structure. And the people on his team would follow him to the gates of hell if he led them there. With Leetch its not so. In that capacity, I believe that Mike Richter is a little more valuable than Leetch to the Rangers. Its no coincidence that with him going down, they dont have a prayer.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamode Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Speaking of Richter, does anyone know his status? Is he going to retire? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDevs4978 Posted May 4, 2003 Share Posted May 4, 2003 Malakhov is much more valuable palyer and is usually their key player in match-up's if you followed the Rag$. Not to be rude but... Malakhov is not the Rangers' best defenseman. I'd actually put him third on the totem pole behind Poti since Poti's so valuable offensively. He's barely better than Tverdovsky for crying out loud. As for the question, Better leader, better defensive d-man Stevens, better offensive d-man Leetch; I'd give the nod to Stevens 2-1. If the leader thing weren't a factor I'd still give the nod to Stevens since it's more important to have top defensive d-men than top offensive d-men. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.