Eric Lindros, bust or biggest bust ever?

[eva unit zero 271]

Both Orr and Dryden lead their respective teams to multiple Cups. Like it or not, that does make a huge difference. Regardless, both Orr and Dryden were dominate for more than the (at best) 5 years Lindors 'dominated' the NHL.

But if Lindros was a bust because of his injuries, their short careers mean they weren't among the greatest ever.

Using your longevity argument, how could Orr be the greatest defenseman ever, when a guy like Bourque played twice as long and was a Norris contender every season? Orr wasn't able to play in the NHL anymore after only 12 seasons...clearly he wasnt the best defenseman ever, right?

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

But if Lindros was a bust because of his injuries, their short careers mean they weren't among the greatest ever.

Using your longevity argument, how could Orr be the greatest defenseman ever, when a guy like Bourque played twice as long and was a Norris contender every season? Orr wasn't able to play in the NHL anymore after only 12 seasons...clearly he wasnt the best defenseman ever, right?

That's a completly different fish to fry. Who is better than who? Gretzky or Lemieux? Howe or Gretzky? Orr or Lidstrom? Roy or Dryden?

This isn't a question of whether Lindos was better than another player. This is a question, was he a bust. I say yes. He didn't accomplish anything he was supposed to.

EDIT: I never said Lindros was a bust because of his injuries. Maybe that's what slowed him down, maybe not. Regardless, he was able to come back from his injuries, unlike Orr.

Edited November 9, 2007 by BringHomeTheCup!

[eva unit zero 271]

That's a completly different fish to fry. Who is better than who? Gretzky or Lemieux? Howe or Gretzky? Orr or Lidstrom? Roy or Dryden?

This isn't a question of whether Lindos was better than another player. This is a question, was he a bust. I say yes. He didn't accomplish anything he was supposed to.

Lindros was not a bust. He was the dominant, talented force that everyone said he would be. His career was cut short by injury. Without the concussion issues, there is a good chance he IS considered one of the greatest ever at this point. A player is not a bust if he lives up to expectations but his career is cut short by injuries. Especially if he has an outside shot at making the Hall of Fame. There is no such thing as a possible HoFer who is also a bust.

Regardless, he was able to come back from his injuries, unlike Orr.

So that should be counted against him??

[auxlepli 17]

I agree with Wes Goldstein

http://cbs.sportsline.com/nhl/story/10460410/rss

[Rivalred 630]

I think everyone is missing a key point..... Almost every big player who had skill and played the body i.e. rough and tuff - their career's ended early or struggled with injuries.

Anyone who has had a concussion from playing sports like hockey (me for example) understand that it can really slow you down mentally and physically.

Lindros put up some great numbers and forced his way THROUGH players, not AROUND the D and Offense. 2 different styles of playing and the type that uses brute force wears on the player quicker and has more long term issues.

I miss the days watching games where someone actually could score 40+ goals/50+ assists and leveled a player every game or crashed the net.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

All hail the great GST!! He has spoken and it is now law, and forever shall it be. Asking be to be a sheep is exactly what you are doing. Your exact words "Either you are right, or everyone else in this thread is right." You are saying that I should think Lindros was a phenom simply because you and everyone else seem to. Sorry, I have a brain, I use it, I form my own thoughts and opinions, not just what some sports writer or other people feed me.

I have no personal bias against Lindros. It's my opinion he is a bust. And one of the biggest busts of all time. Why is it always so hard for you to see things from a different point of view? I guess that's just one of the draw backs to having your head so far up your ass.

Lindros is a bust. If you want to compare Lindros and Crosby, fine. Crosby is living up to the hype. In fact, he is blowing it out of the water. Personally, I'm not a Crosby fan, but he is doing things Wayne couldn't do in an era that is much harder to do things in.

If Crosby had a few good years, then fell off the map, I'd be first in line to call him a bust. That is exactly what Lindros did. Regardless if it was because of injuries, or whatever, he just couldn't maintain the pace. No one on this board can say for sure that it was the concussions that caused Lindros' career to stall. It would be a wise educated guess. However, no one knows for sure. He could have pulled a Daige and just not wanted it anymore.

Lindros commanded the attention of a superstar, but he never delivered. 0 cups. 0 scoring titles. He had 2 seasons in which he placed top 10 in scoring. Remeber this was a guy who was supposed to own the league. He never did. B-U-S-T

Bringhome, i'll give you props for one thing. You are consistent. Consistently wrong about most everything. And yeah, either everyone else in this ******* thread is right or you are. I'm severely doubting its you.

Do yourself a favor and grow a pair of balls already. You've been had. You've been beaten. Save yourself what little dignity you have left and just admit that you A) have a personal bias against the player, I mean lets be honest, you started this thread and after all, who really gives a s*** about Eric Lindros anymore? and B) that you can't get over yourself enough to admit you should have thought this thing threw before you got your ass handed to you by the collective world here.

You know the difference between you and me. I know when i'm wrong. Which is almost never. And you, well, you never know when you're wrong. Which is pretty damn much always.

I guess when his Big E's name is on the ballot in a couple years and he does garner some votes, you're going to have to reconcile that with yourself. I mean, what will you think to yourself when you see him getting some votes to go in when your brain is telling you he's an absolute bust and maybe, potentially the biggest bust ever. Seriously, how will you reconcile that? Please keep me posted.

You'll have to excuse me now, I need to go get my head out of my ass. CHEERS!

That's a completly different fish to fry. Who is better than who? Gretzky or Lemieux? Howe or Gretzky? Orr or Lidstrom? Roy or Dryden?

This isn't a question of whether Lindos was better than another player. This is a question, was he a bust. I say yes. He didn't accomplish anything he was supposed to.

EDIT: I never said Lindros was a bust because of his injuries. Maybe that's what slowed him down, maybe not. Regardless, he was able to come back from his injuries, unlike Orr.

How is this not a question about whether Lindros was better than another player when all you do is bag on the guy for not living up to the hype of being the next Gretzky?

error......something is not computing here.

Edited November 9, 2007 by GordieSid&Ted

[BringHomeTheCup! 0]

Bringhome, i'll give you props for one thing. You are consistent. Consistently wrong about most everything. And yeah, either everyone else in this ******* thread is right or you are. I'm severely doubting its you.

Do yourself a favor and grow a pair of balls already. You've been had. You've been beaten. Save yourself what little dignity you have left and just admit that you A) have a personal bias against the player, I mean lets be honest, you started this thread and after all, who really gives a s*** about Eric Lindros anymore? and B) that you can't get over yourself enough to admit you should have thought this thing threw before you got your ass handed to you by the collective world here.

You know the difference between you and me. I know when i'm wrong. Which is almost never. And you, well, you never know when you're wrong. Which is pretty damn much always.

I guess when his Big E's name is on the ballot in a couple years and he does garner some votes, you're going to have to reconcile that with yourself. I mean, what will you think to yourself when you see him getting some votes to go in when your brain is telling you he's an absolute bust and maybe, potentially the biggest bust ever. Seriously, how will you reconcile that? Please keep me posted.

You'll have to excuse me now, I need to go get my head out of my ass. CHEERS!

How is this not a question about whether Lindros was better than another player when all you do is bag on the guy for not living up to the hype of being the next Gretzky?

error......something is not computing here.

The problem with your side of the argument is you can't back anything up. I've backed up what I said with stats, and facts. Again, Lindros, never won a Cup, and was invisible in his only SCF appearance. He never won a scoring title, ect. But all I hear from your side is he won an MVP. Big deal, he had a good year He wasn't the most dominate player in Pennsylvania at any point in his career, much more the less the entire league. Top 10 player during that 5 year span, I could see that being argued. I've never said he wasn't a good player. I've never said he didn't have a few good years. The problem is that he wasn't the dominate player throughout his career that he could have been, all injuries aside.

Great players adapt to injuries Yzerman, and Lemieux both did it. It's something that seperates the highly gifted and talented players from the legends, the Lindros's from the Lemieux's, the ability to overcome adversity no matter what shape it comes in.

In response to your personal insults:

A) I have no personal bias against Lindros. I read an article on TSN, so I thought I'd start a thread about it. Silly me thinking it might be something to talk about.

B)How do you know I didn't think this through? You are quick to judge. I haven't gotten my ass handed to me. The great thing about this debate is it's all about opinion, and opinions can't be wrong. Again, you have provided nothing to sway my opinion on Lindros. All you (the collective you) can say is "if you don't remember how great he was you must not have been a fan until after '97." I don't see why it's so hard to swallow that Lindros was a bust. Maybe it's the definition of bust, here is mine. A bust would be someone who not only had all the hype around him, but also all the tools to live up to that hype. For some legit reason, he didn't come close to living up to the hype, or touching his potential. (Just for reference, I do believe Grigs was a bust)

Just one more question, why do you always turn threads into personal attacks? It's one thing to be a jackass in your posts, something you do very well, but to take it to a personal level just shows you have nothing else to add. So what's the point? What's next, are you going to tell me my mother wears combat boots? Big deal, it snows a lot in Michigan. Even so, why do I care what kind of boots my mother wears? Grow up, and stop getting your insults at your local elementary school, you are going to end up on one of those lists that you don't want to be on.

[auxlepli 17]

Hmmm, being in the minority means I'm wrong.

Fascinating.

In the U.S., the NHL is the least popular sport of the four major leagues - NHL, MLB, NFL and NBA.

Least popular = Minority

Minority = Wrong

NHL = Wrong

[MacK_Attack 108]

Here's the "other" Lindros trade with Quebec and the Rangers:

To Rangers:

Eric Lindros

To Quebec:

Alexei Kovalev

Doug Weight

Tony Amonte

John Vanbiesbrock

+ Cash

[HomeNugget 2]

i think i said this a couple times already, but i'm going to throw it out there again. a bust doesn't average more than a point a game over a 13 year career, and when a bust retires there wouldn't be any hall of fame debate.

[interminded 1]

i think i said this a couple times already, but i'm going to throw it out there again. a bust doesn't average more than a point a game over a 13 year career, and when a bust retires there wouldn't be any hall of fame debate.

Well said man.

[Guest GordieSid&Ted]

The problem with your side of the argument is you can't back anything up. I've backed up what I said with stats, and facts. Again, Lindros, never won a Cup, and was invisible in his only SCF appearance. He never won a scoring title, ect. But all I hear from your side is he won an MVP. Big deal, he had a good year He wasn't the most dominate player in Pennsylvania at any point in his career, much more the less the entire league. Top 10 player during that 5 year span, I could see that being argued. I've never said he wasn't a good player. I've never said he didn't have a few good years. The problem is that he wasn't the dominate player throughout his career that he could have been, all injuries aside.

Great players adapt to injuries Yzerman, and Lemieux both did it. It's something that seperates the highly gifted and talented players from the legends, the Lindros's from the Lemieux's, the ability to overcome adversity no matter what shape it comes in.

In response to your personal insults:

A) I have no personal bias against Lindros. I read an article on TSN, so I thought I'd start a thread about it. Silly me thinking it might be something to talk about.

B)How do you know I didn't think this through? You are quick to judge. I haven't gotten my ass handed to me. The great thing about this debate is it's all about opinion, and opinions can't be wrong. Again, you have provided nothing to sway my opinion on Lindros. All you (the collective you) can say is "if you don't remember how great he was you must not have been a fan until after '97." I don't see why it's so hard to swallow that Lindros was a bust. Maybe it's the definition of bust, here is mine. A bust would be someone who not only had all the hype around him, but also all the tools to live up to that hype. For some legit reason, he didn't come close to living up to the hype, or touching his potential. (Just for reference, I do believe Grigs was a bust)

Just one more question, why do you always turn threads into personal attacks? It's one thing to be a jackass in your posts, something you do very well, but to take it to a personal level just shows you have nothing else to add. So what's the point? What's next, are you going to tell me my mother wears combat boots? Big deal, it snows a lot in Michigan. Even so, why do I care what kind of boots my mother wears? Grow up, and stop getting your insults at your local elementary school, you are going to end up on one of those lists that you don't want to be on.

You know the thing about opinions, people have alot of stupid ones. If I said it was my opinion that Richard Park is the greatest player ever to play the game, clearly that'd be wrong. Hence my friend, opinions can be wrong. And your opinion on Lindros, sorry to say, is wrong.

You say you are backing up things with facts. What frame of reference are you using to show any of your facts are worthwhile? All you have is the opinion of people who talked him up prior to his NHL days. Instead of comparing Lindros to Gretzky, based on the hype. Why not compare Lindros to his contemporaries, ie. players drafted #1 or players drafted in the 90's or later. A simple check would be to take the 1980's and look at the top 50 scorers each year and see what the average points were and compare it to the 90's. My guess, is one were to do so they'd come up with a number to which Lindros's stats could be multiplied to reflect what he'd have done in the 80's era of high scoring. My guess is that'd show he did very well for himself. We're talking about a guy who potentially could be inducted into the hall of fame. That alone ought to dismiss any notion of him being a bust. All you have is that he didn't win a scoring title and didn't win any cups. Again, frame of refernce. Do you know how many great players don't have a cup or a scoring title? By the way, i'd rather be the league MVP than the guy with the most points if they aren't one in the same. Oh yeah, Stevie never won a scoring title, so is he a partial bust?

Personally, I think you're nitpicking and playing the semantics game with the word bust. For instance, if Crosby cools off and ends his career with 500 goals and 1400 points, would you then call him a bust? Your arguments, which have been all about what hype surrounded a player versus what they actually accomplished, would by all means make Crosby a bust in this scenario. Why? Because 1400 points is by no means living up to what he was pegged to do, which is come close to knocking on Wayne's door.

Why the vendetta here against Lindros? His PPG are among the elite ever. You don't want to account for injuries, which is absurd because without injuries his numbers are better....DUH. So really, if you can't overcome that fundamental idea there's nowhere to go with you on this.

Whatever, I sleep well at night knowing i'm right. You go do whatever it is you do to convince yourself you know what you're talking about. As for the personal attacks. I can't help that i'm just better at it than you. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

[toby91_ca 620]

Maybe it's me, but I still can't understand why Lindros, & his parents were so against playing in Quebec (aside from the language/culture)

He explains it a little in this article (from yesterday). Apparently it had nothing to do with language or culture, it had to do with ownership. And lets face it, that ownership was gone shortly after, so there were issues there.

Nice to see that he donated $5 million to the hospital, that's no pocket change.

Edit: forgot to include the article http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=222456&hubname=

Edited November 9, 2007 by toby91_ca

[Wing Nut 19 0]

As of this posting TSN.ca has a poll on this topic resulting in a 71% NO on the HOF question. Aside from his stats that are good but not great as far as HOFers go. He never lead his team to a championship.

How many times have you heard a player say that anything less than winning the Stanley Cup is a failure?

Personally I think he marred his own carreer by being a spoiled brat.

[toby91_ca 620]

As of this posting TSN.ca has a poll on this topic resulting in a 71% NO on the HOF question. Aside from his stats that are good but not great as far as HOFers go. He never lead his team to a championship.

How many times have you heard a player say that anything less than winning the Stanley Cup is a failure?

His stats in totality may not be great compared to HOFers, but his ppg stat is right up there with the best.

Lots of people think not winning the cup is a failure, but that is stupid, since this is a team game. It's not like Basketball, where one guy can make all the difference in the world. If Bourque didn't go to Colorado at the end of his career and win the cup, would he all of a sudden not be worthy of the Hall?

I think most of the argument here is whether Lindros is a bust or not, not whether he is worthy of the HOF. He probably didn't last long enough for the HOF, but that doesn't make him a bust.

[DEVILSWATERBOY 10]

Reports are surfacing that Lindros has retired

Edited November 9, 2007 by DEVILSWATERBOY

[Opie 308]

I think that if Neely made it Lindros should however if Lafontaine doesn't he shouldn't, which is quite the conundrum because Lafontaine had better numbers (total not ppg) than Neely yet he is not in the hall.

[toby91_ca 620]

Personally, I think you're nitpicking and playing the semantics game with the word bust. For instance, if Crosby cools off and ends his career with 500 goals and 1400 points, would you then call him a bust? Your arguments, which have been all about what hype surrounded a player versus what they actually accomplished, would by all means make Crosby a bust in this scenario. Why? Because 1400 points is by no means living up to what he was pegged to do, which is come close to knocking on Wayne's door.

Well, I can't remember the specifics of the Crosby hype, but I can't imagine anyone truly thought he would challenge Gretzky's scoring record, that would just be poor judgment. I'm sure Gretzky said he thought he could challenge it, but people shouldn't take that too seriously, it was just Wayne's way of saying he thought this guy is a special player.

Crosby is already in a pretty good position for people to start thinking he may be able to get to #2 though. At 20 years old, he already has 246 points. If he can average 100pts over the next 15 years (bringing him to 35 years old), he would be at 1746 points. He would then only need to get another 140pts or so past the age of 35 (seems easy enough).

Of course, there are far too many variables in place before we should even talk about that. But think about this: Crosby appears to be well on his way to scoring 100+ pts again this year, which will give him 3, 100pt seasons at the age of 20. How many guys have done that migh you ask? No one! Actually, the only players in the history of the game to start their careers with 3 consecutive 100 pt seasons are Gretzky, Lemieux and Stastny. Of course, Stastny started his career at the age of 24, so, he was already more experienced.

[redwingfan19 293]

I got no beef with Lindros, he was a force to be reckoned with at one time. He is defenitley not a bust though. The guy could flat out play, and was one of the most dominate players ever with his speed, size and strength. I think it's also great he is getting involved with the NHLPA he will do a great job im sure. It's also nice to see his generosity Giving 5 mill to the hospital in which I was also born in, pure class.

[toby91_ca 620]

I think that if Neely made it Lindros should however if Lafontaine doesn't he shouldn't, which is quite the conundrum because Lafontaine had better numbers (total not ppg) than Neely yet he is not in the hall.

Actually, Lafontaine is in the HOF, but anyway, you can't even compare his stats to Neely, there is no comparison, whether its totals or per game averages.

Lafontaine has more goals, assists and points than Neely, he has a higher goals per game stat and has an astronomically higher points per game stat than Neely.

[GMRwings1983 8,794]

I think that if Neely made it Lindros should however if Lafontaine doesn't he shouldn't, which is quite the conundrum because Lafontaine had better numbers (total not ppg) than Neely yet he is not in the hall.

As someone already posted, Lafontaine is already in the HOF so that defeats you argument. I've said this before, but Neely opened a pandora's box for many players who are on the bubble with the HOF. Then again, look at a guy like Ciccarrelli, who scored over 600 goals, or Glenn Anderson, who was one of the best clutch performers ever. The point is that the HOF has made a lot of odd choices, so stats aren't an exact science.

[Opie 308]

Actually, Lafontaine is in the HOF, but anyway, you can't even compare his stats to Neely, there is no comparison, whether its totals or per game averages.

Lafontaine has more goals, assists and points than Neely, he has a higher goals per game stat and has an astronomically higher points per game stat than Neely.

As someone already posted, Lafontaine is already in the HOF so that defeats you argument. I've said this before, but Neely opened a pandora's box for many players who are on the bubble with the HOF. Then again, look at a guy like Ciccarrelli, who scored over 600 goals, or Glenn Anderson, who was one of the best clutch performers ever. The point is that the HOF has made a lot of odd choices, so stats aren't an exact science.

I think I got Lafontaine on the Brain after seeing his stats I meant Ciccarrelli and wrote Lafontaine.

My bad, that was just a brain fart.

My point was exactly what you guys are saying though, I loved Neely, but his numbers were not HOF worthy.

When you ask if a guy is HOF material you compare him to the guys in the hall, not the guys who are not in it. So if you look at Lindros and Neely Lindros becomes HHOF material.

I personally don't think either belong, but I believe Ciccarrelli and Anderson belong however they are snubbed.

[toby91_ca 620]

I think I got Lafontaine on the Brain after seeing his stats I meant Ciccarrelli and wrote Lafontaine.

My bad, that was just a brain fart.

My point was exactly what you guys are saying though, I loved Neely, but his numbers were not HOF worthy.

When you ask if a guy is HOF material you compare him to the guys in the hall, not the guys who are not in it. So if you look at Lindros and Neely Lindros becomes HHOF material.

I personally don't think either belong, but I believe Ciccarrelli and Anderson belong however they are snubbed.

Ciccarelli's ppg stat is still better than Neely's. Dino has other issues that have kept him out. That's what will happen when you need to get voted in.

I don't think Lindros should get in, though Lindros at his best is better than most players in there, but if Lindros doesn't get in, they should think about removing players (starting with Neely). This is a joke of course.

I think Anderson will probably get elected next year, but you never know. He has less than 500 goals, less than a point per game, but he was clutch, especially in the playoffs. Maybe some think he rode the coattails of others in Edmonton and that's why that haven't voted him in. Really though, there have been much better alternatives to vote for (especially this year's crop).

[Legionnaire11 0]

this forum won't let me make tables... so I can't show you graphically. But lets look at some players...

Gretzky

Lemieux

Yzerman

Sakic

Jagr

Fedorov

Messier

Forsberg

Selanne

Kariya

Modano

Robitaille

Hull

Sundin

Shanahan

Recchi

LeClair

Now other than the bottom two, most everyone agrees that these guys are all going to the hall (if they're not already in). And if you project everyone's stats over a full season, and compare them to Lindros' stats over a full season, you'll see that lindros was at or near the top every year from 93-00 (which was his Flyers career before he was forced to take a year off and go to the rangers)

Projected over a full season, lindros had the following stats...

Year ... Goals/Points

93 ... 56/103

94 ... 57/125

95 ... 53/128

96 ... 53/129

97 ... 50/125

98 ... 39/92

99 ... 46/107

00 ... 40/88

Project his career stats across full seasons...

511 goals, 1199 points

The best barometer of his greatness is to look at his wingers. (seasons with Lindros in bold)

Mark Recchi

93 ... 53/123

94 ... 40/107

95 ... 27/82

96 ... 28/78

97 ... 34/80

98 ... 32/74

99 ... 18/61

00 ... 28/91

John LeClair

93 ... 22/51

94 ... 22/49

95 ... 47/99

96 ... 51/97

97 ... 50/97

98 ... 51/87

99 ... 46/97

00 ... 40/77

Great Players make their linemates great. You can't argue with the production between of players with Lindros and without Lindros

[VM1138 1,921]

Not Hall of Fame potential. He was good, but not great.