• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
GMRwings1983

Thoughts on Eric Lindros

Rate this topic

42 posts in this topic

To me, it seems like whenever people talk about this guy nowadays, they talk about the injuries and the early retirement, as well as that whole fiasco with Bobby Clarke.

I think it's unfortunate that people forget that there's never been a player like him in NHL history. A guy with that size and that skill, who was a complete nightmare to play against since he could beat you in so many ways. At one time, he was the best player in the world and had one if the highest point per game ratios in league history. Also, he was a great fighter, and could hold his own even against enforcers.

The guy also had a highlight reel full of devastating bodychecks as well as finesse goals. How many guys in league history can you say that about?

I was wondering what you guys think about his place in league history and what you thought of him as a player? I didn't necessarily intend this to be a Hall of Fame debate, but feel free to discuss that also. Personally, I think he should get in, since he's got more credentials than someone like Cam Neely, who was elected recently.

Edited by GMRwings1983

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, if Cam Neely got in based off of what he did before he got hurt, then Lindros should be in the Hall, too.

I don't think it's right, but the precedent is there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For about a 6 year span there wasnt a more dominant forward in the NHL. I will never forget the World Juniors when he broke about 3 collarbones with legal hits and ended up having so much room on the ice that he could do whatever he wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back when I started playing hockey, I would always pick #88 because I loved the way Lindros played. Granted, I hate when I see kids rocking numbers like that now, but gimme a break, I was like 6 or 7. It was a very sad day when he stopped playing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Neely can be elected, I think Lindros should be more than eligible. Dude was a hell of a force in his time in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think based upon many of the weak players that have been inducted recently that Lindros has a "hall worthy" resume. That being said, I have a problem with the hall of fame's weak standards, and lack of pre-NHL Europeans (Kharlamov and Tretiak being the only two). Even tho it is a "hockey" hall of fame, it is entirely NHL focused...

The Hall of Fame, IMO, is also pretty damn generous to cup champs, and largely ignores players who couldn't get there (this is a team sport, isn't it? So why rob a player of an individual honor, based upon a team's performance). Some may not agree, but guys like Gillies, Dick Duff, and Glenn Anderson are only in there because of team accomplishments (Anderson being particularly ridiculous to me). And yet arguably the best goal scorer of the late 90s doesn't get inclusion (Bure literally scored 30% of the Islanders' goals in 00-01)?

I also think there are a number of guys that deserve inclusion over Lindros that have been passed over in previous seasons. Ciccerelli, Bure, and a slew of Russians, to name a few... Based upon the guys presently in the hall, yeah, i think Lindros' accomplishments deserve recognition, but I also think the hall needs to toughen up its criteria for induction.... lets not forget how comically overrepresented the original 6 era is too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(Bure literally scored 30% of the Islanders' goals in 00-01)

4360_Bure-Pavel.jpg

He played in Florida that year, by the way

Edited by Lidstromboli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hotdog Hockey: Should Eric Lindros be a Hall of Famer?

Ezzy compared the numbers between Lindros and Neely and they are pretty close. I was never a big fan of the E-train (didn't like his Quebec shenanigans) but he will likely get in.

I cannot believe that Bure has been eligible since 2006 and still isn't in. That is a travesty. Guy was lightning on ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I cannot believe that Bure has been eligible since 2006 and still isn't in. That is a travesty. Guy was lightning on ice.

There's been some pretty hefty Hall of Fame classes since then. He'll get in. Not everybody goes in the first year they're eligible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you take away Eric Lindros' last four seasons, he still has more points than Cam Neely, in 100 fewer games, with a comparable number of goals. That doesn't even account for the fact that Lindros actually won major awards and stuff. Lindros joined the league and was instantly one of the league's best players. He remained so until injuries caused him to have to miss large portions of seasons and then retire at the age of 34, having played only 760 games in his career. There was never a point in Neely's career where he was better than Lindros was at any point before his second year in New York when he was suffering massively from the concussions and other injuries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that Cam Neely does have on Lindros is the season where he scored 50 goals in 50 games. Granted it wasn't 50 games for the team at that point, but for Neely he only played 50 games that year because of injury so some people still give it to him. 50 goals in 50 games is a huge benchmark for a player to reach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neely in the hall is a ******* joke!

Lindros was a lot better player and should get to the hall eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing that Cam Neely does have on Lindros is the season where he scored 50 goals in 50 games. Granted it wasn't 50 games for the team at that point, but for Neely he only played 50 games that year because of injury so some people still give it to him. 50 goals in 50 games is a huge benchmark for a player to reach.

50 goals in 49 games is pretty amazing, but it's not an 'official' "50 in 50" because it wasn't done in his team's first 50 games, which is the criteria.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you take away Eric Lindros' last four seasons, he still has more points than Cam Neely, in 100 fewer games, with a comparable number of goals. That doesn't even account for the fact that Lindros actually won major awards and stuff. Lindros joined the league and was instantly one of the league's best players. He remained so until injuries caused him to have to miss large portions of seasons and then retire at the age of 34, having played only 760 games in his career. There was never a point in Neely's career where he was better than Lindros was at any point before his second year in New York when he was suffering massively from the concussions and other injuries.

Exactly, this is what I don't understand. How can someone even attempt to compare Neely's stats with Lindros's? Lindros ppg = 1.14 vs. Neely's 0.96. Where is the comparison. And as you suggest, if you don't count the last few years that Lindros shouldn't have been playing due to health reasons, his career ppg stat is downright scary. The guy dominated the league when he was healthy, Neely never, ever came close to doing that.

Seems like some here question whether Lindros is worthy and at the same time think it's insane that Bure is not in. Help me understand why Bure is so much more deserving. Bure was a better goal scorer, no question, but he has less career points, worse ppg stat and doesn't have the Hart and Pearson awards that Lindros does. Not saying Lindros deserves it more than Bure, but to think that Bure is that much more deserving is a bit of a joke if you ask me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I buy the "pick least deserving player in the Hall and compare" argument. If that's how we're going to do it, all that's going to do if further crapify things over time. You don't like Neely and Anderson being in? Well, get ready for legions of similarly-qualified guys who did the absolute minimum, if others think that way.

To me, it's sort of like when jersey retirement comes up, the old "if you have to make the argument, the answer is no" line. I realize that's not the HOF's philosophy, but to me, "should he" and "will he" are two different questions. I'm inclined to say "no" and "yes."

That said, Lindros was flat-out dominant for a few years, no argument whatsoever on that point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When comparing points and PPG - remember that Neely played most of his career in a much higher scoring era, while Lindros played a good amount in the dead puck era... which makes Lindros' edge there even more significant.

Lindros really is twice the player Cam Neely was, though I will say Neely stepped up in the playoffs 'more' than Lindros.

Finally, Neely is not an 'excuse' for Lindros to get in, as Lindros is a much better player, but the bar does not have to be set at Neely either -- as he is in there for a lot of intangibles outside of his stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure I buy the "pick least deserving player in the Hall and compare" argument. If that's how we're going to do it, all that's going to do if further crapify things over time. You don't like Neely and Anderson being in? Well, get ready for legions of similarly-qualified guys who did the absolute minimum, if others think that way.

To me, it's sort of like when jersey retirement comes up, the old "if you have to make the argument, the answer is no" line. I realize that's not the HOF's philosophy, but to me, "should he" and "will he" are two different questions. I'm inclined to say "no" and "yes."

That said, Lindros was flat-out dominant for a few years, no argument whatsoever on that point.

Lindros had a PPG of over 1.3 before his last four seasons, and finished with a PPG of 1.14. That puts him between Bryan Trottier and Phil Esposito. His PPG before the injuries took their toll is virtually identical to that of Marcel Dionne, and well ahead of Esposito. Lindros was far more physically dominant than any of those guys, and only Trottier played better defense.

Yes, Lindros played a far shorter career, so PPG is hard to use as a comparison tool. But his career was shortened because he was one of if not the most singly dominant player in the league for a period of several years, so defensemen generally keyed on him and he took tons of physical abuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To me, it seems like whenever people talk about this guy nowadays, they talk about the injuries and the early retirement, as well as that whole fiasco with Bobby Clarke.

I think it's unfortunate that people forget that there's never been a player like him in NHL history. A guy with that size and that skill, who was a complete nightmare to play against since he could beat you in so many ways. At one time, he was the best player in the world and had one if the highest point per game ratios in league history. Also, he was a great fighter, and could hold his own even against enforcers.

The guy also had a highlight reel full of devastating bodychecks as well as finesse goals. How many guys in league history can you say that about?

I was wondering what you guys think about his place in league history and what you thought of him as a player? I didn't necessarily intend this to be a Hall of Fame debate, but feel free to discuss that also. Personally, I think he should get in, since he's got more credentials than someone like Cam Neely, who was elected recently.

I don't think they should hand out HOF nominations like candy. He was dominant for a blip. Never won a Cup. Was swept in the Finals against a team that he was supposed to punish into the ground. The guy had ZERO longevity. Had off-ice issues with his father as his agent.

Forsberg made a bigger overall impact on the league. Lindros was scary for a few years. Handing out nominations for what could have/should have been isn't what the HOF is about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they should hand out HOF nominations like candy. He was dominant for a blip. Never won a Cup. Was swept in the Finals against a team that he was supposed to punish into the ground. The guy had ZERO longevity. Had off-ice issues with his father as his agent.

Forsberg made a bigger overall impact on the league. Lindros was scary for a few years. Handing out nominations for what could have/should have been isn't what the HOF is about.

I never said anything about what should have been. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame for what he's already done. I hate to use Neely again as a comparison, but when the league voted him in, they opened the door for these things. Your description of Lindros was exactly what Neely accomplished, minus the individual awards and best player in the world status.

Forsberg was a better set up man than Lindros, but Lindros was a more dangerous all around offensive force. Also, he was a lot more physical and scary to play against. Furthermore, Forsberg never had to carry a team like Lindros did. The Flyers had some other good players, but he was by far the best. I don't think Forsberg at his best was better than Lindros at his best, but I'm sure many will disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think they should hand out HOF nominations like candy. He was dominant for a blip. Never won a Cup. Was swept in the Finals against a team that he was supposed to punish into the ground. The guy had ZERO longevity. Had off-ice issues with his father as his agent.

Forsberg made a bigger overall impact on the league. Lindros was scary for a few years. Handing out nominations for what could have/should have been isn't what the HOF is about.

Lindros was not dominant "for a blip" as you say. He was one of the league's most dominant players for eight of his thirteen seasons. That's his second until his ninth season. A lot of players don't even play that long before retiring healthy. Lindros dominated the league, won major awards, and was very good to great at all aspects of the game. Had he not had players like Scott Stevens and Darius Kasparaitis leading with elbows into his head, he would still be playing with Philadelphia today and likely still a top player. He would also be on track to be one of the top 10 or 15 scorers of all-time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never said anything about what should have been. I think he should be in the Hall of Fame for what he's already done. I hate to use Neely again as a comparison, but when the league voted him in, they opened the door for these things. Your description of Lindros was exactly what Neely accomplished, minus the individual awards and best player in the world status.

Forsberg was a better set up man than Lindros, but Lindros was a more dangerous all around offensive force. Also, he was a lot more physical and scary to play against. Furthermore, Forsberg never had to carry a team like Lindros did. The Flyers had some other good players, but he was by far the best. I don't think Forsberg at his best was better than Lindros at his best, but I'm sure many will disagree.

But he really didn't do that much overall. Don't get me wrong... I was PRAYING that Lindros would somehow find his way into a Wings sweater when he was on the move. But, in retrospect, I'm glad it never happened. Once the concussions took their toll, he wasn't nearly the same player he was. Sure, there were flashes here and there.

Bottom line is, he carried his team to being swept in the Stanley Cup Finals and was basically never heard from again. Not exactly HOF material in my opinion.

I'm not gonna get into a Forsberg/Lindros debate because I'm pretty sure you had no intention of creating a Forsberg vs. Lindros thread. But comparing Forsbergs overall career and accomplishments to Lindros' is no comparison at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lindros was not dominant "for a blip" as you say. He was one of the league's most dominant players for eight of his thirteen seasons. That's his second until his ninth season. A lot of players don't even play that long before retiring healthy. Lindros dominated the league, won major awards, and was very good to great at all aspects of the game. Had he not had players like Scott Stevens and Darius Kasparaitis leading with elbows into his head, he would still be playing with Philadelphia today and likely still a top player. He would also be on track to be one of the top 10 or 15 scorers of all-time.

Coulda, shoulda, woulda...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not gonna get into a Forsberg/Lindros debate because I'm pretty sure you had no intention of creating a Forsberg vs. Lindros thread. But comparing Forsbergs overall career and accomplishments to Lindros' is no comparison at all.

Really? Other than cups (team thing), I'm not so sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lindros was not dominant "for a blip" as you say. He was one of the league's most dominant players for eight of his thirteen seasons. That's his second until his ninth season. A lot of players don't even play that long before retiring healthy. Lindros dominated the league, won major awards, and was very good to great at all aspects of the game. Had he not had players like Scott Stevens and Darius Kasparaitis leading with elbows into his head, he would still be playing with Philadelphia today and likely still a top player. He would also be on track to be one of the top 10 or 15 scorers of all-time.

And you're even ignoring his rookie year in which he scored 41 goals in 61 games.

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