41 replies to this topic

[eva unit zero]

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.

[Broken 16]

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.

[Broken 16]

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...

[toby91_ca]

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.

[toby91_ca]

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.

[Nev]

No question Lindros was an utterly dominant player. His PPG is phenomenal when you consider he played most of his career in the dead puck era. Even more so when his best season (94-95) was only half of what it should be - without the lockout he gets 130-140 points that year.

Even when his body was falling to pieces on a disfunctional NYR team, I remember Rags fans gushing over his skillset.

Personally, I would rather have a player in the HOF who has had a short but spectacular career (lindros, Bure) than someone with a good but not great career whose longevity has allowed them to rack up big points totals (Cicarelli)

Oh and btw, Lindros had 57 pts in 53 playoff games. Some "choker".

Edited by Nev, 26 November 2009 - 02:46 PM.

[RedWings Gone Wild]

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.

Lindros never had to carry a team.. and he never did carry a team. Unless you're implying that his lone accomplishment as a team player (making the finals) was a one man effort, and not equally the result of LeClair's 21 in 19, or Brind'Amour's 21 in 19, or Desjardins, or Renberg, or Hextall, or... you get my point.

Lindros was certainly their MVP performer, but to imply he carried teams is entirely against the reality of what happened (hell, despite Lindros only playing in 52 games that year, LeClair still managed to net 50 goals and 97 points... numbers Lindros only eclipsed once in his career, tho he never had 50 goals).

Forsberg, on the other hand, was the best big-game performer I've seen.. IMO moreso than Roy or Sakic... which is evident, to me, because of his cups, but also because of his two Olympic golds, his two world championship golds, and all the other accomplishments Lindros doesn't have (leading the league in points, +/-, etc...). In fact, the only team based victory Lindros has (the 02 olympic gold), he wasn't even much of a presence for.

[RedWings Gone Wild]

No question Lindros was an utterly dominant player. His PPG is phenomenal when you consider he played most of his career in the dead puck era. Even more so when his best season (94-95) was only half of what it should be - without the lockout he gets 130-140 points that year.

Even when his body was falling to pieces on a disfunctional NYR team, I remember Rags fans gushing over his skillset.

Personally, I would rather have a player in the HOF who has had a short but spectacular career (lindros, Bure) than someone with a good but not great career whose longevity has allowed them to rack up big points totals (Cicarelli)

Oh and btw, Lindros had 57 pts in 53 playoff games. Some "choker".

So, no Osgood right?

[GMRwings1983]

Lindros never had to carry a team.. and he never did carry a team. Unless you're implying that his lone accomplishment as a team player (making the finals) was a one man effort, and not equally the result of LeClair's 21 in 19, or Brind'Amour's 21 in 19, or Desjardins, or Renberg, or Hextall, or... you get my point.

Lindros was certainly their MVP performer, but to imply he carried teams is entirely against the reality of what happened (hell, despite Lindros only playing in 52 games that year, LeClair still managed to net 50 goals and 97 points... numbers Lindros only eclipsed once in his career, tho he never had 50 goals).

Forsberg, on the other hand, was the best big-game performer I've seen.. IMO moreso than Roy or Sakic... which is evident, to me, because of his cups, but also because of his two Olympic golds, his two world championship golds, and all the other accomplishments Lindros doesn't have (leading the league in points, +/-, etc...). In fact, the only team based victory Lindros has (the 02 olympic gold), he wasn't even much of a presence for.

For a guy that never scored more than 30 goals in a season, everyone seems to overrate Forsberg. Lindros was more of an all-around offensive powerhouse and not just a passing threat.

Forsberg played with more talent around him than Lindros did. And one of the Cups he won involved him missing most of the playoffs, so to me he won one Cup. Lindros was also on the Canada Cup team in 1991 not just the 2002 Olympic gold medal which you nicely discounted.

Forsberg was a great playoff player, but still the 3rd best playoff performer on his team. Roy carried them to several Cups and Sakic was a machine in 1996 as well as Mr. Clutch late in games and in overtimes. Also, Sakic was their unquestioned leader in the locker room and one of the greatest captains ever. It doesn't hurt to have defensemen like Bourque, Foote, Blake and Ozolinsh on your team either. Lindros, meanwhile had Eric Desjardins and a very old Paul Coffey.

The only reason most people will rank him higher than Lindros is that Forsberg spent almost his entire career playing with the best goalie ever, while Lindros didn't. Hence the Stanley Cups and the higher all-time rating. I don't think Forsberg would have carried the Flyers to a Cup if you switch him with Lindros.

[Nev]

So, no Osgood right?

I would have probably said no to Osgood - until the last 2 playoff runs. He was our 2nd best player in 08 and our best player and would have won the Conn Smythe in 09 if we could have found a way to win a 4th game. That tips him over the edge for me.

[toby91_ca]

Lindros never had to carry a team.. and he never did carry a team. Unless you're implying that his lone accomplishment as a team player (making the finals) was a one man effort, and not equally the result of LeClair's 21 in 19, or Brind'Amour's 21 in 19, or Desjardins, or Renberg, or Hextall, or... you get my point.

Lindros was certainly their MVP performer, but to imply he carried teams is entirely against the reality of what happened (hell, despite Lindros only playing in 52 games that year, LeClair still managed to net 50 goals and 97 points... numbers Lindros only eclipsed once in his career, tho he never had 50 goals).

Forsberg, on the other hand, was the best big-game performer I've seen.. IMO moreso than Roy or Sakic... which is evident, to me, because of his cups, but also because of his two Olympic golds, his two world championship golds, and all the other accomplishments Lindros doesn't have (leading the league in points, +/-, etc...). In fact, the only team based victory Lindros has (the 02 olympic gold), he wasn't even much of a presence for.

I'm sorry, but that's BS if you think Forsberg was the best big-game performer to any degree above Roy or Sakic. If nothing else, it's clear he had more help than Lindros. Yes, the Flyers had some players that put up some good numbers, but I'm willing to admit that some of their numbers were inflated by playing with Lindros.

Back to Forsberg, his team won 2 cups, so let's just look at those years for now:

1996 - Sakic played 22 games, scored 18 goals and had 34 points....won the Conne Smythe. In comparison, Forsberg played 22 games, had 10 goals and 21 points.

2001 - Sakic played 21 games, had 13 goals and 26 points, Hejduk had 23 points and Tanguay had 21 points. Forsberg played only 11 games and had 4 goals and 14 points. Roy won the Conne Smythe.

[GMRwings1983]

I'm sorry, but that's BS if you think Forsberg was the best big-game performer to any degree above Roy or Sakic. If nothing else, it's clear he had more help than Lindros. Yes, the Flyers had some players that put up some good numbers, but I'm willing to admit that some of their numbers were inflated by playing with Lindros.

Back to Forsberg, his team won 2 cups, so let's just look at those years for now:

1996 - Sakic played 22 games, scored 18 goals and had 34 points....won the Conne Smythe. In comparison, Forsberg played 22 games, had 10 goals and 21 points.

2001 - Sakic played 21 games, had 13 goals and 26 points, Hejduk had 23 points and Tanguay had 21 points. Forsberg played only 11 games and had 4 goals and 14 points. Roy won the Conne Smythe.

Basically what I said. Forsberg wouldn't have taken the Flyers any further than where Lindros took them. Colorado had way more talent on their teams than Philly did.

[RedWings Gone Wild]

Basically what I said. Forsberg wouldn't have taken the Flyers any further than where Lindros took them. Colorado had way more talent on their teams than Philly did.

I never meant to sound (nor do I think I did) like I was implying that Forsberg would have led the Flyers to multiple cups. However, I think you've wonderfully undersold the help Lindros had in Philly to make it sound as if he was Hasek with Buffalo or something. Lindros underachieved. He had the best line in hockey for close to 6 years, had a decent netminder (by early 90s standards), average depth, and some good defensemen. It's not like the defensemen you mentioned (Bourque, Foote, Blake and Ozolinsh) contributed to Forsberg's career numbers drastically. Bourque was there a season and a half... Foote is average, 2nd pairing on a weak wings team, 3rd pairing on our good years... Blake is awesome, no doubt... but Ozolinsh was more of a liability than anything else, and hardly anyone I would point to as an asset for a team to have...

As to who was a better playoff performer, Sakic and Forsberg were teammates from 94-95 through 03-04. During that partnership Forsberg had 154 playoff points in 133 games: 1.16 ppg and a +/- of 47. Sakic had 163 points in 147 games: 1.10 ppg and a +/- of 9 over that time. Not only did Forberg score at a higher rate in the playoffs than Sakic while they were together, he was also much better on the defensive end, the difference in +/- being especially surprising when I looked at it.... we're talking about a different of 38, and this is a subjective stat when looking from team to team, but within the same team, it's a pretty drastic difference...... and yes yes yes, no need to tell me that Sakic's production is irrelevant because he is the leader, inspiration, blah blah blah... I know, I'm only talking about on-ice productivity, not the intangibles.

With Forsberg, for those saying that his teammates played a role in his point production... well, he still scored at a 1.14 ppg pace after leaving Colorado, despite being injured the majority of his career, and not playing for anyone I would consider a big-time contender after the Avs. Lindros, on the other hand, was an elite offensive threat for only about half his career, becoming a shell of his former self, whereas Forsberg, to this day, is still a top offensive threat, with or without his legs, spleen, knees... it'd probably be easier to list the body parts on him that still work, than list the ones he's injured.... There is little to suggest that with a better team, Lindros would have achieved more, because his team was pretty damn good, especially his linemates... and looking at his international career, he was always a utility/role player, never a strong/productive leader, as you make him out to be (the Canada cup you mention, he was tied for 6th with 3 other people in scoring for Canada....)...

Edited by RedWings Gone Wild, 27 November 2009 - 06:12 PM.

[GMRwings1983]

I never meant to sound (nor do I think I did) like I was implying that Forsberg would have led the Flyers to multiple cups. However, I think you've wonderfully undersold the help Lindros had in Philly to make it sound as if he was Hasek with Buffalo or something. Lindros underachieved. He had the best line in hockey for close to 6 years, had a decent netminder (by early 90s standards), average depth, and some good defensemen. It's not like the defensemen you mentioned (Bourque, Foote, Blake and Ozolinsh) contributed to Forsberg's career numbers drastically. Bourque was there a season and a half... Foote is average, 2nd pairing on a weak wings team, 3rd pairing on our good years... Blake is awesome, no doubt... but Ozolinsh was more of a liability than anything else, and hardly anyone I would point to as an asset for a team to have...

As to who was a better playoff performer, Sakic and Forsberg were teammates from 94-95 through 03-04. During that partnership Forsberg had 154 playoff points in 133 games: 1.16 ppg and a +/- of 47. Sakic had 163 points in 147 games: 1.10 ppg and a +/- of 9 over that time. Not only did Forberg score at a higher rate in the playoffs than Sakic while they were together, he was also much better on the defensive end, the difference in +/- being especially surprising when I looked at it.... we're talking about a different of 38, and this is a subjective stat when looking from team to team, but within the same team, it's a pretty drastic difference...... and yes yes yes, no need to tell me that Sakic's production is irrelevant because he is the leader, inspiration, blah blah blah... I know, I'm only talking about on-ice productivity, not the intangibles.

With Forsberg, for those saying that his teammates played a role in his point production... well, he still scored at a 1.14 ppg pace after leaving Colorado, despite being injured the majority of his career, and not playing for anyone I would consider a big-time contender after the Avs. Lindros, on the other hand, was an elite offensive threat for only about half his career, becoming a shell of his former self, whereas Forsberg, to this day, is still a top offensive threat, with or without his legs, spleen, knees... it'd probably be easier to list the body parts on him that still work, than list the ones he's injured.... There is little to suggest that with a better team, Lindros would have achieved more, because his team was pretty damn good, especially his linemates... and looking at his international career, he was always a utility/role player, never a strong/productive leader, as you make him out to be (the Canada cup you mention, he was tied for 6th with 3 other people in scoring for Canada....)...

You make some good points, but I still think Lindros had more of a load on his shoulders in Philly than Forsberg did in Colorado. I admit that Forsberg handled his injuries better than Lindros did, but maybe that's just the nature of head injuries so that Lindros couldn't play as aggresively as he once did, which was his bread and butter.

Lindros's line was great because of him. John Leclair spent his best days with Lindros and Renberg never did s*** the rest of his career. Lindros carried those linemates by himself. Furthermore, Philly had guys like Shjon Podein and Trent Klatt playing on their second line. So Lindros did have to carry virtually the whole team offensively. Colorado would likely have made the 96 Finals without Forsberg, and did in fact make it without him in 2001. Philly wouldn't have made it out of the first round in 97 without Lindros.

Along that same line of thinking, you understated the goaltending difference. Philly had an old Ron Hextall and Garth Snow. Forsberg had the best goalie ever. In retrospect, Colorado should have won more Cups than Philly just based on that.

I understand why people think Forsberg was great, and he was, but I feel like he's often overrated, whereas a guy like Lindros is underrated and forgotten about, because his injuries affected his play more and he didn't play on a team that was nearly as good.

Basically, I would take a prime Lindros over a prime Forsberg, even if Forsberg had a more well rounded and longer career.

[RedWings Gone Wild]

You make some good points, but I still think Lindros had more of a load on his shoulders in Philly than Forsberg did in Colorado. I admit that Forsberg handled his injuries better than Lindros did, but maybe that's just the nature of head injuries so that Lindros couldn't play as aggresively as he once did, which was his bread and butter.

Lindros's line was great because of him. John Leclair spent his best days with Lindros and Renberg never did s*** the rest of his career. Lindros carried those linemates by himself. Furthermore, Philly had guys like Shjon Podein and Trent Klatt playing on their second line. So Lindros did have to carry virtually the whole team offensively. Colorado would likely have made the 96 Finals without Forsberg, and did in fact make it without him in 2001. Philly wouldn't have made it out of the first round in 97 without Lindros.

Along that same line of thinking, you understated the goaltending difference. Philly had an old Ron Hextall and Garth Snow. Forsberg had the best goalie ever. In retrospect, Colorado should have won more Cups than Philly just based on that.

I understand why people think Forsberg was great, and he was, but I feel like he's often overrated, whereas a guy like Lindros is underrated and forgotten about, because his injuries affected his play more and he didn't play on a team that was nearly as good.

Basically, I would take a prime Lindros over a prime Forsberg, even if Forsberg had a more well rounded and longer career.

I 100% agree that Colorado had a better team, by far... and they would probably have a cup or two more if they weren't against Dallas, Detroit, and some of the other top teams of the past twenty years.

However, I think Leclair gets underrated, and Lindros over.. again, when in Philly, Leclair's numbers were just as good with Lindros injured, as when he was healthy. And, while the line "they played their best years with him" is certainly true, the inverse is true too, that Lindros played his best years with them, and didn't do anything without them either.

I also think you're underrating what Lindros had to work with.... a lot of good guys passed through philly, granted not the same types as Detroit or Colorado, but still he had Langkow, Steve Duchesne, Vanbiesbrouck, Chris Gratton, Alex Daigle, Mike Sillinger, Klatt, Niinimaa (very underrated Dman), Hawerchuk (tho considerably out of his prime), Coffey, Zubrus, Prospal, Svoboda, Brind'Amour, etc... This was a team regularly amongst the leaders in goals for in the east, it really wasn't a team he was carrying nightly, it was a team that should have contended more often than it did.... but I agree, Forsberg had more to work with...

EDIT: Oh, and one other thing I haven't mentioned yet about Forsberg... he was right there with Fed as one of the best two-way forwards of all time, an asset of his that is often overlooked (like his physicality)...

Edited by RedWings Gone Wild, 27 November 2009 - 07:21 PM.

[egroen]

Sakic was better defensively for the Avs (over Forsberg) but was no Fedorov (or Yzerman), defensively.

I would definitely say Forsberg was a better player than Lindros, and it is funny to say Forsberg was "more durable" than anyone. But at their absolute peak, I would definitely pick Lindros.

[Xitium]

When I look back, all I seem to remember is Lindros getting destroyed by Stevens and Konstantinov.

He was great with the LOD line, but I don't think it will be enough to push him over the edge.

[revmo10]

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.

Mario Lemieux?

[Reds4Life]

Mario Lemieux?

Lindros was much more physical and tougher, though Mario is a LOT better overall.

[GMRwings1983]

Lindros was much more physical and tougher, though Mario is a LOT better overall.

Agree. That's what I meant by that statement. There's never been a guy that was 6'5, 245 lbs. and had so much skill and physicality at the same time.