In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1057
Online now 667 Record: 7381 (3/13/2012)
Black shoes, basic blues. No names, all game
Buy, sell and swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
So you are saying Lindros wouldn't have been better than Clarke, Howe or Parent? He would have been better than all of them. The main point was that Lindros had every skill at his disposal, except for the ability to skate with his head up. I am not on anything, I see the the truth.
I have one upvote left, and I am not afraid to use it!!!
Wow, you guys love Lindros. The what ifs and woulda-coulda-shoulda thing doesn't work here. Lemieux and Jagr both played during that era. Messier, Hull, Sakic, Bure, Shanahan, Sundin, etc all played during the same era too. They all were better than Eric Lindros. He might be top 50, but top 5 IS very far off. I will give the guy his due when it came to scoring. He had good hands for a big man, and had an extremely hard shot. Crosby may or not be better than him at some point. Right now they are very comparable in stats. Guys like Sundin and Shanahan were similar in size too and but were smarter players. A lot of what Lindros suffered thru was a result of his style of play. Longevity accounts for something (the jury is out on Crosby yet). Just ask Lemieux.
Pretty sure Scott Stevens weighed more than 160 pounds.
Go easy Dr., now they're changing their argument.
This post was edited by PSU2001 14 months ago
That's a ridiculous statement.
Yeah - I'm sure he was over 2 bills.
Which one was Lindros better than?
Sundin -1300+ points in a great 18 year career.
Hull - 1300 + points in 18 seasons - 700 + goals.
Shanahan - 1300 + points in 20 seasons - several cups.
Jagr - Over 1600 points, dominating at times and still going.
Lemieux - no info needed.
Messier - no info needed.
Sakic - 1600 + points - awesome in playoffs!
OK, Bure doesn't belong, but was dominant on some awful teams.
Please find me an argument change. Someone said "He would have been top 5 if he reached potential and remained healthy." The argument is not provable.
My argument is that Lindros, if anything, is underrated and not overrated, as was originally stated. I stand by that.
This post was edited by shavisimo2 14 months ago
He never played a full 82 game season, and in his career he played in 760 games totaling 865 pts. The one year he played in 73 games for the Flyers he racked up 115 pts.The one season (93-94) he totaled 97 pts in 65 games! I will admit its (95-96) not close to Lemieux (who didn't play many games in 93-94), but Lemieux also played with Jagr and Francis during his prime years. Sounds like a good combination. The main argument was that Lindros possessed the skills necessary to be a generational player, which he did. We all got sidetracked here.
The idea that he could have finished top 5 if not for injuries is very possible, but is also subjective. I will end by saying that we don't have to be bottom dwellers for years to get our generational talents, but that we just have the balls to actually trade for them.
I agree that he was good. He was overrated for what he was hyped to do, and underrated for what he did. Let's leave it at that.
It would be like Crosby retiring now. High expectations.
I agree. If you define it by expectations vs. reality, he was overrated. If you say production vs. perception, underrated.
Please don't compare Lemieux and Lindros.
If we are taking best years(like you did with Lindros), then let's look at Lemieux's: 1987-88 and 1988-89, in 153 games, Mario had 367 points including 155 goals. During these 2 seasons, neither, Jagr or Francis was on the team. In fact, Lemeiux played with Rob Brown.
Wow, that's a real reach. I guess you could say that about any top overall pick as they obviously all have "potential" to be great.
Only person anyone should compare Lemieux with is Gretzky. Those 2 were on a separate level. Lemieux made guys careers and did things Lindros could only dream of on the ice.
I'm not talking about their careers as a whole. I'm talking about Lindros prior to his concussion problems. That player, for that span was a monster. A complete package of total dominance that hasn't been seen since, except for possibly Forsberg.
Mario never played a full 82 games either and had 160 points and 69 goals in 60 games. His 199 point year was most certainly not spent with the high end talent you refer to in your post either. Lindros topped the 100 point mark once, I hope you aren't serious comparing these 2 or considering Lindros anything less than a disappointment with the hype and expectations he had.
I'll take some of what you are smoking
I'll start this by saying I'm a Flyers fan. I'll also state, that I don't personally think Lindros was a better player than Lemieux, but I think he was a much better player in his prime than some are giving him credit for. The problem with too many arguments in this thread is the comparison of stats. You simply can't use them as comparisons for hockey, as scoring was so down so much in the mid 90s compared to the mid 80s and thats a fact. Its the same reason why you can never compare the Crosby, Malkin, Ovechkin, of the NHL today to a player like Gretzky and Lemieux with stats as they will never stand a chance to beat them. Crosby or Malkin could very well be the best hockey player to ever play the game and they still wouldn't get close to touching Gretzky's records. The stars of the mid 90s had it even worse as goal scoring was down even more then.
I know I've started to ramble some, but what I'm saying is you cannot compare Lindros and Lemieux by stats. But if I had to pick the better scorer and more dynamic offensive player its Lemieux by a far margin. But I still think Lindros in his prime was a top 10 player all-time in the NHL, not necessarily because of the point totals, but because of the way he could impact the game. Lemieux and Gretzky couldn't come close to Lindros when it comes to the ability to alter a game via hitting or fighting. They were different players, but both great ones. I for one would have loved to see what Lindros could have done if he didn't get all the concussions.
Do we forget about the Dead Puck Era? If Crosby played in the 80's, he too would put up insane numbers. No player will ever touch Lemieux or Gretzky with points unless they play for a really longggg time. Their stats are inflated by the time in which they played. The main point that people don't seem to understand is that Lindros had the skill set to be one of the greats. YES he underachieved due to INJURIES. HE IS NOT LEMIEUX, I was just throwing that out there to show that I realized he (Lemieux) had better numbers. Gretzky and Lemieux are 1 and 2, though some argue BOBBY ORR was better than both of them. I don't consider someone who wins the Hart trophy and takes his team to the Stanley Cup finals a disappointment. I enjoyed the Lindros era, though it ended badly. As a kid growing up, he was amazing to watch. He was a freak athlete and thats a fact. He would have won a cup or two had he not battled injuries, which is something I firmly believe.
Mario put up 160 + twice in the 90's as well. He had 161 the same year Lindros produced his best season of 115. It wasn't just because of the rules, it was because he was a once in a lifetime type player. Lindros is not a once in a generation type guy. Bobby Orr is also clearly one of the all time best, but I think you are greatly overvaluing Lindros because he played for your favorite team. Was he good, yes, was he a supreme talent that was head and shoulders above the rest of the league like some of the guys you mention him with, hell no.
Also, its not just about stats, if you ever had the privilege of watching Mario play, he was just like a man among boys out there. Big guy with unreal skill. Didn't need to hit because he was busy filling up the net and taking over games with his skill.
Yeah, unless we are talking about how big he was in Jr. High school. He was 215 according to the roster the year he demolished Lindros.
You're right on one thing: Lemieux and Gretzky couldn't come close to altering a game via hitting or fighting. They didn't have to, they just scored, and scored way more than Lindros.
Lemieux played in the 90's by the way.
Since everyone is so good at what if's, if Crosby plays 12 more seasons following this year, at his current rate of 1.4 pts/game, he would be 2nd in total points all time.
Lindros is not top 10 all time, not even in the discussion. I wouldn't consider him near the top 20 all time.
Lindros, while dominating in his own right, should never, ever be put in the same sentence as Mario.
yeah, its easy to try and project what ifs. What if Mario hadn't gotten cancer? Players age, get injured and production slows. That's just the facts of life. To say player A would've done this something not happened is worth about as much as the conclussions in the Freeh report. With the facts available to us, Lindros is nowhere near top 10 or top 20 for that matter as an all time NHL great.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports