View Single Post
Old
11-12-2012, 09:05 PM
  #82
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Dionne had 49 points in 45 games. Lindros had 57 points in 53 games. Very similar statistically and if you throw in the fact that Lindros had teams who should have done more while Dionne was never on a Cup contender it looks even closer. That 1997 run was great - for three rounds. The performance in the final soured all the good that was done before. Let's face one thing here, Lindros does not have a good playoff portfolio at all. This is something that rarely gets brought up in these debates but his playoff resume hurts him.
Did you even look at the ranking of PPG guys in the playoffs during Eric's career?

When does being 5th hurt his resume?

Sure he could have a larger body of work but I don't hear you saying that Marty St. Louis playoff resume hurts him either.

PPG in playoffs in the late 70s'early 80's is one thing but during Lindros time it's a hard thing to do.

Quote:
I wouldn't call it an excellent season either. 2002 was one of those years where the forwards were weak. One 50 goal scorer, no 100 point men. Lindros was still 18th in scoring in a weak offensive year. Had it been the year on either side of it he is around top 30. Let's also take into account Miro Satan had as many points as him and Craig Conroy had more. That isn't a season for the ages and is something that shows just how far the mighty had fallen.
Given the context of the year it is an excellent season.

Your focus on his off ice stuff is really clouding your judgements and arguments here on what he did on the ice.

we don't judge Wayne by not waiting to get drafted, on not winning a cup outside of Edmonton, of not being a great plus minus guy later in his career (and having less impact on his teams winning than we really care to admit sometimes) we judge him mainly on his accomplishments like we should all players.

Unfortunately some tend to focus on what some players could have been instead of what they were and they pull it out inconsistently (ie focus on it for some players but not others).

Plain and simple any guy that was considered one of the top players over a 10 year stretch makes my HHOF draft antics aside.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote