View Single Post
11-13-2012, 01:58 PM
Registered User
JackSlater's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 6,946
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Would Joe Thornton have done any worse in the Olympics than Lindros? That's the thing right there, he could have been left off that team and no one would have made a fuss about it. He was 28 in the 2001-'02 season and everyone knew he was no longer an elite player anymore. The role he played on the Olympics is a testament to how far he dropped.
I would say that Thornton would have performed at roughly the same level, not that it matters. Lindros was neither great or terrible at the Olympics that year, it was only a small part of his season but it did show some potential growth as he accepted a small role on a team he had captained four years earlier. Obviously Lindros was worse in 2002, no person would argue that. He still had a good season though, and ignoring that season when assessing his legacy as a player is erroneous.

Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
If he wasn't such a jerk, had a better playoff resume, or had either durability or longevity, then there probably wouldn't really be a debate. Those factors make it arguable for some.
Improving Lindros' playoff resume and longevity would make him a different, and better, player though.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote