View Single Post
11-13-2012, 04:46 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,592
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
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.
If you want to add that season, it does very, very little in the overall picture of him. I think it hurts his legacy terribly that a team he captained 4 years earlier arguably could have been better without him when he's 28-29. Just hard to see another player like that dropping so quickly.

Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
It is the volume that you have to look at here. You're going to have a better chance to have a better PPG with less playoff games. But that's not even here nor there on this issue, the problem is Lindros missed a ton of playoff games and he could have done more to solidify his playoff legacy. St. Louis' playoff resume could be better too. He could use more than 68 playoff points to date in my opinion. However, he has a couple things Lindros doesn't have. He has a ring that he was a huge part of and while his best playoff beats Lindros' best his 2nd best also beats Lindros' second best. It is getting harder and harder to put Lindros ahead of St. Louis on an all-time list if he is still there.

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).
I'm not sure why Gretzky's name always gets brought up here in this debate. He signed a contract in January of 1979 to stay with the Oilers. Put it this way, they were more than likely going to merge with the NHL but if they didn't Gretzky wouldn't have been in the NHL. Or he would have gone in as soon as the WHA folded. So he was signed to a team on his 18th birthday therefore negating needing to be drafted. It just so happened that Edmonton moved to the NHL the following season. It wasn't uncommon for the WHA to lure underage junior players to play for them by that time. Others did it. Messier, Gartner, etc.

I'm a little confused about Gretzky to be honest. He's a lock cinch HHOFer if you take his years outside of Edmonton. He carried L.A. further than they deserved to have gone in 1993 and even the Rangers in 1997. Two years in a row Gretzky's Kings unseated the Cup champs. I don't understand are you saying he didn't propel the Kings as far as he should have or the Oilers?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote