Eric Lindros vs. Mark Messier - Who was more dominant in his prime?
View Single Post
12-24-2012, 03:53 PM
Join Date: Jul 2010
Originally Posted by
I am going to have to jump on the soapbox here.
Lindros played a game at that level at the cost of his body. He played a style harder than his body could tolerate which made it possible for him to be the force he was, and thus is personally responsible for his missing games.
Those missing games should be held against him. This is not a Bobby Orr who was getting his knees targeted by opposing players and missing games.
This is an Eric Lindros who played a crash and bang style and more often than not was responsible for his own injuries. Messier also played a crash and bang style, but moderated the damage his body took instead of going balls out.
Offensively, they are close. Defensively, Messier gets the nod. A regular Pker and powerhouse in head to head matchups(Although Lindros was not bad defensively, Messier was simply better). Physically, Lindros is ahead, but the reason he is ahead is also the reason he missed games and was unable to sustain it over a full season.
Lindros is one of those cases where the guy does deserved to be penalized for games missed.
In any case, I could care less for what adjusted stats say in the case of best year vs best year. Lindros never ever had a year as good as Messier's 1990. As much as I hate that Messier won a hart over a more deserving player, he
a monster that year, beyond anything Lindros ever displayed.
a lot of what you say is true but also the pace of the game was a bit slower in the 80's, 70's ect... where a guy like Lindros might have had a great chance not being injured as greatly as well.
Also if you are going to take health as an issue one should be consistent with everyone and just deal with what each player did, nothing less but also nothing more.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Hardyvan123