Eric Lindros vs. Mark Messier - Who was more dominant in his prime?
View Single Post
12-28-2012, 01:17 PM
Join Date: Dec 2010
Originally Posted by
I don't think anyone disagrees with Messier being the better player, better career, better leader and no doubting achieving more in the game, injuries notwithstanding.
Lindros was more dominant when he was at his best and more feared. Even though he didn't achieve as much. (not sure if that makes the sense I want it to make but I'm sticking with it, for now)
One thing Mess did far better than Lindros was make those around him better. He was a better team leader and a big reason why he's the legend he is today. Individually, Lindros was bigger, stronger, more feared and could put up goals/assists like Mess though.
It's an interesting question (the OP) - who was more "dominant" and "feared" in their prime.
I just don't see Messier winning in these two areas. I see Lindros as more dominant and more feared.
Was he more successful? no way
Did he ever even reach is prime? I'd say no, except one might consider his best offensive seasons his prime. I always felt Lindros was capable of more if he could stay healthy.
And I understand your stance on his recklessness was partially his own fault in him not reaching his prime.
Check out Roenick's recent biography to see how feared Messier was. In that famous 1990 game four, JR says that Messier was 'breathing fire' from the opening faceoff and that he was so intense Roenick had trouble looking him in the eye.
Lindros never reached that level. Yes, he was a scary package and some nights walked right over teams on his own. But he was also a guy that many, many times ended shifts in big games by skating to the bench with his head down and his shoulders slumped. Every time Lindros was tested, he failed; playoffs, international play... Messier was the exact opposite.
I realize that your argument is, 'Lindros at his very best was better even if Messier had the better career' but Mess at his very best was a dominating, physical clutch-scorer capable of absolutely carrying teams. Lindros was a guy with the most breathtaking package of physical tools we may ever have seen, but he never put it together to a level that Messier did.
To use a bit of a weird analogy: to me, Lindros' game is iron ore. Raw and valuable but also flawed. Messier was tempered steel. Which has more value?
And I realize 'feared' is a subjective thing and that we're veering off the beaten path a little but... Messier is a guy that once sent two Flames to the hospital in a game seven. A guy who, in the 1987 Canada Cup, prompted the Czechoslovakian coach to threaten to withdraw his team if he didn't quit playing so rough. Joel Otto has said he owed his career to the fact that he was the only player the Flames could find who was big and tough enough to not get run over by Messier. I don't know if Moose gives up much to anyone ever in the intimidation department.
Last edited by DisgruntledGoat: 12-28-2012 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by DisgruntledGoat