HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

NHL on TSN Quiz: Potential Hall of Fame Inductees For 2013

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 04:59 PM
  #51
Oscar Acosta
Bat Country
 
Oscar Acosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 4,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post

I can actually see players asking to be removed from the Hall if Lindros gets in.


Ok.

If anything players are thankful to Lindros who broke the idea that they were just products of the team and led the way to players getting the most value they could out of their careers. Also was a trailblazer for getting proper medical care for NHL players and bringing light to the severity of concussions.

Oscar Acosta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:08 PM
  #52
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
It was definitely lots of that. Just saying, on top of that, the centre of French-speaking Quebec wasn't the most inviting place for an Anglophone to start a new (and very important) chapter of their life. Not saying it necessarily was a factor, not saying they were justified in considering it as a factor if they did, but the Anglophone population of Quebec City steadily declined in share by half between 1950 and 2000 (~14%->~8%), so it's not like the Lindros family was unique in their concern about starting out life there as an English-only speaker. And the Association for Canadian Studies attributed that mostly to emigration to other provinces; not increase in French speaking family size, or the like. I think 2006 census (from Wikipedia, mind you) had only 1.5% of Quebec City reporting their mother tongue as English (vs 12-17% in Montreal, for example, depending on metro or the island).

Language, possible exposure in a smaller, "remote", relatively unsuccessful market, and recent civil unrest in the province (didn't even mention the protests/implications etc. associated with Meech Lake as well) could all have affected their decision-making. That, and how hard was Lindros really going to go against the wishes of his father at 18.
Look, all that you're saying makes sense. And facts are facts; you're absolutely right on those. One thing though; it's probably way easier to live in English in Quebec city, than to live in French in every other city who has an NHL team (save for obviously Montreal and Ottawa)

Now, turn things around :

What would happen if a very high-profile French-speaking junior player would refuse to report to the team that drafted him and insisted to play for a team where he could speak and live in his "native language" (in other words, that means "trade me to Montreal OR Ottawa now, or I don't sign, you lose a pick, and so long s***ers)

What would be the perception of that guy around..., well, EVERY OTHER MARKET, especially the one where the team that drafted him plays, and in the NHL as a whole?

Presumably bad. With cause.

You're saying that Lindros did just that (I think the small-market, sponsorship issue is more important). Funny thing is, if Quebec would join the league again, they'd probably be in the upper half for sponsorship money opportunities at the moment.

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:36 PM
  #53
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oscar Acosta View Post


Ok.

If anything players are thankful to Lindros who broke the idea that they were just products of the team and led the way to players getting the most value they could out of their careers. Also was a trailblazer for getting proper medical care for NHL players and bringing light to the severity of concussions.
When I say "players already in", I'm talking of guys who were in the Hall before Lindros.

Those guys owe nothing to Lindros and made their name way before he did.

My point : a guy who's such a borderline case doesn't get in with his baggage.

Besides, the people who are on the HHOF selection committee are generally old-school people...

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 06:03 PM
  #54
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I don't think any Anglophone from outside of Quebec can necessarily be blamed too much for not wanting to move to the centre of primarily French Quebec back in '90/91, especially after the high profile violence in '90 with the Oka crisis, and being the last place team on top of that. But let's be honest, no one pulls that and "gets away with it" unless someone else thinks they're "worth it" and has a "legal" (certainly not "moral") route to go about it. I wish he had come to Quebec, because I probably would have gotten to see him play at least once here in Halifax before the Citadels went away.

To think of how different it would have been if Lindros had gone to the Rangers (the other team that had a "done deal" with Quebec for Lindros). Imagine who would have had to go the other way, what the roster would have looked like in '93/94, etc. Do they still end up going after a guy like Messier right after securing the rights to Lindros? What does a lineup with Lindros and Messier look like? How many MORE points does Leetch end up with? lol. And actually, how many fewer fights would Lindros have gotten into with that NYR lineup behind him? Domi, King, Kocur, Cirella, Wells, Beukeboom, even Graves, maybe Messier... Legion of Death and Destruction: Kovalev - Messier - Lindros, with Amonte, Graves, Nemchinov, Gartner for secondary scoring...
Well, there was Joe Sakic. Last I checked he did a fine job in the city of Quebec and eventually Colorado. Sakic is going to the Hall of Fame on Monday. Lindros isn't.

I do however think the Rangers are a much stronger team with Lindros. But they lost the sweepstakes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Counter question:
What are the opinions about John Elway?
What about him?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 06:11 PM
  #55
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
HINT : If the Nordiques had the choice, would they have traded Lindros?
If Lindros had the choice, would his rights have gone to Quebec in the first place?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 07:28 PM
  #56
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If Lindros had the choice, would his rights have gone to Quebec in the first place?
Exactly somtimes the onus of loyalty and best interest is only put on the players. teams and owners almost always act in selfish interests as well.

Lindros body of work is much greater than Cam Neely's, if guys don't want Lindros in for such a small body of work or lack of resume they had better kick 50 guys out of the Hall then.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:01 PM
  #57
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Look, all that you're saying makes sense. And facts are facts; you're absolutely right on those. One thing though; it's probably way easier to live in English in Quebec city, than to live in French in every other city who has an NHL team (save for obviously Montreal and Ottawa)

Now, turn things around :

What would happen if a very high-profile French-speaking junior player would refuse to report to the team that drafted him and insisted to play for a team where he could speak and live in his "native language" (in other words, that means "trade me to Montreal OR Ottawa now, or I don't sign, you lose a pick, and so long s***ers)

What would be the perception of that guy around..., well, EVERY OTHER MARKET, especially the one where the team that drafted him plays, and in the NHL as a whole?

Presumably bad. With cause.

You're saying that Lindros did just that (I think the small-market, sponsorship issue is more important). Funny thing is, if Quebec would join the league again, they'd probably be in the upper half for sponsorship money opportunities at the moment.
The major difference is that a French speaking player who doesn't want to go to a primarily Anglophone market would have been eliminating 90% of their possible NHL employment opportunities. Obviously the opposite (10%) was the case with Lindros at the time.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:04 PM
  #58
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well, there was Joe Sakic. Last I checked he did a fine job in the city of Quebec and eventually Colorado. Sakic is going to the Hall of Fame on Monday. Lindros isn't.
Wrong perspective, though. The difference is in who could have joined Sakic (or in my scenario, who could have joined Messier), as Sakic was the "incumbent" player. I dunno, I guess I just see Messier of the time + Lindros as more difficult to face than Sakic + Lindros (or Sakic + Forsberg, for that matter, but again, I wonder which Ranger(s) would have had to go the other way if Philly wasn't involved in the end).

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 10:31 AM
  #59
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Wrong perspective, though. The difference is in who could have joined Sakic (or in my scenario, who could have joined Messier), as Sakic was the "incumbent" player. I dunno, I guess I just see Messier of the time + Lindros as more difficult to face than Sakic + Lindros (or Sakic + Forsberg, for that matter, but again, I wonder which Ranger(s) would have had to go the other way if Philly wasn't involved in the end).
I would say considering Messier was 8 years older than Sakic and was more or less finished by the late 1990s the better combo is Lindros/Sakic. More shelf life at least. Perhaps initially the Lindros/Messier combo is great but it doesn't last.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:07 AM
  #60
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I would say considering Messier was 8 years older than Sakic and was more or less finished by the late 1990s the better combo is Lindros/Sakic. More shelf life at least. Perhaps initially the Lindros/Messier combo is great but it doesn't last.
I does bear reminding, though, that Messier had won 2 of the last 3 Hart trophies leading up to '92/93 (Lindros' rookie season). It's not like we're talking "past his prime" Messier here, although ultimately I agree that a younger Sakic probably gets more miles in the hypothetical. Having said that, though, we kind of know that we're only getting about a decade out of Lindros, so... to me Messier + Lindros would have become the single scariest combo the league had ever seen.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 11:34 AM
  #61
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,490
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
What about him?
I guess winning Championships erases any 'Lindrosesque problems' if you have to ask this questions.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 08:57 PM
  #62
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
I guess winning Championships erases any 'Lindrosesque problems' if you have to ask this questions.
It was more than that. Lindros held out from Sault Ste. Marie in the OHL when he was 16. The reasoning being that his parents didn't want him so far away from home (they lived in Toronto at the time). Funny how every kid from Wayne Gretzky to Bobby Hull talks about being homesick when they broke away to play junior hockey. Not Eric though huh? He mattered more?

Then he does the same thing in Quebec. Then the whole Philly fiasco. It was a recurring thing throughout his career. Not just a one time thing. Entitlement is the new religion in the world. Lindros was way ahead of his time on this one, and not in a good way. He hadn't paid his dues yet and he felt he was owed everything. That wasn't right.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-10-2012, 09:07 PM
  #63
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
It was more than that. Lindros held out from Sault Ste. Marie in the OHL when he was 16. The reasoning being that his parents didn't want him so far away from home (they lived in Toronto at the time). Funny how every kid from Wayne Gretzky to Bobby Hull talks about being homesick when they broke away to play junior hockey. Not Eric though huh? He mattered more?

Then he does the same thing in Quebec. Then the whole Philly fiasco. It was a recurring thing throughout his career. Not just a one time thing. Entitlement is the new religion in the world. Lindros was way ahead of his time on this one, and not in a good way. He hadn't paid his dues yet and he felt he was owed everything. That wasn't right.
sure he did all of those things but to focus on it is over rated too.

did someone come to your high school and tell you where you were going to work and who "owned" your rights?

There was once a time when players would be fined if they missed a game to be at the birth of their child as well but some institutions change.

Well they all actually do but some of us complain about it in certain circumstances more than others.

The focus on Lindros off ice activities over what he actually did on the ice and the force he was is sometimes baffling here.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:32 AM
  #64
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 22,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
The focus on Lindros off ice activities over what he actually did on the ice and the force he was is sometimes baffling here.
Totally agree.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 06:25 PM
  #65
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
sure he did all of those things but to focus on it is over rated too.

did someone come to your high school and tell you where you were going to work and who "owned" your rights?

There was once a time when players would be fined if they missed a game to be at the birth of their child as well but some institutions change.

Well they all actually do but some of us complain about it in certain circumstances more than others.

The focus on Lindros off ice activities over what he actually did on the ice and the force he was is sometimes baffling here.
Well, except the rules for the draft haven't changed at all. No one has pulled that "Lindros" trick since.

The big issue is how it followed Lindros his whole career. The Philly situation was just the final nail in the coffin. I agree Clarke is a jerk, but the comments he continually made about Lindros during that holdout has to hold some water. They can't all be inaccurate. Lindros was 27 at this time. He was not 18 anymore and his parents continued to meddle in his affairs.

That would matter a lot less if he had a better career. Yeah he was dominant - when he played. That's the key there, something always had to give with Lindros. He was so careless on the ice that he hurt his team by being out all the time. I am sure most of us can agree the things he did after the year 2000 - when he was 27 - are miniscule. Basically you are judging a player for what he did up until the age of 27. There aren't a lot of players in NHL history who would have gotten into the HHOF playing only until 27.

And what does he do in that time? He has many injury plagued seasons. Honestly, in the grand scheme of things he might have a maximum of 4 elite seasons. No more. Those would be 1994, 1995, 1996 and 1999. All years but 1995 he missed some time as well, and these were his BEST years.

The other years are 1993 (rookie and far behind the NHL elite), 1997 (missed too much time and had a terrible Cup final), 1998 (again, missed to much time and didn't win a Gold medal) and 2000 (missed almost 30 games).

It isn't as if he was Mario Lemieux and could win a scoring title by playing 60 games. Or Jagr for that matter. Jagr won a scoring title in 2000 by playing 63 games. Lindros played that many games in 1998 and had 71 points.

He was his own worst enemy on and off the ice and this is why he's still waiting to get in. I can make a case for him to get inducted and to be left out because to be honest there are strong cases to be made on either side.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-11-2012, 11:50 PM
  #66
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I am sure most of us can agree the things he did after the year 2000 - when he was 27 - are miniscule. Basically you are judging a player for what he did up until the age of 27. There aren't a lot of players in NHL history who would have gotten into the HHOF playing only until 27.
Lindros had a good year in 2002 that should add to his legacy.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:53 AM
  #67
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Lindros had a good year in 2002 that should add to his legacy.
I think this is true and if you add up his 4 elite seasons and 4 very good ones including 02 then he has a very strong case IMO.

Sure there are missing games, during his 9 year prime (over 10 years as he missed the 01 season), but he was adding value to his team in strong physical player and wasn't just a points guy either so you have to take the whole picture on him as well.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Even with all of that time missed he is still 15th in points in that 10 year span. 13th in Goals, 2nd in plus/minus.

GPG 3rd
APG 8th
PPG 3rd

Heck for that 10 year period he is easily in the mix for top 5 forwards over that time, even with the time he missed.

There are many guys with lesser careers in the HHOF already and Big Eric deserves to be in.

For the Big 4 that had shortened careers I would rank them Forsberg, Lindros, Bure then Neely.

Of course Neely gets in 1st because he is a great guy while the other 2 have to wait.

I doubt Foppa will ahve to wait but it depends on the logjam and 4 player per year rule as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 04:20 AM
  #68
ES
Registered User
 
ES's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Finland
Country: Finland
Posts: 2,672
vCash: 500
Neely and Bure both got in on their 7th eligibility year, so if the situation is the same, Lindros would make HHOF in 2016. I am thinking a bit that that the committee isn't liking to give early pass to the players, at the time of they were elected Bure and Neely would have probably been retired already even without their injuries.

ES is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 05:20 AM
  #69
DJOpus
Registered User
 
DJOpus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,803
vCash: 500
Lindros should go in because at one point he was the best hockey player on the planet. It would be a mistake not to have every hockey player that was ever considered the best on the planet in any given year in the HHOF.

There are tons of guys such as Nieuwendyk that you can't even come close to making that claim about.

DJOpus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:07 AM
  #70
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ES View Post
Neely and Bure both got in on their 7th eligibility year, so if the situation is the same, Lindros would make HHOF in 2016. I am thinking a bit that that the committee isn't liking to give early pass to the players, at the time of they were elected Bure and Neely would have probably been retired already even without their injuries.
Fair point.

Being in Vancouver sometimes clouds ones perspective.

People here who love having Neely in the Hall were lukewarm about Bure getting in.

IMO there is a clear separation between Bure and Neely.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:19 AM
  #71
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,264
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Lindros should go in because at one point he was the best hockey player on the planet. It would be a mistake not to have every hockey player that was ever considered the best on the planet in any given year in the HHOF.

There are tons of guys such as Nieuwendyk that you can't even come close to making that claim about.
Wait... What?

MXD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 09:55 AM
  #72
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJOpus View Post
Lindros should go in because at one point he was the best hockey player on the planet. It would be a mistake not to have every hockey player that was ever considered the best on the planet in any given year in the HHOF.

There are tons of guys such as Nieuwendyk that you can't even come close to making that claim about.
How about Markus Naslund? He is arguably the best player in the world in 2003 or 2004. I wouldn't induct him in there.

Also let's look at Lindros' playoff portfolio as well. People forget just how Dionnesque it was. You've got 1997 as a good year - until the egg he laid in the final. Other than that each postseason was a playoff that he could have done much more. Overall he has 57 points in 53 games.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Lindros had a good year in 2002 that should add to his legacy.
He was 18th in scoring in the NHL. He had 73 points and his team wasn't close to making the postseason. I don't think it is a year to brag about too much. He was clearly a shadow of his former self at that time. In the Olympics he had one point (a goal against Belarus). He was more or less a passenger on that Olympic team, at best. That is my opinion of 2002, you saw Lindros in a different light and realized just how far he had dropped.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:08 AM
  #73
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
He was 18th in scoring in the NHL. He had 73 points and his team wasn't close to making the postseason. I don't think it is a year to brag about too much. He was clearly a shadow of his former self at that time. In the Olympics he had one point (a goal against Belarus). He was more or less a passenger on that Olympic team, at best. That is my opinion of 2002, you saw Lindros in a different light and realized just how far he had dropped.
Finishing 18th in scoring, including top ten in per game scoring, is still a quality year, particularly once Europeans emerged in the NHL. I don't see how the failure of a poor Rangers team to make the playoffs is relevant. I also have a different take on Lindros at the 2002 Olympics. He took on a low profile role on the fourth line and performed adequately, basically shoving his ego aside.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:18 AM
  #74
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Finishing 18th in scoring, including top ten in per game scoring, is still a quality year, particularly once Europeans emerged in the NHL. I don't see how the failure of a poor Rangers team to make the playoffs is relevant. I also have a different take on Lindros at the 2002 Olympics. He took on a low profile role on the fourth line and performed adequately, basically shoving his ego aside.
Lindros was 18th in scoring in 2002, but by then, he was something of a perimeter player who wasn't providing much but scoring. He certainly wasn't the bull in a china shop Lindros that everyone remembers.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:23 AM
  #75
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
How about Markus Naslund? He is arguably the best player in the world in 2003 or 2004. I wouldn't induct him in there.
I agree simply being the ebst player in the world at any point isn't an automatic induction but it sure should count for quite a bit IMO.

Quote:
Also let's look at Lindros' playoff portfolio as well. People forget just how Dionnesque it was. You've got 1997 as a good year - until the egg he laid in the final. Other than that each postseason was a playoff that he could have done much more. Overall he has 57 points in 53 games.
Now you are either being disingenuous or a bit ignorant here.

Take aside the fact that he always could have done more, he did lead the entire NHL in playoff scoring in 97, final aside, so let's skip the Dionne playoff comps.

As well 57 in 53 during his time in the NHL playoffs ( 95-07 span) which includes his last 5 games when he was beyond done and playing less than 10MPG puts him 5th in Playoff PPG (minumum of 35 games over that time period)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...oints_per_game

You can argue that he could have been better but he was no Dionne in the playoffs-period.

Quote:
He was 18th in scoring in the NHL. He had 73 points and his team wasn't close to making the postseason. I don't think it is a year to brag about too much. He was clearly a shadow of his former self at that time. In the Olympics he had one point (a goal against Belarus). He was more or less a passenger on that Olympic team, at best. That is my opinion of 2002, you saw Lindros in a different light and realized just how far he had dropped.
Once again 18th in scoring in a 30 team league is pretty darn good and as you rightly say he had dropped quite a bit but that was just one of his excellent seasons and now one of his 4 great or elite ones.

His 73 points in 72 games were only 4 players scored more than 80 points also tells us how close he was to the elite that year instead of your description.

As for that 02 NYR team not making the playoffs, look at it's makeup and tell me that Lindros was really the problem there.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:42 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.