HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Just an idea...If NYR gets S.Crosby

View Poll Results: If the deal is there move Crosby or still keep.....
Keep #1 overall pick no matter the deal 60 72.29%
If the deal is fair or good/excellent make the move 22 26.51%
Dont know, not sure. 1 1.20%
Voters: 83. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-11-2005, 10:36 AM
  #101
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Let's say it this way: If you take the Flyers and the Avalanche of 1996, 1997 and 2001 and just switch Lindros and Forsberg, then Forsberg wouldn't have won a Cup yet and Lindros would have won 2!!! It's just that simple...
Not really that simple. Is it me or is the pro-Lindros crowd just refuses to look at the entire picture? Simply switching Lindros and Forsberg does not come anywhere to telling the whole story. Again, for those who missed the previous pages of this argument, Colarado does not win those Cups without ALL of the assets that they acquired in the Lindros trade. I have no idea how anyone can debate that. Go back and look at what all of those assets were turned into.

"Lookin' at both players in their prime time Lindros is better than everybody including Forsberg, Sakic, Bure, Fedorov, Sundin and even Jagr! "

You are more than entitled to your opinion, but I would take Forsberg & Sakic over Lindros all day, every day. Ditto for Sundin. Why Sundin? Becuase, like it or not, one cannot ignore the injuries.

"What team has the better side in the Lindros/Forsberg trade is not that obvious."

It is that obvious. One team has been a league power ever since that trade and has two Cups to boot. Care to guess which team we are talking about?

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 11:02 AM
  #102
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
@trueblue

"Players take their own chances if they skate with their head down. Can't suspend the hitter if the hittee is beind stupid and careless."

Depends on the hit. Most hits that hurt a player are cheap shots! Ever thought about that? Or do you like cheap shots? I don't! I wanna see a good game, not cheap hitting...

"Not really that simple. Is it me or is the pro-Lindros crowd just refuses to look at the entire picture? Simply switching Lindros and Forsberg does not come anywhere to telling the whole story. Again, for those who missed the previous pages of this argument, Colarado does not win those Cups without ALL of the assets that they acquired in the Lindros trade. I have no idea how anyone can debate that. Go back and look at what all of those assets were turned into."

The whole trade is not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that both players a very equal in my opinion. You can have yours, that's your right. And just switching the two players in the same teams as they were would change nothing. Lindros would have won 2 Cups, Forsberg none...

"You are more than entitled to your opinion, but I would take Forsberg & Sakic over Lindros all day, every day. Ditto for Sundin. Why Sundin? Becuase, like it or not, one cannot ignore the injuries."
Nobody knows a player will get hurt very often. You always know that after things happend. And the stats don't lie. Lindros was the best player in his prime, better than Sakic, Jagr and everybody else. The points and goals per game tell the truth! Just taking the seasons in Philly Lindros has more points per game than Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Fedorov or who ever....

"It is that obvious. One team has been a league power ever since that trade and has two Cups to boot. Care to guess which team we are talking about?"

And again...switch the players and nothing changes...I don't care about the trade. I'm talking about the players... and by the way, it's all just theory! Get it?


Last edited by SingnBluesOnBroadway: 03-11-2005 at 11:31 AM.
marvel is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 11:41 AM
  #103
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Most hits that hurt a player are cheap shots! Ever thought about that?
Absolutely not true. Most of the time players are hurt by good, hard, clean hits. Not all the time, but most of the time. Stevens hurts players on a regular basis, but if they kept their heads up, none would be concussed. Look at the Lindros hit. Vicous as it gets, but completely clean.

"And just switching the two players in the same teams as they were would change nothing. Lindros would have won 2 Cups, Forsberg none..."

You cannot look at it that way. One cannot just say switch teams without including all of the traded assets in the discussion. It's like talking about Lindros, but refusing to acknowledge the injuries.

"Lindros was the best player in his prime,"

I would never list him above Forsberg or Sakic.

"switch the players and nothing changes"

Your agrument is full of holes. You cannot simply say "switch teams" in THIS case. The fact is that there were other assets traded and any realistic discussion begins with that.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 12:32 PM
  #104
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Absolutely not true. Most of the time players are hurt by good, hard, clean hits. Not all the time, but most of the time. Stevens hurts players on a regular basis, but if they kept their heads up, none would be concussed. Look at the Lindros hit. Vicous as it gets, but completely clean.

"And just switching the two players in the same teams as they were would change nothing. Lindros would have won 2 Cups, Forsberg none..."

You cannot look at it that way. One cannot just say switch teams without including all of the traded assets in the discussion. It's like talking about Lindros, but refusing to acknowledge the injuries.

"Lindros was the best player in his prime,"

I would never list him above Forsberg or Sakic.

"switch the players and nothing changes"

Your agrument is full of holes. You cannot simply say "switch teams" in THIS case. The fact is that there were other assets traded and any realistic discussion begins with that.
you want to talk about arguments being full of holes. Well if the Flyers kept their assets, they probably would still have not won a cup. They have a different GM than Quebec did, who clearly is not as good . I know you don't want to see it posted, but Lindros pre injury, is the most dominant player of the 90's of all his peers we are discussing. The facts bear that out. Was he as good of a play maker? Maybe not as much of a creator as his peers, but they couldn't bull rush a defense and score like him either. Ultimately, it was his style that was his downfall.

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 05:57 PM
  #105
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
"Absolutely not true. Most of the time players are hurt by good, hard, clean hits. Not all the time, but most of the time. Stevens hurts players on a regular basis, but if they kept their heads up, none would be concussed. Look at the Lindros hit. Vicous as it gets, but completely clean."

Hey, wake up! I don't talk about Stevens here. I talk about hits that hurt players. Don't you get it?

"You cannot look at it that way. One cannot just say switch teams without including all of the traded assets in the discussion. It's like talking about Lindros, but refusing to acknowledge the injuries."

Of course I can look at it that way, it's quite simple! You just don't get it, don't you? All we are talking about is theory. And I just try to compare two players, while you keep talking about a trade...

"I would never list him above Forsberg or Sakic."

Yeah, maybe you wouldn`t. But we are talking about facts not sympathy!

"Your agrument is full of holes. You cannot simply say "switch teams" in THIS case. The fact is that there were other assets traded and any realistic discussion begins with that."

My arguments maybe full of holes. But you keep talking about a whole different thing, wake up! You keep talking and talking... but you you don't get the point!

There are two players and there a facts. And these facts say in his prime Lindros was better than Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, and who ever. You can keep talking about the trade if you like. But I am talking about two players... Is this so hard to understand?

By the way...if everybody knew how good Forsberg would be, then why did Quebec choose Lindros in the draft and not Forsberg? And why did the Flyers and the Rangers want Lindros so bad? And if Lindros was no good choice because of his injuries (what nobody could know at the draft), then why had Forsberg been a better choice? Isn't he injured very often too? Quebec chose Lindros at number 1 cause they too thought he was the best player! If not so they had chosen Forsberg as number 1. And if everybody knew how good Forsberg would be then why was he chosen as number 6? You really should wake up...

Anyway...is this a thread about Lindros? I thought it was about Crosby...


Last edited by marvel: 03-11-2005 at 06:06 PM.
marvel is offline  
Old
03-11-2005, 07:06 PM
  #106
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Hey, wake up! I don't talk about Stevens here. I talk about hits that hurt players. Don't you get it?
Are you trying to say that Stevens does not hurt people when he hits them?

"All we are talking about is theory. "

But your theory is not realistic. How was Quebec going to win the Cup with Lindros had they not had Roy?

"But we are talking about facts not sympathy!"

And what facts are you using? Ever see Sakic or Forsberg play in the playoffs?

"By the way...if everybody knew how good Forsberg would be, then why did Quebec choose Lindros in the draft and not Forsberg?"

That is a rather silly way to try to win an argument. Or are you trying to imply that you actually thought that 100% of the scouts out there thought the same exact thing? What difference does it make whom they drafed? They certainly knew whom to trade for, now didn't they?

"then why had Forsberg been a better choice? "

Again, ever see him play when it counts?

"Quebec chose Lindros at number 1 cause they too thought he was the best player!"

And your point is what? San Diego drafted Manning when they knew he did not want to play for them? Why? Beucause they knew they could trade him and get a very, very nice return. And even besides that, who cares? They got whom they wanted in the end.

"And if everybody knew how good Forsberg would be then why was he chosen as number 6? You really should wake up..."

Has every #1 pick always been the best player?

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 04:01 AM
  #107
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
This is getting ridicilous! I say we are talking theory and you say but thats not realistic?

"Are you trying to say that Stevens does not hurt people when he hits them?"

No, I'm not talking about Stevens! I'm talking about cheap hits! You don't get it! :lol

You just don't get it! If Quebec thought Forsberg was the better player they had drafted him 1st. They didt chose Lindros to trade him, that's ttotal nonsense! They traded Lindros because they had to, they didn't want to trade him! Quebec got whom they wanted in the end? No, they didn't! They wanted Lindros, that's why they chose him! You're really funny...

The facts I am talking about are goals, assists and points. Lindros in his prime had the best points per game stats, not Sakic, not Jagr ....open your eyes!

And no, not every 1st Pick was the best player. But Lindros was! Lindros in his 1st season had 1,22 points per game and was +28. Forsberg had 1,07 points per game and was +17 in his 1st season! So who was the better player? And don't tell me Lindros was playing in the better team...we all know tha't's not true...

Anyway...I'm not saying Lindros is definitely better than Forsberg, cause that's not the case. They both are elite players and they both would have been better without tht many injuries! Forsberg is more skilled but Lindros in his prime was more effective cause of his style of play and his physical diminance!

This duscussion makes absolute no sense! You don't like Eric Lindros and there for will never understand! Keep your opinion und shut up!

marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 06:47 AM
  #108
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,161
vCash: 500
75% of success in the NHL is sustaining it. Lindros couldn't, Forsberg still is.

Besides, stop looking at offensive stats... Peter Forsberg is twice the defensive player Lindros is. No doubt about it. +/- will never tell you that.

With the benefit of hindsight, on a level playing field... I take Forsberg because Lindros at his most "dominant" still isn't as good as him. Yes, Lindros changed the game and dominated those he was in... but you don't have to be dominant to be the best player. IMO Forsberg gets the job done all across the ice better than Lindros ever did and that's all that needs to be said from me. This has nothing to do with his injuries either.

Without the benefit of hindsight, on a level playing field... I take Lindros. The scouting report on him reads as the quintessential hockey player.

Oh... and Quebec drafted him knowing he was going to hold out. This is history, you can't revise it. However, Pittsburgh drafted Lemieux knowing the same thing. EVERY team would have chosen Lindros with the number one pick. Yes, they wanted Lindros but they knew they weren't keeping him.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-12-2005, 08:45 AM
  #109
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
No, I'm not talking about Stevens! I'm talking about cheap hits! You don't get it! :lol
Now you are changing your story. You said that most hits that hurt players are cheap shots. That implies that the majority of all hits dished out when players crumple are dirty. Are you changing your mind?

"If Quebec thought Forsberg was the better player they had drafted him 1st."

You've never seen a professional team draft a player they knew they would not keep?

"No, they didn't! They wanted Lindros, that's why they chose him!"

When they drafted Lindros, they knew that he would not play for them. They also knew that he would fetch the biggest bounty on the market. Which he did.

"The facts I am talking about are goals, assists and points"

So, whomever scores the most amount of points is the best player? Is that what you are saying?

"And no, not every 1st Pick was the best player. But Lindros was!"

Then why did the THN survey of GMs (talked about earlier in this thread) state that virtually all would take Forsberg? But since Lindros is the "best player", could you perhaps chronicle for me when he lead his team to the promised land? Who plays better under pressure, Forsberg or Lindros? Sakic or Lindros? Who plays better when it counts?

"I'm not saying Lindros is definitely better than Forsberg, cause that's not the case."

But that IS what you have been expousing. So, which is it? Is he better than Forsberg or isn't he?

"You don't like Eric Lindros and there for will never understand! Keep your opinion und shut up! "

I'm sorry. I did not realize that I was debating with a 12 year old.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 09:43 AM
  #110
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
I think it is alot more consistent, since Forsberg has only played 9 NHL seasons, to judge them on the first 9 seasons played.
Well I'll start by thanking you for admitting that this is not about stats as you claimed. It's about "I think." But okay then, since you're clearly stuck on this nine season thing, let's look at the nine seasons they played together.

Forsberg 94/95 - 03/04
580 games played
741 points
1.28 points/game

Lindros 94/95 - 03/04
552 games played
645 points
1.17 points/game

Looks even uglier, doesn't it?

You think looking at nine years yields a more consistent number? Fine. Looking at these common nine years demonstrates even further that you're wrong when you state, "[Lindros] was the best player of all those involved, including Forsberg. Not a knock on Forsberg, just a fact that the stats bear out .... The facts bear that out."

And if you want to go on facts rather than stats, you'll need to reckon with the fact that 18 of 24 GMs who were polled stated they would rather have Forsberg than Lindros.


Last edited by dedalus: 03-12-2005 at 09:56 AM.
dedalus is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 10:02 AM
  #111
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
"Oh... and Quebec drafted him knowing he was going to hold out. This is history, you can't revise it. However, Pittsburgh drafted Lemieux knowing the same thing. EVERY team would have chosen Lindros with the number one pick. Yes, they wanted Lindros but they knew they weren't keeping him."

Oh, that's funny! Pittsburgh chose Lemieux knowing he was going to hold out? Then why is Mario still playing in Pittsburgh? Sounds weird to me... Talking nonsense here!

"With the benefit of hindsight, on a level playing field... I take Forsberg because Lindros at his most "dominant" still isn't as good as him. Yes, Lindros changed the game and dominated those he was in... but you don't have to be dominant to be the best player. IMO Forsberg gets the job done all across the ice better than Lindros ever did and that's all that needs to be said from me. This has nothing to do with his injuries either."

That's funny too! Lindros was the more dominant player but Forsberg was better? I laugh my ass off...Think about it!

"Now you are changing your story. You said that most hits that hurt players are cheap shots. That implies that the majority of all hits dished out when players crumple are dirty. Are you changing your mind?"

So you think you can count 1 and 1 together? I don't! Maybe you should just start thinking! Yes, most hits that hurt a player are cheap shots. And no, that doesn't mean Stevens is a cheap shot! Just think!

"But that IS what you have been expousing. So, which is it? Is he better than Forsberg or isn't he?"

Sorry, maybe I should correct that! Lindros surely isn't better, but he surley was more dominant! Does that suit you?

"I'm sorry. I did not realize that I was debating with a 12 year old."

Autsch! What is this? A 12 year old against a 8 year old?

"Looks even uglier, doesn't it?
You think looking at nine years yields a more consistent number? Fine. Looking at these common nine years demonstrates even further that you're wrong when you state, "[Lindros] was the best player of all those involved, including Forsberg. Not a knock on Forsberg, just a fact that the stats bear out."

Yes, looks uglier! But if you don't mind...I was talking about Lindro's prime, not about the whole carreer! It's no big secret that Lindros has lost a lot because of his injuries. If that gives you a kick, enjoy it! Take the best season of both and Lindros is better. Take the goals and Lindros is better. Take the first 9 years and Lindros is better. I don't care about the common 9 seasons cause that is not relevant! Taking the 9 seasons I was talking about it's all quite clear!

marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 10:15 AM
  #112
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Lindros
92-93 1.23ppg
93-94 1.49ppg
94-95 1.52ppg
95-96 1.57ppg
96-97 1.52ppg
97-98 1.13ppg
98-99 1.31ppg
99-00 1.07ppg
01-02 1.01ppg
02-03 .654ppg
03-04 .821ppg

Forsberg
94-95 1.06ppg
95-96 1.42ppg
96-97 1.32ppg
97-98 1.26ppg
98-99 1.24ppg
99-00 1.04ppg
00-01 1.22ppg
02-03 1.42ppg
03-04 1.41ppg
I like these stats. Here's what they show:
Other than in Forsberg's rookie season, there has never been a difference greater than .2 in their season PPG average. That is Lindros could never score enough to pull beyond that .2 difference.

On the other hand, we clearly see that Forsberg outscores Lindros by a whopping .77 in 02/03 and by .59 in 03/04.

Talk to me again about dominance. (And please dont' whine about Lindros's injuries since we both know that Forsberg had suffered extensive injuries himself by the 02/03 season.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by NYFAN
Lindros pre injury, is the most dominant player
*snicker* Lindros pre what injury? He hurt his knee and missed 20 games in his rookie season.

This is the thing that makes me laugh at Lindros supporters. They act like the guy got one bad break, and if it hadn't been for that ...

The fact is that the guy is brittle. That's part of what he is as a player. His supporters like to say, "If it wasn't for the injuries ..." but the fact is that his injuries weren't flukes. They weren't accidents. They were a product of the fact that the guy is easily injured. Trying to ignore that is like trying to say "Dino Ciccerelli would've been as great as Gretzky if he only had Gretzky's on-ice vision and offensive smarts."

dedalus is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 10:20 AM
  #113
dedalus
Registered User
 
dedalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,215
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Take the best season of both and Lindros is better. Take the goals and Lindros is better. Take the first 9 years and Lindros is better. I don't care about the common 9 seasons cause that is not relevant!
Ha! Thanks for agreeing with me. You use the stats you like and drop the other as "not relevant." You want to ignore stats that prove you wrong and push your as the only ones that matter. Good stuff, that.

Tell me, why exactly are first 9 seasons more relevant than their common nine seasons?

dedalus is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 10:45 AM
  #114
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dedalus
I like these stats. Here's what they show:
Other than in Forsberg's rookie season, there has never been a difference greater than .2 in their season PPG average. That is Lindros could never score enough to pull beyond that .2 difference.

On the other hand, we clearly see that Forsberg outscores Lindros by a whopping .77 in 02/03 and by .59 in 03/04.

Talk to me again about dominance. (And please dont' whine about Lindros's injuries since we both know that Forsberg had suffered extensive injuries himself by the 02/03 season.)


*snicker* Lindros pre what injury? He hurt his knee and missed 20 games in his rookie season.

This is the thing that makes me laugh at Lindros supporters. They act like the guy got one bad break, and if it hadn't been for that ...

The fact is that the guy is brittle. That's part of what he is as a player. His supporters like to say, "If it wasn't for the injuries ..." but the fact is that his injuries weren't flukes. They weren't accidents. They were a product of the fact that the guy is easily injured. Trying to ignore that is like trying to say "Dino Ciccerelli would've been as great as Gretzky if he only had Gretzky's on-ice vision and offensive smarts."
Lets not get foolish here! His head injury is what led to his demise. That is a fact! He has never been the same since. Through any other injury he has incurred, he has put up numbers better than Forsberg! The only injury that held back his career was and is the head injury! I hardly think the guy can be called brittle. His body didn't fall apart, his brain has never fully recovered, and is more prone to injury!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 10:54 AM
  #115
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
On the other hand, we clearly see that Forsberg outscores Lindros by a whopping .77 in 02/03 and by .59 in 03/04.

Talk to me again about dominance. (And please dont' whine about Lindros's injuries since we both know that Forsberg had suffered extensive injuries himself by the 02/03 season.)
I don't think 2 seasons where a player is a shell of his former self, are anything more than a poor attempt by a Forsberg supporter to try and justify his position! You can point to two seasons where evryone would admit, Lindros was not the same player anymore! I can point to 7 seasons, where Lindros was not only better, but according to your own argument, was better on a lesser team! Even in the common nine, Lindros owns 5!

NYFAN is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 11:33 AM
  #116
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Oh, that's funny! Pittsburgh chose Lemieux knowing he was going to hold out? Then why is Mario still playing in Pittsburgh? Sounds weird to me... Talking nonsense here!

That's funny too! Lindros was the more dominant player but Forsberg was better? I laugh my ass off...Think about it!
Pittsburgh reached an agreement with Lemieux. You really need to learn your history before you talk on these things. Mario wanted a million dollar contract, the Penguins weren't going to offer it to him... Mario threatened not to show up at the draft. He did, but refused to go to the podium when the selection was made. The Penguins knew this. Eventually his agents and the Penguins worked out a deal that had goal and assist bonus clauses that would make it reach $1 million if he played well enough, which he did. Where do I get this information? Besides just knowing history, I've read his biography. Now admit you were wrong about this.

Stop twisting words. We all know that when you say "dominant" you mean dominant offensively... otherwise you wouldn't be using offensive stats to back up your claim. I'll rephrase: Yes, Lindros changed the game and offensively dominated those he was in... but you don't have to be dominant offensively to be the best player.

Oh, and taking 9 seasons at all is ludicrous. Take both of their whole careers. That's the only way a comparison like this is fair. Otherwise, you can use statistics to prove whatever the hell you want.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-12-2005, 11:37 AM
  #117
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
What ignorant fools are you?

"I like these stats. Here's what they show:"

Yeah really? Then why don't you see? Even if you take all seasons Lindros has a better point average in 6 Seasons, Forsberg in 5 seasons! And if you take the goals then Lindros has a better average in 9 seasons! Got it? And no, I don't think that makes Lindros a better player! I just think Forsberg isn't better either...

On the other hand, as you like to say, it doesn't make sense to take all sesons because I am talking about Lindros prime not about his carreer! Can't you get that in your brain? Is that not simple enough for you? And because a player is easily hurt doesn't mean he isn't a good player! What ******** are you talking? Is it so hard for you to accept that Lindros was a Hall-Of-Fame-like player in his prime? C'mon, don't be such an idiot!

"Ha! Thanks for agreeing with me. You use the stats you like and drop the other as "not relevant." You want to ignore stats that prove you wrong and push your as the only ones that matter. Good stuff, that. Tell me, why exactly are first 9 seasons more relevant than their common nine seasons?"

There is no special reason! You are only too blind to understand... but I try to explain it to you: I am talking about Lindros in his prime, not about his carreer! Put that into your brain...

I don't talk about a timespan where Lindros is not the same player anymore. That doesn't make sense. I'm talking about the timespan where Lindros was the most dominant player in the league... Sorry if that's too hard for you to understand! Maybe we are speaking in a different language...

marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 11:37 AM
  #118
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,161
vCash: 500
Anyone else get the feeling Marvel and NYFAN are the same person? They both use the same manner of speaking and both put exclamation points everywhere...

just a thought...

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-12-2005, 11:46 AM
  #119
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
"Pittsburgh reached an agreement with Lemieux. You really need to learn your history before you talk on these things. Mario wanted a million dollar contract, the Penguins weren't going to offer it to him... Mario threatened not to show up at the draft. He did, but refused to go to the podium when the selection was made. The Penguins knew this. Eventually his agents and the Penguins worked out a deal that had goal and assist bonus clauses that would make it reach $1 million if he played well enough, which he did. Where do I get this information? Besides just knowing history, I've read his biography. Now admit you were wrong about this."

Good point! I must admit I am not a fan of the Penguins. There for I don't care about that! Fact is Mario did play for the Penguins and is still playing...

"Stop twisting words. We all know that when you say "dominant" you mean dominant offensively... otherwise you wouldn't be using offensive stats to back up your claim. I'll rephrase: Yes, Lindros changed the game and offensively dominated those he was in... but you don't have to be dominant offensively to be the best player."

What kind of joke is this? Lindros was a good player defensivly too.

"Oh, and taking 9 seasons at all is ludicrous. Take both of their whole careers. That's the only way a comparison like this is fair. Otherwise, you can use statistics to prove whatever the hell you want."

Oh my God! You just don't get it! OK, then take the whole carrer of both of them. Lindros has still more goals per game. And he still has more points per game then most of NHLers do... But that doesn't count either in your opinion, isn't it?


"Anyone else get the feeling Marvel and NYFAN are the same person? They both use the same manner of speaking and both put exclamation points everywhere...

just a thought..."

Please...don't think! You might get hurt!


marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 11:58 AM
  #120
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,161
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvel
Good point! I must admit I am not a fan of the Penguins. There for I don't care about that! Fact is Mario did play for the Penguins and is still playing...

What kind of joke is this? Lindros was a good player defensivly too.

Oh my God! You just don't get it! OK, then take the whole carrer of both of them. Lindros has still more goals per game. And he still has more points per game then most of NHLers do... But that doesn't count either in your opinion, isn't it?
It does count in my opinion. But I was only talking from a fair statistical standpoint. It's not like Forsberg has been 100% healthy his whole career. And by the way, you talk of Lindros in his prime... Lindros never hit his prime before his injuries. For all we know, I could be taking your side on this, but we never will know and therefore the point is moot.

Lindros WAS a good player defensively. He was never an excellent player or a great player defensively. Forsberg does EVERYTHING exceedingly well, including defense.

Here's an interesting stat for you: Over the course of his career, Lindros finished in the top 10 in points three times. Forsberg finished in the top 10 five times. See, I can twist stats too.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-12-2005, 12:15 PM
  #121
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,390
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
Anyone else get the feeling Marvel and NYFAN are the same person? They both use the same manner of speaking and both put exclamation points everywhere...

just a thought...
I have the feeling that Marvel will be one of those "Here today, gone tonight" posters that flows through every now and then.

True Blue is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 12:26 PM
  #122
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
"Here's an interesting stat for you: Over the course of his career, Lindros finished in the top 10 in points three times. Forsberg finished in the top 10 five times. See, I can twist stats too."

Sorry, that's dumm! Of course Lindros didn't finish as often in the Top 10 because he didn't play enogh games...

By the way...I am a big fan of Peter Forsberg and the Avalanche, so this is not about supporting one player. But if you don't see what happend with Lindros after 2000, then you are just an ignorant!

"It does count in my opinion. But I was only talking from a fair statistical standpoint."

Oh, and that's why you keep talking about a timespan where Lindros was not the same player anymore. Yeah, that sounds fair...

"Lindros never hit his prime before his injuries."

How dumm is this? Maybe he could have been even better without the injuries. But as we do not know this, his prime was the time in Philly!

"Lindros WAS a good player defensively. He was never an excellent player or a great player defensively. Forsberg does EVERYTHING exceedingly well, including defense."

And who says an NHL players has to be excellent defensivly? I think a power forward just needs to be good defensivley... Bit I think as the +/- shows, both players are/were very good defensively. Or do you wann tell me Lindros has only such a good +/- because he was playing in the better team? Or because of the better defense? Or because he played on the better line? That sure isn't true! We know both players played in strong teams with strong defense and on a strong line...So the difference is not very big! And of course a good +/- doesn't mean a player is the greatest two way forward on Earth, but it does show a player is responsible defensivly.

Forsberg always played wirth good players as Lindros did. Both had good wingers, Forsberg even had the better wingers. And both played before a good defense.

And here's an interesting stat for you: Lindros scored 40 or more goals 4 times. He scored 30 or more goals 7 times. Forsberg never scored more than 30 goals in his whole carreer. In 1996 Lindros scored 115 points in 73 games, Forsberg scored just 1 more point in 82 games! What about that?

marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 12:27 PM
  #123
marvel
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Country: Germany
Posts: 66
vCash: 500
"I have the feeling that Marvel will be one of those "Here today, gone tonight" posters that flows through every now and then."

And I have the feeling you should think before you write something...!

marvel is offline  
Old
03-12-2005, 01:05 PM
  #124
Tawnos
A guy with a bass
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 13,161
vCash: 500
We're moving in circles. Hockey is great because we can debate these things, but once you start moving in circles there's no point anymore.

You believe one thing, I believe another. The world keeps moving.

I'm back to thinking that you don't trade Crosby again. The only way you trade him is if he refuses to play.

Unless the deal is so overwhelming, like Calgary offering 2 first round picks, Jerome Iginla, Dion Phaneuf and Chuck Kobasew.

Tawnos is online now  
Old
03-12-2005, 01:13 PM
  #125
NYFAN
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Long Island
Country: United States
Posts: 361
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos
It does count in my opinion. But I was only talking from a fair statistical standpoint. It's not like Forsberg has been 100% healthy his whole career. And by the way, you talk of Lindros in his prime... Lindros never hit his prime before his injuries. For all we know, I could be taking your side on this, but we never will know and therefore the point is moot.

Lindros WAS a good player defensively. He was never an excellent player or a great player defensively. Forsberg does EVERYTHING exceedingly well, including defense.

Here's an interesting stat for you: Over the course of his career, Lindros finished in the top 10 in points three times. Forsberg finished in the top 10 five times. See, I can twist stats too.
Lindros was ok defensively but Forsberg does evrything exceedingly well? Then why does Lindros have a +219 career and Forsberg is a +207? If Forsberg is so excellent defensively, and he has played on better teams, shouldn't his +- be much better than Erics. Especially since Eric has played his last few seasons on one of the most porous defensive teams! Any way you slice it, Lindros is the better player up until 2002. No two ways around it. Forsberg has never been physically intimidating either like Eric was. Even as a shell of his former self, he made Thornton look like a child in a fight. Lindros possesed tools VERY FEW players in the game ever posses! It's a shame we will never know how good he could have been, lets not ignore how good he was.

NYFAN is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:32 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.