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

ESPN - Who's #1 - Most Overrated

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-01-2005, 10:06 PM
  #1
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
ESPN - Who's #1 - Most Overrated

Anyone happen to catch this on ESPN classic? I caught they very end when they were sort of recapping it, but as far as I can tell, there were 2 hockey entries: Mike Keenan in the teens somewhere, and Eric Lindros and number 4. I've looked for the full list but haven't been able to find it.

Laches is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 10:26 PM
  #2
NYRGoalieGlut*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,775
vCash: 500
It's almost a hockey entry. At least she was a girlfriend of two hockey entries. Anna Kournikova.

NYRGoalieGlut* is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 10:48 PM
  #3
Levitate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 21,703
vCash: 500
how is lindros overrated exactly...especially so high? because of the price payed to get him? why does that ultimately make him overrated (if that's the reason)...i think that's a stupid marker...overrated to me means "everyone thinks he was better than he was...he wasn't as talented or whatever than he's thought of". it doesn't mean some easy hindsite "armchair GMing" or whatever.

Lindros was simply one of the most dominating players of recent years. his talent and style and play was amazing, I haven't seen a player that was as truly frightning to see your team facing in a long time. if he wasn't beating you with skill, he was mowing over your team and making them look like kids. of course there's the inevitable forsberg comparisons...and i may take heat for this but i'll say in his prime, lindros was a more dominating player. period.

if not for the concussions, i dont' think there'd really be any questions about lindros and being overrated or anything like that...maybe i'm wrong but the man was amazing and you hated him because you knew he was gonna beat your team up and there's nothing they could do about it.

Levitate is offline  
Old
06-01-2005, 11:08 PM
  #4
Balej20*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Country: United States
Posts: 11,045
vCash: 500
I agree

Balej20* is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 10:10 AM
  #5
Firefly
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Mohawk Valley
Country: Poland
Posts: 3,464
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Firefly Send a message via Skype™ to Firefly
Quote:
Originally Posted by Levitate
it doesn't mean some easy hindsite "armchair GMing" or whatever.
It seems like 99% of talk about Lindros falls into that category unfortunately. The other 1% remembers that he was a huge talent and would have probably continued to dominate if it weren't for his health problems. Hindsight is always 20/20 indeed ESPN.

Firefly is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 10:24 AM
  #6
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
From what I can remember...

aside from injury-riddled seasons in which he didn't play, he had one sub-par season, and that was with the Rangers (and he still managed to be second in scoring and goals on that team). 817 points in 678 games (1.21 per game), ain't so bad. He carried a team on his back to the Stanley Cup finals. MVP of the league. Dominated on many nights for many seasons. He got hurt, seriously. These things happen. Heck, he's the same age as Forsberg and has more points and has played in more games. Go figure.

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 10:31 AM
  #7
Boilers*
 
Boilers*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
I think Lindros is considered over rated simply due to what the Flyers gave up to get him. Ironic that had they not done that trade Philly would most likely have won the cup with Forsberg at the helm. Debatable but it's still there.

Boilers* is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 10:59 AM
  #8
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Blood...

Forsberg would not have had Sakic, Foote and Roy, most likely, to help him win the Cup, so yes, it's very debateable. Philly was a clutch goaltender away from winning the Cup.

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 11:04 AM
  #9
GentlemanOfLeisure
Ride Space Mountain
 
GentlemanOfLeisure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: East Windsor NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 6,108
vCash: 500
Most Overrated Hockey player of my era. 1980-

Kevin Stevens

Most Underrated player.

Ron Francis

GentlemanOfLeisure is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 11:51 AM
  #10
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Coming into the league Lindros was supposed to be the ultimate package. He was just as hyped as Crosby if not more. He was expected to break records and win multiple cups so YES HE WAS OVERRATED. However, it was more due to injuries, then lack of talent or drive. The package that brought him to Philly that turned out to be massive just puts him in a worse light. Bottom line: He didn't do what was expected regardless of reason. This actually has a similar note to the Neely debate: IF he'd been healthy then maybe Philly would have a couple cups, he'd have a couple more scoring titles, ---- also we never would have traded for him... everyone's happy.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 12:42 PM
  #11
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
I like this thread. ;)

He wasn't over-rated. If you're comparing production to what Philly gave up for him, or compared to what he would have done had it not been for injuries then that, again, falls under the category of unfortunate. Was Mario Lemieux over-rated because he didn't break as many records as people thought he should have (due to injuries...) - no. There's your answer.

BigE is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:33 PM
  #12
Boilers*
 
Boilers*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
He wasn't over-rated. If you're comparing production to what Philly gave up for him, or compared to what he would have done had it not been for injuries then that, again, falls under the category of unfortunate. Was Mario Lemieux over-rated because he didn't break as many records as people thought he should have (due to injuries...) - no. There's your answer.
This from the Big E heh . Anyway Forsberg went through various injuries too so the debate really could be Forsberg vs. Lindros, but since that wasn't the trade everyone else's point totals (and future trade relevances) has to be taken into account as well. I'm not going to delve into that. It should be evident though that Philly lost bigtime.

About the goaltending well Hextall was at least a good back up IIRC and had they (Philly) gotten Roy instead of him bolting to the Avs (why do french goaltenders always seem so persnicketty) then a solid case could be made for Philly going for (and winning) the cup. Yeah Sakic was already in the Nords and they would've been perrenial playoff contenders, but thay wouldn't have had the overall depth to bargain with had it not been for the trade. The lasting effects of that trade are still evident today.

Boilers* is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:37 PM
  #13
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
He wasn't over-rated. If you're comparing production to what Philly gave up for him, or compared to what he would have done had it not been for injuries then that, again, falls under the category of unfortunate. Was Mario Lemieux over-rated because he didn't break as many records as people thought he should have (due to injuries...) - no. There's your answer.
He was supposed to be a hockey savior who could carry his team like Wayne. Sure, he did it at times, but I dont think too many people can compare him to #99 today. That's what he was supposed to be: The 3rd man behind 99 and 66. He didn't establish himself like that. So yes, he was overrated.

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 02:46 PM
  #14
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
There's no doubt...

that Philly overpaid; that goes without saying. But had the trade not gone through, it's not a forgone conclusion that Philly wins a Cup. Again, Philly still wouldn't have Roy, still wouldn't have a rock of a defenseman in Foote, and still wouldn't have a 1a center in Sakic. There's other nice pieces they would have, but it still wouldn't add up to that core of players. Can't understimate the defense that Colorado was able to put up (and it does win championships I here).

Fletch is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 05:45 PM
  #15
Laches
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 2,175
vCash: 500
Overhyped is a more accurate term to describe Lindros than overrated. He was thought of as "The Next One", someone who would be in the Gretzky/Lemieux class. He was a great player, at times even dominant, but I'm not sure even his father would contend that he lived up to that billing.

Some of the negative feeling towards Lindros is fueled by his childish refusal to play for Quebec, I think.

Laches is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 06:39 PM
  #16
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laches
Overhyped is a more accurate term to describe Lindros than overrated.
Same thing really. In the end more was expected then he could deliver. He was an amazing talent, but not that top 5 ever player. Hence, he was overrated...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 07:10 PM
  #17
Boilers*
 
Boilers*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 5,165
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
Same thing really. In the end more was expected then he could deliver. He was an amazing talent, but not that top 5 ever player. Hence, he was overrated...

This raises an interesting question. How did Lindros fare against Gretzky, Lemieux, and yes, Forsberg? I mean I don't have the numbers handy but it'd be interesting to see a top line breakdown of how he performed against them on a line vs. line basis. Chances are good that third line pluggers were against the top lines, but at some point the coach would try it, he'd have to. I can't trust my memory to that sort of thing.

Boilers* is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 07:35 PM
  #18
DA LONE RANGER
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 8
vCash: 500
Lindros Can't be Overrated

He simply got hurt and the thing that made everyone go crazy about him was his size and agility you can't compare him to crosby they are two totally different type of players. No one can say that he was a bust he put philly back on the map injuries hurt him.. U want overrated try alex daigle

DA LONE RANGER is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 07:35 PM
  #19
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
He was supposed to be a hockey savior who could carry his team like Wayne. Sure, he did it at times, but I dont think too many people can compare him to #99 today. That's what he was supposed to be: The 3rd man behind 99 and 66. He didn't establish himself like that. So yes, he was overrated.
There is a difference between not meeting expectations and being over-rated; they may be similar but they are not synonymous.

Lindros did not meet his expectations ("The Next One") but it wasn't because he wasn't good enough. Being over-rated entails a player not having the skill sets to match his reputation. Lindros very much so had the skill sets to match his billing.

BigE is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 07:46 PM
  #20
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
There is a difference between not meeting expectations and being over-rated; they may be similar but they are not synonymous.

Lindros did not meet his expectations ("The Next One") but it wasn't because he wasn't good enough. Being over-rated entails a player not having the skill sets to match his reputation. Lindros very much so had the skill sets to match his billing.
He didn't have the skill set... He was expected to be the equal of 66 and 99... Even when he was healthy he was top 5 in the game... but not 1 or 2 consistently like they were. I don't want to take away from him being a great player when healthy but he still wasnt on THAT pedestal that only 2 players have touched...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 08:07 PM
  #21
BigE
Registered User
 
BigE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,476
vCash: 500
How can you judge THAT pedestal when it requires a longevity that Lindros did not attain? This is what I'm saying. He was number one in the league and what other evidence for that would you need besides the Hart and Lester B. Pearson Trophies? The fact that he wasn't on top from there on out can be attributed to injuries...not through a lack of skill.

BigE is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 08:18 PM
  #22
Barnaby
Registered User
 
Barnaby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Port Jefferson, NY
Country: United States
Posts: 4,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigE
How can you judge THAT pedestal when it requires a longevity that Lindros did not attain? This is what I'm saying. He was number one in the league and what other evidence for that would you need besides the Hart and Lester B. Pearson Trophies? The fact that he wasn't on top from there on out can be attributed to injuries...not through a lack of skill.
When he played he was great, but he DID have healthy seasons. Ar you arguing that in those seasons he was on a level of Mario and Wayne at their best? If not he was overrated, because that was the expectation. That's why Philly gave away the core for an entire team for him...

Barnaby is offline  
Old
06-02-2005, 08:19 PM
  #23
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,395
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barnaby
He didn't have the skill set... He was expected to be the equal of 66 and 99...
He was never expected to quite put up the points that 66 & 99 did. he was expected to be a bigger, better version of Messier, which he was when healthy.

John Flyers Fan 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 10:34 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.