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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

The Great Debate(rehashed): Forsberg vs Lindros

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-08-2014, 08:19 AM
  #1
whskybarJM
Registered User
 
whskybarJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: ca
Country: United States
Posts: 925
vCash: 500
The Great Debate(rehashed): Forsberg vs Lindros

I'd still make that trade from a flyers perspective after the draft and I am thinking I would still take lindros in hindsight.


yes Forsberg was an amazing player and playmaker. could score when he wanted and he opened the ice.

when it all comes down to the argument it usually leads back the the stanley cups, which you can not ignore, and fopa definitely performed. You can not however ignore the fact there was an all timer in net.

flyers with a hall of fame goalie would of won at least one cup with lindros and everyone would look at him different.

whskybarJM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 08:28 AM
  #2
nikonsniper*
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 901
vCash: 500
Playing Forsberg, you were afraid to get scored on.

Playing Lindros, you were afraid to get put through the glass, then get scored on.

nikonsniper* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 10:38 AM
  #3
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 5,264
vCash: 500
There's a debate (a great one, even) about whether this was a good trade?


Quote:
Originally Posted by whskybarJM View Post
when it all comes down to the argument it usually leads back the the stanley cups, which you can not ignore, and fopa definitely performed. You can not however ignore the fact there was an all timer in net.
The Flyers traded the Nordiques a draft pick used for Jocelyn Thibault, the key player Montreal wanted in the trade for the all-timer. The $15 million the Flyers also gave the Nordiques paid for the all-timer for three years.

If you want to optimistically call Forsberg for Lindros even, fine. Everything else involved was a loss (Steve Duchesne, Ron Hextall, Mike Ricci, and Chris Simon among others were thrown in!) that in some part touched the acquisitions of Rob Blake, Ray Bourque, Adam Deadmarsh, Theo Fleury, Mike Keane, Uwe Krupp, Claude Lemieux, "The Sheriff" Scott Parker, Shjon Podein, Steven Reinprecht, Patrick Roy, Paul Stastny, and Alex Tanguay.

The only way the trade looks good for the Flyers is if the Nordiques were hasty enough to deal Forsberg when he pushed back his arrival date in North America. Instead, they waited for him and got a player who was later willing to take a multi-year contract of half his worth when the team was looking at losing one of their top-two Centers in 1997 to free agency. Forsberg didn't just help out on the ice; he made it possible to keep the team together after the first Stanley Cup.

quoipourquoi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 12:59 PM
  #4
steve141
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whskybarJM View Post
I'd still make that trade from a flyers perspective after the draft and I am thinking I would still take lindros in hindsight.


yes Forsberg was an amazing player and playmaker. could score when he wanted and he opened the ice.

when it all comes down to the argument it usually leads back the the stanley cups, which you can not ignore, and fopa definitely performed. You can not however ignore the fact there was an all timer in net.

flyers with a hall of fame goalie would of won at least one cup with lindros and everyone would look at him different.
quoipourquoi eplained why the trade was bad. I just want to touch on the assertion that the Flyers would have won with Roy in net. We can never know of course, but goal scoring was a much bigger problem for Lindros' Flyers than goaltending.

Here's how many goals the Flyers scored in the final game of each of Lindros' play off runs:

1995: 2
1996: 1
1997: 1
1998: 2
2000: 1

I fact, only once during Lindros career with the Flyers did his team lose a playoff game when they scored more than two goals. Goaltending was not the issue.

steve141 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 01:49 PM
  #5
gudzilla
Registered User
 
gudzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,337
vCash: 500
if lindros would have been healthy, this would have been a whole different story

gudzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 01:57 PM
  #6
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida pwnthers View Post
if lindros would have been healthy, this would have been a whole different story
In other words...if Lindros would have played a completely different game, this would have been a whole different story.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 02:11 PM
  #7
gudzilla
Registered User
 
gudzilla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 5,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
In other words...if Lindros would have played a completely different game, this would have been a whole different story.
not quite, if he kept his head up, it wouldn't have been that bad.

now, the injuries were mainly because of him being head down and hit hard, but the only reason why this is so discussed as one of the most loopsided trades is because his injuries.

gudzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 02:25 PM
  #8
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 4,992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida pwnthers View Post
if lindros would have been healthy, this would have been a whole different story
Because Forsberg were healthy? Sorry, but Lidros is losing here and it's because he couldn't learn how to play with men.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 04:49 PM
  #9
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,558
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida pwnthers View Post
if lindros would have been healthy, this would have been a whole different story
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
In other words...if Lindros would have played a completely different game, this would have been a whole different story.
It would have been great to see both guys have healthy careers butt eh bottom line is that the 90's onward brought a huge, significant increase in the number of career altering injuries to elite NHL players.

If one is going to blame Eric for getting injured at least be consistent and hold guys with short careers in earlier times to the same standard as both examples are ones of era and not of individual players skillsets or strengths or weakness.

as for the OP, Foppa was just better overall than Eric was but both guys can be under rated at times IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-08-2014, 05:06 PM
  #10
Eisen
Registered User
 
Eisen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Eugene
Country: United States
Posts: 9,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida pwnthers View Post
not quite, if he kept his head up, it wouldn't have been that bad.

now, the injuries were mainly because of him being head down and hit hard, but the only reason why this is so discussed as one of the most loopsided trades is because his injuries.
But Lindros couldn't handle the puck with his head up. That's a skill too. And a rather important one.

Eisen is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 09:00 AM
  #11
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,156
vCash: 500
Two of the best ever in their prime, I usually go with Forsberg just barely.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 09:42 AM
  #12
I Hate Chris Butler
Backlund Fan Club
 
I Hate Chris Butler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,191
vCash: 150
Forsberg's prime lasted longer than Lindros' career.

I Hate Chris Butler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 09:46 AM
  #13
VanIslander
Don't waste my time
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Two of the best ever in their prime, I usually go with Forsberg just barely.
Agreed on both counts.

Forsberg was by far the better passer and better at hockey sense and - believe it our not - PROTECTING THE PUCK!

But Lindros was better at bulldozing through traffic, at recovering pucks in the offensive zone, and at wrist shots.

Both were UNARGUABLY top-3 of their era at center (so there's no competition with stratosphere-reachin' Jagr, Hasek).

INJURIES due to their style cost them so much. Tony Granato to lesser extent comes immediately to mind. *sigh* Playing a physical game in the Dead Puck Era was a ticking time bomb.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 10:11 AM
  #14
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 565
vCash: 500
I've always thought Forsberg's teammates were better than what Lindros had in Philly. Not just from a goaltending standpoint. The defense was better and you had another superstar forward in Sakic. Lindros had John Leclair, but he wasn't really in Sakic's league. As good as Forsberg played in 1996, Sakic was even better in the playoffs. Hell, Forsberg didn't even play in the final rounds of the 2001 playoffs, and they still won without him. Much of that was due to Roy and having one of the best teams we've seen in the last 20 years.

Lindros did have good teammates in Philly, but not in the same class and not as well rounded a team. He also had more pressure on him being the franchise player. Forsberg had two other guys to share the franchise player label with, and Sakic was the captain of the team. I don't remember Forsberg having to carry the franchise there.

Lindros did have highly skilled teammates by the time he landed in New York, but that team was a disaster that never used its talent properly. Not to mention, Lindros just wasn't the same player anymore.

GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 10:14 AM
  #15
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I've always thought Forsberg's teammates were better than what Lindros had in Philly. Not just from a goaltending standpoint. The defense was better and you had another superstar forward in Sakic. Lindros had John Leclair, but he wasn't really in Sakic's league. As good as Forsberg played in 1996, Sakic was even better in the playoffs. Hell, Forsberg didn't even play in the final rounds of the 2001 playoffs, and they still won without him. Much of that was due to Roy and having one of the best teams we've seen in the last 20 years.

Lindros did have good teammates in Philly, but not in the same class and not as well rounded a team. He also had more pressure on him being the franchise player. Forsberg had two other guys to share the franchise player label with, and Sakic was the captain of the team. I don't remember Forsberg having to carry the franchise there.

Lindros did have highly skilled teammates by the time he landed in New York, but that team was a disaster that never used its talent properly. Not to mention, Lindros just wasn't the same player anymore.
Eric Lindros was part of the best line in hockey in his prime, and Forsberg didn't play with Sakic much at even strength. Saying one of these players has a decisive advantage for linemates in their primes is wrong IMO.

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 10:21 AM
  #16
GMR
Registered User
 
GMR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Eric Lindros was part of the best line in hockey in his prime, and Forsberg didn't play with Sakic much at even strength. Saying one of these players has a decisive advantage for linemates in their primes is wrong IMO.
I wasn't talking about linemates. I was talking about the entire team, most notably, team success. Forsberg had a better rounded team and an elite goalie. Hence, better results, even when he wasn't playing in the 2001 playoffs.

Unfortunately, many people seem to give Forsberg the nod over Lindros because of team success. However, I think every Avalanche team from 1996-2003 was better than the 1997 Flyers team that got swept in the Finals. I don't see Forsberg even taking the Flyers to the Finals in 1997, if the roles were reversed.


Last edited by GMR: 01-09-2014 at 04:06 PM.
GMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 10:39 PM
  #17
tony d
Whatareyousmiling at
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 50,141
vCash: 500
Thisclose but Peter Forsberg. Shame though what injuries did to both men in hampering their careers.

__________________
tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 11:07 PM
  #18
Beef Invictus
Global Moderator
Eye Monster Invictus
 
Beef Invictus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Centreville
Country: Lord Howe Island
Posts: 61,524
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by whskybarJM View Post
I'd still make that trade from a flyers perspective after the draft and I am thinking I would still take lindros in hindsight.


yes Forsberg was an amazing player and playmaker. could score when he wanted and he opened the ice.

when it all comes down to the argument it usually leads back the the stanley cups, which you can not ignore, and fopa definitely performed. You can not however ignore the fact there was an all timer in net.

flyers with a hall of fame goalie would of won at least one cup with lindros and everyone would look at him different.
I think the Flyers needed more than a goalie. Outside of the top two lines I couldn't name anybody worthwhile. That era always struck me as lacking depth compared to the really serious annual contenders.

__________________
Saturday night, I like to raise a little harm. I'll sleep when I'm dead.
Beef Invictus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-09-2014, 11:29 PM
  #19
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,080
vCash: 500
I'd still take Lindros, and I'd line him up against Forsberg without thinking twice if ever that game appeared on the schedule. Wouldn't make the trade, because of the cost vs what we know we get out of them in hindsight. But if I have Lindros, I go into any match-up (particularly during their "era") decently confident that I have the advantage at 1C, and it's up to everyone else to carry weight from there.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 03:03 AM
  #20
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country:
Posts: 22,910
vCash: 50
Not touching the trade, but I do have few things I dislike about Lindros.

He wasn't able to change his game accordingly for him to survive in the NHL. Yes, he was probably the strongest guy in the league, but that didn't stop guys leveling him when he skated head down.

I believe that in order to Lindros cut down the injuries, he would have had to change his game more than Forsberg. If both of these guys would have tried to tone down their game in order of being more durable, I believe Forsberg would have been more efficient player.

I have no way of backing this up tough, I just feel like it.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 05:46 AM
  #21
feffan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Malmö
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I wasn't talking about linemates. I was talking about the entire team, most notably, team success. Forsberg had a better rounded team and an elite goalie. Hence, better results, even when he wasn't playing in the 2001 playoffs.

Unfortunately, many people seem to give Forsberg the nod over Lindros because of team success. However, I think every Avalanche team from 1996-2003 was better than the 1997 Flyers team that got swept in the Finals. I don't see Forsberg even taking the Flyers to the Finals in 1997, if the roles were reversed.
In my opionon Flyers, much like the Blues, have no excuses for not winning a cup there. They were good built teams. Both, depending on year, in the discussion with Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and NJ on winning the cup. For sure they were up against som great teams, but everyone is and every era has does who come short... this had St Louis and Philadelphia. And for the record both of them finished ahead of Colorado in the standings a couple of times.

Saying that the 1997 Flyers wasnīt superior to any ot the Avalanche-teams is quite wrong in my opionion. That was a well balanaced team. Good steady defencemen, with an nowadays underappreciated Desjardins leading the pack, some fire power at forward, good role players and great center depth. A Lindros-BrindīAmour-Otto down the center line is a good start for any team wanting a good run. That said, a more reliable goalie would have been prefered... But their biggest fault was that Lindros (and others...) didnīt have the ability that for example Forsberg had to not only outmuscle your opponents, but when facing a defender like Lidstrom, also being able to match him in hockey-IQ and being able to adapt their game.

Forsberg also led the playoffs in scoring twice without even getting to the finals. And 2001 Colorado wouldnīt have come out of the second round without him. He was leading the scoring race threw the first two rounds if I remember correctley. Weird enough, even if not playing the most important role in any of the SC, he was the most consistent Colorado playoff-player. Much like Potvin never getting a Conn Smythe (Potvin obviously being the superior player...). He did his part. And if big parts ot the team, Sakic and Roy included, didnīt disappear some years/series they could have had a couple more cups.

This is close and you could probably argue both. But mentioning playoff is begging for Forsberg to win. I havenīt decided yet, and Iīve been thinking about this since late 90īs . Peak Lindros is something of the most frigtening Iīve seen. With or without puck. Forsberg altough was more frigthening with the puck. And when he got that look in his eyes almost as frigthening even without the puck...

feffan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 09:15 AM
  #22
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 27,080
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TAnnala View Post
Not touching the trade, but I do have few things I dislike about Lindros.

He wasn't able to change his game accordingly for him to survive in the NHL. Yes, he was probably the strongest guy in the league, but that didn't stop guys leveling him when he skated head down.

I believe that in order to Lindros cut down the injuries, he would have had to change his game more than Forsberg. If both of these guys would have tried to tone down their game in order of being more durable, I believe Forsberg would have been more efficient player.

I have no way of backing this up tough, I just feel like it.
Well, head down or not, he "survived" the NHL just fine... for a while. People have to remember, it took a couple of possibly the best open ice hitters in the history of the game to eventually damage Lindros beyond repair. People ran at him all the time, and he ran at people all the time, but it was Stevens and Kasparaitis that eventually left a mark with hits that would now result in long term suspensions. It's not like awareness of Lindros' tendency put a piece of Kryptonite in the pocket of every fore-checker or defender that stood in his way, gradually/eventually limiting Eric's effectiveness. People these days talk almost exclusively in terms of how Eric was his own worst enemy (not entirely untrue), or couldn't possibly avoid injury the way he played, while forgetting exactly what lengths a couple of players had to go to in order to eventually exact the kind of career-impacting toll on Lindros that we're talking about.

Basically, I don't think Lindros had to change much about how he played. Yeah, he played with his head down a bit (still had near elite vision when it came to passing/setting up goals), but that was never really an issue, even at the NHL level, because he could take just about any "regular" hit from just about anyone in the league, night after night, regardless. Maybe he'd have to be more careful against the generally bigger league of today, for example, but then again the league of today also protects players much, much more from predatory cases like this.

If not for those two guys, specifically, taking the liberties they did with Lindros, who knows how much longer we would have gone without talking about his tendency to keep his head down? How much longer until the league started to seriously look into the ramifications of hits to the head, for that matter? Being faced with Lindros and Kariya in a fairly small window forced everyone to start thinking about this kind of thing a lot more.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 09:28 AM
  #23
TAnnala
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Oulu
Country:
Posts: 22,910
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, head down or not, he "survived" the NHL just fine... for a while. People have to remember, it took a couple of possibly the best open ice hitters in the history of the game to eventually damage Lindros beyond repair. People ran at him all the time, and he ran at people all the time, but it was Stevens and Kasparaitis that eventually left a mark with hits that would now result in long term suspensions. It's not like awareness of Lindros' tendency put a piece of Kryptonite in the pocket of every fore-checker or defender that stood in his way, gradually/eventually limiting Eric's effectiveness. People these days talk almost exclusively in terms of how Eric was his own worst enemy (not entirely untrue), or couldn't possibly avoid injury the way he played, while forgetting exactly what lengths a couple of players had to go to in order to eventually exact the kind of career-impacting toll on Lindros that we're talking about.

Basically, I don't think Lindros had to change much about how he played. Yeah, he played with his head down a bit (still had near elite vision when it came to passing/setting up goals), but that was never really an issue, even at the NHL level, because he could take just about any "regular" hit from just about anyone in the league, night after night, regardless. Maybe he'd have to be more careful against the generally bigger league of today, for example, but then again the league of today also protects players much, much more from predatory cases like this.

If not for those two guys, specifically, taking the liberties they did with Lindros, who knows how much longer we would have gone without talking about his tendency to keep his head down? How much longer until the league started to seriously look into the ramifications of hits to the head, for that matter? Being faced with Lindros and Kariya in a fairly small window forced everyone to start thinking about this kind of thing a lot more.
Good points, and my choice of wording "survive" wasn't exactly accurate. Lindros was top-5 player in the game for a period of time, so he did survive just fine.

But I do believe that if it wouldn't have been Stevens who got Lindros number, someone else would have. I don't think that his style of skating head down is the only reason he got concussed. It was probably also the fact that before the NHL Lindros never had to worry about anyone. He was just so big and mean that there simply wasn't a guy in his class before he hit the NHL ice. That might have led him to, falsely, believe he is bigger than the rest.

But if we are talking about today, Lindros would do just darn fine. There is no-one in the league who can take prime Lindros out without out-right breaking the rules.

TAnnala is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 09:30 AM
  #24
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMR View Post
I've always thought Forsberg's teammates were better than what Lindros had in Philly.
That is because it is true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Eric Lindros was part of the best line in hockey in his prime, and Forsberg didn't play with Sakic much at even strength. Saying one of these players has a decisive advantage for linemates in their primes is wrong IMO.
He said teammates. And he is correct.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
I'd still take Lindros, and I'd line him up against Forsberg without thinking twice if ever that game appeared on the schedule. Wouldn't make the trade, because of the cost vs what we know we get out of them in hindsight. But if I have Lindros, I go into any match-up (particularly during their "era") decently confident that I have the advantage at 1C, and it's up to everyone else to carry weight from there.
Right, the trade was horrible as it turned out, but Lindros was a force until the injuries caught up with him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Well, head down or not, he "survived" the NHL just fine... for a while. People have to remember, it took a couple of possibly the best open ice hitters in the history of the game to eventually damage Lindros beyond repair. People ran at him all the time, and he ran at people all the time, but it was Stevens and Kasparaitis that eventually left a mark with hits that would now result in long term suspensions. It's not like awareness of Lindros' tendency put a piece of Kryptonite in the pocket of every fore-checker or defender that stood in his way, gradually/eventually limiting Eric's effectiveness. People these days talk almost exclusively in terms of how Eric was his own worst enemy (not entirely untrue), or couldn't possibly avoid injury the way he played, while forgetting exactly what lengths a couple of players had to go to in order to eventually exact the kind of career-impacting toll on Lindros that we're talking about.

Basically, I don't think Lindros had to change much about how he played. Yeah, he played with his head down a bit (still had near elite vision when it came to passing/setting up goals), but that was never really an issue, even at the NHL level, because he could take just about any "regular" hit from just about anyone in the league, night after night, regardless. Maybe he'd have to be more careful against the generally bigger league of today, for example, but then again the league of today also protects players much, much more from predatory cases like this.

If not for those two guys, specifically, taking the liberties they did with Lindros, who knows how much longer we would have gone without talking about his tendency to keep his head down? How much longer until the league started to seriously look into the ramifications of hits to the head, for that matter? Being faced with Lindros and Kariya in a fairly small window forced everyone to start thinking about this kind of thing a lot more.
Yeah, it was a king of the hill, live by the sword die by the sword sort of thing with Lindros.

People were trying to knock him from his perch and instead of avoiding them he accepted the challenge from all of them.

Stevens got the last blindside shoulder to the chin but they went at it often before that with Lindros coming out on top as well.

The keep your head up meme suits the narrative quite well but when a player with the hockey IQ of Crosby runs into Steckel of his own accord and starts suffering the same sort of concussion problems as Lindros.. I think it is overblown. The Devils used to try and funnel people into the killzone of Stevens and Lindros happened to fumble the puck at the wrong time that day.. that's for sure.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-10-2014, 10:01 AM
  #25
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 3,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by feffan View Post
In my opionon Flyers, much like the Blues, have no excuses for not winning a cup there. They were good built teams. Both, depending on year, in the discussion with Colorado, Detroit, Dallas and NJ on winning the cup. For sure they were up against som great teams, but everyone is and every era has does who come short... this had St Louis and Philadelphia. And for the record both of them finished ahead of Colorado in the standings a couple of times.

Saying that the 1997 Flyers wasnīt superior to any ot the Avalanche-teams is quite wrong in my opionion. That was a well balanaced team. Good steady defencemen, with an nowadays underappreciated Desjardins leading the pack, some fire power at forward, good role players and great center depth. A Lindros-BrindīAmour-Otto down the center line is a good start for any team wanting a good run. That said, a more reliable goalie would have been prefered... But their biggest fault was that Lindros (and others...) didnīt have the ability that for example Forsberg had to not only outmuscle your opponents, but when facing a defender like Lidstrom, also being able to match him in hockey-IQ and being able to adapt their game.

Forsberg also led the playoffs in scoring twice without even getting to the finals. And 2001 Colorado wouldnīt have come out of the second round without him. He was leading the scoring race threw the first two rounds if I remember correctley. Weird enough, even if not playing the most important role in any of the SC, he was the most consistent Colorado playoff-player. Much like Potvin never getting a Conn Smythe (Potvin obviously being the superior player...). He did his part. And if big parts ot the team, Sakic and Roy included, didnīt disappear some years/series they could have had a couple more cups.

This is close and you could probably argue both. But mentioning playoff is begging for Forsberg to win. I havenīt decided yet, and Iīve been thinking about this since late 90īs . Peak Lindros is something of the most frigtening Iīve seen. With or without puck. Forsberg altough was more frigthening with the puck. And when he got that look in his eyes almost as frigthening even without the puck...
Good post, I especially agree with the bolded.

Fred Taylor 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 02:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. Đ2016 All Rights Reserved.