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.

Should not be in or make the HHOF

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-20-2006, 07:18 PM
  #1
The Kingslayer
Registered User
 
The Kingslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Yuck horse piss!
Country: Cambodia
Posts: 22,337
vCash: 500
Should not be in or make the HHOF

Which players should not be in the HHOF who have already been inducted and which active players should not make the HHOF who are most likely going to?

The Kingslayer is offline  
Old
01-21-2006, 12:15 PM
  #2
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,998
vCash: 500
Gilles, Federko and Pulford are the no brainers of guys who shoudlnt be in there. After that I've heard grumblings about Barber, Lafontaine, Mullen and even Fuhr. Barber was a fine talent who put up a bunch of 80 point seasons outside of his 112 point campaign in '76. He scored some big playoff goals for Philly though and every time they had a long drive he was a huge factor. Lafontaine was an elite talent. his '92-93 season put him over the edge for the HOF. Mullen is a guy who if he was Canadian would not be in the Hall. he's the first American to score 500 goals. And other than his '89 season doesnt have much to offer. But I'll admit his '89 season was huge so that may have helped.

And anyone who thinks Grant Fuhr shouldnt be in the Hall of fame is a new hockey fan or a really dumb one, or maybe even an Isles fan. Fuhr won 5 Cups, and was a Vezina Trophy winner in '88. Coupled with his two post season all-star selections ('82, '88) and his two Canada Cup appearances he was always a shoo-in. Plus his wins total compared to his career losses is outstanding. But Fuhr was best known as a clutch goalie.

Big Phil is offline  
Old
01-21-2006, 11:34 PM
  #3
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Debates about HOf are always interesting because it is so subjective and political. I agree on federko, Giles & Pulford . Also am against Lafontaine (only one great season but a token American like mullen), and Mullen. Also Fuhr (must be dumb and know nothing about hockey per Big Phil). being an average goalie on an offensive power house doesn't cut it. There is a site called Hockey World Wide Hall Of fame where they revoted the selections year by year and none of these guys have made it along with others like Shutt, Sittler, Rod gilbert, laprade and Tony Esposito among others. The WWHOF is my HOF. It is so much more logical and objective,

pappyline is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 12:18 AM
  #4
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
There is a site called Hockey World Wide Hall Of fame where they revoted the selections year by year and none of these guys have made it along with others like Shutt, Sittler, Rod gilbert, laprade and Tony Esposito among others. The WWHOF is my HOF. It is so much more logical and objective,
Tony Esposito isn't in? 3 time first team All-star (two 2nd team), #5 in all time wins, holds modern day record for shutouts in a season...

That's just ridiculous. How many goalies even made it in there?


Last edited by arrbez: 01-22-2006 at 01:02 AM.
arrbez is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 02:02 PM
  #5
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
Tony Esposito isn't in? 3 time first team All-star (two 2nd team), #5 in all time wins, holds modern day record for shutouts in a season...

That's just ridiculous. How many goalies even made it in there?
But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).

pappyline is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 05:03 PM
  #6
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
As stated before in an earlier discussion, the WWHOF is to be commended for their efforts to try something, instead of just complaining about the current HHOF. However, they have ruined their own credibility, and have less credibility than the HHOF. Bobby Clarke is one of the 10 greatest all-round centres ever, a force with offence, defence, leadership, physical play, etc., that is almost unmatched in the history of the game. He was passed over several times. Kurri and Fetisov, who are among the top-10 all-time at their positions, haven't gotten in, either. Decisions like this kill credibility as much as letting in Gillies.

Tony Esposito's record speaks for itself. He had a phenomenal career. His playoff record is what keeps him out of discussion for the top 10 goalies ever, but he's definitely HHOF-worthy.

Grant Fuhr is in the HHOF because he won. Period. Like Cheevers, the GAA, save percentage and awards meant nothing to him. All that meant was wins. He made the saves when they counted. One of the best big game goalies of all-time, and one of the best big-save goalies of all-time.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 06:46 PM
  #7
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
As stated before in an earlier discussion, the WWHOF is to be commended for their efforts to try something, instead of just complaining about the current HHOF. However, they have ruined their own credibility, and have less credibility than the HHOF. Bobby Clarke is one of the 10 greatest all-round centres ever, a force with offence, defence, leadership, physical play, etc., that is almost unmatched in the history of the game. He was passed over several times. Kurri and Fetisov, who are among the top-10 all-time at their positions, haven't gotten in, either. Decisions like this kill credibility as much as letting in Gillies.

Tony Esposito's record speaks for itself. He had a phenomenal career. His playoff record is what keeps him out of discussion for the top 10 goalies ever, but he's definitely HHOF-worthy.

Grant Fuhr is in the HHOF because he won. Period. Like Cheevers, the GAA, save percentage and awards meant nothing to him. All that meant was wins. He made the saves when they counted. One of the best big game goalies of all-time, and one of the best big-save goalies of all-time.
You have a point. There is no question that Clarke is a deserving HOFer (wether he is in the top ten all time is another debate, there have been a lot of great centermen over the years), However the WWHOF Is much more selective and has stricter rules. You must be retire 5 years to be eligible. Clarke first became eligible in 89. Here is who they selected each year from 89-2001 (Players only, excluding Builders & oldtimers:

1989

pappyline is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 06:58 PM
  #8
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
You have a point. There is no question that Clarke is a deserving HOFer (wether he is in the top ten all time is another debate, there have been a lot of great centermen over the years), However the WWHOF Is much more selective and has stricter rules. You must be retire 5 years to be eligible. Clarke first became eligible in 89. Here is who they selected each year from 89-2001 (Players only, excluding Builders & oldtimers:

1989
1989 no one
1990 Tretiak
1991 park
1992 bossy
1993 potvin
1994 Dionne & perrault
1995 Keon
1996 Lafleur, S. savard
1997 Robinson, yakashev
1998 maltsev, salming
1999 trottier
2000 Stasny
2001 Clarke, Gainey

You could argue that Clarke should have made it ahead of some of these.Note that they never select more than one or two a year and some years pick no one, Note that Fuhr hasn't hit the 5 year mark yet & T. esposita is borderline in the Oldtimers vote. Both may very well make it (altough I would disagree on both), I think the WWHOF selection commiittee has every bit as much credibility as the Officail HOF committee.

pappyline is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 08:24 PM
  #9
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
1989 no one
1990 Tretiak
1991 park
1992 bossy
1993 potvin
1994 Dionne & perrault
1995 Keon
1996 Lafleur, S. savard
1997 Robinson, yakashev
1998 maltsev, salming
1999 trottier
2000 Stasny
2001 Clarke, Gainey

You could argue that Clarke should have made it ahead of some of these.Note that they never select more than one or two a year and some years pick no one, Note that Fuhr hasn't hit the 5 year mark yet & T. esposita is borderline in the Oldtimers vote. Both may very well make it (altough I would disagree on both), I think the WWHOF selection commiittee has every bit as much credibility as the Officail HOF committee.
Of the centres selected from 1989 to 2001, the only one I would take ahead of Clarke is Trottier. Perrault was an excellent centre (who didn't even get in on his first attempt), Dionne was not a clutch scorer, Keon was a terrific player but not in Clarke's class, and Stastny was a wonderfully skilled player, but again, not the all-round force that Clarke was.

13 attempts for Clarke to get in is more harmful to this organization's credibility than the HHOF inducting Gillies.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 08:49 PM
  #10
pappyline
Registered User
 
pappyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Mass/formerly Ont
Country: United States
Posts: 4,159
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Of the centres selected from 1989 to 2001, the only one I would take ahead of Clarke is Trottier. Perrault was an excellent centre (who didn't even get in on his first attempt), Dionne was not a clutch scorer, Keon was a terrific player but not in Clarke's class, and Stastny was a wonderfully skilled player, but again, not the all-round force that Clarke was.

13 attempts for Clarke to get in is more harmful to this organization's credibility than the HHOF inducting Gillies.
Agrre that Clarke should have made it earlier but disagree that a long delay on a deserving entry hurts their credibility more than electing non-deserving players as the offical HOF does (gilies, Pulford etc). It should be tough to get elected. It probably hurt Clarl in retrospect because he is an Eagleson kiss ***.

pappyline is offline  
Old
01-22-2006, 11:31 PM
  #11
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).
Just based on one play? Pat Roy hot-dogged his team out of the playoffs a few years back...which is worse?

Did he consistantly choke, or just the one goal that haunted him forever ala Cloutier, Lalime, etc?

arrbez is offline  
Old
01-23-2006, 10:01 AM
  #12
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Back to the poster's original question, I don't think Dave Andreychuk belongs. He certainly improved his chances with his performance in Tampa from 2002-2004, when he went from a one-dimensional power play specialist to a leader and a defensive force who could still chip in offensively (Andreychuk and Tim Taylor's leadership is the primary reason for Tampa's two-year turn-around). But he was never regarded as one of the game's top players. Never had 100 points, never had a strong playoff in his prime. At 5-on-5, he was a good, but not a great, player. Dino Ciccarelli was, for my money, a better player, and Dino's been passed over four times already.

Yes, Andreychuk is the all-time leader in power play goals, but is that really an enamouring record? Not all records are created equally, and to me, Andreychuk's power play goals record is nowhere near as impressive as say, H. Richard's 11 Cups or Gartner's 17 30-goal seasons. (A streak only interrupted by the lockout).

As harmful as Gillies induction was, to me, it would be much more damaging if Pierre Turgeon were to be inducted. At least when scouts compare a player to Gillies, it's meant as a compliment. Comparisons to Turgeon are usually reserved for players with elite skill who are soft and lacking in intensity. Turgeon's regular season numbers are definitely impressive, but outside of the 1999 playoffs (when he saved his job in St. Louis), he never really did much in the post season. There's more to evaluating players than just points. Turgeon will set the new standard for all-time points among non-HHOF players.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
01-23-2006, 04:53 PM
  #13
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
Debates about HOf are always interesting because it is so subjective and political. I agree on federko, Giles & Pulford . Also am against Lafontaine (only one great season but a token American like mullen), and Mullen. Also Fuhr (must be dumb and know nothing about hockey per Big Phil). being an average goalie on an offensive power house doesn't cut it. ,

Average? I guess you must have been in a coma during the 1987 Canada Cup. If you want to see clutch goaltending at its best then watch that. Specifically game 2 of the CC Finals. In OT the Russians had glorious chances to end the series but Fuhr held them in there and as much as people talk about the Gretzky/Lemieux magic, there would have never been that magic had Fuhr not saved Game 2 for them. Fuhr isnt in ther top 5 of all time in goalies, but if the game is on the line he's in my top 3 for sure.

How can 5 Cups two all-star selections, One Vezina, one Hart trophy runner up and over 400 wins not get you in the HOF? Plus if it was 5-4 late in the game Fuhr won it for you.

Big Phil is offline  
Old
01-23-2006, 05:24 PM
  #14
SML
Registered User
 
SML's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 3,743
vCash: 500
The bar keeps getting raised, and what used to be a lock to get in (In my mind, 500 goals, 1000 points) shouldn't really be enough any more. It's not that uncommon for guys to play near 20 years now. Should a guy who scores 50 points every year be in the hall of fame? I don't think so. It should be broken down to a PPG average, that takes into account guys like Neely who's career was shortened. (But who I don't think was good enough, long enough to make it in, but did anyway.) Should Bernie Nicholls be in the HOF? I don't think so at all. If there was a hall of really good, yes, but I think the HOF should be reserved for guys who truly were the greatest and there seems to be alot of mediocrity creeping in. I see your point about "token" Americans, and while it's a little offensive, I understand. If some guy breaks in the league from Jamaica (I'm using that because I don't think there is anyone from there) He shouldn't get in because he's the first Jamaican to reach X amount of this or that. Grant Fuhr won cups. That's always going to be the trump card of stats when it boils down to it. You can win all the games you want, and get on all the allstar teams in the world, but Rings won gets things done.

SML is offline  
Old
01-23-2006, 06:52 PM
  #15
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,356
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by murray
But choked when it counted. Letting in an easy shot from center ice in the 7th game of the 1971 Stanley cup final is reason enough to keep him out in my book. Unfortunately he did make the official HOFand may yet make the WWHOF (He is close on the veteran list).
If playoff impact is important in their criteria, how did Dionne make it in? Espo was as important to goaltending as Dionne was to forwards, and at least Espo made it to the finals.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 06:57 PM
  #16
El_Scoobo
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Your Imagination
Country: Canada
Posts: 530
vCash: 500
What about Fedorov?? Will he make it???

How about Andreychuk, Turgeon and/or Recchi?

--these guys all have quite a few points but I know I never considered any of them to be in the top group of players at any time. I was a bit surprised that Pierre had over 1200 points.

El_Scoobo is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 07:33 PM
  #17
Metallian*
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 13,859
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Scoobo
What about Fedorov?? Will he make it???

How about Andreychuk, Turgeon and/or Recchi?

--these guys all have quite a few points but I know I never considered any of them to be in the top group of players at any time. I was a bit surprised that Pierre had over 1200 points.

Fedorov was the 1st russian to get over 1000 points, yes

Andreychuk, shouldnt be, but might make it later. If Cam Neely can get in, Andreychuk can get it. Heck, anyone can get in...

Turgeon....maybe. He has the numbers

Recchi...see: Andreychuk

Metallian* is offline  
Old
01-24-2006, 11:33 PM
  #18
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metallian
Fedorov was the 1st russian to get over 1000 points, yes

Andreychuk, shouldnt be, but might make it later. If Cam Neely can get in, Andreychuk can get it. Heck, anyone can get in...

Turgeon....maybe. He has the numbers

Recchi...see: Andreychuk
Fedorov is a lock. He wasn't the MVP of any of those Detroit teams that won the Cup, but he played a key role. Despite his Hart Trophy and his superb defensive play, his regular season accomplishments would leave him as borderline. His role on three Cup championship teams gets him in.

Turgeon and Andreychuk I discussed already. Turgeon will set the standard in terms of numbers for players not in the Hall. Too many negative connotations are associated with the name Pierre Turgeon.

Andreychuk has the career power play goals record, but it's not one of the more reputed records out there. Was never an elite player. Played a very critical off-ice role on a Cup champion (2004 Lightning), but I don't see it pushing him over the top. Until Dino Ciccarelli gets in, Andreychuk will not make it.

Mark Recchi's a more interesting debate, but I still say no. He was a better player than Turgeon and Andreychuk were. He brought grit that Turgeon could only dream of, and was more effective five-on-five than Andreychuk. He played a key on-ice role on a Cup-winning team. (1991 Penguins). There is a lot to like in his portfolio. An excellent playmaking winger who boasted a great snap shot, and wasn't afraid to venture into the high-traffic areas. But for some reason, as an HHOF candidate, he leaves me wanting more. Never viewed him as a top 15 player, or top three at his position. Again, I don't think he's any better than Ciccarelli, and Dino's been up for induction since 2002, and likely won't get in until 2010, at the earliest.

How hard is it for people on this board to grasp why Neely's in the Hall? He boasted an almost unprecedented combination of goal-scoring ability and physical play. He was named a second team all-star four times. He's fourth all-time in career playoff goals per game. He dominated in three playoffs (1988, 1990 and 1991), and was carrying Boston on his back in 1991 when he was taken out by Ulf Samuelsson. From the 1988 playoffs to 1995, when he was healthy, he was almost peerless in the game.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 05:47 AM
  #19
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Mark Recchi's a more interesting debate, but I still say no. He was a better player than Turgeon and Andreychuk were. He brought grit that Turgeon could only dream of, and was more effective five-on-five than Andreychuk. He played a key on-ice role on a Cup-winning team. (1991 Penguins). There is a lot to like in his portfolio. An excellent playmaking winger who boasted a great snap shot, and wasn't afraid to venture into the high-traffic areas. But for some reason, as an HHOF candidate, he leaves me wanting more. Never viewed him as a top 15 player, or top three at his position. Again, I don't think he's any better than Ciccarelli, and Dino's been up for induction since 2002, and likely won't get in until 2010, at the earliest.
I always wonder why Mark Recchi flies under the radar. Not that I necessarily think he should be in, but he just seems to do what he does very quietly, in a way that doesn't scream "all-time great".

arrbez is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 11:41 AM
  #20
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,344
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Fedorov is a lock. He wasn't the MVP of any of those Detroit teams that won the Cup, but he played a key role. Despite his Hart Trophy and his superb defensive play, his regular season accomplishments would leave him as borderline. His role on three Cup championship teams gets him in.
If Fedorov does go in, he'll have to be the most disappointing HoFer ever. As good a player as he has been, he's always left me wanting more. There is absolutely no reason why Fedorov shouldn't have been a perrenial top 3-5 player for a decade.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 11:55 AM
  #21
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,488
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Scoobo
What about Fedorov?? Will he make it???
Fedorov and Lindros are the interesting cases for me.... I believe every Hart winner is in the HHOF, but these two will probably test the theory.

If it was up to me, I'd put them both in. The post-Flyers Lindros gets a bad rap, but his first 7 seasons or so, he was one of the top 2 or 3 in the game.

Fedorov has a Hart, 2 Selkes and 3 Cups. I won't even hold it against him that he killed my hockey pool in the 1st half of this season

jamiebez is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 12:58 PM
  #22
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,570
vCash: 500
Fedorov isn't even in question. MVP, two Selkes, dominant player on three championship teams. Even if he had a couple disappointing seasons, he was one of the top 10 or so players of the 1990s.

Recchi I think will probably make it evenually. I'd have him slightly ahead of guys like Ciccarelli and Andreychuk. Much better all-around player, and his top seasons were more statistically dominant. Still a somewhat borderline guy, but I wouldn't have any issues with him going in.

Turgeon will surpass Gillies as the most controversial induction ever if he makes it. I don't think he will, but his massive career numbers may sway enough votes. Certainly he shouldn't - the HHOF shouldn't be for a guy remembered primarily as the 'Tin Man'.

Lindros should make it IMO. Along with Jagr and Hasek, was one of the top 3 players in the game from 1993-99. Had 7 seasons where he was an absolute force, and is probably the most physically dominant player ever to play the game. Won an MVP, carried a team to the finals.

MS is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 01:59 PM
  #23
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiebez
Fedorov and Lindros are the interesting cases for me.... I believe every Hart winner is in the HHOF, but these two will probably test the theory.

If it was up to me, I'd put them both in. The post-Flyers Lindros gets a bad rap, but his first 7 seasons or so, he was one of the top 2 or 3 in the game.

Fedorov has a Hart, 2 Selkes and 3 Cups. I won't even hold it against him that he killed my hockey pool in the 1st half of this season
The trend of every Hart winner making the Hall is going to end eventually. Theodore and St. Louis both won Harts, and as of right now, I don't see either of them making it. (They're both 30-ish now, and I don't think they'll but together the necessary string of seasons to crack HHOF balloting. Theodore has had two great seasons. Probably needs four or five more, and at least one lengthy playoff run. St. Louis has had one great season, and two really good post-seasons).

I would not put Lindros in, yet. To a certain extent, he's like Pierre Turgeon, even though they're completely different players, because the name Eric Lindros doesn't always conjure up the best of thoughts. I'd say he had four great seasons (1995, 1996, 1997 and 1999), and a couple really good seasons (1993 and 1998). Don't let the numbers from his 1994 season fool you: a lot of people were left wanting a lot more from him that year. (Again, much like Turgeon in 1994: great numbers, but not-so-steller play).

As for the playoffs: he was great in the first two rounds in 1995 and excellent for the first three rounds in 1997. (But he wasn't the only contributor. Many will tell you Rod Brind'Amour was Philly's playoff MVP in 1997). What will really hurt Lindros is that in 1995 and 1997, when his team really needed him, he went AWOL. Terrible against Detroit in the 1997 Cup final, one of the biggest "back of a milk carton" jobs you'll ever see. Yes, Philly's goaltending really went south on them, but Lindros didn't do his legacy any favours, either.

Also hurting Lindros will be the fact that he hasn't done anything since the 1999 season. He hasn't been scoring, and his physical play has really tailed off. He would have been a sure-fire HHOFer if he would have retired after the internal injury suffered in 1999, or even after the concussions in 2000. Now, I'm not so sure.

I'm not saying Lindros is an unequivocal no. He's a "no, with a but." If he can regain his mid-1990s form, even say that of 1998, and put a couple really good years together, he should be in. Or, if he can have a really good playoff, and not magically disappear when his team needs him, he would also warrant consideration.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 02:16 PM
  #24
Zetterberg4Captain*
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,165
vCash: 500
Fuhr should'nt be in the HHOF. He has allowed the most goals against ever in a career!!! Tony should be there ahead of him. Yeah Fuhr has won but most goalies would when your team is scoring six-eight goals a game......

Zetterberg4Captain* is offline  
Old
01-25-2006, 02:26 PM
  #25
Aarex
Registered User
 
Aarex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Regina, Saskatchewan
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,274
vCash: 500
Gretzky That guy was terrible, totally overrated!

Aarex 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 10:02 PM.

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.