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.

Bure versus Lindros for HHOF

View Poll Results: Lindros or Bure HHOF first?
Bure 54 49.09%
Lindros 56 50.91%
Voters: 110. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-06-2010, 05:11 PM
  #26
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm sorry, but you've named four centers now. Are you saying centers were regularly used in place of LeClair and Renberg?
Some of them failed miserably as line partner with him. Which proves my point that he didnt elevate their play.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:15 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Some of them failed miserably as line partner with him. Which proves my point that he didnt elevate their play.
Well, a lot of that probably was because they were centers. The reason I'm asking, though, is because this doesn't seem credible. how sure are you that the Flyers tried four centers as wingers for Lindros?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:16 PM
  #28
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,148
vCash: 500
Eric Lindros' career averages are badly damaged by a particularly embarrassing post-concussions period in his career. But by the end of 2002:

- He was averaging 0.58 GPG
- He was averaging 0.73 APG

The other years don't add to his legacy, but they should not take away from it, either. Lindros was one of the most dominant players of all-time at his peak.

Bure's goalscoring edge (very minor when declining years are taken out) is not close to Lindros' playmaking edge, as well as his defensive and physical abilities, as well as his proven ability to make a team better. (Bure's capabilities in this area were perhaps only demonstrated during the 1994 playoffs)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:16 PM
  #29
vadim sharifijanov
Rrbata
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,302
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Instead of confusing us all with sarcasm or fake sarcasm or irony or whatever you just did, why don't you state your position on the matter. It is clear that Leclair and Renberg had their best seasons with Lindros. What do other centers have to do with this?
recchi also put up his best numbers with lindros, though the argument could be made that his '90-'91 and even '99-'00 seasons were better seasons, given that he finished higher in scoring relative to the rest of the league and that he was the man on those teams with their superstars out for large stretches of the season.

bure is my favourite player of all time. but the only two justifications i can see for him getting in and lindros not getting is 1. slightly better playoff resume (in my opinion), and 2. that i find it a little easier to forgive bure for the years he threw away-- because of the way he was treated by the quinn regime in vancouver (there is a poster on the canucks forum, wetcoaster, who has gone into this in great detail). lindros threw away two prime seasons being a baby, which had he played them would have likely have pushed him over 1,000 points and 400 goals in his career. with those numbers, there is no debate whether or not he gets in.

but still, lindros had the greater career and, while i would induct both, if i had choose one, it would be lindros. if it could only be one out of him, bure, and forsberg, i think forsberg gets in due to his playoff heroics and the '94 olympics.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:26 PM
  #30
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Eric Lindros' career averages are badly damaged by a particularly embarrassing post-concussions period in his career. But by the end of 2002:

- He was averaging 0.58 GPG
- He was averaging 0.73 APG

The other years don't add to his legacy, but they should not take away from it, either. Lindros was one of the most dominant players of all-time at his peak.

Bure's goalscoring edge (very minor when declining years are taken out) is not close to Lindros' playmaking edge, as well as his defensive and physical abilities, as well as his proven ability to make a team better. (Bure's capabilities in this area were perhaps only demonstrated during the 1994 playoffs)
Yes Im sure its accurate. They all tried and failed/being mediocre.

Bure made the CSKA team at 17 (He was reserve at 16). Rookie record scoring in soviets top league when player like Mogilny and Fedorov still played. A Junior WC record of 27 goals in 21 games. NHL record, most goals scored in proportion to team - 29.5% of the Florida Panthers' goals in 200001.

I'd say that their careers are pretty equal. They basically the same stats give or take on goals and assists.

Bure made panthers a better team too. He were just alone.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:50 PM
  #31
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Yea because Bob Corkum, Shjon Podein, Joel Otto, Pat Falloon, Dineen etc all put up career numbers on Lindros line. He really elevated their numbers.
Not one of those players ever played with Lindros on an even semi-regular basis.

Otto and Pdein played together on our 3rd line. Dineen played with Brind'amour on the 2nd line. Corkum was a 4th line player. Falloon was a 2nd line player at best.

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 05:53 PM
  #32
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Not one of those players ever played with Lindros on an even semi-regular basis.

Otto and Pdein played together on our 3rd line. Dineen played with Brind'amour on the 2nd line. Corkum was a 4th line player. Falloon was a 2nd line player at best.
Follow my replies and you might see my point. I wont repeat myself.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:00 PM
  #33
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,348
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Follow my replies and you might see my point. I wont repeat myself.
Brent Fedyk ring a bell ???

John Flyers Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:05 PM
  #34
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Brent Fedyk ring a bell ???
Mark Recchi ring a bell ???

Fedyk was a fluke. He scored 60 points one season and the next season in the same line he was back to 35ish.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:26 PM
  #35
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 8,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Flyers Fan View Post
Agreed.

I think of the 3 injured stars of that era (Bure, Forsberg, Lindros) none end up beign rated correctly.

Bure generally gets overrated .... brilliant goal scorer, but completely one-dimensional

Forsberg massively overrated .... many will have you believe that he was without a doubt the best player in the world for a 10 year stretch

Lindros generally underrated .... was only good because he was big, always had his head down, etc.

To me it's a no brainer that if you were guaranteed 15 generally healthy seasons for each of the 3 players the order should be:

Lindros
Forsberg
Bure

with Lindros and Forsberg being in the same ballpark, and Bure significantly behind.
Gee, John Flyers fan, not to biased, eh?

One thing I will say, Bure was one of the best goal scorers of all time. Lindros was not one of the best anythings of all time.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:36 PM
  #36
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Gee, John Flyers fan, not to biased, eh?

One thing I will say, Bure was one of the best goal scorers of all time. Lindros was not one of the best anythings of all time.
Physical presence?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:37 PM
  #37
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,148
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Follow my replies and you might see my point. I wont repeat myself.
Sorry, totally lost here. This makes no sense.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:42 PM
  #38
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Gee, John Flyers fan, not to biased, eh?

One thing I will say, Bure was one of the best goal scorers of all time. Lindros was not one of the best anythings of all time.
Quote:
Rank Player PTS/G

1. Wayne Gretzky* 1.921
2. Mario Lemieux* 1.883
3. Mike Bossy* 1.497
4. Bobby Orr* 1.393
5. Sidney Crosby 1.364
6. Alex Ovechkin 1.336
7. Marcel Dionne* 1.314
8. Peter Stastny* 1.268
9. Jaromir Jagr 1.256
10. Peter Forsberg 1.254
11. Kent Nilsson 1.240
12. Phil Esposito* 1.240
13. Guy Lafleur* 1.202
14. Joe Sakic 1.191
15. Dale Hawerchuk* 1.186
16. Pat LaFontaine* 1.171
17. Steve Yzerman* 1.159
18. Eric Lindros 1.138
19. Bernie Federko* 1.130
20. Denis Savard* 1.119
21. Jari Kurri* 1.117
22. Bryan Trottier* 1.114
23. Gilbert Perreault* 1.113
24. Pavel Bure 1.110
25. Bobby Hull* 1.101
Heh.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/lead...me_career.html

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:44 PM
  #39
Kyle McMahon
Registered User
 
Kyle McMahon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Evil Empire
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,822
vCash: 500
I think Lindros was the better player, but I'd vote for Bure for the HOF before I voted for Eric.

When the name Bure is mentioned, it conjures up thoughts of one of the most dynamic goal scorers ever to play. One-dimensional, but what a dimension that one was.

When the name Lindros is mentioned, it conjures up thoughts of a spoiled baby who conducted himself in an appallingly arrogant manner and screwed over multiple franchises with his immature behavior. A player with that many negatives tied to his name and as marginal a HOF resume as Lindros should not be inducted.

Neely is the anti-Lindros. Loved and respected pretty much universally by admirers and opponents alike. Like Lindros, he has a fairly marginal resume as far as what happened on the ice is concerned. But the two are worlds apart as far as off-ice stuff is concerned, and that's why one is deservingly in the HOF and one shouldn't be.

Kyle McMahon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:53 PM
  #40
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
How was Lindros better at everything else? Was Lindros a better playmaker? Bure one dimensional? Please...
Umm.....Bure pretty much needed to be introduced to his goalie at the end of the season. He rarely was in his own end and when he was he just looked like a lost puppy. We complain today about Kovalchuk bein one dimensional but he at least brings a physical edge.

Lindros by all rights should be inducted into the HHOF first between the two. But let's face it, there is a big debate on both players and none are a sure thing. A few months ago around the time of the HHOF induction Mark Messier was on Off the Record and was asked if Lindros is a future HHOFer. He clears his throat, said "ummm" for a second and in the end didn't give a clean answer eluding to him being injured a lot.

There are a ton of things that bother you about Bure but if you like him you have to induct him based on the "feast or famine" syndrome. He had 5 great years. He scored 50 or more goals all of those years. He had 90+ points those years too. He didn't do a whole lot else with his career in the remaining years though. He was hurt, he demanded a trade, he was selfish, he wasn't a great playmaker, he hung around the other team's blueline, he wasn't physical. But if you think his 5 big seasons are enough to push him into the HHOF then you're fine with the rest of it. The HHOF hasn't chosen that route yet. The thing that bothers me is that Bure was a fantastic playoff performer the first 4 years he was in the NHL (66 points in 60 games) including that classic '94 run. But he played in 4 playoff games after his 24th birthday. Four! He registered 4 points in that sweep. It got me thinking, he might have put up 58, 59 goal seasons at that time but for the majority of his career Bure's teams did not make the playoffs and eventually you have to start pointing the finger at him asking if he is doing all the right things to help his team win. Outside of 1994, I don't think he did.

Hard for me to say if he should be in or not

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 06:57 PM
  #41
Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
 
Blades of Glory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 18,363
vCash: 500
Do you guys think that Eric Lindros will actually get in? Most of us agree that he is definitely HHOF-worthy, but he had highly-publicized character issues and we know how much the selection committee likes character issues. His shortened career doesn't help alleviate those problems, either. I know Bobby Clarke vouched for him as a HHOF-er, which may help, but for some reason, I have a hard time picturing Eric Lindros giving an induction speech at the HHOF. I don't know why.

Pavel Bure fits in the same category as Lindros, though. Highly-publicized character issues, to say the least. Trevor Kidd said after Florida dealt Bure to New York (from memory, but you get the gist), "The fans may question why he was traded, but I can tell you our dressing room is much happier without him in it." That was his second trade, the first of course asking out of Vancouver.

Blades of Glory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 07:56 PM
  #42
matnor
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Boston
Country: Sweden
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
I think Lindros was a better player at his best so I think he should get in first but eventually I think they should both get in. But then again I prefer short dominance over a long compiling-career.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But he played in 4 playoff games after his 24th birthday. Four! He registered 4 points in that sweep. It got me thinking, he might have put up 58, 59 goal seasons at that time but for the majority of his career Bure's teams did not make the playoffs and eventually you have to start pointing the finger at him asking if he is doing all the right things to help his team win. Outside of 1994, I don't think he did.

Hard for me to say if he should be in or not
When you play for a team where the second-highest scorer has 37 points the team is going nowhere and you can't really blame Bure for that.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/FLA/2001.html

matnor is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 08:31 PM
  #43
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Umm.....Bure pretty much needed to be introduced to his goalie at the end of the season. He rarely was in his own end and when he was he just looked like a lost puppy. We complain today about Kovalchuk bein one dimensional but he at least brings a physical edge.

Lindros by all rights should be inducted into the HHOF first between the two. But let's face it, there is a big debate on both players and none are a sure thing. A few months ago around the time of the HHOF induction Mark Messier was on Off the Record and was asked if Lindros is a future HHOFer. He clears his throat, said "ummm" for a second and in the end didn't give a clean answer eluding to him being injured a lot.

There are a ton of things that bother you about Bure but if you like him you have to induct him based on the "feast or famine" syndrome. He had 5 great years. He scored 50 or more goals all of those years. He had 90+ points those years too. He didn't do a whole lot else with his career in the remaining years though. He was hurt, he demanded a trade, he was selfish, he wasn't a great playmaker, he hung around the other team's blueline, he wasn't physical. But if you think his 5 big seasons are enough to push him into the HHOF then you're fine with the rest of it. The HHOF hasn't chosen that route yet. The thing that bothers me is that Bure was a fantastic playoff performer the first 4 years he was in the NHL (66 points in 60 games) including that classic '94 run. But he played in 4 playoff games after his 24th birthday. Four! He registered 4 points in that sweep. It got me thinking, he might have put up 58, 59 goal seasons at that time but for the majority of his career Bure's teams did not make the playoffs and eventually you have to start pointing the finger at him asking if he is doing all the right things to help his team win. Outside of 1994, I don't think he did.

Hard for me to say if he should be in or not
You mean Bure should have scored more than approximately 30% of his teams goals and carried Florida to the Cup by himself? Bure produced 92 points on a team where he litterally had no help and he led canucks in his last season with them with 90pts. 30 pts more than Mark Messier. Lindros could never top that. Lindros was a dominate player but he didnt have the skill set of Bures class. Bure was physical btw. but he wasnt like Lindros who took stupid penalties and he didnt fight.

I dont know if I would call Bure selfish and if its relevant at all? Lindros was selfish and refused to play for Quebec later he wanted to be traded from philly. Bure didnt get along with the management and demanded a trade but he always did his job of producing goals.

Bure also carried his teams like Soviet in the WJC and WC and his CSKA. He scored 9 goals for Russia in 98 olympics in 6 games. Lindros didnt even get 9 pts and when lindros won a olympic gold medal he basically were the Dingman of the Canadian roster. 1 goal in 6 games and 8 PIM.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 08:46 PM
  #44
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,627
vCash: 500
As has been mentioned, Lindros was actually a better offensive player than Bure, with a better career point per game mark, including his injury-plagued decline phase.

Then consider that Lindros was a physically dominating centre, and Bure was a cherry-picking winger. The effect of this shows up clearly in the goals-against stats, as Lindros had 0.68 even strength goals against per game in his career to Bure's 0.81.

Lindros, and it's not that close. Yes, he should have accomplished more, but don't let it obscure how good he actually was.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 08:52 PM
  #45
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
You mean Bure should have scored more than approximately 30% of his teams goals and carried Florida to the Cup by himself? Bure produced 92 points on a team where he litterally had no help and he led canucks in his last season with them with 90pts. 30 pts more than Mark Messier. Lindros could never top that.
So essentially you're penalizing Lindros for having the fortune of playing with good players? What about Bure's time spent with Mogilny in Vancouver? Granted, the two of them weren't generally healthy simultaneously, but Bure was outscored in the 1996-97 season by Martin Gelinas of all players. And while it's important to note that Gelinas also played in eleven more games than Bure, he also had 13 more points, so even if Bure had played in as many games that season he would have fallen short of both Gelinas and Mogilny's production. His attitude was a major impediment with respect to his levels of offensive production. With Lindros, you could never say that as he led the Flyers in PPG average almost every season in Philadelphia with the exception of his rookie year and his final season with the team in 1999-00 (when the extent of his post-concussion symptons really began hammering him).

Quote:
Lindros was a dominate player but he didnt have the skill set of Bures class. Bure was physical btw. but he wasnt like Lindros who took stupid penalties and he didnt fight.
He absolutely did possess Bure's level of skill. Perhaps not on the goal-scoring end of things, but in terms of a combination of size and finesse there have been precious few players in league history that have combined them as well as Lindros. Jean Beliveau and Cam Neely are the first two names that come to mind when I think of the massive big men with the skill and finesse of much smaller men. In Eric's case, he could knock you through the boards into the third row and score 40 goals while missing 25 games. His play-making ability was also at the highest echelon of excellence while he played as well -- a skill that eluded Bure throughout most of his career. He was much more inclined to create plays and attempt to finish him on his own than be a passer, which is fine. While he may have been an incredible goal-scorer that was deprived of a supporting cast in the latter-half of his career (and keep in mind that I consider Bure's 2000 and 2001 seasons amongst the finest of all-time offensively -- especially given they occurred in the heart of the Dead Puck Era), Lindros was a superior all-around package.

Quote:
I dont know if I would call Bure selfish and if its relevant at all? Lindros was selfish and refused to play for Quebec later he wanted to be traded from philly. Bure didnt get along with the management and demanded a trade but he always did his job of producing goals.
And Lindros produced at the level of one of the five or six greatest players of all-time points-wise when he played by the start of the century. Say what you can about the unfortunate influence of Lindros' parents (I don't think Eric himself was given much of a say as a youngster and was a bit of a daddy's boy obviously), but you cannot fault him for what his parents did. There was a reason that he captained the Flyers through most of his tenure and was given the Team Canada captaincy in Nagano despite the presence of legends like Wayne and Ray Bourque.

Quote:
Bure also carried his teams like Soviet in the WJC and WC and his CSKA. He scored 9 goals for Russia in 98 olympics in 6 games. Lindros didnt even get 9 pts and when lindros won a olympic gold medal he basically were the Dingman of the Canadian roster. 1 goal in 6 games and 8 PIM.
Lindros was the only non-NHLer selected to the 1991 Canadian Canada Cup squad, when he was just 18 years old, and played remarkably for such a young man at a global best-on-best tournament with three goals and five points in eight games. He was a major component of that Canadian victory at a time when he could not legally drink in the province of Ontario. Bure was an awesome junior player on the Soviet squad in the World Juniors but Lindros' 17 points in 6 games at the 1991 tournament for another gold medal-winning Canadian squad (right before he played in the Canada Cup) is one of the three most dominant performances ever by any player in that tournament. We talk about Sidney Crosby, but Eric was probably the most highly-heralded eighteen year-old prospect ever. Possibly even greater than Mario in terms of anticipation because of his physicality and nastiness factor. You also overlook a ninteen year-old Eric leading the unheralded 1992 Canadian Olympic squad to a silver medal against a largely-Soviet professional squad (the "Unified Team") with eleven points in eight games. All things told he had seventeen points in twenty Olympic games and came away with a silver medal (like Bure) and a gold medal (which Bure never won). His international pedigree is pretty exceptional, especially given what he did as a teenager.


Last edited by JaysCyYoung: 05-06-2010 at 09:06 PM.
JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 09:07 PM
  #46
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
So essentially you're penalizing Lindros for having the fortune of playing with good players? What about Bure's time spent with Mogilny in Vancouver? Granted, the two of them weren't generally healthy simultaneously, but Bure was outscored in the 199-6-97 season by Martin Gelinas of all players. And while it's important to note that Gelinas also played in eleven more games than Bure, he also had 13 more points, so even if Bure had played in as many games that season he would have fallen short of both Gelinas and Mogilny's production. His attitude was a major impediment with respect to his levels of offensive production. With Lindros, you could never say that as he led the Flyers in PPG average almost every season in Philadelphia with the exception of his rookie year and his final season with the team in 1999-00 (when the extent of his post-concussion symptons really began hammering him).



He absolutely did possess Bure's level of skill. Perhaps not on the goal-scoring end of things, but in terms of a combination of size and finesse there have been precious few players in league history that have combined them as well as Lindros. Jean Beliveau and Cam Neely are the first two names that come to mind when I think of the massive big men with the skill and finesse of much smaller men. In Eric's case, he could knock you through the boards into the third row and score 40 goals while missing 25 games. His play-making ability was also at the highest echelon of excellence while he played as well -- a skill that eluded Bure throughout most of his career. He was much more inclined to create plays and attempt to finish him on his own than be a passer, which is fine. While he may have been an incredible goal-scorer that was deprived of a supporting cast in the latter-half of his career (and keep in mind that I consider Bure's 2000 and 2001 seasons amongst the finest of all-time offensively -- especially given they occurred in the heart of the Dead Puck Era), Lindros was a superior all-around package.



And Lindros produced at the level of one of the five or six greatest players of all-time points-wise when he played by the start of the century. Say what you can about the unfortunate influence of Lindros' parents (I don't think Eric himself was given much of a say as a youngster and was a bit of a daddy's boy obviously), but you cannot fault him for what his parents did. There was a reason that he captained the Flyers through most of his tenure and was given the Team Canada captaincy in Nagano despite the presence of legends like Wayne and Ray Bourque.



Lindros was the only non-NHLer selected to the 1991 Canadian Canada Cup squad, when he was just 18 years old, and played remarkably for such a young man at a global best-on-best tournament with three goals and five points in eight games. He was a major component of that Canadian victory at a time when he could not legally drink in the province of Ontario. Bure was an awesome junior player on the Soviet squad in the World Juniors but Lindros' 17 points in 6 games at the 1991 tournament for another gold medaliwinning Canadian squad (right before he played in the Canada Cup) is one of the three most dominant performances ever by any player in that tournament. We talk about Sidney Crosby, but Eric was probably the most highly-heralded eighteen year-old prospect ever. Possibly even greater than Mario in terms of anticipation because of his physicality and nastiness factor. You also overlook a ninteen year-old Eric leading the unheralded 1992 Canadian Olympic squad to a silver medal against a largely-Soviet professional squad (the "Unified Team") with eleven points in eight games. All things told he had seventeen points in twenty Olympic games and came away with a silver medal (like Bure) and a gold medal (which Bure never won). His international pedigree is pretty exceptional, especially given what he did as a teenager.
I never said that Lindros werent great but you see the others (not you) are really undereestimating Bure compared to Lindros thats why I felt I had to make a more attacking argument.

I said earlier that they both had pretty equal careers and stand by it.

Quote:
and a gold medal (which Bure never won).
As I said he won it as the Dingman on the canadian roster. 1 point adn couldve easily been replaced with an AHL player.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 09:12 PM
  #47
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
Quote:
I never said that Lindros werent great but you see the others (not you) are really undereestimating Bure compared to Lindros thats why I felt I had to make a more attacking argument.

I said earlier that they both had pretty equal careers and stand by it.
And I stated that as well. I'm not under-estimating Bure at all. Like I said, his 2000 and 2001 seasons are two of the finest offensive years ever by a player relative to league goal-scoring, especially given how little a supporting cast he was "gifted" with in Florida during those seasons. And I also acknowledged that him and Lindros are virtually identical statistically in terms of durability (games played), and PPG average (with Eric eighteenth all-time and Bure twenty-fourth all-time with less than a tenth of a point per game separating the two). The difference comes with Eric's superior two-way performance and physical intimidation factor.

Quote:
As I said he won it as the Dingman on the canadian roster. 1 point adn couldve easily been replaced with an AHL player.
And Lindros also won two other best-on-best international tournaments with Canada and was the biggest factor in an unexpected Olympic showing in 1992. What's your point? That he was incapable of being a major component on Canada's national squad? Because his 1991 World Junior domination, 1991 Canada Cup performance, and 1992 Olympic contributions were all damn good. Then in 2001-02 while his career was clearly on the downswing Lindros accepted a diminished role as a checker and two-way player who was a valuable defensive tool on one of Canada's bottom-two lines. How is that a negative against him? He adjusted his game when it was clear that he would no longer have a starring role and accepted it with dignity.

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 09:18 PM
  #48
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,299
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JaysCyYoung View Post
And I stated that as well. I'm not under-estimating Bure at all. Like I said, his 2000 and 2001 seasons are two of the finest offensive years ever by a player relative to league goal-scoring, especially given how little a supporting cast he was "gifted" with in Florida during those seasons. And I also acknowledged that him and Lindros are virtually identical statistically in terms of durability (games played), and PPG average (with Eric eighteenth all-time and Bure twenty-fourth all-time with less than a tenth of a point per game separating the two). The difference comes with Eric's superior two-way performance and physical intimidation factor.



And Lindros also won two other best-on-best international tournaments with Canada and was the biggest factor in an unexpected Olympic showing in 1992. What's your point? That he was incapable of being a major component on Canada's national squad? Because his 1991 World Junior domination, 1991 Canada Cup performance, and 1992 Olympic contributions were all damn good. Then in 2001-02 while his career was clearly on the downswing Lindros accepted a diminished role as a checker and two-way player who was a valuable defensive tool on one of Canada's bottom-two lines. How is that a negative against him? He adjusted his game when it was clear that he would no longer have a starring role and accepted it with dignity.
My point was that his gold werent exactly on his shoulders and that he failed miserably in 98 as opposed to what the others were telling me that that Lindros always made his team better and elevated his linemates. He did it in the early 90s with canada and Flyers and then his parents and injuries took over his career and made him a subject of argument if he fits in HHoF instead of a lock.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 09:23 PM
  #49
JaysCyYoung
Registered User
 
JaysCyYoung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: York Region
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,779
vCash: 500
But why would you look at 1998 when Canada was ousted on the basis of a glorified skills competition against the best goaltender on the planet in the midst of the most dominant individual goaltending run in NHL history? Hasek was about to receive his second consecutive Hart Trophy in 1997-98, something that no goaltender has ever accomplished before or since, and Canada had an undefeated record up to that point. Canadian teams always fold in bronze medal games since there is no motivation to play for it once gold is out of reach. So answer me: how does Dominik Hasek's brilliance at the peak of his Hall of Fame career, not to mention the idiocy of Marc Crawford passing on the most prolific goal-scorer in the history of the NHL, in any way undermine Eric Lindros' international career (and those three outright victories for Canada and two second place finishes)?

JaysCyYoung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2010, 09:43 PM
  #50
kaiser matias
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 2,026
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Not sure how Pavel Bure was even close to Lindros in playmaking/passing. Lindros elevated average linemates on a regular basis.
I'm surprised that nobody has brought this up, but Bure did considerably help Gino Odjick in 1993-94: 76-16-13-29, compared to a career best (set the year before) of 75-4-13-17.

I think Bure will get in first. Part of that stems from growing up and watching hockey because of him. However, I think Lindros' various "issues" (parents, refusing Quebec, considerably diminished last part of a career, etc) will hold him back more than Bure. Also including that when Bure was healthy, he did score 50 goals (including his 2000 and 2001 seasons, which were quite incredible).

kaiser matias 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 02:35 AM.

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.