Eric Lindros Vs. Brendan Shanahan

[Hardyvan123]

Some of you guys act like Lindros killed a man, it's just so dramatic, a decades-long grudge against a manipulated teenager. He wasn't Jean Beliveau but his "character issues" are blown way out of proportion. The guy was at fault for no major issues later in his career and was even captain of the Olympic team, and there was no drama. He got along with his teammates.

The fiasco he had during his exit from the Flyers was because of Bobby Clarke, a violent sociopath enshrined in the oh-so honorable Hall of Fame (and he turned out to be just as much of an uncaring a-hole in his managerial career). And not the only one. Lindros is a saint compared to some of the psychos and a-holes in there, and a better and more memorable and influential player than most of them, too.

If the Old Boy's Club unfairly keeps him out, at least he can tell himself this... when people in 40 years have their grandkids on their knees and are telling them about the most incredible hockey players they witnessed, Lindros will be one of the most cited, right up there with Lemieux, Crosby, Lidstrom, etc. Well above guys like Shanahan...

Totally agree here with this post, some people just hated him from the start (in the OHL, then Quebec) and were blinded to what a true impact player he was in those 1st 7 seasons.

Sure he missed some time, even in those seasons but he was the guy that every team game planned for and that is the true sign of greatness IMO.

 

[WingsFan95]

That last sentence is what got me thinking about these two. It's just assumed Shanahan is a lock for the HHoF, yet many question Lindros' induction.

Maybe it's all just likeability, but I think a case can be made for Shanahan. Lindros was viewed as a Top 10 player for 7 years, but how many of those seasons did he actually put in a Top 10 season? He only finished in the Top 10 for points three times in his career. It amazes me he only had 4 seasons of 70+ games in his career. I think Shanahan makes up a lot of ground with his much better career, but maybe not enough.

I think Lindros and Shanahan should be in for the record.

A Hart Trophy winner is 90% of the time a Hall of Famer, even Theodore has a chance if he were to get some more accolades, he hasn't been a terrible player really.

But to the poll I'd take Shanahan because he was more consistent, Lindros may have won Cups on those 90s Wings too but I'd rather take Shanahan for 10 years on my team than Lindros. Lindros was a lot less reliable the 2nd half his career.

 

[Big Phil]

Some credit still needs to be given for just being a good player. And he was. 1993 and 2000 are suspect, yes. Even on a per-game level, his production was not enough to conclusively warrant his status as a top-10 player. However, the six seasons between definitely do. 3rd, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 6th, 4th in points per game, while being the most dominant physical presence in the game. Throw in defense and goalies and drop down the occasional "better offensively but not better overall" forward and he's definitely a top-10 status player for six straight years. 52 games was the fewest he played in that time (lockout excluded, of course) but per-game he was clearly outstanding and had an excellent playoff.

Orr's different, his career wasn't really injury-riddled, just abbreviated. Lemieux and Neely are in the same kind of boat though. Lemieux can't be argued to have had a top-10 season in 1991 or 1994; however, no one would dispute that he was the best or 2nd-best player in the world at that time. that status still means something. Neely is just a much, much lesser version. During his awful 1991-1993 injury-riddled period, ask anyone who the best power forward in the game is, and his name might be who they mention. You know I don't think his HHOF induction is right and he clearly gets some credit for lost time. But that "status" that he attained does count for something.

This is true I guess you can give him credit that way, but it is more ceremonial than anything. Crosby probably wins the Art Ross in 2008 and 2011 if he is healthy. He gets credit for that in a way, but at the end of the day who won the Hart? Perry. The Art Ross? Sedin. The Cup? Bruins. The Conn Smythe? Thomas. And during the Cup final the focus is on those two teams. No one was talking about Crosby or Ovechkin during that time, they are irrelevant at that time. You see what I mean? Lindros missed the playoffs in 1999. We all know what damage he COULD have done had he came back, but he didn't. Looking back on it, we realize he did nothing at all during that time. Our subconcious minds automatically think of Dallas with Modano, Hull, Belfour, Niewendyk going against Hasek in 1999.

When we look back to 1993 we think of big seasons from Selanne, Mogilny, Oates, Lafontaine, Gilmour, Lemieux, even Turgeon. In the playoffs we think of Gretzky and Roy. We don't usually think of an injured Neely.

That's all I am saying. It is nice that an injured player COULD be the best in the game if he plays, but the play on the ice is where he should be judged

 

[Big Phil]

A Hart Trophy winner is 90% of the time a Hall of Famer, even Theodore has a chance if he were to get some more accolades, he hasn't been a terrible player really.

He won't get in (Theodore). It is near unanimous around here that he should never grace the HHOF. He'll be 35. Not sure what else he can do from here on in to convince us.

But you might be setting the Hart a bit short. I think it's closer to 95-98% that a Hart winner gets inducted.

Tommy Anderson and Al Rollins are the only eligible ones not in. That's two in almost 90 years. Theodore won't make it. That's three. Lindros is on the fence. Other than that it is pretty certain Crosby, Ovechkin, St. Louis and Henrik Sedin make it. That leaves Perry who is too young to judge right now. Maybe, there is 3-4 players that won't get in.

 

[MadArcand]

Tommy Anderson and Al Rollins are the only eligible ones not in. That's two in almost 90 years. Theodore won't make it. That's three. Lindros is on the fence. Other than that it is pretty certain Crosby, Ovechkin, St. Louis and Henrik Sedin make it. That leaves Perry who is too young to judge right now. Maybe, there is 3-4 players that won't get in.

What?

If Lindros is on the fence, then Sedin is way, way, WAY on the outside.

 

[mja]

This is simple.

Shanny had a 1st ballot hall of fame career.

Lindros was undoubtedly a hall of fame talent who did not have the 1st ballot hall of fame career. I'm not even sure he had a hall of fame career.

Lindros was easily the better talent, Shanny easily the better career.

It's surprising to me that as time goes on the sentiment for Lindros getting in the hall grows exponentially. 5 years ago on this very site most would have said "no" to Lindros' possible induction. Today people are complaining he didn't go in first ballot, which is simply inconceivable to me.

Shanny gets in first try. Lindros has to wait awhile, if he gets in at all.

Oh, and I say all this as a lifelong Flyers fan who saw Eric's entire career and loved everything he did on the ice and considered and still do consider him to have been a top 5 player during his entire Flyers tenure.

 

[Jules Winnfield]

Peak few were better than Lindros. The guy was just amazing.

 

[Hab-a-maniac]

This is simple.

Shanny had a 1st ballot hall of fame career.

Lindros was undoubtedly a hall of fame talent who did not have the 1st ballot hall of fame career. I'm not even sure he had a hall of fame career.

Lindros was easily the better talent, Shanny easily the better career.

It's surprising to me that as time goes on the sentiment for Lindros getting in the hall grows exponentially. 5 years ago on this very site most would have said "no" to Lindros' possible induction. Today people are complaining he didn't go in first ballot, which is simply inconceivable to me.

Shanny gets in first try. Lindros has to wait awhile, if he gets in at all.

Oh, and I say all this as a lifelong Flyers fan who saw Eric's entire career and loved everything he did on the ice and considered and still do consider him to have been a top 5 player during his entire Flyers tenure.

True enough. It's not always about peak. Sometimes a long, storied career can win out in HOF material. It's why a guy like Ron Francis gets in first ballot over lots of players who had a 5-10 year portion of their career that blows Francis away. Basically, that peak has to be incredible and not just in personal stats. Lindros lost a lot of games to injury and that's one detriment to him (I hate hearing about "What ifs?" so much). Secondly, he had two deep playoff runs (1995 and 1997) and that was it. I know he was a force but after 2000, the guy was used up, slowly declining damaged goods. This isn't the 40s and 50s when NHL jobs were scarce! This was in a 24-30 team NHL.

In the post-Expansion era, an eight season stretch of great play has to be pretty damn decorated to get someone in the HOF, like Orr's (excluding his Norrises: 3 MVPs, 2 cups, 2 conn Smythes, 1 Pearson, Canada Cup MVP. Even if Lindros did half of that he's a shoo-in. But he didn't and it will take a while for him to get in if at all. Then there's those character issues). Shanny has a non-HOF career if Hartford never trades him to Detroit. It does take luck and fortune to be in the HOF even for a great, skilled player. But Shanny didn't drop the ball, he ran with it and was one of Detroit's 3 best players in many of their playoff runs. He played excellent in 1997, '98 and 2002's Cup wins and always put up 30-45 goal years for them. He was an excellent winger who always delivered in the biggest stages of them all and even was on two Olympic teams. If Lindros had his durability and competitive drive, he's easily the best player of his generation.