Lindros vs. Orr

[Raoul Duke*]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

Click to read more...

 

[dafoomie]

You're kidding, right?

 

[Raoul Duke*]

In a sense. It grabs attention - but the question still remains... If Lindros retired back in 1999 would have have been remembered as an NHL legend?

 

[Kaizer]

If Lindros retired back in 1999 would have have been remembered as an NHL legend?

What did he do to be remembered as NHL legend even before 1999 ?

 

[Zine]

'Cause greats like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux (and even lesser level guys like Yzerman) were still better than 95% of the league when they were past their prime. Lindros has been a 2nd line player for about half of his career now.

In addition, Lindros wasn't in his prime that long - nor did he do anything that outstanding back then to be forever remembered as the player he used to be.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

Orr was far more dominant than was Lindros. Despite a shortened career, I have Orr as the #3 career of all time while Lindros sits at #87. Orr simply had more dominant seasons and more of them.

 

[SChan*]

What did he do to be remembered as NHL legend even before 1999 ?

choking in the SC finals vs the wings?

 

[God Bless Canada]

What did he do to be remembered as NHL legend even before 1999 ?

During his peak (1995-1999) he was one of the top five most coveted players in the league, along with Hasek, Kariya, Jagr and Forsberg.

He won the Hart in 1995. He was a finalist for the Hart in 1996. He led the playoffs in scoring in 1997. (Although he did fade badly against Detroit). He didn't dominate in 1997-98, but he definitely dominated in 1998-99, and would have definitely been a Hart finalist if not for the lung injury that ended his season, and could have ended his life.

That, to me, was the real turning point in his career. While the once rosy relationship between Lindros and Clarke was hurt by Canada's failure in the 1998 Olympics, the lung injury really destroyed the relationship. Lindros was clearly a much less effective player in 1999-2000, and at one point apologized to his teammates for allowing the Clarke feud to detract from his play.

If he had retired after the lung injury in 1999, there's no doubt in my mind he would be remembered in a much different light. Thanks to the second half of his career, there are a lot of negatives associated with the name Eric Lindros.

Orr is simply the best player ever. Nobody has ever dominated all aspects of the game like Orr. Lindros never won a Conn Smythe, let alone two, he wasn't the best at his position eight straight years, he never controlled both ends of the ice like Orr, he never blocked shots like Orr, and he never led the league in scoring. Orr did it twice, as a defenceman. And because of Orr, defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush, a big reason for the high-scoring 80s, and allowing players like Paul Coffey to reach the level that they did, and allowing other like Phil Housley to find work in the NHL.

 

[BNHL]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

Orr was still a point a game player with Chicago as a virtual hockey paraplegic and it only lasted 27 games or so. Looking at his entire career you got 850 games of unparallelled quality followed by 27 games of diminished physical ability,a small fraction of the entire presentation.He was also a revolutionary player that in my opinion has never had an equal.Lindros,though great,had never attained the same lofty status and his head injuries changed the way he played the game.He still had the physical tools but could not or would not utilize them as effectively.You got a great player for 450 games and a good one for 200+ so the entire body of work when viewed as a big picture is not great.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

'Cause greats like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux (and even lesser level guys like Yzerman) were still better than 95% of the league when they were past their prime. Lindros has been a 2nd line player for about half of his career now.

In addition, Lindros wasn't in his prime that long - nor did he do anything that outstanding back then to be forever remembered as the player he used to be.

It's amazing what a handful of concussions can do to some one.

Bobby Orr takes this match-up, though.

During his peak (1995-1999) he was one of the top five most coveted players in the league, along with Hasek, Kariya, Jagr and Forsberg.

He won the Hart in 1995. He was a finalist for the Hart in 1996. He led the playoffs in scoring in 1997. (Although he did fade badly against Detroit). He didn't dominate in 1997-98, but he definitely dominated in 1998-99, and would have definitely been a Hart finalist if not for the lung injury that ended his season, and could have ended his life.

That, to me, was the real turning point in his career. While the once rosy relationship between Lindros and Clarke was hurt by Canada's failure in the 1998 Olympics, the lung injury really destroyed the relationship. Lindros was clearly a much less effective player in 1999-2000, and at one point apologized to his teammates for allowing the Clarke feud to detract from his play.

If he had retired after the lung injury in 1999, there's no doubt in my mind he would be remembered in a much different light. Thanks to the second half of his career, there are a lot of negatives associated with the name Eric Lindros.

Orr is simply the best player ever. Nobody has ever dominated all aspects of the game like Orr. Lindros never won a Conn Smythe, let alone two, he wasn't the best at his position eight straight years, he never controlled both ends of the ice like Orr, he never blocked shots like Orr, and he never led the league in scoring. Orr did it twice, as a defenceman. And because of Orr, defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush, a big reason for the high-scoring 80s, and allowing players like Paul Coffey to reach the level that they did, and allowing other like Phil Housley to find work in the NHL.

Being matched up against Yzerman, Lidstrom and Konstantinov can do that to you if you aren't the best player ever.

 

[norrisnick]

Being matched up against Yzerman, Lidstrom and Konstantinov can do that to you if you aren't the best player ever.

Lidstrom and Murphy. Prevailing wisdom was that the matchup would be brawn vs brawn ( Lindros/Legion of Doom vs Konstantinov) but Bowman brilliantly used finesse instead and the LoD had no answer.

 

[The Legend]

What did he do to be remembered as NHL legend even before 1999 ?

Why don't you watch some Lindros games from the mid-nineties....absolute domination, with the Big E just imposing his will physically on others.

 

[BNHL]

During his peak (1995-1999) he was one of the top five most coveted players in the league, along with Hasek, Kariya, Jagr and Forsberg.

He won the Hart in 1995. He was a finalist for the Hart in 1996. He led the playoffs in scoring in 1997. (Although he did fade badly against Detroit). He didn't dominate in 1997-98, but he definitely dominated in 1998-99, and would have definitely been a Hart finalist if not for the lung injury that ended his season, and could have ended his life.

That, to me, was the real turning point in his career. While the once rosy relationship between Lindros and Clarke was hurt by Canada's failure in the 1998 Olympics, the lung injury really destroyed the relationship. Lindros was clearly a much less effective player in 1999-2000, and at one point apologized to his teammates for allowing the Clarke feud to detract from his play.

If he had retired after the lung injury in 1999, there's no doubt in my mind he would be remembered in a much different light. Thanks to the second half of his career, there are a lot of negatives associated with the name Eric Lindros.

Orr is simply the best player ever. Nobody has ever dominated all aspects of the game like Orr. Lindros never won a Conn Smythe, let alone two, he wasn't the best at his position eight straight years, he never controlled both ends of the ice like Orr, he never blocked shots like Orr, and he never led the league in scoring. Orr did it twice, as a defenceman. And because of Orr, defencemen were encouraged to jump into the rush, a big reason for the high-scoring 80s, and allowing players like Paul Coffey to reach the level that they did, and allowing other like Phil Housley to find work in the NHL.

I don't recall the lung injury,what happened?

 

[Kaizer]

Why don't you watch some Lindros games from the mid-nineties....absolute domination, with the Big E just imposing his will physically on others.

Sorry but I've seen only cup finals against Detroit from that period. Shame on me

 

[reckoning]

Why don't you watch some Lindros games from the mid-nineties....absolute domination, with the Big E just imposing his will physically on others.

Absolutely. Comparing him to Orr is ridiculous, but nobody can deny how amazing Lindros was before the concussions. I`d say he was the best player in hockey from `95 to `97. Unfortunately the expectations heaped upon him were too high for anybody to match, add that to the fact that a lot of fans wanted him to fail and you get the current revisionist history that so many quote as fact.

 

[Blades of Glory]

Absolutely. Comparing him to Orr is ridiculous, but nobody can deny how amazing Lindros was before the concussions. I`d say he was the best player in hockey from `95 to `97. Unfortunately the expectations heaped upon him were too high for anybody to match, add that to the fact that a lot of fans wanted him to fail and you get the current revisionist history that so many quote as fact.

Agreed. It is absolutely ridiculous to compare him to Orr, but he had his share of dominating seasons. Best player from '95 to '97? Jaromir Jagr might have something to say about that, but Lindros was definitely up there.

A great player who was never able to stay on the ice long enough to be remembered in the way he deserves to be, but it is hilarious that someone could compare him to the best player (overall) EVER.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Lidstrom and Murphy. Prevailing wisdom was that the matchup would be brawn vs brawn ( Lindros/Legion of Doom vs Konstantinov) but Bowman brilliantly used finesse instead and the LoD had no answer.

The problem was that the LoD didn't exist any longer.

The true LoD only lasted the 1995 season. Once Renberg suffered the abdominal injury, he was never close to being the player he was previously, when he was a top 5 RW in the game.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

What did he do to be remembered as NHL legend even before 1999 ?

Lindros in his short prime, was a top 5 most dominating player ever IMO.

 

[dafoomie]

In a sense. It grabs attention - but the question still remains... If Lindros retired back in 1999 would have have been remembered as an NHL legend?

Well... Perhaps Lindros would be viewed in a different light if he retired at the height of his dominance, but even then, he wouldn't be in the conversation with guys like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.

Some of his negativity comes from the Quebec situation. He's still l'enfant terrible to some people.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Well... Perhaps Lindros would be viewed in a different light if he retired at the height of his dominance, but even then, he wouldn't be in the conversation with guys like Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, etc.

Some of his negativity comes from the Quebec situation. He's still l'enfant terrible to some people.

No, he wasn't big four good, but, he would have been remembered as someone who could have been a top 10 center, if not a challenger for Beliveau's 3 spot.

 

[Kaizer]

Lindros in his short prime, was a top 5 most dominating player ever IMO.

I know it but do you think Top 5 in 3-5 years is enough to be compared with all time greats like Orr ?

 

[dafoomie]

No, he wasn't big four good, but, he would have been remembered as someone who could have been a top 10 center, if not a challenger for Beliveau's 3 spot.

Not sure if I'd even put him ahead of Messier or Esposito. Lindros only led the league in points once, in the lockout year, and he was still tied with Jagr. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but you could argue that Forsberg was at least his equal in their primes.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Not sure if I'd even put him ahead of Messier or Esposito. Lindros only led the league in points once, in the lockout year, and he was still tied with Jagr. I wouldn't necessarily agree, but you could argue that Forsberg was at least his equal in their primes.

Not really, but, I always felt Forsberg was overrated. Thing is, Clarke, Messier and Trottier are concidered top 10 centers, yet, none lead the league in scoring ever. Lindros was such a commanding pressence on the ice that whether or not he scored didn't matter so much as the play reveolving around him did.

 

[bleedrngrblue]

Lindros is an enigma. While he isn't on the level of Orr, truly one of the all time greats, a man who literally changed the thinking in the NHL, he is a player with a VERY rare combination of world class talent, and brute strength. Prior to the chronic concussions, the kid was hard to deal with and stop on the ice. He was physically too much to handle for ALOT of top NHLers, and had the injuries not taken their toll, I think BIG E would have been an all time great, no doubt about it!

 

[Zine]

Lindros is an enigma. While he isn't on the level of Orr, truly one of the all time greats, a man who literally changed the thinking in the NHL, he is a player with a VERY rare combination of world class talent, and brute strength. Prior to the chronic concussions, the kid was hard to deal with and stop on the ice. He was physically too much to handle for ALOT of top NHLers, and had the injuries not taken their toll, I think BIG E would have been an all time great, no doubt about it!

Lindros never had world class talent. When you took the physical aspect out of his game his remaining 'talent' was that of a 2nd liner.
However, he was, without question, the most physically dominating player ever.