My knock on the Neely thing

[mcphee]

btw- Happy (belated) B'day to one of the best

interesting that you find from what was reported an overwhelming selection by the 18 man committee; ledgendary tough guy Nilan, alltime great Roy, and Gavin/Tippett all list Neely as the toughest opponent in THREE different areas- yet you get a small faction armed with Hockey Register and agendas that think they know it all. not suprised though- if you asked that crew what day it was, you'd get a couple of Saturday's and probably even a Tuesday.

Thanks. I'm sure you were part of a debate on the B's board sometime last year about Neely's place in the Hall. I've always been in favor, but the arguement came up that if Neeely goes in, does Lindros ? My off the cuff answere was no, but John The Flyers Fan,must have been waitng in the weeds for that one. In my mind, he proved me wrong,both statistically and by the impact Lindros had during his best years. He's another, that had his productivity cut by injuries,though in Lindros' favor, he put up numbers as a rookie, unlike Neely. Both players at their best changed the flow of games they played in. When Boston came to town, I knew my team just might not have an answere for Neely, no matter how well they played. I never felt that way about Gillies, though I respect him as a player. I love Steve Shutt, he got 60 one year, did he ever take over games like Neely ?

 

[David]

I don't think I've ever read anything more wrong since coming to these boards... although I've come to expect that from the majority of your posts.

Do I know you...?

It's one thing to disagree about an opinion but another to blatantly go out of your way to be offensive. I don't ever recall talking to you before so why the attack?

In response to your claim that you've never read anything more wrong, I gotta say that I should take your statement with a grain of salt since even in the last few days, I've seen many outrageous things being posted by couple of people in particular that I could say with certainty was flat out wrong and not an opinion like this obvious is. In this regard, I would have to question the validity of your statement...or your intelligence.

Perhaps Ray would have gotten in to the Hall without a Cup and perhaps he wouldn't have. If Glen Anderson didn't get in again then we can't know for certain at this point exactly who would get in and who would not because the voting didn't take place when Ray was 30 years old. That's what being questionable is.

 

[David]

Thanks. I'm sure you were part of a debate on the B's board sometime last year about Neely's place in the Hall. I've always been in favor, but the arguement came up that if Neeely goes in, does Lindros ? My off the cuff answere was no, but John The Flyers Fan,must have been waitng in the weeds for that one. In my mind, he proved me wrong,both statistically and by the impact Lindros had during his best years.

This is an excellent point that I was thinking of. If Neely is in then you HAVE to put Lindros in because for a short period of time, Lindros was more dominant than Neely ever was...and was the best player on the planet...he even got the Hart for it one year.

I feel that Lindros was actually a plane above Neely except that Lindros wasn't universally loved like Neely was...and hence my statement that Neely's vote was for his popularity seem correct to me. Once again, I would equate Neely more closely with someone like Wendel Clark rather than Lindros...if Neely gets in then both Clark and Lindros would have to be in...and what about guys like Stumpy Thomas? It opens the door for a whole slew of people that otherwise would not have been considered.

 

[DKH]

Thanks. I'm sure you were part of a debate on the B's board sometime last year about Neely's place in the Hall. I've always been in favor, but the arguement came up that if Neeely goes in, does Lindros ? My off the cuff answere was no, but John The Flyers Fan,must have been waitng in the weeds for that one. In my mind, he proved me wrong,both statistically and by the impact Lindros had during his best years. He's another, that had his productivity cut by injuries,though in Lindros' favor, he put up numbers as a rookie, unlike Neely. Both players at their best changed the flow of games they played in. When Boston came to town, I knew my team just might not have an answere for Neely, no matter how well they played. I never felt that way about Gillies, though I respect him as a player. I love Steve Shutt, he got 60 one year, did he ever take over games like Neely ?

I like JFF but I'm not sure how much he saw of Neely. The funny thing about Lindros is I'm a pretty big fan of his, and would love to see the Bruins pick him up in the coming weeks- but Lindros has not had the career expected. And its not his fault due to injuries- but you can ask just about anyone in the game and they'll say no to Lindros (although it wont be in a second) and yes to Neely. Its about 4 or 5 posters that are on the Island which is to be expected.

As I have emailed you I live near and work out with a former member of those Islanders and we have had the Gillies arguments. He loves him and says he absolutely belongs. I compare him to Cashman in many ways. I don't think either belong personally, but he gives me the 4 rings stuff and his leadership etc. and how he was huge beyond the ice. Whatever- he can't change me.

Hey McPhee, just thinking but imagine the 75-79 Canadiens, 80-83 Islanders, and the Oilers from the 84-89 all playing in a round robin. The Islanders were the most complete team I have ever seen although that Canadien group was right there and could make an argument. The Oilers the most potent.

 

[PB37]

Do I know you...?

It's one thing to disagree about an opinion but another to blatantly go out of your way to be offensive. I don't ever recall talking to you before so why the attack?

In response to your claim that you've never read anything more wrong, I gotta say that I should take your statement with a grain of salt since even in the last few days, I've seen many outrageous things being posted by couple of people in particular that I could say with certainty was flat out wrong and not an opinion like this obvious is. In this regard, I would have to question the validity of your statement...or your intelligence.

Perhaps Ray would have gotten in to the Hall without a Cup and perhaps he wouldn't have. If Glen Anderson didn't get in again then we can't know for certain at this point exactly who would get in and who would not because the voting didn't take place when Ray was 30 years old. That's what being questionable is.

I recall talking to you in the past. One of the topics we had disagreed on was Andrew Raycroft, and the claim that you stated about Razor wanting to leave Boston (towards the end of the season last year). I had asked you several times afterwards to show some proof of this, which you never responded to.

As for the rest of the post that I had replied to, it's a pretty silly notion to even *think* that Ray Bourque was a "maybe" for the Hall of Fame if he didn't win a Cup. RB was not a tweener pick who needed a Cup to help bolster his status.

 

[arrbez]

This is an excellent point that I was thinking of. If Neely is in then you HAVE to put Lindros in because for a short period of time, Lindros was more dominant than Neely ever was...and was the best player on the planet...he even got the Hart for it one year.

I feel that Lindros was actually a plane above Neely except that Lindros wasn't universally loved like Neely was...and hence my statement that Neely's vote was for his popularity seem correct to me. Once again, I would equate Neely more closely with someone like Wendel Clark rather than Lindros...if Neely gets in then both Clark and Lindros would have to be in...and what about guys like Stumpy Thomas? It opens the door for a whole slew of people that otherwise would not have been considered.

wow, I've never heard Clark's name even mentioned as a hall of famer. I don't think you can group him together with Neely and Lindros at all.

Lindros and Neely had a similar impact for a similar period of time. The only real difference IMO being that Neely was wildly popular, and Lindros was/is quite unpopular among fans

Clark really only had one or two good offensive seasons in his career, and he doesn't have the Gainey-esque attributes in other area's to make up for it. I love Wendel Clark to death, but I would much rather see his Jersey honoured in with the Toronto Maple Leafs (where his legacy belongs) than see him in the HOF (where it doesn't)

 

[Malefic74]

This wasn't a "media pick." Cam had a lot of class off the ice, but he was never Boston's media darling. Plus, the media makes up a small percentage of those on the committee, and of those that are, some (ie: Dick Irvin and John Davidson) had other prominent places in the game before joining the press.

This was partly a media pick because he played in the East so more writers, GMs and voters saw him play. The Bruins have always been well covered and the exposure definately halped Cam. As I said before; if he has exactly the same career in LA or even Vancouver I don't think he gets even close. Fewer people would have seen him live, fewer people would have seen him on TV.

None of this is Cam's fault, but the amount of coverage players get in the East compared to the West is signifcantly more, and it has an effect on perception and voting.

 

[TCDaniels]

Perhaps Ray would have gotten in to the Hall without a Cup and perhaps he wouldn't have. If Glen Anderson didn't get in again then we can't know for certain at this point exactly who would get in and who would not because the voting didn't take place when Ray was 30 years old. That's what being questionable is.

I'm a big fan of Glenn Anderson, and certainly a member of the Glenn-for-the-Hall Camp

But...

To say that "Perhaps Ray would have gotten in to the Hall without a Cup and perhaps he wouldn't have" is - well - insane...

I think there's a bit of a difference between Ray and Glenn in 2 aspects away from the Stanley Cups

Ray's Resume:
All-Time Defenseman Goal Leader
All-Time Defenseman Assist Leader
All-Time Defenseman Point Leader
All-Time Point Leader (any position) of an Original 6 Team
4th All Time NHL Assists (any position)
Calder Trophy Winner
5-Time Norris Trophy Winner (3rd NHL All-Time behind Doug Harvey and Bobby Orr)
King Clancy Award Winner
19-Time All-Star Games (Second in NHL History to only Gordie Howe)
All Star Game MVP
13 Time NHL 1st Team All Star (NHL Record)
6 Time NHL Second Team All Star

I gotta think that as soon as ANYONE in NHL history was allowed into the HOF without his name on the cup - anyone with a resume like that is pretty much a shoe-in...

I mean - the All Time Leading Scorer amongst Defensemen... A player who can easily be argued as the second best player at his position in NHL History... 5 Times voted as the best at his position... More 1st Team All Star Selections than ANYONE in history... More assists than anyone in NHL History not named Gretz, Mess or Ron Francis...

What else would it take? Really? Once the door opened to non-SC winners - if you leave someone with a resume like that out, doesn't the whole thing become a farce? Isn't the Hall supposed to showcase the best players? Wouldn't you think that resume would qualify?

As far as the "if Glenn Anderson isn't in - who knows about Ray?" argument... Like I said - I'm a big fan of Anderson, but Ray was FAR FAR more dominant at his position than Glenn was (I can't ever recall anyone making the argument for Glenn Anderson as nearly the best forward in NHL history...)

But perhaps more importantly - and I don't know if this should be an issue or not - Ray Bourque was (and still is) a pillar of his community... Glenn certainly had his off-ice issues. Like I said - whether it's right or not to omit someone from the HOF because of off-ice issues is a topic for debate, but it certainly could weigh on the selection committees minds.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

I like JFF but I'm not sure how much he saw of Neely. The funny thing about Lindros is I'm a pretty big fan of his, and would love to see the Bruins pick him up in the coming weeks- but Lindros has not had the career expected. And its not his fault due to injuries- but you can ask just about anyone in the game and they'll say no to Lindros (although it wont be in a second) and yes to Neely. Its about 4 or 5 posters that are on the Island which is to be expected.

I saw Neely's entire career, and my basis for him not being inducted has never had anything to do with his ability to play the game.

Neely played just 726 games and during the first 200 or so he didn't play anything close to a Hall of Fame level (otherwise he'd never have been a Bruin). IMO if you're only going to play 500 games at a Hall of Fame level, you had better be on a different level from the rest i.e. Orr, Koufax etc.

As for Lindros being a Hall of Famer he's certainly better than a number of players in the Hall, so if you subscrive to the lowest common denominator theory he belongs. I'd prefer to have them all out (Neely, Mullen, Federko, Gillies, etc.)

As to why Neely gets universal support and Lindros disdain, it comes down to two things: expectations .. Lindros was supposed to be a top 5/10 all-time player, and whil ehe was on his way, it will now never happen. Second is personality ... Neely is very public, great with the media, and has a spotless reputation. The Lindros clan has angered a lot of people in the hockey world (OHL, Quebec, Philadelphia).

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Whoever said the HOF is not the Hall of Stats hit the nail on the head. Granted, Neely's stats aren't the best in the world. They're very good, but they're not the greatest. He didn't have the longest career. He didn't win the Holy Grail of hockey in the Stanley Cup. So why was he inducted?

IMO, it comes down to his influence from game-to-game. He was a great player; he could do so many things to hurt the other team without getting on the score sheet, a lot like Bobby Clarke in some ways. He could make a crucial hit to turnt he game, make a big play--not score, but still swing the tide. Neely was a tangible feeling that you could FEEL in the rink. Other teams feared him and later revered him. He was one of the best NHLers during his time, and one of the genuinely great power forwards we've ever seen. Like forwards are different than defensmenen when it comes to analyzing their styles, power forwards are different than skill forwards, and the criteria changes. Neely was one of the best of his breed, possibly ever. That's why he's in the Hall, IMO.

~Canucklehead~

 

[Marchy79]

First off, let me say as a hab fan who remembers Neely quite well, I gotta say he deserves to be there. People like to remember the intangibles only when it matters for them, but the fact is indeed fact. When Neely was on, he was quite possibly THE most fearsome powerforward in the game. Some will say he never won the cup... Well, his team was in 2 finals, against a literal dynasty team, and he was one of their main catalysts to reaching there, and furthermore, walk past a Bruin fan and mention Neely in the negative, and you get a similar reaction as walking past a hab fan mentioning a negative about Maurice 'The Rocket' Richard. These guys were the ultimate flesh and blood of what it meant to be:

A) a member of their respective teams (for Cam it was to be a Bruin, for the Rocket, it was to be a hab)
B) Electrified the audience game in, game out
C) Clutch performers
D) Laid it all on the line.

there is no doubt there is room for Cam to be a HOF'er. To disinclude him was a grave misjustice that many B's fans can attest to, and as a rival fan agreeing with them is IMO validation as to how good he was. Welcome Cam, I am glad your place has finally been found at the table of the legends of the greatest game on this earth. Now on with the show.

 

[David]

First off, let me make it absolutely clear that ever since the moment that Lindros refused to put on the Nordiques jersey at the podium in his 18th year, I had almost zero respect for Eric Lindros and liked him even less. However, I gotta call 'em like I see 'em.

Lindros and Neely had a similar impact for a similar period of time.

I would disagree whole heartedly with this claim. Lindros was a dominant force who was absolutely the very best player on the planet for about a season and a half and won a Hart for it at a very tender age of something like 21 years of age!
On top of this, Lindros was also a terror for another good 4 or 5 years on the Legion of Doom line before his concussion problems and bickering with Bobby Clarke sort of took all the steam out of the E-train!

Neely was never that. Neely was never even the best player on his own team...that distinction of course belonging to one Raymond Bourque from Montreal. Neely developed relatively late as most power forwards do and really had 3 or 4 good years before Ulfie's hit. He never led the scoring race, he wasn't what you would call a leader (although with the package of talent and toughness that he was blessed with, how he wasn't a leader has always been a mystery to me.) and he wasn't consistantly dominant like Lindros was during his Hart winning period of time. And when Cam was dominant, and he was that, his level of his dominance wasn't nearly as great as Lindros during Lindros' Hart years.

Neely was never as good or as dominant as Lindros...but to be fair, the only accomplishment of significance that Neely can boast is his 50 goal in 50 (49 wasn't it?) games.

wow, I've never heard Clark's name even mentioned as a hall of famer.

I think that is my whole point! I've never would have mentioned Neely's name as a Hall of Famer either...until now when I am forced to!

When I was comparing Wendel and Neely, my point was that Clark was pretty good when healthy but because he wasn't healthy for any long periods of time, he really couldn't be what he could have been.

Same with Neely. I recognize his greatness but because of his injury, he didn't do enough to be inducted in to the Hall...that coupled with the fact that both were hard nosed, take no prisoner type of good, hard working, honest guys who were fearless and would fight for anybody and do anything for their team mates are the qualities that really makes the two similar...and also the fact that their wildly disproportionate popularity amongst the fans in their respective cities.

It makes almost as much sense putting Wendel into the Hall as Neely...that is my point!

 

[David]

I recall talking to you in the past. One of the topics we had disagreed on was Andrew Raycroft, and the claim that you stated about Razor wanting to leave Boston (towards the end of the season last year). I had asked you several times afterwards to show some proof of this, which you never responded to.

You've got the wrong guy. That wasn't me. I do hope that you are a little more careful with your accusations in the future though...

 

[David]

He was, at his peak, one of the top 5 or 10 players in the game

I would never put Lindros in the Hall (although once again, he has a stronger case than Neely - except for his popularity)...and since you are agreeing with me that Lindros was better than Neely with the statement above (since Lindros was the BEST player on the planet for about a year and half), your argument for Neely in the Hall seems to be tied to emotional subjectivity rather than from objectivity arising from pure consideration of his accomplishments.

 

[Backin72]

Neely played just 726 games and during the first 200 or so he didn't play anything close to a Hall of Fame level (otherwise he'd never have been a Bruin). IMO if you're only going to play 500 games at a Hall of Fame level, you had better be on a different level from the rest i.e. Orr, Koufax etc.

For the last time, games played do not factor into selection. Once everyone gets past that, we can put that part of the arguement to bed.

Candidate Attributes
The following attributes are the basis on which the election of nominees to Honoured Membership is to be considered:

Player: Playing ability, sportsmanship, character and their contribution to the team or teams and to the game of hockey in general.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/html/indelection.htm

Considering those attributes, I don't think Lindros should be in the hall. Refusal to play for the team that drafted you is a slap in the face of professional hockey.

 

[David]

I'm a big fan of Glenn Anderson, and certainly a member of the Glenn-for-the-Hall Camp

But...

To say that "Perhaps Ray would have gotten in to the Hall without a Cup and perhaps he wouldn't have" is - well - insane...

I think there's a bit of a difference between Ray and Glenn in 2 aspects away from the Stanley Cups

Ray's Resume:
All-Time Defenseman Goal Leader
All-Time Defenseman Assist Leader
All-Time Defenseman Point Leader
All-Time Point Leader (any position) of an Original 6 Team
4th All Time NHL Assists (any position)
Calder Trophy Winner
5-Time Norris Trophy Winner (3rd NHL All-Time behind Doug Harvey and Bobby Orr)
King Clancy Award Winner
19-Time All-Star Games (Second in NHL History to only Gordie Howe)
All Star Game MVP
13 Time NHL 1st Team All Star (NHL Record)
6 Time NHL Second Team All Star

I gotta think that as soon as ANYONE in NHL history was allowed into the HOF without his name on the cup - anyone with a resume like that is pretty much a shoe-in...

I mean - the All Time Leading Scorer amongst Defensemen... A player who can easily be argued as the second best player at his position in NHL History... 5 Times voted as the best at his position... More 1st Team All Star Selections than ANYONE in history... More assists than anyone in NHL History not named Gretz, Mess or Ron Francis...

What else would it take? Really? Once the door opened to non-SC winners - if you leave someone with a resume like that out, doesn't the whole thing become a farce? Isn't the Hall supposed to showcase the best players? Wouldn't you think that resume would qualify?

As far as the "if Glenn Anderson isn't in - who knows about Ray?" argument... Like I said - I'm a big fan of Anderson, but Ray was FAR FAR more dominant at his position than Glenn was (I can't ever recall anyone making the argument for Glenn Anderson as nearly the best forward in NHL history...)

But perhaps more importantly - and I don't know if this should be an issue or not - Ray Bourque was (and still is) a pillar of his community... Glenn certainly had his off-ice issues. Like I said - whether it's right or not to omit someone from the HOF because of off-ice issues is a topic for debate, but it certainly could weigh on the selection committees minds.

Very good post with some solid arguments.

Yes, I agree with your statement that once the door opened to the Hall with Non-Stanley Cup winners then there was no going back...(so you are indirectly agreeing with me on the importance of a Cup to the entry into the Hall or that at least it used to be)...and that Neely benefitted from that.

And I guess my point has been that yes, the entry to the Hall has become a farce since then...they have to let in marginal guys like Neely in to justify their first selection...and now Neely paves the way for Lindros...too bad really how entry to the Hall has been cheapened so much over the years.

 

[mcphee]

I saw Neely's entire career, and my basis for him not being inducted has never had anything to do with his ability to play the game.

Neely played just 726 games and during the first 200 or so he didn't play anything close to a Hall of Fame level (otherwise he'd never have been a Bruin). IMO if you're only going to play 500 games at a Hall of Fame level, you had better be on a different level from the rest i.e. Orr, Koufax etc.

As for Lindros being a Hall of Famer he's certainly better than a number of players in the Hall, so if you subscrive to the lowest common denominator theory he belongs. I'd prefer to have them all out (Neely, Mullen, Federko, Gillies, etc.)

As to why Neely gets universal support and Lindros disdain, it comes down to two things: expectations .. Lindros was supposed to be a top 5/10 all-time player, and whil ehe was on his way, it will now never happen. Second is personality ... Neely is very public, great with the media, and has a spotless reputation. The Lindros clan has angered a lot of people in the hockey world (OHL, Quebec, Philadelphia).

Wouldn't you say that Neely and Lindros had similar impacts or influence on the game ? Gm's had visions of both of them in mind looking at a 6'4" kid with poor #'s still available in the 5th round every year. They were the 2 guys everyone felt their team had to have a guy like,if they wanted to dominate. I won't argue that Neely's great years were even close to an Orr or Koufax like career, but to me, he odinated in those years. I appreciate Malefic's comments about how he would be perceived if he played in LA. Look at it this way though. You make it in Boston,Mtl. or Toronto, you're making it under the microscope. Look at ballplayers who sign with the Yankees and by May are begging their agents to get them the hell out of there. Boston's a big stage in hockey like you said, but it takes something to make it there.

 

[trenton1]

He wasn't what you would call a leader (although with the package of talent and toughness that he was blessed with, how he wasn't a leader has always been a mystery to me.)

Same with Neely. I recognize his greatness but because of his injury, he didn't do enough to be inducted in to the Hall...that coupled with the fact that both were hard nosed, take no prisoner type of good, hard working, honest guys who were fearless and would fight for anybody and do anything for their team mates are the qualities that really makes the two similar...and also the fact that their wildly disproportionate popularity amongst the fans in their respective cities.

You make the stunning statement that Neely was not a leader---offering absolutely no factual evidence of that because there is none. Then two paragraphs later you call Cam (and Wendel Clark) "good, hard working, honest guys who were fearless and would fight for anybody and do anything for their team mates."
Please clarify how Cam is not a leader based on his character and the admissions you have already made here.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

For the last time, games played do not factor into selection. Once everyone gets past that, we can put that part of the arguement to bed.

It doesn't say goals scored mattered either. If you don't think games played is a factor you're dreaming.

 

[Backin72]

It doesn't say goals scored mattered either. If you don't think games played is a factor you're dreaming.

OK, link me.

 

[David]

You make the stunning statement that Neely was not a leader---offering absolutely no factual evidence of that because there is none. Then two paragraphs later you call Cam (and Wendel Clark) "good, hard working, honest guys who were fearless and would fight for anybody and do anything for their team mates."
Please clarify how Cam is not a leader based on his character and the admissions you have already made here.

Good point...that is why I prefaced my statement with how it's been a mystery to me for all these years.

Perhaps he was in the process of becoming a good leader (sort of like how Yzerman and Sakic were criticized often for their lack of leadership early on in their careers but grew into it later) but because perhaps of Ray long shadow and/or because of the fact that he was so seldem in the line up towards the last few years of his career, we never got to see it.

There is no denying my admiration for the guy and sadness for a career that was ended WAY too soon (this goes for Lafontaine too!) but the fact remains, Neely does not belong in the Hall based on his accomplishment. Sorry.

ps. oh, by the way, Wendel stuck up for others more than Cam did...just wanted to clear that up before someone else starts yelling at me about that too!

 

[trenton1]

Good point...that is why I prefaced my statement with how it's been a mystery to me for all these years.

Perhaps he was in the process of becoming a good leader (sort of like how Yzerman and Sakic were criticized often for their lack of leadership early on in their careers but grew into it later) but because perhaps of Ray long shadow and/or because of the fact that he was so seldem in the line up towards the last few years of his career, we never got to see it.

There is no denying my admiration for the guy and sadness for a career that was ended WAY too soon (this goes for Lafontaine too!) but the fact remains, Neely does not belong in the Hall based on his accomplishment. Sorry.

ps. oh, by the way, Wendel stuck up for others more than Cam did...just wanted to clear that up before someone else starts yelling at me about that too!

No need to say sorry. Your opinion is your own, if you don't think he belongs in the hall, cool. There will always be games and stats questions but he if there was one thing he unquestionably was (and still is as a member of the Boston community), it was a leader.

P.S. Wendel was one of my favorites of all time. But I have no idea how you can definatively say that Wendal or Cam stuck up more for their teammates. There is absolutely no way to actually prove that claim...unless you have hundreds of leafs and bruins game tapes of course.

 

[David]

P.S. Wendel was one of my favorites of all time. But I have no idea how you can definatively say that Wendal or Cam stuck up more for their teammates. There is absolutely no way to actually prove that claim...unless you have thousands of leafs and bruins game tapes of course.

Just going by my memories...that's all.

 

[trenton1]

Just going by my memories...that's all.

had to edit my earlier post...I said thousands of tapes...between Cam and Wendel they were lucky to get to a thousand games combined. These Neely threads would be a lot shorter if he had played a thousand games.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Wouldn't you say that Neely and Lindros had similar impacts or influence on the game ?

I don't believe so.

if I'm going to compare Neely to a Flyer, the better comparisons are to Kerr, Tocchet and LeClair.

I think the big difference is that Neely started off slow, then blossomed, and then his career ended while he was still at his peak.

Lindros was dominant from the start, got injured, and is now playing well below what he used to be. People remember the now Lindros and not the one that was the dominant player in the game. He was much bigger & stronger than Neely and for a long time was 5th all-time in points per game, while playing in a defensive era.


Players that IMO have caused the game to change in chronological order starting with Orr:

Orr
The Soviets
Gretzky
Hextall
Lindros