The Hockey News Top 100 Players
- Thread starter Leaf Lander
- Start date
They also have Francis ahead of Morenz, Bobby Clarke, and Milt Schmidt, Mogilny ahead of Dickie Moore, what a joke. 
Hockeyfan6781
Registered User
Keep in mind that this survey was taken in 1996. Before Yzerman captained three teams to the Stanley Cup. Right after Sakic had won the Conn Smythe, but before the 01 Cup and the three first team all-star selections. And before Hasek won four Vezinas, two Harts, two Pearsons and a Cup. In the case of Jagr, Lindros and Leetch, their placing was partially reflective of what they were expected to do. Lindros will not appear in the next top 100 in 2022, and I'd be surprised if Leetch is in there, either.hockeyfan6781 said:Lindros ahead of Sakic, Yzerman, and Hasek?
I think if sundin leads the leafs to a cup that he will then replace gretzky as the # 1 playerof all time
The idea that an active player could actually drop behind already retired ones over time doesn't make any sense whatsoever IMO.
It doesn't matter if a player's had some poor seasons lately - at least he's managed to add something to his resume. A few more goals and assists, perhaps even a playoff appearance or two. Unlike oldtimers who haven't done anything within that same time period.
Therefore, Lindros of 2006 should be clearly a greater player than Lindros of 1996 and Jagr of 2006 should be easily a greater player than Jagr of 1996.
It doesn't matter if a player's had some poor seasons lately - at least he's managed to add something to his resume. A few more goals and assists, perhaps even a playoff appearance or two. Unlike oldtimers who haven't done anything within that same time period.
Therefore, Lindros of 2006 should be clearly a greater player than Lindros of 1996 and Jagr of 2006 should be easily a greater player than Jagr of 1996.
But Jagr and Lindros' ranking were based largely on what they would do in the future. Former THN head honcho Steve Dryden even admitted so himself when Jagr finished ahead of Yzerman, Gartner, Stastny and a few others.Sampe said:
Jagr's ranking will improve, although I don't know if it'll be that much, considering Trottier is No. 29, and most of the voters put a high emphasis on winning Cups and performing in the playoffs. (Dryden also said that if the voting had taken place in 1998, Yzerman would have cracked the top 50 because of his playoff performances in 1997 and 1998). Lindros will fall, and he will be lucky to crack the top 100.
God Bless Canada said:
Not that I've done much research on the greatest NHLers myself, but just out of curiosity: would Lindros crack your personal top 100 and if so, would he be higher or lower than Cam Neely; another gifted player whose career was spoiled by injuries?
Sampe said:
Lindros and Neely are interesting. They're certainly great enough for the Top 100, but due to injuries their periods of greatness were not that long, and some people think that's important when doing these lists; it depends on who is doing the list, I think I would have both, or at least Lindros in my Top 100.
If memory serves me right (which it usually does), Neely just missed the top 100. When THN first released a list of the finalists for the top 50 (I think there were 91 players), Neely was mentioned as a guy who just missed out of being a finalist. (Note: THN originially only released the Top 50 in February of 1998, then released a top 100 later in the year. Other players who just missed being one of the 91 finalists, such as Sakic and Sittler, did crack the top 100.
In terms of peak value, Neely's top 100. As far as a career, he is not. If not for the injuries, Neely likely winds up in the top 50. He was a fantastic playoff performer. Scouts have spent the last decade endeavouring to find the next Neely, but haven't found a player who combines size, strength, physical play, goal scoring ability and clutch play in a way that Neely did. I don't know if they ever will.
The thing we have to remember about Neely is we never saw him at his best for an extended period of time. Injuries robbed him of the prime of his career. The Neely that obliterated the opposition in the 1991 playoffs was going to be the Neely for the next five or six years. He was just shy of his 26th birthday when the injury happened. He already had two 50-goal seasons and three second-team all-star selections, and you could tell by watching him each year that he was getting better. Three or four 70-goal seasons would not have been out of the question. He had a 50-50 season playing on essentially one leg, and he was close to a point-per-game in his final two years despite the deterioration in his lower body. Neely never had a prime, but he still managed 395 goals and is fourth all-time in playoff goals per game.
We saw Lindros at his best for notable spurts, but not extended periods of time. The Lindros we saw in 1995 and in 1998-99 was as good as it was going to get for him. Again, he's a guy who would be top 100 for peak value, and while he did have a prime, it wasn't lengthy. He could have been a top 50 all-time player, too. But the name Eric Lindros doesn't always conjure up positive connotations for hockey people. Two things work against Lindros' place in the game.
1) He has a spotty playoff record. He was a top scorer in the 1997 playoffs. But in that playoff, he will be best remembered for a Harry Houdini act in the final against Detroit. He was shut down by two rookies in 1996 (Jovanovski and Warrener) and was far from stellar in 1995 against New Jersey. The stats look good, but he was often a guy who vanished when he was really needed.
2) His struggles after the stellar 1998-99 season. He was never the same player after the potentially-fatal internal injuries suffered late in the 1998-99 season. (Reports indicated he would have died had he flown back to Philly after the game). He's had a lot of injuries since then, but even when healthy, he looks disinterested, apathetic, and frankly, he's not anywhere close to the physical force he once was. I think his odds of reaching the HHOF would have been better if he would have retired after the 1998-99 season.
In terms of peak value, Neely's top 100. As far as a career, he is not. If not for the injuries, Neely likely winds up in the top 50. He was a fantastic playoff performer. Scouts have spent the last decade endeavouring to find the next Neely, but haven't found a player who combines size, strength, physical play, goal scoring ability and clutch play in a way that Neely did. I don't know if they ever will.
The thing we have to remember about Neely is we never saw him at his best for an extended period of time. Injuries robbed him of the prime of his career. The Neely that obliterated the opposition in the 1991 playoffs was going to be the Neely for the next five or six years. He was just shy of his 26th birthday when the injury happened. He already had two 50-goal seasons and three second-team all-star selections, and you could tell by watching him each year that he was getting better. Three or four 70-goal seasons would not have been out of the question. He had a 50-50 season playing on essentially one leg, and he was close to a point-per-game in his final two years despite the deterioration in his lower body. Neely never had a prime, but he still managed 395 goals and is fourth all-time in playoff goals per game.
We saw Lindros at his best for notable spurts, but not extended periods of time. The Lindros we saw in 1995 and in 1998-99 was as good as it was going to get for him. Again, he's a guy who would be top 100 for peak value, and while he did have a prime, it wasn't lengthy. He could have been a top 50 all-time player, too. But the name Eric Lindros doesn't always conjure up positive connotations for hockey people. Two things work against Lindros' place in the game.
1) He has a spotty playoff record. He was a top scorer in the 1997 playoffs. But in that playoff, he will be best remembered for a Harry Houdini act in the final against Detroit. He was shut down by two rookies in 1996 (Jovanovski and Warrener) and was far from stellar in 1995 against New Jersey. The stats look good, but he was often a guy who vanished when he was really needed.
2) His struggles after the stellar 1998-99 season. He was never the same player after the potentially-fatal internal injuries suffered late in the 1998-99 season. (Reports indicated he would have died had he flown back to Philly after the game). He's had a lot of injuries since then, but even when healthy, he looks disinterested, apathetic, and frankly, he's not anywhere close to the physical force he once was. I think his odds of reaching the HHOF would have been better if he would have retired after the 1998-99 season.
Leaf Lander said:
LOL, you only say that because you're a Maple Leafs fan. I will be shocked if Lindros will ever be the player he used to be. He's too worried about having another concussion, that's why he's not as physical as he used to be.
God Bless Canada said:
Are you sure? The Lindros we saw in 1995 was barely 22 years old and the Lindros of 1998-99 had already missed 49 games within the previous two seasons.
Lindros' point production in 1996-97 was actually superior to his 1994-95 performance as overall scoring in the league went down. He was even slightly superior to Jagr stat wise despite Lemieux's influence.
Bluesfan1981 said:
yah im such a novice to all time hockey and to players place in the game
welcome to the history of hockey boards kid
Last edited:
There's more to evaluating a performance than stats. Lindros was nowhere near as good in 1997 as he was in 1995. Many will tell you that 1998-99 was the best he played, and frankly, I agree. He was everything he was hyped to be during that season. When you WATCHED him play that year, and how he dominated on a nightly basis (likely the second-best player in the league that year after Jagr), it's hard to imagine him getting any better.Sampe said:
Sorry, LL, but Lindros will never come close to being the player he once was. He doesn't have the mentality he used to have, and you can tell by watching him that his skills have eroded. If he could return to the level of his first year in New York, he should be happy. But to expect a return to the form shown in the lockout year and 1998-99, or even 1995-96 or 1996-97, is expecting way too much. He just doesn't have it anymore. At least with Jagr, you watched him play and knew that there was a chance for him to return to past levels in the right situation. This year's Rangers were definitely the right situation.
LOL, I didn't say you were.
God Bless Canada said:
Something in that equation doesn't make sense. Lindros was hyped to be "the next one"; he was considered the most gifted player of his generation. And yet Jagr managed to outplay him in his career season?
Sampe said:
Jagr was easily the best player in the league in 1998-99; Hart trophy, won the scoring title by 20 points
Sampe said:
I'm sure there would have been a little more Jagr hype if he was Canadian and not Czechoslovakian. Everyone from behind the iron curtain was an unknown commodity. Look how low some of the European stars got drafted in the early 90's.
No shame in coming second to a guy like Jagr anyways. One of the greatest offensive stars the game has ever seen.
arrbez said:
True, but my point still stands: if Lindros was everything he was hyped to be in 1998-99, he should have been better than Jagr. He wasn't, which either means that he was somewhat overrated to begin with or that he never truly reached his potential.
As I said, something in that equation doesn't make sense.
Sampe said:
I don't see how Jagr's achievements have anything to do with Lindros reaching his potential.
He was hyped as the best prospect in a long time, and of the prospects that we knew of, he was. Nobody knew Jagr would have been this good, or he clearly would have been picked 1st overall in his draft. That doesn't mean Lindros failed to reach his potential.
Prior to the Stevens hit in 2000, Lindros had 659 points in 486 games (that's a 110 point average pace per 82 game season, if he could have ever stayed healthy). That's a pretty fantastic pace for a guy who played the way Eric did. I'd say he lived up to every bit of the hype. He was well on his way to a first ballot HOF career before getting KO'd.
Jagr was a better offensive player, but Lindros was certainly better at every other aspect of the game. In my mind, they were fairly equal. If Lindros could have ever played an 82 game schedual he may have more than the one MVP. Hell, in 1995 the two of them tied for points and Lindros was awarded both the Hart and Pearson. Their greatness was very comparable, but they played styles that aren't easily compared.
arrbez said:
I just had a different picture of the hype that surrounded Lindros. Wasn't he considered the next one in the line of Howe-Orr-Gretzky-Lemieux? I remember having lots of debates with my classmate between 1995 and 1997 on who was better, Lemieux or Lindros (I was a Lemieux fan, he supported Lindros).
And as great as Jagr is, I wouldn't quite include him in that same group. Plus I'm pretty suspicious of the injuries Lindros sustained even before his supposed career year.
But oh well, it's all speculation anyway.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Skelleftea AIK @ Frolunda HC - Skelleftea leads series 3-2Wagers: 6Staked: $678.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
TO ADVANCE Barcelona vs Paris St-Germain - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Barcelona 3-2 - CBSWagers: 5Staked: $6,857.00Event closes- Updated:
-
TO ADVANCE Dortmund vs Atletico Madrid - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Atletico Madrid 2-1Wagers: 4Staked: $775.00Event closes
- Updated: