Eric Lindros vs. Mark Messier - Who was more dominant in his prime?

[mobilus]

Ask Dackell if Lindros was cruel.

Lindros hit on Dackell was similar to his hit breaking Samuelsson's collar bone in the '91 Canada Cup. That isn't cruelty, it's physics. I don't recall hearing of Lindros throwing blind elbows or anything similar.

 

[quoipourquoi]

At 23 Lindros was better in the playoffs than Messier was at 23.

Mark Messier at 22 scored 14 goals in his first 10 playoff games before getting his shoulder separated. Let's not pretend that Eric Lindros was something in the playoffs that Mark Messier wasn't.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Mark Messier at 22 scored 14 goals in his first 10 playoff games before getting his shoulder separated. Let's not pretend that Eric Lindros was something in the playoffs that Mark Messier wasn't.

And was still 3rd on his team in points.

So yes, the point stands.

 

[jkrx]

Lindros hit on Dackell was similar to his hit breaking Samuelsson's collar bone in the '91 Canada Cup. That isn't cruelty, it's physics. I don't recall hearing of Lindros throwing blind elbows or anything similar.

Oh Lindros definitely liked to knock heads and injure players.

Edit: Off-topic but it amazes me to this day how much Canada was allowed to man handle Mats Näslund in '91...

 

[quoipourquoi]

And was still 3rd on his team in points.

So yes, the point stands.

Explain to me logically how it follows that being outscored by Wayne Gretzky and his linemate in back-to-back 20+ point playoffs makes one a worse playoff player at 23 than Eric Lindros? Lindros was 24 when the 1997 playoffs happened. At 24, Messier had his third-straight 20+ point playoff.

Come on. "At 23 Lindros was better in the playoffs than Messier was at 23"? Puh-lease.

 

[Big Phil]

just saw a thread on the main board: alex ovechkin surpassed lindros in career goals last week. really kind of puts the lindros era in perspective, doesn't it?

Had to look that up, but yeah it surprises me that Ovechkin was still behind him for some reason.

The Oilers caught lightning in a bottle in 1990 and won the cup, but they were not one of the best teams in the league at any point after Gretzky left. They played great in the playoffs of 1990 but that was Bill Ranford not Messier.

I don't agree with this one. Edmonton in 1990 was 5th overall in points. They were in Calgary's division, and for my money that was the best team all year even though they finished two points behind Boston. This was still a very good team capable of winning it all. I'll give Ranford credit here, but there is no denying Messier himself didn't have a Conn Smythe-worthy run. If he were named Conn Smythe winner over Ranford there wouldn't be a protest either.

I eluded to this upthread.

At 23 Lindros was better in the playoffs than Messier was at 23.

Messier was great, gets a lot of credit for a hit on a past his prime Potvin, but 3rd on his team in scoring.

If anything that demonstrates how much help he had in winning his first cup.

Meanwhile, Lindros gets put down for "not being able to deliver" or whatever, but if you put Messier as a 23 year old on that team they don't win either. They were mostly a one line team in Philly.

After 23, Lindros basically didn't have a playoff career because it was completely derailed.

To be fair, in 1984 Messier won the Conn Smythe over Wayne Gretzky. Now, I myself have made arguments as to why Gretzky should have won it that year and they are arguments such as the media giving it to someone other than Gretzky who was at least close to him just because they were sick of Gretzky winning everything. But either way, like in 1990 when people complain that Bourque should have won the Hart, we forget that Messier had a ridiculous season himself. And in 1984 he had a ridiculous playoff himself, and I personally think he had at least two better runs.

And remember, we also saw Messier win two Cups sans Gretzky, and neither time did he lay an egg in the final the way Lindros did in 1997.

 

[LoPan]

And was still 3rd on his team in points.

So yes, the point stands.

If Lindros was on that team he would be lucky to be 3rd in points behind Gretz and Kurri.

 

[sr edler]

If Lindros was on that team he would be lucky to be 3rd in points behind Gretz and Kurri.

Why do you say that? Personally I don't think a 23 year old Lindros would have been much troubled to put up 23 points in 19 games on the Oilers in the playoffs in the early to mid 80s.

The question here is would Philly have won against Detroit in 97 with Messier instead of Lindros? I don't buy that. This "Messier is a mythical winner who pretty much willed his teams to Cups by himself" thing is a bit silly. Everytime he won a cup he played on thick, thick teams. Except perhaps in 1990, but that team was still very, very good. In 92–93 though when Leetch went out with an injury he couldn't even will his team to the playoffs.

 

[sr edler]

To be fair, in 1984 Messier won the Conn Smythe over Wayne Gretzky.

Yes, and Goring won the Smythe over Bossy, Trottier and Potvin. Vernon won the Smythe over Fedorov. Nieuwendyk won the Smythe over Modano. Niedermayer won the Smythe over Pronger.

 

[pluppe]

Does anybody have a peak and prime R-ON / R-OFF comparison for Lindros vs Messier (post Gretzky). It might give an indication on degree of domination.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Why do you say that? Personally I don't think a 23 year old Lindros would have been much troubled to put up 23 points in 19 games on the Oilers in the playoffs in the early to mid 80s.

To be #2 in scoring on the 1984 Edmonton Oilers (when Messier was 23), one would need 29 points in 19 games. To be #2 in scoring on the 1983 Edmonton Oilers (when Messier was 22), one would need 24 points in 16 games. Considering 23-year-old Eric Lindros was held to 12 points in 12 games against Tampa Bay and Florida in 1996 and largely neutralized after Games 1 and 2 on home ice in each series, he doesn't appear to be any more likely to supplant Edmonton's #2 scorer than Messier was. BraveCanadian using Messier's #3 finish as evidence that Lindros at 23 was better than Messier at 23 is a bit absurd.

The equivalent year to Eric Lindros' 1997 playoffs (which began when he was 24 years and 48 days old) would be the 1985 playoffs (which began when Messier was 24 years and 83 days old). To be #2 in scoring on the 1985 Edmonton Oilers, one would need 38 points in 18 games. Good luck.

Lindros' run as a 24-year-old (26 points in 19 games) may be better than Messier's corresponding run as a 24-year-old (25 points in 18 games), but I'm not sure that singling out the playoff that accompanied Mark Messier's only sub-point-per-game regular season from 1981-82 through 1996-97 is really the best measure of Messier's dominance.

So in conclusion, the statement: "At 23 Lindros was better in the playoffs than Messier was at 23," is not true. At 23-years-old, Eric Lindros had a cumulative playoff stat-line of 27 points in 24 games. At 23, Mark Messier had already exceeded Lindros' career playoff numbers while simultaneously being praised for his defensive play.

 

[Big Phil]

Yes, and Goring won the Smythe over Bossy, Trottier and Potvin. Vernon won the Smythe over Fedorov. Nieuwendyk won the Smythe over Modano. Niedermayer won the Smythe over Pronger.

So what's the point? This whole talk that Messier couldn't have performed better than Lindros in 1997 in the final is foolish. We are talking about a prime Messier. When Messier was "the man" in 1990 and 1994 he never had a bad series. We saw that with Messier and we saw that Lindros looked almost uninterested in 1997 against the Wings. To have seen what we saw from Messier - a player who almost never left you wanting more on the ice - and what we saw in Lindros - a player who often left us thirsting for more - I can't imagine how Messier could possibly have done worse.

Plus, we saw Lindros lay an egg in 1997 but he apparently would have no problem eluding Trottier and Potvin in 1984?

 

[sr edler]

This whole talk that Messier couldn't have performed better than Lindros in 1997 in the final is foolish.

It's very possible Messier could have performed a bit better against Detroit in the 97 finals than Lindros did, but I still don't think Philly wins because the team as a whole wasn't good enough. Perhaps Philly wins a game with Messier's biblical super powers but Detroit was easily the better team at the time and so was Colorado.

 

[Big Phil]

It's very possible Messier could have performed a bit better against Detroit in the 97 finals than Lindros did, but I still don't think Philly wins because the team as a whole wasn't good enough. Perhaps Philly wins a game with Messier's biblical super powers but Detroit was easily the better team at the time and so was Colorado.

I'm glad you admit that Messier wouldn't have at least been invisible in his prime in 1997 against the Wings, unlike Lindros. Because with the evidence we see, Lindros wasn't exactly a better big game player in the mid 1990s than Messier was at that time. This isn't a prime Messier we are talking about either. The World Cup for example in 1996 Lindros had one more point than Messier and one less than Gretzky and Coffey. This is an old Messier he is playing with and he hardly outplayed him.

 

[Gardner McKay]

Messier by a good bit. I feel like so many people here are young enough to remember Lindros in his prime but not old enough to remember Messier in his prime. I mean Messier was 34 when the Rangers won the cup in 1994. Lindros was what, 20?

 

[Hot Water Bottle]

Messier fans: "Here are the stats that prove Messier is better"

Lindros fans: "But Lindros looked so purty out there! Who cares about the numbers."

 

[pluppe]

Does anybody have a peak and prime R-ON / R-OFF comparison for Lindros vs Messier (post Gretzky). It might give an indication on degree of domination.

Anybody?

 

[sr edler]

Messier fans: "Here are the stats that prove Messier is better"

Eh, stats. Of course Messier's stats will look good in comparison, the guy played in the 80s. 26 points in 19 games in 97 → 26 points in 19 games in 85. Pretty easily. People seem to forget Lindros had a ridiculous PPG and won a Hart and a Pearson, and should have won the Ross too because lesser played games is a better tie breaker for the Ross than goals. And he did it in a very competitive era. 90s → 80s. And I'm not even that much of a Lindros fan.

Lindros problem was that he couldn't stay healthy and that he didn't play on a thick enough team. Look at the teams Gretzky, Messier, Lemieux won Cups on. Those are some pretty good teams. Look at the teams Lidström, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov won Cups on. Again, pretty good teams. Forsberg didn't even have to play in the last two rounds of his second Cup win. That's how good of a team that was.

You'll have to give Messier an edge for his cynical playing style though. If Lindros had a bit more of that, and a bit less of the recklessness a la Neely, he probably would have lived longer and healthier in the game. But everyone isn't a natural bully.

 

[Boxscore]

Lindros was more physically dominant but Messier accomplished more with his dominance so I give the edge to Moose..... even though I'm a huge Lindros guy.

 

[Big Phil]

Eh, stats. Of course Messier's stats will look good in comparison, the guy played in the 80s. 26 points in 19 games in 97 → 26 points in 19 games in 85. Pretty easily. People seem to forget Lindros had a ridiculous PPG and won a Hart and a Pearson, and should have won the Ross too because lesser played games is a better tie breaker for the Ross than goals. And he did it in a very competitive era. 90s → 80s. And I'm not even that much of a Lindros fan.

Lindros problem was that he couldn't stay healthy and that he didn't play on a thick enough team. Look at the teams Gretzky, Messier, Lemieux won Cups on. Those are some pretty good teams. Look at the teams Lidström, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov won Cups on. Again, pretty good teams. Forsberg didn't even have to play in the last two rounds of his second Cup win. That's how good of a team that was.

You'll have to give Messier an edge for his cynical playing style though. If Lindros had a bit more of that, and a bit less of the recklessness a la Neely, he probably would have lived longer and healthier in the game. But everyone isn't a natural bully.

But......is 26 points in 1997 better than 26 in 1985 when you lay an egg in the final? Lindros did just that. Let's also remember that while out west there was Colorado and Detroit, in the east there was Philly and Jersey. Year after year Philly was a Cup contender, let's not forget this. No one at the time said "Well, Philly just isn't deep enough to win." It was more along the lines of Lindros just never taking that extra step that we saw players do before him. Gretzky, Lafleur, Messier, Lemieux, etc. We all wanted to see Lindros do this but he didn't. The Flyers had the Legion of Doom line plus Rod BrindAmour. Desjardins was on defense, Hextall - while often erratic - was in net. Or Beezer after him. They had a team that could have won the Cup, is what I am saying.

Not to mention Lindros was the best player on either team against the Wings. No question about it. Heck, take away Lemieux and he was my pick for the best player in the whole NHL in 1997. He just could have done more, that's all. The three years he got out of the first round in the postseason (1995, 1996, 1997) he always ended up getting shut down in an ugly way.