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

[Dennis Bonvie]

We're not debating the merits of dirty play, though. I was responding to the checkmarks that keep getting put in Lindros' column for, 'physical dominance'.

I would submit that a large part of the point of physical play is to intimidate the opposition, get them to hurry their plays, and generally get them off their game. I don't know if you can be said to be 'dominating' at that when guys like Ulanov, Kasparitis and Stevens are licking their chops at the idea of catching you at the blueline with your head down.

That was the case, at times at least, with Lindros. Was that ever true of Messier, though?

Good points.

But I'm sure there were other players with different styles of play that would prefer to play against Messier rather than Lindros.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I'm a bit surprised Lindros is leading the poll 120 to 52 given I thought Messier much more dominant overall. I filed a minority report, apparently.

Then I looked at who voted and notice that of those I know and respect:

Lindros (14) : BillyShoe1721, BraveCanadian, Darth Yoda, DaveG, Dennis Bonvie, eva unit zero, Fish on The Sand, ForsbergForever, Hardyvan123, Killion, King Forsberg, monster_bertuzzi, nik jr, Rhiessan71

Messier (15) : Big Phil, Bring Back Bucky, Dark Shadows, Hawkey Town 18, Hawkman, Hobnobs, Jafar, jkrx, pappyline, quoipourquoi, RabbinsDuck, revolverjgw, seventieslord, TheDevilMadeMe, vadim sharifijanov

It's about an even split.

And I think it really is that close in terms of their dominance in their primes.

Honestly, I never liked Messier and I can't say that didn't influence, in a small way, my vote.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So what's your point? None of this changes the fact that Messier was far and away better than Lindros in the playoffs. Its not even close, and it has NOTHING to do with the teams.

And let's not act like the Flyers were some underdog, either.

You are proving my point being on better teams with other catalysts makes it easier to be better for a guy like Moose.

Detroit was simply way better than the Flyers were for a SC playoff run and pretty much the case for all of Moose's teams, like Habsfanatic says why is this so hard to understand?

We all know Moose was the better performer in the playoffs, teams aside, but his situation was also much better.

 

[tombombadil]

I'm a bit surprised Lindros is leading the poll 120 to 52 given I thought Messier much more dominant overall. I filed a minority report, apparently.

Then I looked at who voted and notice that of those I know and respect:

Lindros (14) : BillyShoe1721, BraveCanadian, Darth Yoda, DaveG, Dennis Bonvie, eva unit zero, Fish on The Sand, ForsbergForever, Hardyvan123, Killion, King Forsberg, monster_bertuzzi, nik jr, Rhiessan71

Messier (15) : Big Phil, Bring Back Bucky, Dark Shadows, Hawkey Town 18, Hawkman, Hobnobs, Jafar, jkrx, pappyline, quoipourquoi, RabbinsDuck, revolverjgw, seventieslord, TheDevilMadeMe, vadim sharifijanov

It's about an even split.

well, there's always a way to come out satisfied without insulting anyone...

 

[Ace88*]

Lindros for me. He had a slight edge in just about every facet of hockey (save for leadership) in his prime. Messier could make things happen, but Lindros just bent the league to his will. There was no stopping him in his prime. He was a monster, pretty much did whatever he pleased because you couldnt take the puck from him. You couldnt knock him off of it. You couldnt put him on his ass to get it either. Defenders wouldnt want to go near him for fear of getting simply run over. Lindros' ability to skate flat out, plow through a 6', 200lb defender and not even come close to losing the puck was unreal.

Messier had a way better career but Lindros plain and simply was a more dominant force in their respective primes.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Lindros for me. He had a slight edge in just about every facet of hockey (save for leadership) in his prime. Messier could make things happen, but Lindros just bent the league to his will. There was no stopping him in his prime. He was a monster, pretty much did whatever he pleased because you couldnt take the puck from him. You couldnt knock him off of it. You couldnt put him on his ass to get it either. Defenders wouldnt want to go near him for fear of getting simply run over. Lindros' ability to skate flat out, plow through a 6', 200lb defender and not even come close to losing the puck was unreal.

Messier had a way better career but Lindros plain and simply was a more dominant force in their respective primes.

I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly what happened to Lindros in every playoff in his prime? 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 - every playoff of Lindros' prime - the Flyers lost to a lower-seeded defensive team every time. He'd come into the series breathing fire, and he'd have a really good game on home ice, and then he was a non-factor the rest of the way. Good defensive teams figured out how to neutralize him after just one or two games, and then the Flyers would be out in a short series.

So clearly, yes, he could be stopped.

 

[King Forsberg]

I voted Lindros for this poll. I feel like although Messier was seen as a star forward who could hit defend and score, Lindros was something else. When Lindros stepped onto the ice other teams knew they were playing against a 4th line enforcer on steroids who was super skilled. Teams knew they were gonna leave the game sore. Now that doesn't mean I think Lindros is better than Messier. Mess took things to a whole new level in the playoffs. That was where he truly shined. I think that is one aspect of his game that is truly under appreciated. Messier gets overrated at times but he was dynamite in the post season. Lindros on the other hand will always be seen as a "loser" unfortunately. He was never able to lead his team to a cup like Messier did. I think people, most importantly the Flyers and their fans would look at Lindros in a COMPLETELY different light if they win the Cup in 97. Lindros would have certainly won the Smythe that year if the Flyers win. His whole legacy would be different. He would have been a hero in Philly. Despite all the conflict between the Flyers and Lindros I think he probably would have played his whole career as a Flyer had he led them to a Cup.

Anyway, for the poll, my main reason for voting Lindros was that I think he was more physically dominant than any player in the game. He made a lot of tough players look weak. An although Lindros had his fair share of pain inflicted on him, I think he still left his mark on his opponents and the league.

Messier should win this poll if we were asking who had a better prime or career. In terms of Peak it's close but Messier runs away with the others especially when you factor in the playoffs. Maybe that's what the poll was asking but Im just interpreting it wrong but either way those are my feelings on the subject.

 

[quoipourquoi]

When Lindros stepped onto the ice other teams knew they were playing against a 4th line enforcer on steroids who was super skilled. Teams knew they were gonna leave the game sore.

Isn't that basically how Messier was described from 1982-1987?

 

[seventieslord]

I'm a bit surprised Lindros is leading the poll 120 to 52 given I thought Messier much more dominant overall. I filed a minority report, apparently.

Then I looked at who voted and notice that of those I know and respect:

Lindros (14) : BillyShoe1721, BraveCanadian, Darth Yoda, DaveG, Dennis Bonvie, eva unit zero, Fish on The Sand, ForsbergForever, Hardyvan123, Killion, King Forsberg, monster_bertuzzi, nik jr, Rhiessan71

Messier (15) : Big Phil, Bring Back Bucky, Dark Shadows, Hawkey Town 18, Hawkman, Hobnobs, Jafar, jkrx, pappyline, quoipourquoi, RabbinsDuck, revolverjgw, seventieslord, TheDevilMadeMe, vadim sharifijanov

It's about an even split.

Haha... I do that too. But I just go by "people I recognize". That way you don't implicitly state there are dozens you don't respect, and it still weeds out dozens who apparently just said "ooh, there's a poll in the history section. I'll vote, not say anything, and never come back."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm sorry, but isn't that exactly what happened to Lindros in every playoff in his prime? 1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998 - every playoff of Lindros' prime - the Flyers lost to a lower-seeded defensive team every time. He'd come into the series breathing fire, and he'd have a really good game on home ice, and then he was a non-factor the rest of the way. Good defensive teams figured out how to neutralize him after just one or two games, and then the Flyers would be out in a short series.

So clearly, yes, he could be stopped.

Here are the numbers for Lindros in series that his team lost.

1995: 6 GP, 2-3-5 (+1).
1996: 6 GP, 3-3-6 (EV). Lindros had 1 assist only between games 5 and 6
1997: 4 GP, 1-2-3 (-5). Lindros' only goal was in the dying minutes of an already-lost game 4. His 2 assists were in Game 1.
1998: 5 GP, 1-2-3 (-3).

I realize you can make most players look bad by only focusing on the series they lost, but when the claim is that a player "couldn't be stopped," I think this is sufficient to refute that claim.

This is not the story of Ovechkin in 2010, who had 10 points in a losing 7 game series. Lindros' personal stats went down significantly each time his team lost.

 

[King Forsberg]

Isn't that basically how Messier was described from 1982-1987?

To a degree, yes. Messier was tremendously physical and tough obviously. But Lindros was more intimidating to me. Lindros was a much better fighter and fought more frequently as well he fought legitimate fighters and won. I don't think Messier was as "scary" to play against. Messier used his feistiness and dirty play to win games. Lindros at times just didnt care. If the score was out of hand he might just level you because he could. And that absolutely is something to use against Lindros when comparing the two in terms of Greatness. But in terms of pure physical dominance and intimidation I think Lindros wins it.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

You are proving my point being on better teams with other catalysts makes it easier to be better for a guy like Moose.

Detroit was simply way better than the Flyers were for a SC playoff run and pretty much the case for all of Moose's teams, like Habsfanatic says why is this so hard to understand?

We all know Moose was the better performer in the playoffs, teams aside, but his situation was also much better.

Yeah, but Messier's helmet looked a lot cooler than Lindros'.

See? Now we are both making pointless and irrelevant arguments.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Isn't that basically how Messier was described from 1982-1987?

Precisely.

There are a lot of posts in this thread along the lines of, 'Messier had a better career, but I voted Lindros because. . .' and then go on to list a bunch of things that Messier actually did do.

 

[BudMovin*]

To a degree, yes. Messier was tremendously physical and tough obviously. But Lindros was more intimidating to me. Lindros was a much better fighter and fought more frequently as well he fought legitimate fighters and won. I don't think Messier was as "scary" to play against. Messier used his feistiness and dirty play to win games. Lindros at times just didnt care. If the score was out of hand he might just level you because he could. And that absolutely is something to use against Lindros when comparing the two in terms of Greatness. But in terms of pure physical dominance and intimidation I think Lindros wins it.

Well said.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

To a degree, yes. Messier was tremendously physical and tough obviously. But Lindros was more intimidating to me. Lindros was a much better fighter and fought more frequently as well he fought legitimate fighters and won. I don't think Messier was as "scary" to play against. Messier used his feistiness and dirty play to win games. Lindros at times just didnt care. If the score was out of hand he might just level you because he could. And that absolutely is something to use against Lindros when comparing the two in terms of Greatness. But in terms of pure physical dominance and intimidation I think Lindros wins it.

I'm sorry, but we're talking about Mark Messier, right?

I think a review of seventieslord's post here is in order:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=27918473&postcount=2

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Precisely.

There are a lot of posts in this thread along the lines of, 'Messier had a better career, but I voted Lindros because. . .' and then go on to list a bunch of things that Messier actually did do.

I have found that on these boards, there is a lot of motivation to split credit if it were. If Messier had the better career (something everyone can agree on), a lot of people will look for reasons why Lindros had the better prime. Human nature, I guess.

 

[King Forsberg]

I'm sorry, but we're talking about Mark Messier, right?

I think a review of seventieslord's post here is in order:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=27918473&postcount=2

Perhaps I should have specified I meant physically scary to play against. If you include all other hockey skills plus physicality then I'd say Messier was scarier. But if I'm lining up to take the faceoff against one player then Lindros is one person Id hope to avoid. My main point is just that Lindros was tougher and more intimidating than Messier but Messier was cleary the better player.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Perhaps I should have specified I meant physically scary to play against. If you include all other hockey skills plus physicality then I'd say Messier was scarier. But if I'm lining up to take the faceoff against one player then Lindros is one person Id hope to avoid. My main point is just that Lindros was tougher and more intimidating than Messier but Messier was cleary the better player.

I realize that was the point you were trying to make, but I still think you're underestimating how intimidating and ferocious Messier was in his prime. He'd crosscheck a guy in the face, and stare down the whole bench. And its not like it was all dirty stuff, either. He hit like a train. In one playoff game against Calgary, he put two Flames in the hospital with clean checks.

And, like I said before, as big and as tough as Lindros was, other players got the best of him physically. Never happened with Messier.

Seventieslord dug up some great quotes in that link I posted (without his permission, I should point out). I think they generally paint the picture of what 80s Messier was; a Lindros without the penchance for self-destructing and/or skating with his head down.

Honestly, I don't know that Messier loses the 'intimidation' game to too many. He's right there with Howe, Richard, Clarke, etc all time.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Lindros was a better fighter, though. If that's what you mean by tougher. Guy could have been an enforcer if he didn't have hands.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah, but Messier's helmet looked a lot cooler than Lindros'.

See? Now we are both making pointless and irrelevant arguments.

uh okay, that's a first comparing a guys helmet to his supporting cast in terms of relevance to their playoff success.

I think one thing happens to apply a bit more than the other but thanks for reinforcing my point on Moose's strong teams and Lindros weak ones and the lack of understanding on that actually might pertain to their respective reputations.

Look Moose way by far the better playoff performer but to suggest that their supporting casts don't matter in that regard is absurd.

Show me which of the 6 SC teams was inferior to any of Lindros playoff teams with both players removed....period.

I'll make it easy the 4 with Wayne ain't even close.

 

[ozzie]

Dominating can be taken in so many different ways. Prime can also be subjective.

People talk about fear, fighting, hitting and all those physical skills.

2 things really point me to Messier.

Messier was a pretty healthy guy for the most part over his career and that is really important. He had a much better understanding of how far to push himself, physically and keep himself in the game. He could be a bull in a china shop if need be, but he also knew when to back off, also kept his head up.

Secondly depending on when you consider Messier to be in his Prime? that is somewhat subjective. How many cups did he have under his belt in his prime according to most? 2? 4? 5?. He kept adding cups to his resume during his prime.

My point being is Messier was a winner, to me that 5th Cup was his peak. That 5th cup allowed Messier to step out of the shadow that was Gretzky, silenced a lot of critics if he had any left. So much so he stole Rays Hart trophy.

You can't tell me players who played against Messier were not in awe of his many cups, leadership and mean streak.

I think Messier's resume, winning pedigree more then made up for any edge Lindros had for steam rolling people. Messier could dominate a game just as well and he has the winning history to prove it.

 

[Dark Shadows]

I realize that was the point you were trying to make, but I still think you're underestimating how intimidating and ferocious Messier was in his prime. He'd crosscheck a guy in the face, and stare down the whole bench. And its not like it was all dirty stuff, either. He hit like a train. In one playoff game against Calgary, he put two Flames in the hospital with clean checks.

And, like I said before, as big and as tough as Lindros was, other players got the best of him physically. Never happened with Messier.

Seventieslord dug up some great quotes in that link I posted (without his permission, I should point out). I think they generally paint the picture of what 80s Messier was; a Lindros without the penchance for self-destructing and/or skating with his head down.

Honestly, I don't know that Messier loses the 'intimidation' game to too many. He's right there with Howe, Richard, Clarke, etc all time.

 

[BraveCanadian]

And hanging on for dear life..




Stevens blow to the head got the last laugh in the long line of concussions, but Lindros before his brain got scrambled was one tough hombre.

 

[Dark Shadows]

And hanging on for dear life..




Stevens blow to the head got the last laugh in the long line of concussions, but Lindros before his brain got scrambled was one tough hombre.

Never said he wasn't
Just pointing out that messier was as well.
The video of Messier bulldozing Stevens was both players knowing they would contact head on going for the puck. Stevens was fully braced delivering his own hit thinking usually that he could overpower most players and knock them off their feet with his hit. of course, a head on with Messier was almost always a loss for any player.

Posting a video of Lindros hitting Stevens from the side really had nothing to do with what I was getting at.

Mark Messier was Lindros' idol.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Never said he wasn't
Just pointing out that messier was as well.
The video of Messier bulldozing Stevens was both players knowing they would contact head on going for the puck. Stevens was fully braced delivering his own hit thinking usually that he could overpower most players and knock them off their feet with his hit. of course, a head on with Messier was almost always a loss for any player.

Posting a video of Lindros hitting Stevens from the side really had nothing to do with what I was getting at.

Mark Messier was Lindros' idol.

Something Stevens wasn't used to.