how will Lindros's career ultimately be assessed?

Badger Bob

Registered User
From here, it looks like it was unfulfilled potential. He had the combination of size, strength, skills and scoring ability to attain legendary status. What counted against him throughout his career?

* too close to the parents for far too long
* dictating, since juniors, where he wanted to play
* questionable leadership

HOF. Should not be a problem.
 
Last edited:

brody30*

Guest
He will be remembered by getting his **** rocked by scott stevens.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
He'll be remembered by one observer as a player who's career was decimated by injuries and ultimately, was one of promise unfulfilled.

Not to incite a big debate here, but he is not a HOFer, IMO. Could of, would of, should of does not cut it, nor does glimpses of greatness. He had a very nice run through the mid-90s and will end up with nice personal numbers. But he falls short.

Just my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Blades of Glory

Troll Captain
Feb 12, 2006
18,401
6
California
He'll be remembered by one observer as a player who's career was decimated by injuries and ultimately, was one of promise unfulfilled.

Not to incite a big debate here, but he is not an HOFer, IMO. Could of, would of, should of does not cut it, nor does glimpses of greatness. He had a very nice run through the mid-90s and will end up with nice personal numbers. But he falls short.

Just my opinion.

He's not a HOFer. You can't really compare him to Cam Neely, because Neely actually had an extended session of dominance in the league. Lindros' peak was all over the place.
 

Badger Bob

Registered User
Not to incite a big debate here, but he is not an HOFer, IMO. Could of, would of, should of does not cut it, nor does glimpses of greatness. He had a very nice run through the mid-90s and will end up with nice personal numbers. But he falls short.

Just my opinion.

With Clark Gillies having a plaque, isn't it difficult to fathom Lindros encountering that much resistance?
 

MiamiScreamingEagles

Global Moderator
Jan 17, 2004
71,039
48,011
His career will be remembered as a controversial combination of too many off-the-ice squabbles, a playing career that was dominating at times but one that achieved unfulfilled greatness due mainly to health issues and a recipient of a punctuating check. I can't see Lindros making the Hall of Fame with what he has achieved to date.
 

Oilslick941611

slapshot into the empty net...utterly irrelevant
Jul 4, 2006
13,722
12,539
Ottawa
its shame, he is a great player, he proved it, and still proves it, when he plays that is.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
With Clark Gillies having a plaque, isn't it difficult to fathom Lindros encountering that much resistance?

I personally think it is unwise to hold up a controversial selection as the de facto standard for all future HOF considerations. If Gillies' selection was a mistake, then why use him as a comparison, unless you simply want to compound the mistake?

And IMO, the league's premier power forward over the majority of his career, a major contributor on a dynasty squad vs. a great talent unfulfilled is by no means a clear decision in favor of #88.
 
Last edited:

BobbyClarkeFan16

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
10,777
3,877
Goderich, Ontario
Lindros will always be remember as a "what if" guy.....

1. What if he actually played in Sault Ste Marie for Ted Nolan
2. What if he actually played for Quebec
3. What if he told his parents to back off

Unfortunately, he'll be remembered as someone who was coddled throughout his career until it was too late. By then, he alienated nearly everyone in all organizations he's been through. Take a look. He slagged the Flyers organization. He slagged the Rangers. He slagged the Maple Leafs. It was always somebody else's fault that he never achieved greatness or that it was the organization's mishandling of him. If anything, Lindros will serve as a great reminder of what can happen when you coddle a player too much and then demand that he grow up.
 

John Flyers Fan

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
22,416
16
Visit site
He's not a HOFer. You can't really compare him to Cam Neely, because Neely actually had an extended session of dominance in the league. Lindros' peak was all over the place.

I wouldn't put Lindros in the Hall, but if Neely is in Lindros should be in as well. Lindros was a much better hockey player than Neely. Both should be out.
 

Deleted member 3032

Guest
He's not a HOFer. You can't really compare him to Cam Neely, because Neely actually had an extended session of dominance in the league. Lindros' peak was all over the place.

Lindros had a longer period of dominance than Neely.

Code:
Season Team                   Lge  GP   G    A  Pts   PIM
[i]1992-93 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  61  41  34  75   147
1993-94 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  65  44  53  97   103
1994-95 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  46  29  41  70    60
1995-96 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  73  47  68  115  163 
1996-97 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  52  32  47  79   136
1997-98 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  63  30  41  71   134
1998-99 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  71  40  53  93   120[/i]
1999-00 Philadelphia Flyers NHL  55  27  32  59    83

Code:
Season Team             Lge  GP   G    A  Pts  PIM
[i]1986-87 Boston Bruins NHL  75  36  36  72  143
1987-88 Boston Bruins NHL  69  42  27  69  175
1988-89 Boston Bruins NHL  74  37  38  75  190 
1989-90 Boston Bruins NHL  76  55  37  92  117
1990-91 Boston Bruins NHL  69  51  40  91   98[/i]
1991-92 Boston Bruins NHL   9    9    3  12   16
1992-93 Boston Bruins NHL  13  11    7  18   25
1993-94 Boston Bruins NHL  49  50  24  74   54

Note: This isn't all of either players seasons, but the ones I considered most relevent for comparison (Lindros and Neely's prime).

Lindros' totals for his prime from 1992-1999.
GP: 431 G: 263 A: 337 P: 600
G/G: .61 A/G: .78 P/G: 1.39

And for comparison with Neely's prime (since Lindros had a longer prime), here is Lindros' first five seasons in the NHL.
GP: 297 G: 193 A: 243 P: 436
G/G: .64 A/G: .81 P/G: 1.46

Neely's totals for his prime from 1986-1991.
GP: 363 G: 221 A: 178 P: 399
G/G: .60 A/G: .49 P/G: 1.10

Lindros not only had a longer prime, but had a better prime statistically (in a lower scoring era). Lindros was a significantly better player than Neely, and for a longer period than Neely. Not only that, Lindros' current career PPG average (1.18) is still higher than the PPG average for Neely's prime (the 5 years above). If Neely is considered an acceptable admission into the HHOF, than Lindros should be, too.
 

pavel13

Registered User
Aug 15, 2003
2,716
0
Visit site
Well, ultimately, he will be judged when his career ends.

And I don't see him turning his career around enough to be judged much differently than he is now.
 

Ogopogo*

Guest
He is a jackass but also one of the 100 greatest players of all time.
 

Northern Dancer

The future ain't what it used to be.
Mar 2, 2002
15,199
13
5 K from the ACC
Lindros will always be remember as a "what if" guy.....

1. What if he actually played in Sault Ste Marie for Ted Nolan
2. What if he actually played for Quebec
3. What if he told his parents to back off

Unfortunately, he'll be remembered as someone who was coddled throughout his career until it was too late. By then, he alienated nearly everyone in all organizations he's been through. Take a look. He slagged the Flyers organization. He slagged the Rangers. He slagged the Maple Leafs. It was always somebody else's fault that he never achieved greatness or that it was the organization's mishandling of him. If anything, Lindros will serve as a great reminder of what can happen when you coddle a player too much and then demand that he grow up.

when did he slag the leafs ???
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Cam Neely was a four-time all-star. Lindros was a two-time all-star. Neely was also a much better playoff performer, and is generally thought of much higher than Lindros.

Here's why Eric Lindros will not get in the HHOF: there are too many negatives associated with the name "Eric Lindros." The man is the most physically blessed player since Mario Lemieux. He had the skills, the size, the strength, to be the next Messier. (The mental side of his game wasn't as strong as Lemieux and Messier, and he didn't have their overall winner's edge). The Lindros peak isn't as strong as some people like to think it is: he had a peak from 1995-1999. (Remember, he wasn't a Calder finalist in 1993, and even though the numbers looked good in 1994, a lot of people were left wanting from his performance). Won the Hart in 1995, a second-team all-star in 1996, a dominant player when healthy in 1997 and 1998, and maybe the second-best player in the league in 1999, after Jagr. Ran roughshod over the Eastern Conference in the 1997, then was shut down by Detroit in the final.

The name "Eric Lindros" carries certain connotations: a big, strapping, highly skilled power centre is the positive. But he could be inconsistent at times. Since the trade from NY, his career has been marred by lethargic and apathetic play. Even in the final year in Philly, he reportedly apologized to his teammates for his performance, citing the feud with Bobby Clarke as the root. He hasn't always been the finest example of a human or a teammate. His character is not the strongest, and HHOF voters put a big emphasis on character. Now, when a scout makes a comparison to Eric Lindros, it won't be meant as a compliment.

And a lot of Philly's playoff failures during his tenure can be linked to him. Shut down by Stevens in 1995. Okay, we understand that. Stevens shut down pretty much everyone. Shut down by several Red Wings in 1997. Wasn't 100 per cent in 1998, injured in 1999 and most of 2000. But shut down by Jovo and Rhett Warrener in 1996?
 

kruezer

Registered User
Apr 21, 2002
6,718
274
North Bay
I wouldn't put him in, though I really believe people forget just how much talent he had, I mean, scoring 1.5 points per game in your first 5 years in the NHL? That is ridiculous, I believe he had a shot at being a top 15 or 20 player all time if he could have put it all together, however, he did not and I don't think his career is HHOF worthy.
 

crashlanding

Registered User
Nov 29, 2005
7,605
0
Chicago
And IMO, the league's premier power forward over the majority of his career, a major contributor on a dynasty squad vs. a great talent unfulfilled is by no means a clear decision in favor of #88.
While I agree with much of what you said, I feel the Bruins and Flyers are remarkably close when you throw around words like "dynasty" if you are indeed referring to Neely in this statement.

Philadelphia was more a victim of poor goaltending in the playoffs than a lack of performance from Lindros. I would also consider him the NHL's premiere power forward from 95-99. Had Lindros been healthy in 99 they could have made a pretty good run, same for 98 when he ran into a hot Hasek.

While I don't think Lindros will make the HOF, his career will be looked at as one of a cautionary tale. If you come into the league with demands you will not make many friends. If you don't take your injuries seriously and try to come back to fast they will recur (2000 is a PRIME example of that). I agree with GBC in that a player labeled as "the next Lindros" will carry a somewhat negative connotation.

I actually feel sorry for Lindros after all these years. He was propped up since he was young as "the next one." His parents did nothing to keep him grounded, they in fact did as much propping up as anyone. Philly was not the best place for him to play, neither was NY or TO, he seems to be too quiet a guy to handle that kind of pressure. Plus I blame Clarke as much as Lindros for his fall from grace in Philly. The collapsed lung incident is the clearest case. He could have been "the next one" given the right circumstances and a body that could handle his style of play. Shame it's all become a bunch of "could have's," I think he could have had the same legacy as Mario.
 

Trottier

Very Random
Feb 27, 2002
29,232
14
San Diego
Visit site
While I agree with much of what you said, I feel the Bruins and Flyers are remarkably close when you throw around words like "dynasty" if you are indeed referring to Neely in this statement.

Actually, the player I was referring to was Clark Gillies and the dynasty was the NY Islanders. Was not talking about Neely at all, sorry for the confusion.

You make a lot of solid points in your post. The anticipation for Lindros when he was drafted in the summer of '91 (heck, going back to when he 16 years old) was intense.

My takeaway from Lindros' star-crossed career: just how incredible the careers of those to whom he was compared early on - Messier, Lemieux - truly were. We often take them for granted. Their accomplishments, personal and team-wise, are monumental...and so ridiculously hard to achieve.
 

#66

Registered User
Dec 30, 2003
11,585
7
Visit site
I wouldn't put him in, though I really believe people forget just how much talent he had, I mean, scoring 1.5 points per game in your first 5 years in the NHL? That is ridiculous, I believe he had a shot at being a top 15 or 20 player all time if he could have put it all together, however, he did not and I don't think his career is HHOF worthy.
Thats a good call Kruez. Jerk or not, for a short while his numbers were at an elite level and its not like he was a one year wonder. Even more than stats, he dominated like very few have IMO. In the end, I'll take Lindros at his best over Neely and alot of other players in the Hall but thats not to say that he belongs there. IMO he's getting badly undervalued because of the way he's going out.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->