Blades of Glory
Troll Captain
Pat Falloon was a Franchise player, a cornerstone, Second to Lindros that year..His career was a bigger bust than even Daigle...A shocking letdown...
Much like Daigle, Fat Balloon just did not have the desire.
Pat Falloon was a Franchise player, a cornerstone, Second to Lindros that year..His career was a bigger bust than even Daigle...A shocking letdown...
Lindros
Crosby
Daigle
Without any doubt or hestitation.
It might not be the point of the thread, but if anything, the hype around Daigle was that would end up a Gaborik-like player.
Franchise, superstar winger.
But not generational.
Something Crosby and Lindros were hyped as.
Turned out Crosby IS a generationnal talent, while Lindros wasn't.
Lindros absolutely was a generational talent. I don't see how you could say he wasn't.
Lindros absolutely was a generational talent. I don't see how you could say he wasn't.
The talk about Lindros was unreal. Even out in BC we knew a lot about Eric Lindros, and this is way before the internet.
Pat Falloon was a Franchise player, a cornerstone, Second to Lindros that year..His career was a bigger bust than even Daigle...A shocking letdown...
Agreed.
Lindros made the 1991 CC team with HOF'ers on it. No way Crosby makes that team.
again, lindros was the better prospect on paper. but the reason lindros made that team and crosby wouldn't have is because lindros was bigger and stronger than most pros at the age of 18. it doesn't prove that he projected to be a better player than crosby at the same age, just that he was more physically able to compete with men at that age.
So physical ability and size should detract from Lindros? He was what he was -- a manchild. That is why
Lindros' size and strength would have vaulted him over both Crosby and Daigle if they were in the same draft year. Period.
And people have to remember why and when Crosby was getting all the hype. It was due to a lockout and the NHL was in dire need of fixing its image. It had zero promotable stars in the U.S., so it created a massive ad campaign to trumpet Crosby (deservedly so).
Lindros came into the league with Mario and Gretz and Messier still dominating the headlines.
I'm not a fan of either Lindros or Crosby, but you have to wonder if Lindros is playing in todays "skill/headshot conscious" NHL, does he dominate more than he did between 1995 and 1999.
I certainly think so.
The one thing I'd say about the comparisons of the "generational" players.
Going by the scouts I know, they actually looked forward to seeing Crosby. (I know that doesn't sound like much, but they generally don't get too excited about much.) Sorta the same way with Stamkos. They loved how fundamentally sound and clean SC's and, to a lesser extent, SS's games were. Lindros was a bigger deal because there were nothing subtle about his virtues. How was his passing? His game instincts? Vision? Ultimately, all answers were: Who cares? He's that big and that fast and that purely athletic. Say what you want about his effectiveness but his hockey IQ was never rated one of his strengths--not in the way it is with SC, Ovechkin or even next tier prospects such as Lecavalier and Stamkos and Doughty.
And one could say that he didn't quite live up to expectations until the 87 Canada Cup. There were questions about his work ethic and desire early on in Pittsburgh. But after Keenan put him on Gretzky's line in Game 2 a lightbulb went on and Mario became Mario.
The one thing I'd say about the comparisons of the "generational" players.
Going by the scouts I know, they actually looked forward to seeing Crosby. (I know that doesn't sound like much, but they generally don't get too excited about much.) Sorta the same way with Stamkos. They loved how fundamentally sound and clean SC's and, to a lesser extent, SS's games were. Lindros was a bigger deal because there were nothing subtle about his virtues. How was his passing? His game instincts? Vision? Ultimately, all answers were: Who cares? He's that big and that fast and that purely athletic. Say what you want about his effectiveness but his hockey IQ was never rated one of his strengths--not in the way it is with SC, Ovechkin or even next tier prospects such as Lecavalier and Stamkos and Doughty.
Lindros was a tremendous passer with excellent vision. He wasn't just a big man, he was a big man with elite level skills.
LeClair didn't go from a 20 goal scorer to a 50 goal scorer by accident.
Please explain how anyone who plays with his head down could be considered to have excellent vision. 200 - 240 LB defensemen lining you up for a hit a rather difficult to not "see".
I'd probably go with
Lindros
Daigle
Crosby
this is not to say that I think Crosby isn't a better player now than Lindros but considering how dominant Lindros was coming into the draft you cant not take him first same with Daigle
you misunderstand me. of course lindros' size doesn't detract from his prospect status. what i meant was your specific example-- him making that canada cup team while crosby almost certainly would not have-- should not be taken as evidence that lindros projected to be the better player. i agree with you that lindros did project to be the better player, but the fact of his making the canada cup team in '91 is not evidence of that.
lindros made that team because he had the physical gifts to compete against high level adults at 18 years old. everyone in the world knew that, at ages 21, 25, etc., both lindros and crosby would be among the best of the best. the fact that lindros got there sooner has no real bearing on their projected potentials at later stages of their physical and on-ice development.
Lindros was an excellent passer, which is what JFF was saying. And the stats clearly back that up, both in terms of his own assist totals and the effect he had on his linemates.