if Lindros/Crosby/Daigle shared the same draft year how would you rank them?

[Blades of Glory]

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.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Lindros
Crosby
Daigle

Without any doubt or hestitation.

Agreed.

Lindros made the 1991 CC team with HOF'ers on it. No way Crosby makes that team.

 

[Bubba88]

Lindros

Crosby
Daigle

 

[Hunter Gathers]

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.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

Lindros absolutely was a generational talent. I don't see how you could say he wasn't.

Completely agreed.

For all the Ovechkin/Crosby love fest that we have here (well deserved), if you could give me a healthy Lindros and Jagr, in the post lockout era, as opposed to the hook/hold/intereference trap fest of the mid-late 90's I'd feel very confident in my chances.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

Lindros absolutely was a generational talent. I don't see how you could say he wasn't.

All they have to do is look at the trade packages Philly and the Rangers put together to get the kid who never stepped a foot on NHL ice.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

to clear up a few misconceptions in this thread:

The talk about Lindros was unreal. Even out in BC we knew a lot about Eric Lindros, and this is way before the internet.

this is only half-true. there is no doubting lindros' status as the most hyped prospect since mario. we heard way more about him than ovechkin, and considerably more than about crosby.

one reason is that, on paper, lindros was the more promising prospect of the three. but the other reason is that, even without 24 hour sports talk radio/specialty sports cable channels/the internet/etc., hockey was far more popular in the united states in 1991 than it was in 2005, or today. in the mainstream US non-hockey press, at least, we heard so much about lindros because more people were talking about hockey back then.

how often do you ever hear about hockey prospects on PTI? never. but imagine if those things were around in 1991. gretzky was in LA., the penguins had just become the first american team since 1983 to win the cup, and mario had established himself as a star to rival gretzky. hull had just scored 50 in 50, messier had recently won the hart and led the oilers to a cup without gretzky, yzerman, roy, and bourque were all in their primes, chicago and boston were top teams, the league was expanding to san jose, hockey cards were never more popular... hockey had never been more relevant in the mainstream US sports landscape, and would ride this unprecedented wave of popularity into two more sunbelt expansion teams and the rangers' '94 cup win until the '95 lockout destroyed hockey's momentum.

also, a lot of the lindros hype, at least in the non-hockey sports media, was based on him being hockey's answer to shaq. shaq was a very similar prospect in basketball-- enormous but with the offensive skills of a much smaller man, pro-ready two years before he was draft-eligible. he and lindros were supposed to supposed to be a new breed of superhuman athlete for the 90s, and they were supposed to take jordan and gretzky's places as the next decade's sports icons.

it was a perfect storm for lindros hype. if lindros had been a prospect in 2005,we may have heard more about him, because there are hockey blogs, message boards, nhl network, etc., but i think he would have gotten less attention on sportscenter/ESPN/etc. than he did in 90/91, and the average sports fan would be less aware of him than they were back then.

a lot of the daigle hype was for the same reason. hockey was booming, and the media manufactured a generational talent in daigle that simply wasn't there. to those of us who followed hockey then, daigle looked a lot like patrick marleau did as a prospect: a lightning fast center with very good but not top-end offensive skills. he was arguably not even on the yzerman/lafontaine level of prospects, let alone the crosby/lindros level. daigle looked promising, but those of us who watched the WJC that year all saw that pronger was the better prospect in the long run, and it was obvious that kariya had more skill (though there were questions about kariya's size). but daigle was exciting to watch and people thought he had the charisma to be an off-ice star, so we heard a lot more about him than we should have. even so, it was nothing compared to us hearing about lindros and crosby before they were even drafted into the CHL.

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...

pat falloon was never supposed to be a franchise player-- a potential all-star, sure, but not a franchise player in the traditional sense of being someone you can build a team around. at his best, he was supposed to be a slower, smaller, and weaker version of dany heatley. there were supposed to be two can't-miss prospects in that draft: lindros and niedermayer, and san jose surprised everyone going with falloon. there were also whispers that ray whitney carried falloon in juniors, which in retrospect was probably true.

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.

 

[Steve Kournianos]

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.

 

[SpezDispenser]

As a Sens fan, this thread makes me want to puke.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

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.

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.

 

[gare joyce]

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.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

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.

 

[Blizzard]

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.

I'd love to hear this argument. Lemieux was dominant from the time he stepped on the ice in Pittsburgh and any argument to the contrary is false. He's in a class far above Lindros, Daigle, and Crosby even in his first three seasons.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ontario Viewpoint

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.

Scouts in Quebec were enthused by Sidney Crosby at the various midget tournaments that he played in for the reasons you stated.

The impression about Lindros that filtered down centers around the bolded part of your post. Basic question was "Is he teachable?". Time gave us the answer in a rather clear fashion.

Re the lack of Crosby hype. Part of the post midget/Shattick period was the lack of a where is he going to play issue? Likewise Daigle. It was rather obvious that he was going to whatever QMJHL team drafted him. School was definitely not an option.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Please Explain

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".

 

[arrbez]

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".

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.

 

[copperandblue]

It's interesting that some people are talking about Lindros's injuries as if they were the product of unfortunate circumstances.

His injuries were the product of a fatal flaw in how he played the game and if the scouts were aware of his knack for skating with his head down then, impressive size or not, Crosby probably goes ahead of him simply because his game doesn't have any fatal flaws of a similar nature.

 

[Bionda]

How could a player of Lindros' caliber never learn to keep his head up while cutting across the middle, or over the blue line ? Was it because he never had to? Can someone older and wiser elaborate on this. It seems logical, no one in the league could approached his size and strength during his stint with the Generals, so he didn't have to fear getting lit up.

In terms of order:

Lindros

Crosby

Daigle

 

[Hawker14]

Crosby
Lindros
Daigle

pretty simple.

anyone arguing differently i would suggest have an agenda other than fact.

 

[Torch]

Lindros was the perfect mix if size and skill, and if not for the injury problems, I would have no doubt that right now, people would have no trouble grouping him with players like Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Richard and Howe...

Crosby's status as the "next one" benefited a lot from intense marketing and the internet. Not that Crosby wasn't a phenom and worthy of his current status. Plus, when Lindros came out, the NHL wasn't that desperate for a new face (Gretzky and Lemiuex both being active). When Crosby came in, they really wanted/needed a new flagship player and made a lot of marketing campaigns around him.

 

[Tavaresmagicalplay*]

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

Daigle was not seen as a generational talent going into his draft year by scouts:

Mckenzie just echoes what the scouts say and he pretty much says what I'm saying. Also Crosby was seen as the "next one".

It would have been like this:

Lindros
Crosby
Daigle

 

[Mayor Bee]

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.

I sort of look at Lindros in the Canada Cup the same way I look at the 1992 "Dream Team" for USA Basketball. The roster was 12 men....11 of them combined for 115 All-Star appearances, and the 12th man was Christian Laettner (who had just finished a legendary college career). He ended up being a reserve for the All-Star team once and he made the All-Rookie team, but that's the extent of his awards.

Of the other 11, 10 are HOFers and the 11th (Chris Mullin) was on his way before a succession of serious injuries derailed his career.

 

[gare joyce]

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.

Leclair is moot to this conversation. We're talking about these guys as junior prospects. Lindros vs Crosby as a passer ... 87 made a ECHL-challenged guy (Roussin) into a 50+ goal scorer. (Made Roussin a big chunk of change when he was redrafted apres Rimouski).

Having seen a lot of Lindros in Oshawa I'd say:

assists = rebounds

88 was not a creative play-maker in the 99, 66, 87 mould. Effective but not creative. Probably Lindros was the best athlete of those guys (though the era of Crosby and O has taken athleticism and conditioning to a whole new level). And he did work on his game (for a time early in his pro career anyway).