Legion of doom vs the Mcdrais?

[Steven Toast]

I would take McDavid and Draisaitl on my team over Lindros, LeClair and Renberg, but I think LOD was better as a line 5v5 than McDrai has ever been. McDavid and Draisaitl have great chemistry offensively but give up a lot the other way when together, while the LOD dominated GF% to a greater degree (though they were only really a unit of 3 stars in the lockout shortened '94-95 season and the start of the following year before Renberg was hurt and never the same). McDavid and Draisaitl are better utilized on separate lines at ES and then dominating the PP together imo.

Maybe true in past years, but not currently.

 

[Regal]

Maybe true in past years, but not currently.

88 minutes though versus much larger samples together in past years.

 

[Steven Toast]

88 minutes though versus much larger samples together in past years.

I will take the current play together over what they did in years past. Both 97 and 29 have greatly improved defensively. And its not like the LOD played for a huge stretch together anyways, as you said 1 shortened season.

 

[SotasicA]

Lindros = McDavid
Draisaitl > LeClair or Renberg, but is he better than the two combined? I say no. Plus, the LoD had chemistry.

That's in a vacuum. But the way that line was built probably means it was better in the 90's than it would be today. With no meam hulking d-men around today, their assets would be wasted. Or maybe they'd just be more unstoppable? I don't know.

But I think McDrai would be less effective in the more congested, hard hitting era of the 90's.

I feel LoD is the safe bet.

 

[SotasicA]

Lindros being "big and strong" only goes so far and, at the end of the day, the game is about more than big hits, fighting and power cuts along the blueline. Howe, Orr, OV, Crosby, Jagr, Hasek, Beliveau, Hull, Lafleur, etc. all had peaks that exceeded Lindros' peak.

As good as he was, Lindros was one of the guys whose pre-draft hype exceeded his actual on-ice impact.

Sorry, I disagree. He was the best player in the world. Only injuries stopped him from being considered a generational player. In his absolutely peak, I would take no-one ahead of Big Eric. His skating was strong, and his stickhandling, defensive play, playmaking and shot were all extraordinary. He was not just big and strong.

 

[nowhereman]

Sorry, I disagree. He was the best player in the world. Only injuries stopped him from being considered a generational player. In his absolutely peak, I would take no-one ahead of Big Eric. His skating was strong, and his stickhandling, defensive play, playmaking and shot were all extraordinary. He was not just big and strong.

Lindros was never the clearcut best player in the world, as his career overlapped with that of Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Forsberg and Sakic. As well, I'm not saying he was "just" big and strong but his attributes in size/strength don't vault him ahead of players who simply did more with their peaks. His defense was better than most superstars but not Gainey/Bergeron/Clarke level or, really, even close to it. Instead, his defensive play was closer to a guy like Crosby, who was better offensively. You mention his skating, stickhandling and shot as being "extraordinary" but that was the case with all the greats. At that point, what is the biggest differentiator for Big E? Size.

I'm assuming you're saying you wouldn't have taken anyone over Lindros at the time, correct? Because there's no argument for him being anywhere near the big 4. If you look back at all his scoring finishes and PPG finishes, it's not really like injuries robbed him of a load of trophies the way it did with Lemieux, Orr, and Crosby. Who who knows if he ever wins an Art Ross or another Hart with Jagr and Hasek in the way?

Lindros was right in the mix as one of the best players in the league but I don't feel he was ever the best or that he lived up to his pre-draft hype as "The Next One".

 

[SotasicA]

Lindros was never the clearcut best player in the world, as his career overlapped with that of Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Forsberg and Sakic. As well, I'm not saying he was "just" big and strong but his attributes in size/strength don't vault him ahead of players who simply did more with their peaks. His defense was better than most superstars but not Gainey/Bergeron/Clarke level or, really, even close to it. Instead, his defensive play was closer to a guy like Crosby, who was better offensively. You mention his skating, stickhandling and shot as being "extraordinary" but that was the case with all the greats. At that point, what is the biggest differentiator for Big E? Size.

I'm assuming you're saying you wouldn't have taken anyone over Lindros at the time, correct? Because there's no argument for him being anywhere near the big 4. If you look back at all his scoring finishes and PPG finishes, it's not really like injuries robbed him of a load of trophies the way it did with Lemieux, Orr, and Crosby. Who who knows if he ever wins an Art Ross or another Hart with Jagr and Hasek in the way?

Lindros was right in the mix as one of the best players in the league but I don't feel he was ever the best or that he lived up to his pre-draft hype as "The Next One".

He was better than Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov etc. He was better than mid-90's Gretzky. Mario barely even played. Lindros was the best.

OK, Hasek, Chelly and Bourque and such played different positions, so I can't compare really.

 

[The Abusement Park]

He was better than Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov etc. He was better than mid-90's Gretzky. Mario barely even played. Lindros was the best.

OK, Hasek, Chelly and Bourque and such played different positions, so I can't compare really.

And this is why Lindros is the most overrated player of all time.

 

[SotasicA]

And this is why Lindros is the most overrated player of all time.

Because I think he was the clear cut best player in the world in his peak?

 

[Hockeyholic]

He was better than Jagr, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Fedorov etc. He was better than mid-90's Gretzky. Mario barely even played. Lindros was the best.

OK, Hasek, Chelly and Bourque and such played different positions, so I can't compare really.

There's really no argument for Lindros over Jagr. It's just not there.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Because I think he was the clear cut best player in the world in his peak?

Yes. He wasn’t better than Jagr. Lindros, Sakic, Forsberg, and Yzerman were all in a very similar tier to each other.

 

[SotasicA]

He really was though. He dominated. Jagr's game was puck possession only. I don't think peak Jagr touched peak Lindros. Jagr's career was more impressive, but he was not the bigger talent.

 

[The Abusement Park]

He really was though. He dominated. Jagr's game was puck possession only. I don't think peak Jagr touched peak Lindros. Jagr's career was more impressive, but he was not the bigger talent.

In Lindros’ statistical year Jagr smoked him. And Lindros throwing hits doesn’t make it even.

 

[SotasicA]

In Lindros’ statistical year Jagr smoked him. And Lindros throwing hits doesn’t make it even.

Yeah, well points are an even worse way to compare players. Watching both of them at their peak, Lindros was just better. He turned a last place team around.

Jagr was just a guy scoring points. Playing with Ron Francis. 2nd line matchups because Mario drew the top lines. It's like McDavid vs Kucherov.

 

[amnesiac]

Lindros had a higher peak. There was talk of him being the best player of all time. He was never going to be the top scoring guy of all time obviously, but if you combine every aspect of his game, when he was at his peak, many felt he could one day be considered the greatest player of all time. Obviously he couldn't sustain that, but I would think if we're going to talk about which line we want, you have to take the players at their peak. It's not like we're comparing careers.

Lindros has never had a season like McDavid is right now.

Just in terms of points, in his Hart season, Lindros had 70P in 46GP (1995 shortened season) in a slightly better scoring year (GPG). McDavid has 60 in 34gp so far and will undoubtedly finish well beyond 70 (on pace for 99P).

 

[MadLuke]

Eric Lindros in is prime was one of the most dominant even strength player there ever was statistically speaking, that line title the ice a lot.

When Lindros was on the ice during is career is team scored 1.49 goals for every goal the opposition scored when he was not on the ice is team scored .95 goal for every goal the opposition scored.

Outside Bobby Orr no one has a much bigger than that, in 2017 in league history to top players in that regard (Ratio of goal scored for when they are on the ice / when they are off the ice):

Bobby Orr	1.9320388
Charlie Simmer	1.6024096
Peter Forsberg	1.5981308
Eric Lindros	1.5684211
Mark Howe	1.5625
Dave Taylor	1.547619
Mike Bossy	1.5384615
Zigmund Palffy	1.5375
Bobby Clarke	1.5
Gordie Howe	1.4941176
Mario Lemieux	1.4761905
Sidney Crosby	1.46875
Jaromir Jagr	1.4516129
Pavel Datsyuk	1.4485981
Ray Bourque	1.4421053
Dmitri Khristich	1.4333333
Chris Kunitz	1.4285714
Alexander Semin	1.4285714
Teemu Selanne	1.4137931
Jere Lehtinen	1.3925234
Daniel Sedin	1.3917526
Borje Salming	1.3902439
Marek Malik	1.3894737
Joe Thornton	1.3854167
Henrik Sedin	1.377551
Ryan Getzlaf	1.377551
Marcel Dionne	1.375
Kenny Wharram	1.3727273
John Leclair	1.3703704

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Now obviously there is a lot of canvas to this, having not played for a long time a la Bossy, Palffy (or having iant long prime like Bourque, Howe, Jagr) mixed with being either on bad team or on a line with much better wingers than the rest a la Palffy.

All to say that Lindros before turning 26 was +177 in only 431 games, Leclair has a flyers the 4 season before Lindros did leave was +131 in only 322 games:

During their time togethers:
NHL Stats

They were #1 and 2 in +/-, #3 and #10 in points per games.

McDrais is arguably playing like they play this season are ahead, does Renberg make up for it ? He missed so many game that it is hard to evaluate him in this.

McDavid from 2017-2018 to now according to the formula above was at 1.39

 

[Perfect_Drug]

McDavid and Drai are 1-2 scoring likely for 2 consecutive seasons.

Taking LoD over them is almost as stupid as taking LoD over Lemieux/Jagr.

 

[HotPie]

Yeah, well points are an even worse way to compare players. Watching both of them at their peak, Lindros was just better. He turned a last place team around.

Jagr was just a guy scoring points. Playing with Ron Francis. 2nd line matchups because Mario drew the top lines. It's like McDavid vs Kucherov.

You value hits way too much...

 

[McFlyingV]

Lindros had a higher peak. There was talk of him being the best player of all time. He was never going to be the top scoring guy of all time obviously, but if you combine every aspect of his game, when he was at his peak, many felt he could one day be considered the greatest player of all time. Obviously he couldn't sustain that, but I would think if we're going to talk about which line we want, you have to take the players at their peak. It's not like we're comparing careers.

This never happened, and certainly was never a popular opinion.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Lindros never won an Art Ross or a cup.

I'm sorta surprised people consider him the best of that era.

 

[The Abusement Park]

Lindros never won an Art Ross or a cup.

I'm sorta surprised people consider him the best of that era.

Because he hit people every once in awhile. How is he not the greatest to ever lace em up?

 

[biturbo19]

I'd take McDavid and Draisaitl, and then immediately split them up. It's just better that way. Sure, down a goal with a minute to go, put them together, whatever. But other than that...forcing teams to split their focus defensively is more valuable than the two of them together. Which is in turn, more valuable than having 3 good players with fantastic chemistry on 1 line, compared to a pair of the very best centers in the game, each at the helm of their own line.

 

[BlueBaron]

Hard to compare. Dra benefits from McD in a similar way to LeClair (except for that magic six game sample we are all supposed to pretend is the real Dra without McD) from Lindros. As much as some Oiler fans want to keep forcing this narrative Dra is the 2nd best player in the league it's a minority opinion and no matter how subtly it is inserted into a conversation it will still be resisted by many.

Difficult to compare eras, both McD and Lindros were/are ideal for the time they play in but in both cases you have a top player in the game elevating a very good player/players to an elite level. Renberg breaks the tie I guess.

 

[Buzzman17]

No he didn't.

Yes he most certainly did.

 

[Cup or Bust]

Because I think he was the clear cut best player in the world in his peak?

At his peak and healthy he was the best player in the league and every GM in the NHL would have picked him over any other player in the league at that point. Unfortunately his health stopped him from reaching his potential, but when healthy and in his prime, he was the best player in the league at that time and an amazing player to watch.

If McDavid and Draisaitl had a better winger I would probably pick them, but the Legion of doom as a threesome was pretty amazing.