Lindros versus Crosby

[markov`]

A lot of people are raving about Lindros as a better junior player than Crosby. Honestly, I didn't saw #88 in junior but I heard the hype about him. Scouts were saying that he was a special player but he was never comparated to Gretzky, or even Lemieux. Crosby is more hyped than Lindros was, but is the hype justified?

I think yes. If we take both draft years, it is pretty even.

Eric Lindros
71 goals, 78 assists for 149 points in 57 games

Sidney Crosby
62 goals, 95 assists for 157 points in 59 games

Crosby has better numbers by a little margin. Obviously, he isn't has physical than Lindros but he has a better vision and he's a little more skilled than him IMO.

I'm not trying to say that Crosby is gonna be Wayne Gretzky V2, anyway we've all seen what have Lindros become now even if he was great in junior. I just remembered at the beginning of the year when some Crosby bashers were laughing at people who said that Crosby was a better prospect than Lindros. It is not a fact, but certainly a debatable opinion.

Click to read more...

 

[MmmBacon]

Statistics aside, they aren't especially comparable. Lindos had a power-based game, Crosby seems to rely mostly on skill.

 

[Big Bill]

AS I remember it, Lindros was compared to Gretz and Lemieux as being the next great one/player/superstar. But he played a power game, which was a very special attribute. Also comparing OHL stats to QMJHL stats is not fair imo.

Speaking strictly in terms of hype: I do not think the Crosby hype is anywhere near Lindors' level, not really close imo.

While it is a debatable opinion, mainly due to the concussions, but injuries aside, I would take Lindros at 18 over Crosby 7 times out of 10.

 

[markov`]

Also comparing OHL stats to QMJHL stats is not fair imo.

I looked quickly at statistics from Lindros and Crosby team and the OHL that year seemed more offensive than the QMJHL this year...

 

[Crosbyfan]

. Also comparing OHL stats to QMJHL stats is not fair imo.

.

Very true, The OHL may be only slightly more offensive now than the Q, but it was much more offensive then than the Q is now.

 

[scoutman1]

what people forget about is that it was easier to score back then then it is now. Trap was not really big back then. You have to look at how they dominate there eras now. Crosby is on his way to winning the league scoring title again this year just like in his rookie year, that is pretty amazing that not too many of the greats were able to achive. I would take Crosby over Lindros 10 out of 10 times.

 

[Pepper]

Crosby doesn't play even half as complete game as Lindros did.

At his prime Lindros was the best player in the league and he didn't have a single weak area (pass the injury jokes please) in his game.

Crosby most likely is better offensively (though Lindros probably was better sniper) but when it comes to defensive play, physical game, leadership, fighting etc. he's not in the same league as Lindros was.

And this is not to talk down Crosby who's obviously extremely talented and could become a superstar, it's just that too many people have forgotten just how dominant Lindros was 10 years ago.

Also 10-15 years ago we didn't have internet hyping up prospects like we have today so naturally Crosby gets more coverage than Lindros did.

 

[Nielson81]

Lindros was a better prospect then Crosby. He was a man among boys, fo physically powerful that he could not be stopped.

If you have Lindros and Crosby who's skill set is comparable...would you rather have the one who is 6"4 220 for the one who is 5"11 185???

Plus Lindros could/can skate very well for a big man.

If Crosby has a Hart trophy by his 3rd season in the league I will say otherwise.

The U.C.
Ya You Know Me

 

[Hawker14]

i think crosby will be an outstanding pro, but i would take lindros over him at 18.

if lindros wasn't injured, i think he would be discussed among the games greatest players of all time. he was immensely talented, and dominated the league. i don't let the last five-six years cloud my judgement of the player he once was.

 

[markov`]

Saying Crosby is not in the same league as Lindros is laughable.

He outscore him at the same age, and he is at least equal than Lindros in every aspect of the game, except physical play. Maybe Lindros was a bigger physical presence, but Crosby sees the ice very well, much better playmaker than Lindros. And you have to take in consideration the attitude of both, which isn't comparable.

Lindros was a man against boys, that's true, but Crosby is at the same level now. Look at how he outscore everyone in the CHL, even last year as a 16 years old. Clearly head and shoulders above every junior player in Canada.

 

[markov`]

If you have Lindros and Crosby who's skill set is comparable...would you rather have the one who is 6"4 220 for the one who is 5"11 185???

Lindros main weapon was his body... Crosby main weapon is his vision.

 

[Nielson81]

When Lindros stepped into the NHL he was arbuably the most COMPLETE player in the league.

Shot, Hands, Speed, POWER, Defensive Awareness.....

Eric Lindros as a 17 year old kid vs Sidney Crosby as a 17 year old kid.

No comparision, Big E all the way.

 

[revolverjgw]

They're in the same league. The hype machine Lindros had going was so huge, it's still going to this day!

Lindros was bigger and stronger, but racked up his points in a league with about 9 goals per game, whereas Crosby is putting up slightly superior numbers in a league that has, I dunno, 7 goals per game? Maybe less? (it was 6.7 in '03-04). That's an ENORMOUS difference! Crosby's numbers would skyrocket if he played in 1990. It's like the difference between the NHL in 1983 and now.

Regardless of how physical Lindros was, Crosby creates sooooooooo many goals. It's insane. You win games if you score more goals than the opposition. To wit, now that Crosby is healthy and on his game, his team has been UNBEATABLE. You can't ask anything more from a player than to make his team UNBEATABLE.

So to me it's a wash. I know there's more to hockey than scoring and statistics, but sorry, stats DO tell a story, especially when they're this out of control. Put in context, Crosby's stats are just overwhelming. Gretzky was a pansy and a physical nonfactor but the guy put up 200 points a year and that's enough for me. That wins games.

Crosby's offense in a dead puck era at LEAST puts him in Lindros' league, even taking into consideration Lindros' physical dominance. And it's not like Crosby is a pushover or a one dimensional scorer. My local station in Cape Breton shows some of his games and everytime I watch him, he's failed to get more than 2 points, heh. But he was solid defensively.

I think I'd take Lindros, but I wouldn't be absolutely confident about it. Different league my butt. They've got the same top end and Sidney has as much chance as Eric did to become the best player in the game, IMO.

 

[Big Bill]

Saying Crosby is not in the same league as Lindros is laughable.

He outscore him at the same age, and he is at least equal than Lindros in every aspect of the game, except physical play. Maybe Lindros was a bigger physical presence, but Crosby sees the ice very well, much better playmaker than Lindros. And you have to take in consideration the attitude of both, which isn't comparable.

Lindros was a man against boys, that's true, but Crosby is at the same level now. Look at how he outscore everyone in the CHL, even last year as a 16 years old. Clearly head and shoulders above every junior player in Canada.

You obviously take Crosby with no argument so why start the thread?

 

[Hawker14]

one interesting stat is that games played by rimouski average 8.03 goals per game.

games played by oshawa in '91-'92 averaged 7.88 goals per game.

 

[markov`]

Where did I say that I would take Crosby over Lindros? You're putting words in my mouth.

 

[markov`]

They're in the same league. The hype machine Lindros had going was so huge, it's still going to this day!

Lindros was bigger and stronger, but racked up his points in a league with about 9 goals per game, whereas Crosby is putting up slightly superior numbers in a league that has, I dunno, 7 goals per game? Maybe less? (it was 6.7 in '03-04). That's an ENORMOUS difference! Crosby's numbers would skyrocket if he played in 1990. It's like the difference between the NHL in 1983 and now.

Regardless of how physical Lindros was, Crosby creates sooooooooo many goals. It's insane. You win games if you score more goals than the opposition. To wit, now that Crosby is healthy and on his game, his team has been UNBEATABLE. You can't ask anything more from a player than to make his team UNBEATABLE.

So to me it's a wash. I know there's more to hockey than scoring and statistics, but sorry, stats DO tell a story, especially when they're this out of control. Put in context, Crosby's stats are just overwhelming. Gretzky was a pansy and a physical nonfactor but the guy put up 200 points a year and that's enough for me. That wins games.

Crosby's offense in a dead puck era at LEAST puts him in Lindros' league, even taking into consideration Lindros' physical dominance. And it's not like Crosby is a pushover or a one dimensional scorer. My local station in Cape Breton shows some of his games and everytime I watch him, he's failed to get more than 2 points, heh. But he was solid defensively.

I think I'd take Lindros, but I wouldn't be absolutely confident about it. Different league my butt. They've got the same top end and Sidney has as much chance as Eric did to become the best player in the game, IMO.

Agree with everything, couldn't have said it better

 

[Nielson81]

one interesting stat is that games played by rimouski average 8.03 goals per game.

games played by oshawa in '91-'92 averaged 7.88 goals per game.

Great Point.....

 

[markov`]

Great Point.....

So let's say the scoring is the same. Crosby still outscore him.

 

[Pepper]

So let's say the scoring is the same. Crosby still outscore him.

Lindros scored more goals.

Also, who Lindros played with in Oshawa? Does Crosby get lots of assists because he's a great passer or he has superb linemates or both (not rhetorical questions)?

It's not that easy judge players with stats.

Btw, here's a great example of how stats can be deceiving:

2000-01 Val-d'Or Foreurs QMJHL 72 74 110 184

Who's that player, is he a NHL superstar currently, will Crosby outscore him etc?

Whatever Crosby does, he will still be atleast 4 inches & 30 pounds lighter than Lindros, he's not as good defensively and he hasn't shown the leadership Big E had. Lindros gets lots of flak for something his parents did (not wanting to play for Quebec which understandably still irritates lots of Quebecians fans, also many of them are Crosby fans) but nobody can deny the fact that he lead his team to Stanley Cup finals as a 23-year old.

My prediction is that Crosby will never become as good of a player as Lindros was, he might outproduce him but doesn't reach the same level of complete game.

 

[Kubera55]

A lot of people are raving about Lindros as a better junior player than Crosby. Honestly, I didn't saw #88 in junior but I heard the hype about him. Scouts were saying that he was a special player but he was never comparated to Gretzky, or even Lemieux. Crosby is more hyped than Lindros was, but is the hype justified?

I think yes. If we take both draft years, it is pretty even.

Eric Lindros
71 goals, 78 assists for 149 points in 57 games

Sidney Crosby
62 goals, 95 assists for 157 points in 59 games

Crosby has better numbers by a little margin. Obviously, he isn't has physical than Lindros but he has a better vision and he's a little more skilled than him IMO.

I'm not trying to say that Crosby is gonna be Wayne Gretzky V2, anyway we've all seen what have Lindros become now even if he was great in junior. I just remembered at the beginning of the year when some Crosby bashers were laughing at people who said that Crosby was a better prospect than Lindros. It is not a fact, but certainly a debatable opinion.

Of course, you could also throw in Alex Daigle (45 goals, 92 assists, 137 pts in 52 games) or Jason Spezza (42 goals, 63 assists, 105 pts in 53 games, with a change of teams in midseason) as comparisons, I think very valid ones, to Crosby.

Crosby is a phenomenal offensive talent. But he's an undersized player who lives and dies on his skill advantage. Is he better than Daigle and Spezza? Certainly seems that way. But it bears mentioning that those two players, who also scored in buckets in juniors, haven't even become significant NHL players.

Lindros, as several other people have pointed out, was more than just offense and skill. He was nearly the offensive player that Crosby/Spezza/Daigle represented... but he was also defensively aware, physically imposing, and fierce.

All hype aside, if Crosby had been elgible last year, he would have gone 2nd or 3rd overall (behind AO for sure, and possibly behind Malkin). This is the dead-puck era. You win by playing defense, playing physical, and by oportunistic goals. AO can help you in all phases of the game.... Crosby will have to prove he can take the beating.

 

[kremlin]

Seriously, you can't compare Lindros to Crosby. 88 was like the complete package - a generational talent, as there was no player like him before him.

Crosby is superbly talent, but if he was in Big E's draft year, there's no doubt that #88 would still have gone 1st overall - with ease

 

[Jargin]

Of course, you could also throw in Alex Daigle (45 goals, 92 assists, 137 pts in 52 games) or Jason Spezza (42 goals, 63 assists, 105 pts in 53 games, with a change of teams in midseason) as comparisons, I think very valid ones, to Crosby.

Crosby is a phenomenal offensive talent. But he's an undersized player who lives and dies on his skill advantage. Is he better than Daigle and Spezza? Certainly seems that way. But it bears mentioning that those two players, who also scored in buckets in juniors, haven't even become significant NHL players.

Lindros, as several other people have pointed out, was more than just offense and skill. He was nearly the offensive player that Crosby/Spezza/Daigle represented... but he was also defensively aware, physically imposing, and fierce.

All hype aside, if Crosby had been elgible last year, he would have gone 2nd or 3rd overall (behind AO for sure, and possibly behind Malkin). This is the dead-puck era. You win by playing defense, playing physical, and by oportunistic goals. AO can help you in all phases of the game.... Crosby will have to prove he can take the beating.

Spezza is well on his way to becoming a significant NHL player, so I wouldn't use him in your argument. The Daigle comparison is way off base too, he was fast, thats about it. He was fast enough in junior that it covered up all of his other weaknesses, he didn't have the best hands, shot wasn't great, no defensive game etc. Besides, Crosby is putting up better numbers in a less offensive league anyway. With Crosby its different, there are really no holes in his game, unless like some people you use his size, but I don't think that will hinder him.

 

[Genghis Keon]

one interesting stat is that games played by rimouski average 8.03 goals per game.

games played by oshawa in '91-'92 averaged 7.88 goals per game.

Another interesting stat is that Q teams are averaging 3.1948 goals per game so far this year, while OHL teams averaged 4.4735 goals per game in 1990-91, Lindros' draft year. And still Crosby's PPG in his draft year is higher than Lindros', despite Lindros being a man among boys at that stage and Crosby still being a boy among boys--I think this speaks volumes about Crosby's skill level.

However, I'd take Lindros before Crosby without any hesitation whatsoever, because he was an unparalleled combination of size, skill, and brute force, but I think some people are really underestimating what Crosby is doing and has done. Everything's relative, and Crosby's stats, relative to the era he's playing in, blow out the stats junior stars in the past have put up. As I wrote in the other Crosby thread, the only junior players to dominate junior as Crosby is doing (relative to scoring in their era) are Lemieux, Lafleur, and Rob Brown (and presumably Gretz would have done the same, if he didn't turn pro at 17); and Lafleur (in the 20y/o draft era), Lemieux, and Gretzky (once again assuming he had stayed in Junior and dismantled the league), are the only players who've dominated like Crosby in their draft years--that's some pretty heady company. Still, "realists" more often compare Crosby to the Gamache's and Daigle's and other junior stars, who, relatively speaking, never came close to doing what Crosby is doing.

Once again, I'd take Lindros without thinking twice. But, for all the overhyping Crosby is getting, I think some people are overlooking what he's actually done and doing, which is literally right there with the best players who've ever played the game--which obviously isn't to say that he will do so at the next level.

 

[espo*]

I'm surprised at the posters who say Lindros had such a good defensive game,i don't know where that comes from......i always thought he was lazy and bogus defensively,anytime i watched he was anyway,i find Crosby better defensively than he ever was.