Lindros vs. Malkin

[Perfect_Drug]

If you think he was overrated, then I think you didn't watch him.

He was usually the best player on the ice most nights. His presence alone forced dmen into making premature decisions. He was the kind of player that helped his team win without the need to score. He was a ****ing bull.

God I miss that kind of hockey.

I did. He's vastly overrated, especially on these boards.

His Hart came the year Mario sat out. You can't say he was the most dominant player, when Mario put up 161 points in 70 games the following season. Lindros' peak put him 50% below Mario in points.

Depending on how you would define Lindros' peak (94-99?), There's easily 10 players I would pick before him for that 5-year span.



For a guy I would say was 10th best player during a 5-years stretch, vs a CLEAR top 3 player of this era, IMHO, Malkin is way better than Lindros.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

The way everyone seems to describe Lindros as some unstoppable force that could score at will using his unparalleled physique. Then why did he lose to Detroit in the Finals?

Why couldn't he bulldoze his way through the Russian Five using his brute strength, and physical intimidation?

He had the Legion of Doom line. They had scoring depth, they had a multi-Norris winning Dman in Coffey playing near his peak, and a better goalie... On paper they were every bit as good as Detroit.

But apparently according to many posters on HFboards, they had the most dominant player who ever played at his peak who could bulldoze through everyone, and score at will.

Scored 1 goal in the series (in the final game when the game was clearly over), in an embarrassing 4-game sweep.

Fedorov was a far better player during Lindros' peak.


So yeah, Malkin is quite easily another tier above Lindros.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

BTW, Lindros lead his team in scoring only 3 times in his entire career.


Are all of you absolutely sure he was as dominant as you claim he is? I certainly don't recall him being a super-human all-time great, and I watched a lot of hockey in the 90s,

 

[snipes]

Peak Lindros was a ****ing animal

 

[Halla]

Peak Lindros has 115pts and 163PIMS in 73 games. Too bad he was basically the Tanev of his era

 

[Flamesjustwin]

Lindros AINEC

 

[Halla]

BTW, Lindros lead his team in scoring only 3 times in his entire career.


Are all of you absolutely sure he was as dominant as you claim he is? I certainly don't recall him being a super-human all-time great, and I watched a lot of hockey in the 90s,

hard to lead the team in scoring when you usually play 50-60 games. hasnt malkin only done it 4 times, one of which only being because crosby got hurt?

 

[Perfect_Drug]

hard to lead the team in scoring when you usually play 50-60 games. hasnt malkin only done it 4 times, one of which only being because crosby got hurt?

Nobody ever said Malkin was the best player in the NHL during his peak, and Lindros never had a team-mate as good as Crosby.

What a silly argument.

 

[GlitchMarner]

Honestly, Lindros may have had the better line of the two.

He played with LeClair and Renberg (who wasn't bad at all back in the day).

Who were Malkin's linemates in '12? Neal and who else?

Was 2012 Neal really better than '95 or '96 LeClair?

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Malkin and Lindros were pretty comparable in the D zone. Malkin gets underrated there more often than not. The one edge Lindros has is physical play.

 

[Kupo]

I did. He's vastly overrated, especially on these boards.

His Hart came the year Mario sat out. You can't say he was the most dominant player, when Mario put up 161 points in 70 games the following season. Lindros' peak put him 50% below Mario in points.

Depending on how you would define Lindros' peak (94-99?), There's easily 10 players I would pick before him for that 5-year span.



For a guy I would say was 10th best player during a 5-years stretch, vs a CLEAR top 3 player of this era, IMHO, Malkin is way better than Lindros.

I actually went out if my way to say Lindros wasn’t the most dominant player in his peak/Prime. But thank you for putting words in my mouth.

Here’s a scenario:

Peak Malkin vs Peak Lindros. 5 on 5. ES. Equal linemates and Dmen.

I got my money on Lindros 8 days a week with that matchup. Lindros would physically dominate him. Defensively, he would sustain Malkin. Offensively, he would run through Malkin.

Peak Lindros would literally, mop the ****ing floor against Malkin.

I’ve watched both players entire careers. I have an enormous respect and admiration for Malkin. I’ll happily admit Malkin is the better offensive player, and has also had the better career.

But when it comes down to who was the better player during his peak..? It’s Lindros. Malkin’s edge offensively isn’t enough to offset the advantages in Lindros’s game.

I still question how many Malkin voters here watched Peak Lindros on a regular basis.

 

[authentic]

Honestly, Lindros may have had the better line of the two.

He played with LeClair and Renberg (who wasn't bad at all back in the day).

Who were Malkin's linemates in '12? Neal and who else?

Was 2012 Neal really better than '95 or '96 LeClair?

Lol, no.

 

[Kupo]

Malkin and Lindros were pretty comparable in the D zone. Malkin gets underrated there more often than not. The one edge Lindros has is physical play.

This is complete ****ing bull****.

 

[Juicy Pop]

Malkin is the better offensive player but Lindros was a far more complete package.

 

[Sasso09]

Malkin is quite clearly better, both peak and career. Lindros is one of the 90s players that gets overrated due to nostalgia.

You're quite clearly a Penguins fan

 

[Sasso09]

Malkin and Lindros were pretty comparable in the D zone. Malkin gets underrated there more often than not. The one edge Lindros has is physical play.

All and any credibility, gone.

 

[Sasso09]

No he wasn’t. As far as peak dominance goes, there were players that were superior to him.

Name them

 

[Sasso09]

Lindros wasn't a great defensive player though. Way too many posters conflate size & physicality with effective defense.

You couldn't be anymore wrong. I'm guessing you were born after 95

 

[Kupo]

Name them

Skaters or all-players?

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

You couldn't be anymore wrong. I'm guessing you were born after 95

You're doing a lot of making statements and stating them as fact rather than actually presenting evidence as to why these people you keep quoting are wrong.

 

[Sasso09]

BTW, Lindros lead his team in scoring only 3 times in his entire career.


Are all of you absolutely sure he was as dominant as you claim he is? I certainly don't recall him being a super-human all-time great, and I watched a lot of hockey in the 90s,

He lead team significantly in PPG every year

 

[Sasso09]

Skaters or all-players?

Just one player, just one that was more dominant

 

[Sasso09]

You're doing a lot of making statements and stating them as fact rather than actually presenting evidence as to why these people you keep quoting are wrong.

I'm stating a fact; more than half these Malkin voters are too young to have experienced Eric. This isn't a close comparison. Malkin has games where he's completely useless when taken off his game. Eric was Elite at everything and contributed significantly every game he played.

 

[Perfect_Drug]

Lemieux
Jagr
Sakic
Forsberg
Fedorov
Bure


I'd put Lindros somewhere in this tier of player:
Selanne
Kariya
Francis
Sundin

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

I'm stating a fact; more than half these Malkin voters are too young to have experienced Eric. This isn't a close comparison. Malkin has games where he's completely useless when taken off his game. Eric was Elite at everything and contributed significantly every game he played.

You're stating opinion.

1-You don't know how much of either guy the people voting saw. You're assuming based on them disagreeing with your choice.

2-"Elite at everything" suggests defense. One only needs a quick browse of the internet to see Lindros never finished top 10 in Selke voting. His best finish ever was 14th place. He may have been above average defensively, but he certainly wasn't seen as elite.