Lindros vs. Orr

[Wetcoaster]

Lindros never had world class talent. When you took the physical aspect out of his game his remaining 'talent' was that of a 2nd liner.
However, he was, without question, the most physically dominating player ever.

Definitely in question.

I put Gordie Howe in the 1950's and early 1960's well ahead of Lindros as the most physically dominating player ever.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Lindros never had world class talent. When you took the physical aspect out of his game his remaining 'talent' was that of a 2nd liner.
However, he was, without question, the most physically dominating player ever.

That's like saying if you took away Orr's speed he wouldn't be so good.

 

[bleedrngrblue]

Lindros never had world class talent. When you took the physical aspect out of his game his remaining 'talent' was that of a 2nd liner.
However, he was, without question, the most physically dominating player ever.

I totally disagree with you. He has a very high level of skill, always has, the physicality is what made him even more dangerous. You don't score all the points he did just on brute strength, otherwise all the goons would be top scorers. Lindros was world class talent in his prime and youth, and if he hadn't gotten injured , he'd be an all time great.

 

[mrhockey193195]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

I do understand your point, and agree to a certain degree. I'd rather compare Lindros to Neely. Neely retired due to injuries in the prime of his career, and was remembered as an all-time great and was elected into the hall of fame. Lindros had better numbers than neely before the Stevens hit in 2000, but chose to keep on playing. Subsequently, his numbers have gone down and people seem to forget how great he was in the 90s. In fact, very few people still consider Lindros to be a "hall of fame" candidate.

Why are we punishing Lindros for getting back up from terrible injuries and continuing his career against most odds, but we reward Neely for retiring and not giving it a shot? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to understate the condition neely was in, nor am I saying that there was any chance in the world that another human being could play with his injuries, but I still find it rediculous that Lindros, based on what happened to neely, would probably have gotten into the hall of fame had he retired in 01, but now there's practically no shot b/c, instead of throwing in the towel, he decided to continue his career at a lesser level of ability.

Players shouldn't be punished for getting back up.

 

[notmynhl]

I think Lindros' status suffered greatly when he refused to play for the Nordiques.

He made the Canada Cup's Team Canada in 1991 as a Junior. That's pretty amazing.

More amazing was his presence on the ice during the tournament. Scored 3 goals, got 2 assists, and could be wrong but didn't he KO two players during the tournament from great bodychecks?

 

[Zine]

I totally disagree with you. He has a very high level of skill, always has, the physicality is what made him even more dangerous. You don't score all the points he did just on brute strength, otherwise all the goons would be top scorers. Lindros was world class talent in his prime and youth, and if he hadn't gotten injured , he'd be an all time great.

His physicality made him insanely dangerous, not neccessarily his overall skills. Not that his skills are bad -- just not world class.

Because of his concussions he now has to rely on his passing, mental game, vision, stickhandling, natural scoring ability, etc. etc. to succeed...and look at him now.

When you take the brute strength aspect out of his game and he can no longer just plow through people it's obvious that he has the 'pure' skill set of a 2nd line player only.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

His physicality made him insanely dangerous, not neccessarily his overall skills. Not that his skills are bad -- just not world class.

Because of his concussions he now has to rely on his passing, mental game, vision, stickhandling, natural scoring ability, etc. etc. to succeed...and look at him now.

When you take the brute strength aspect out of his game and he can no longer just plow through people it's obvious that he has the 'pure' skill set of a 2nd line player only.

Same could be said of Gretzky without his vision, Orr without his skating, Richard without his passion. Removing a players defining trait and then saying they weren't that good is absolutly unfair.

 

[Zine]

Same could be said of Gretzky without his vision, Orr without his skating, Richard without his passion. Removing a players defining trait and then saying they weren't that good is absolutly unfair.

I'm not saying he's not good - far from it.
I'm actually in agreement with you and it's the point I'm trying to make: Lindros' defining trait IS his physical play.

I'm in disagreement with bleedrngrblue's assertion that Lindros, first and formost, was a world class skill player and his physical play only worked to enhanced his game. Simply not so, it's the other way around.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I do understand your point, and agree to a certain degree. I'd rather compare Lindros to Neely. Neely retired due to injuries in the prime of his career, and was remembered as an all-time great and was elected into the hall of fame. Lindros had better numbers than neely before the Stevens hit in 2000, but chose to keep on playing. Subsequently, his numbers have gone down and people seem to forget how great he was in the 90s. In fact, very few people still consider Lindros to be a "hall of fame" candidate.

Why are we punishing Lindros for getting back up from terrible injuries and continuing his career against most odds, but we reward Neely for retiring and not giving it a shot? Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to understate the condition neely was in, nor am I saying that there was any chance in the world that another human being could play with his injuries, but I still find it rediculous that Lindros, based on what happened to neely, would probably have gotten into the hall of fame had he retired in 01, but now there's practically no shot b/c, instead of throwing in the towel, he decided to continue his career at a lesser level of ability.

Players shouldn't be punished for getting back up.

What the hell are you talking about with Neely? You clearly don't understand how bad his injury was in 1991 after the cheap shot from Samuelsson. He was left with a piece of calcium about the size of half-a-brick on his thigh from that hit. He played 26 games in a two-year span, thanks to a thigh operation and two knee operations. And when he didn't quit, when he did get back up, he went out and scored 50 goals in his first 44 games in 1993-94. He did it even though he couldn't play back-to-back games due to the state of his lower body, and he couldn't practice most of the time due to the injuries.

He retired in 1996 because his lower body was in such terrible condition. And he still didn't quit. Most fans don't remember his attempted comeback in the fall of 1998. Practiced a few times with the Bruins, even though his lower body was still in terrible shape, but decided to remain retired because of the injuries and because he didn't want to be a fourth line plug.

Clearly Neely got back up several times. Do your bloody research.

 

[mrhockey193195]

What the hell are you talking about with Neely? You clearly don't understand how bad his injury was in 1991 after the cheap shot from Samuelsson. He was left with a piece of calcium about the size of half-a-brick on his thigh from that hit. He played 26 games in a two-year span, thanks to a thigh operation and two knee operations. And when he didn't quit, when he did get back up, he went out and scored 50 goals in his first 44 games in 1993-94. He did it even though he couldn't play back-to-back games due to the state of his lower body, and he couldn't practice most of the time due to the injuries.

He retired in 1996 because his lower body was in such terrible condition. And he still didn't quit. Most fans don't remember his attempted comeback in the fall of 1998. Practiced a few times with the Bruins, even though his lower body was still in terrible shape, but decided to remain retired because of the injuries and because he didn't want to be a fourth line plug.

Clearly Neely got back up several times. Do your bloody research.

You missed the whole point of my post. I didn't mean to say that neely should be faulted for "not trying" to get back. Now, It's my mistake, I didn't mean to say that neely never gave it a shot. That was not what I meant, and it's obviously not the case. He obviously gave it a shot. That's why I said no human could come back from what he went through.

The point I was making is that had Lindros retired in 2001, like Neely did in the prime of his career, he would probably be in the hall of fame w/ cam. But since he continued to play, albeit at a lower level than previously, for some reason his career has been tarnished. That's what I need explained to me.

I mean, based on that logic, Lindros should have retired and he would've been rememberd as a top 50-75 player of all time. Are we encouraging players to retire early b/c they won't play better in their latter years after an injury?

 

[Big Phil]

Not really, but, I always felt Forsberg was overrated. Thing is, Clarke, Messier and Trottier are concidered top 10 centers, yet, none lead the league in scoring ever. Lindros was such a commanding pressence on the ice that whether or not he scored didn't matter so much as the play reveolving around him did.

You're close on that one man. Trottier led the league in scoring back in '78-79 even ahead of Lafleur. But no I agree with you Lindros was dominant. The problem wih him is that if you are dominant for a short time you have to do something that stands out. Bossy led the league in goals twice, had 8 all-star selections and 4 Cups with a Conn Smythe Trophy. Not to mention his playoff stats. Orr - well what can't you say about him. Lindros as good as he was got an unfair choker label placed on him. In the 1996 WOrld Cup he was expected to help carry Canada. He didnt. Then in '97 he choked in the Cup finals. THen in '98 he couldnt captain Canada to gold in the Olympics.
All of that makes him weaker in the eyes of many even though from '95-99 he was dominant.

 

[Roger's Pancreas*]

You're close on that one man. Trottier led the league in scoring back in '78-79 even ahead of Lafleur. But no I agree with you Lindros was dominant. The problem wih him is that if you are dominant for a short time you have to do something that stands out. Bossy led the league in goals twice, had 8 all-star selections and 4 Cups with a Conn Smythe Trophy. Not to mention his playoff stats. Orr - well what can't you say about him.

2 hits a game and a .600 face-off win percentage doesn't do anything for you? And let's not forget the twelve hat-tricks in eight years.

Lindros as good as he was got an unfair choker label placed on him. In the 1996 WOrld Cup he was expected to help carry Canada. He didnt. Then in '97 he choked in the Cup finals. THen in '98 he couldnt captain Canada to gold in the Olympics.
All of that makes him weaker in the eyes of many even though from '95-99 he was dominant.

That much I will agree with you on. In the Stanley Cup Finals, Lindros was a prime canidate for the Conn Smythe but was neutralized, leaving the rest of the roster to be picked apart. The Olympics came down to a shoot-out in which he was absolutely robbed by Dominik Hasek in one of the most memorable saves of all time.

 

[billbillbill]

Lindros never had world class talent. When you took the physical aspect out of his game his remaining 'talent' was that of a 2nd liner.

Are you basing that on his recent play?

I'd imagine all the concussions would have had major effects on things like motor control, reaction time and split second decision making. All of which are pretty important in hockey.

Lindros' precipitous decline is based on more than just a changed style of play.

 

[God Bless Canada]

You missed the whole point of my post. I didn't mean to say that neely should be faulted for "not trying" to get back. Now, It's my mistake, I didn't mean to say that neely never gave it a shot. That was not what I meant, and it's obviously not the case. He obviously gave it a shot. That's why I said no human could come back from what he went through.

The point I was making is that had Lindros retired in 2001, like Neely did in the prime of his career, he would probably be in the hall of fame w/ cam. But since he continued to play, albeit at a lower level than previously, for some reason his career has been tarnished. That's what I need explained to me.

I mean, based on that logic, Lindros should have retired and he would've been rememberd as a top 50-75 player of all time. Are we encouraging players to retire early b/c they won't play better in their latter years after an injury?

I think if Neely would have retired after the lung injury in 1999, he would have been remembered a lot more fondly than he would have been if he would have retired in 2000 or 2001. He was terrific in 1999, likely the No. 2 player in the league that year outside of Jagr. In 1999-2000, he was mediocre for a player of his ability. In 2000-01, he didn't play. By that time, there definitely were negatives associated with the name Eric Lindros.

 

[mcphee]

I think Zine may be over looking Lindros' puck skills because his physical play was so eye catching, but that's just me. I think what happens, fairly or not, is that when you come into the league with expectations like his, you have to complete the circle.
Gretzky,Lemiuex, Lindros, these 3 were probably the most talked about players coming into the league in their eras. People talk about guys who were busts like Daigle, who never lived up to expectations, but I can't think of many who were talked about in the same way Lindros was.

The other guys eventually won, and validated themselves. Lindros didn't. I don't always buy this measure, I don't think Manning is a better QB today than he was last week, but he's perceived differently.

 

[jiggs 10]

Why don't you watch some Lindros games from the mid-nineties....absolute domination, with the Big E just imposing his will physically on others.

Physically beating a player over the head is not the same as being an all-time great!

Lindros was, for a 4 year stretch, ONE of the best players in the NHL AT THE TIME. He is nowhere to be found on any list of all-time greats. Had he stayed healthy for another 5 or 6 years, maybe we could be having this discussion without the sarcasam. But he didn't. Orr DOMINATED the NHL for 10 seasons, then tried to play with the 'Hawks for 27 games. He still scored a point a game, but that was nowhere near good enough for him, so he retired.

In his heyday, Lindros was not as good as Fedorov, Yzerman, Lemieux, Gretzky, Bure, or Kariya or Forsberg. More physical, yes. Stronger, yes. Better, no.

 

[John Flyers Fan]

In his heyday, Lindros was not as good as Fedorov, Yzerman, Lemieux, Gretzky, Bure, or Kariya or Forsberg. More physical, yes. Stronger, yes. Better, no.

Lindros was miles better than Kariya and Bure.

Besides being the most physically dominating player of your above grouping he also was 5th all-time in points per game (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Bossy) before he started getting his head scrambled.

 

[bleedrngrblue]

Lindros was miles better than Kariya and Bure.

Besides being the most physically dominating player of your above grouping he also was 5th all-time in points per game (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Bossy) before he started getting his head scrambled.

I agree JFF! I think some folks don't really understand how good Lindros was. I watched him with awe as a Ranger fan for several years, and even after he became a Ranger , there were glimpses on occasion of the player he could have been. Its truly a shame he didn't get the chance to realize his FULL potential, we'd be talking about him right now as one of the top players in the league.

 

[bruinforstanley]

Lindros in his short prime, was a top 5 most dominating player ever IMO.

 

[bruinforstanley]

I can't believe Orr and Lindros are being mentioned in the same sentence.

 

[c-carp]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

I dont think so because when he was healthy Bobby Orr changed the game of hockey and is regarded by some as the best player ever. No offence to Lindros but he didnt reach these heights at any time in his career.

 

[jiggs 10]

Lindros was miles better than Kariya and Bure.

Besides being the most physically dominating player of your above grouping he also was 5th all-time in points per game (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr and Bossy) before he started getting his head scrambled.

Talent-wise, Lindros was below the players I mentioned. Physical play included, he was below Forsberg. Sure, had he played 10 more years without concussions, this discussion might be different, but he didn't, it isn't, and never will be. Orr was the greatest player hockey has ever seen and Lindros was a dominant player for 4 seasons. He never won the Ross Trophy (although to be fair, it was hard to in those days of Gretzky/Lemieux/Jagr), but he did win a Hart (the year after Fedorov won).

I'm just saying Lindros cannot be compared to Orr in any way, even if they both DID have shortened careers. Orr changed the game forever in ways we are still seeing. Lindros was simply very good at the game for a time.

 

[ThurmNYY]

I always found it funny that people take Bobby Orr's shortened career as just "well, it happens".... knees messed up or not. He was a Chicago Blackhawk and tried to keep it going.

But when another great - Hart Trophy winner in Eric Lindros is brought up - all people remember is his years post-Flyers.

Both Orr and Lindros got cut down too early in their careers. I'm just curious why Orr is always remembered as the prime time Bruin he was in his day - and never as the Chicago Blackhawk washed up struggle?

Whereas Eric Lindros - people always talk of him post 2001, disregarding his years of greatness in the NHL?

Should Lindros have retired in 1998? Would he have been remembered as a legend shortened by injuries like Bobby Orr?

i honestly think that is a insult to bobby orr and anything holy in the nhl to be compared to eric lindros.

sure he had some decent years but what did he win ? absolutely nothing.
and whats stopping him from playing now the way he did prior to 2001 ?
i mean sure the head injuries are serious but as long as you recover its not like it takes your skill away like other injuries like a back or knee and if it does then maybe he should'nt be playing now.

and as far as a person eric has rubbed alot of people the wrong way over the years includeing teamates, like for instance sleeping with brindamours wife and qualms with management and the media .

he definitly had the skills and size but to me he always played like the scared big man.
sure he threw the body the first couple of years but he was the one who started the big forward era but once the league caught up to him size wise he was less then average for his size at taking the body.
i watched him play live throughout his career and saw him get more then he gave most of the time and the two years he played at the garden ive seen him get cold whacked fashizzeled many of times by guys smaller so from what i know of him i dont think its a really respectfull comparison.

 

[Raoul Duke*]

I think it's funny that people who obviously never read the context of the thread, are being all offended of "Orr and Lindros!! Blasphemy!!"

Now take your emotions under control and read why it was brought up. It was never comparing them as players - rather their legacies after injury.

inre: Why people think of Bobby Orr as the obvious great he was as a Boston Bruin, not the shadow of his former self as he was in Chicago.

Whereas these days people laugh at Lindros as a post 2000 player in Toronto or Dallas, instead of the Philadelphia Flyer he was.

Understand yet?

 

[Wooty]

I think it's funny that people who obviously never read the context of the thread, are being all offended of "Orr and Lindros!! Blasphemy!!"

Now take your emotions under control and read why it was brought up. It was never comparing them as players - rather their legacies after injury.

inre: Why people think of Bobby Orr as the obvious great he was as a Boston Bruin, not the shadow of his former self as he was in Chicago.

Whereas these days people laugh at Lindros as a post 2000 player in Toronto or Dallas, instead of the Philadelphia Flyer he was.

Understand yet?

Because many people don't feel that the very best of Lindros compares to the best of Orr.
I am also willing to take a stab that some will say that the best of Lindros doesn't compare to the worst of Orr.