Toggle sidebar

Miscellaneous NHL Talk XXII

Status
Not open for further replies.
sobrien

sobrien

RAFFLCOPTER
Jul 19, 2009
8,948
127
South Jersey
Mkoll said:
I liked Hartnell, but I like the Flyers being on the Power play more often than the Penalty Kill even more.
Click to expand...

Yup, that'd be the only benefit to that trade. Though it was nice having that extra scoring option on the PP in Hartnell when we actually got there.
 
Mayo Masseuse

Mayo Masseuse

Tinariwen Riddum
May 16, 2010
731
676
The Dunes of Neptune
MP92 said:
How much do you think he improves the team? Seriously?

I cant wait until this ****er retires so I never have to hear his name again. People cant unglue their lips from the guy's ass. It's the Simon Gagne thing all over again.
Click to expand...

It's as if sports stars have fans. :handclap:
Fans, short for fancy and the Americanism fanatic.
You know, an intense liking of someone or some thing.
 
Curufinwe

Curufinwe

Registered User
Feb 28, 2013
55,874
42,997
Modano is more deserving than Bure and Neely. He had a great career that lasted almost 20 years.
 
LegionOfDoom91

LegionOfDoom91

Registered User
Jan 25, 2013
82,192
140,448
Philadelphia, PA
I don't have a problem with Modano. The stats check out plus he has a legit claim for the best American born player ever.

Forsberg's another guy who should strengthen Lindros' case going forward.
 
DrinkFightFlyers

DrinkFightFlyers

THE TORTURE NEVER STOPS
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2009
23,552
4,546
NJ
The never-ending Lindros debate. To me, if a player is debatable, he shouldn't be in the hall (hockey, baseball, any sport). I know there are tons of guys in there that are debatable, older guys and more recent guys. I'm just saying if it is my vote, if a guy is borderline, he's out. Small Hall.
 
Beef Invictus

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
128,168
166,238
Armored Train
DrinkFightFlyers said:
The never-ending Lindros debate. To me, if a player is debatable, he shouldn't be in the hall (hockey, baseball, any sport). I know there are tons of guys in there that are debatable, older guys and more recent guys. I'm just saying if it is my vote, if a guy is borderline, he's out. Small Hall.
Click to expand...

Lindros isn't debatable at this point. He SHOULD be in the hall. He isn't in the hall for petty off-ice drama, and since he wasn't some heinous criminal that isn't enough to justify keeping him out.
 
DrinkFightFlyers

DrinkFightFlyers

THE TORTURE NEVER STOPS
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2009
23,552
4,546
NJ
Beef Invictus said:
Lindros isn't debatable at this point. He SHOULD be in the hall. He isn't in the hall for petty off-ice drama, and since he wasn't some heinous criminal that isn't enough to justify keeping him out.
Click to expand...

But that's not the case though. There are legitimate reasons to keep him out. We get into this argument every year. You don't like the reasons, but they are still there. Lindros was absolutely dominant...for about half of seven seasons (i.e. when healthy). The other half of his career was good, not great. He also sat out an entire season voluntarily. Couple that with his off-ice issues, and the fact that he apparently was not a good teammate (see: Keith Jones' book), all are keeping him out.

There are also arguments FOR his induction into the Hall. Those are also legitimate arguments. Some see his dominance, albeit for only half his career and in less than a full season at a time, as proof that he should be in. There are comparable players in the Hall. These are all valid arguments.

But again, if it were me, I'd look at it and say this is a guy that COULD HAVE BEEN the best of the best. But he got injured. And he sat out a full year. And he was a difficult teammate. And he clashed with management. And 50% of his career was good, not great. I'd say, this is a guy that doesn't get in. Yes, Bure and Neely have similar stats. Perhaps they too shouldn't be in there (though, as I've argued ad nauseum in different threads), these are different situations. There very much is a debate here and to me, debatable players wouldn't get my vote.
 

ILoveStephanieBrown

Registered User
Nov 6, 2012
6,056
3
Beef Invictus said:
Lindros isn't debatable at this point. He SHOULD be in the hall. He isn't in the hall for petty off-ice drama, and since he wasn't some heinous criminal that isn't enough to justify keeping him out.
Click to expand...

I wonder if Chris Pronger ends up facing similar problems when his chance to get in comes.
 
Beef Invictus

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
128,168
166,238
Armored Train
DrinkFightFlyers said:
But that's not the case though. There are legitimate reasons to keep him out. We get into this argument every year. You don't like the reasons, but they are still there. Lindros was absolutely dominant...for about half of seven seasons (i.e. when healthy). The other half of his career was good, not great. He also sat out an entire season voluntarily. Couple that with his off-ice issues, and the fact that he apparently was not a good teammate (see: Keith Jones' book), all are keeping him out.

There are also arguments FOR his induction into the Hall. Those are also legitimate arguments. Some see his dominance, albeit for only half his career and in less than a full season at a time, as proof that he should be in. There are comparable players in the Hall. These are all valid arguments.

But again, if it were me, I'd look at it and say this is a guy that COULD HAVE BEEN the best of the best. But he got injured. And he sat out a full year. And he was a difficult teammate. And he clashed with management. And 50% of his career was good, not great. I'd say, this is a guy that doesn't get in. Yes, Bure and Neely have similar stats. Perhaps they too shouldn't be in there (though, as I've argued ad nauseum in different threads), these are different situations. There very much is a debate here and to me, debatable players wouldn't get my vote.
Click to expand...

So you want to keep him out because he wasn't as good as he COULD be? Or because he was a difficult personality?

Well, tough ****. Despite that he was STILL good enough to earn a spot. Roy was a difficult personality. He's in. Messier melted down in Vancouver. He's in.

At this point you're just arguing Lindros shouldn't be in for the sake of arguing. That's the only reason to argue against it.
 
DrinkFightFlyers

DrinkFightFlyers

THE TORTURE NEVER STOPS
Sponsor
Sep 24, 2009
23,552
4,546
NJ
Beef Invictus said:
So you want to keep him out because he wasn't as good as he COULD be? Or because he was a difficult personality?
Click to expand...

Both. His injuries and off-ice difficulties caused his career to be cut probably in half (at least in number of games, not necessarily years). Like I said, his first 7 years were dominant WHILE HE WAS ON THE ICE, which was never a full season. His final six years? They were not dominant. He had two more good years (not great years), and four average or below...ALL shortened by injury aside from one. You get into the hall of fame by being dominant for half of your career? Not in my book. Maybe if you play 30 years and half of them are dominant, ok. But if you play 13 seasons, and PARTS of seven are dominant. That is not HHOF worthy.

Then, you throw in the fact that he had the off-ice difficulties and that he was a difficult teammate and it really tips the scales against him.

Well, tough ****. Despite that he was STILL good enough to earn a spot. Roy was a difficult personality. He's in. Messier melted down in Vancouver. He's in.

At this point you're just arguing Lindros shouldn't be in for the sake of arguing. That's the only reason to argue against it.
Click to expand...

Oh ok. You are right. My arguments don't count because you say so. I guess I have to agree with you. Damn. Ok. I'd vote Lindros because being dominant for half your short career is good enough to be called the best of all time (and really...I am using that word dominant loosely).
 
Beef Invictus

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
128,168
166,238
Armored Train
Bure is in. That alone destroys the injuries thing...as well as the fact that Bure isn't as good as Lindros and played fewer games.


Check back with me once Lindros does finally get his due, inevitably, and we'll see who ended up being right.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom