Eric Lindros, a Hall of Famer?

[shooter27 116]

Somehow I ended up having this conversation with a buddy today so I figured I could get some opinions on here. Is Eric Lindros worthy of being in the hall of fame? I think a lot of times his injury and off-ice issues make people forget that in his (short) prime he was about as dominating as a player there was in the league. His numbers (particularly prior to his leaving the Rangers) are really quite astounding. Now, all that said, I'm of the opinion that he's not a hall of famer, but its possible that my opinion has been jaded by the fact that I'm a Flyers fan. So, what is everyone's opinion?

[interpathway 9]

Yes, he was one of the more dominant players in the NHL when he wasn't hurt. But Bebé Lindros is not Hall of Fame caliber. Too short of a career, too many issues between himself and his management, too many injuries (unfortunately), and nothing to convince me of his Hall of Fame caliber off the ice. At least not that I know of. Perhaps some seasons of good coaching (if he is interested, but I doubt it) would help him.

[k13 0]

No.

Hard to imagine Lindros in the Hall of Fame where players like Gilmour, Ciccarrelli, Bure and Oates aren't.

[Chadd 916]

His numbers compare favorably to Neely and he won the hart and pearson in 95. He was the single most dominant player on the ice in virtually every game he played for a number of years. Concussions, Bobby Clarke and his father skewed the public impression of him, but he belongs in the HHOF far more than a number of guys who are already in there.

[shooter27 116]

No.

Hard to imagine Lindros in the Hall of Fame where players like Gilmour, Ciccarrelli, Bure and Oates aren't.

True those players aren't in, but they all still could get in. However, I would think that his candidacy is head and shoulders above at least 3 of those 4 guys. Gilmour, Ciccarelli, and Oates, while all great players, were never dominant figures in the NHL, Lindros was. Bure had a couple years where he was a dominating presence, but was never the same after that first knee injury. I would think Lindros and Bure are pretty good parallels when talking about their HOF credentials. They both had dominant years and were able to single handedly take over a game for long stretches of time, but their period of dominance was relatively short.

[roller to ice 0]

idk im still kind of on the fence w/ this although he did have a shortened career when he wasnt injured he was one of the greatest power foward/centers dominating every aspect of the game his scenario reminds me alot of a don mattingly(spelling) in baseball, amazing number but career shortened by back problems

[chippa13 1844]

His numbers compare favorably to Neely and he won the hart and pearson in 95. He was the single most dominant player on the ice in virtually every game he played for a number of years. Concussions, Bobby Clarke and his father skewed the public impression of him, but he belongs in the HHOF far more than a number of guys who are already in there.

I was of the same mind, if Neely got in then I think Lindros has to be considered.

[mrusse01 0]

I think he should be in there.

I tend to like guys for the HOF if they were dominant even for a short period of time over guys who just had nice, long careers and put up some great cummulative stats. Like, I don't think a lot of people ever went to the game thinking 'man, I just can't wait to see Ronny Francis out there tonight'. But for sure people said that about The Big E.

I can't believe Bure isn't in there...that guy was the best pure goal scorer in the last 25 years I think (not including Wayne or Mario). Maybe Brett Hull would like to have a word about me with that, but Bure could fill the net. He'll get in there one day for sure.

[Chadd 916]

I think he should be in there.

I tend to like guys for the HOF if they were dominant even for a short period of time over guys who just had nice, long careers and put up some great cummulative stats. Like, I don't think a lot of people ever went to the game thinking 'man, I just can't wait to see Ronny Francis out there tonight'. But for sure people said that about The Big E.

I can't believe Bure isn't in there...that guy was the best pure goal scorer in the last 25 years I think (not including Wayne or Mario). Maybe Brett Hull would like to have a word about me with that, but Bure could fill the net. He'll get in there one day for sure.

Bure was the last player who could put everyone on the edge of their seat every time he touched the puck. Ovechkin is only the second player I can recall who ever made me feel that way.

[chippa13 1844]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

[Chadd 916]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

I haven't seen much of him but I haven't seen him just explode away from guys like Bure used to do.

[RiSeOnFiRe 0]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

I haven't seen much of him but I haven't seen him just explode away from guys like Bure used to do.

What makes Kessel stand out is his ability to handle the puck while going full speed. Everytime he gets the puck he kicks it into a higher gear.

Also, i don't think Eric Lindros' name can be mentioned without Forsberg's. I saw an article in The Hockey News a while back comparing their careers and they're quite similar injury wise and the numbers.

[JJ Thompson94 0]

I use Don Legreca's method for the HOF. If you need to think about it, he's not a hall of famer. However, When I saw this topic before I clicked on it my instant opinion was yes. He was top 5 in the league for about 8 years. If I had a vote, I'd vote yes. However, if your unsure your vote would be no. Too many people will vote no, so I'm sure he won't be in.

[chippa13 1844]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

I haven't seen much of him but I haven't seen him just explode away from guys like Bure used to do.

What makes Kessel stand out is his ability to handle the puck while going full speed. Everytime he gets the puck he kicks it into a higher gear.

Also, i don't think Eric Lindros' name can be mentioned without Forsberg's. I saw an article in The Hockey News a while back comparing their careers and they're quite similar injury wise and the numbers.

I have no doubt about Forsberg. He'll definitely get in. Now I just wish Patrice Bergeron would continue his progression so that my prediction as the next Forsberg comes true.

[Chadd 916]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

I haven't seen much of him but I haven't seen him just explode away from guys like Bure used to do.

What makes Kessel stand out is his ability to handle the puck while going full speed. Everytime he gets the puck he kicks it into a higher gear.

Also, i don't think Eric Lindros' name can be mentioned without Forsberg's. I saw an article in The Hockey News a while back comparing their careers and they're quite similar injury wise and the numbers.

The biggest difference between Lindros and Forsberg to me is that Lindros was the best player on his team by a wide margin and Forsberg had Sakic for the best part of his career.

[chippa13 1844]

I think Rod Brind'Amour might have something to say about that.

[mrusse01 0]

You might be able to lump Kessel into that category if he continues the way that he has been going.

I haven't seen much of him but I haven't seen him just explode away from guys like Bure used to do.

What makes Kessel stand out is his ability to handle the puck while going full speed. Everytime he gets the puck he kicks it into a higher gear.

Also, i don't think Eric Lindros' name can be mentioned without Forsberg's. I saw an article in The Hockey News a while back comparing their careers and they're quite similar injury wise and the numbers.

The biggest difference between Lindros and Forsberg to me is that Lindros was the best player on his team by a wide margin and Forsberg had Sakic for the best part of his career.

I don't see how you can use that to evalute their candidacy, unless you are saying it reflects better on Lindros because he had less to work with.

Forsberg should get in, he was a dominant player, and for a while there was pretty much the undisputed best player in the world (as was Lindros I suppose).

Comparing Kessel to Bure is a real stretch...Kessel is hot right now, but the guy had 30 goals combined his first two seasons. He is a real nice player, but he's no Pavel Bure, and he ain't gonna be.

[Chadd 916]

I don't see how you can use that to evalute their candidacy, unless you are saying it reflects better on Lindros because he had less to work with.

Forsberg should get in, he was a dominant player, and for a while there was pretty much the undisputed best player in the world (as was Lindros I suppose).

Comparing Kessel to Bure is a real stretch...Kessel is hot right now, but the guy had 30 goals combined his first two seasons. He is a real nice player, but he's no Pavel Bure, and he ain't gonna be.

That's exactly what I am saying. Lindros played with John Leclair and Mikael Renberg when he put up his best numbers. Forsberg played with Sakic and Hejduk. Forsberg was an excellent player but I'm not sure he was ever the undisputed best player in the world.

[chippa13 1844]

I definitely think there was time where Forsberg was the best in the league.

As for Kessel, it always takes a little longer for guys to translate their game from college to the pros. I think this season we are seeing a full fledged Kessel who has finally fully adapted his game to the pros. He is playing much better in all areas of the ice. This in one thing he has a leg up on when it comes to Bure, who was allergic to the defensive zone. Will Kessel reach a Bure level? Maybe, maybe not. But he is definitely well on his way right now.

[McCabe#1 0]

I agree with Chadd, it is a lot harder for Lindros to look as great as he did playing with who he had to play with as opposed to Forsberg who played with other great players. Other great players get you the puck in places or take attention away from you when a team is planning to play against you.

I'm sorry, Kessel is a nice player right now, but you can't say he is definitely on his way to reaching Bure's level. Bure was something special when he played. Kessel is having a good year, but can't say he is on his way to Bure.

[Cavs019 708]

Forsberg didn't spend that much time on the same line as Sakic, and it's pretty fair to say that Leclair and Renberg weren't exactly hacks for linemates. Overall, Leclair was much better than Hejduk, and Renberg was arguably better than the likes of Adam Deadmarsh that played with Forsberg during most of his dominant years. As for the argument that Lindros saw less top pairing D-men because Sakic and Forsberg created two dominant lines for the Avs, its pretty fair to say that both of these teams were solid top to bottom, so the matchup issue isn't as big of a deal as your making it out to be.

[Chadd 916]

Forsberg didn't spend that much time on the same line as Sakic, and it's pretty fair to say that Leclair and Renberg weren't exactly hacks for linemates. Overall, Leclair was much better than Hejduk, and Renberg was arguably better than the likes of Adam Deadmarsh that played with Forsberg during most of his dominant years. As for the argument that Lindros saw less top pairing D-men because Sakic and Forsberg created two dominant lines for the Avs, its pretty fair to say that both of these teams were solid top to bottom, so the matchup issue isn't as big of a deal as your making it out to be.

Forsberg was with Sakic as often as not at even strength and always on the PP. Drury was usually on one of Forsbergs wings when he was playing center on the second line.

[psh 25]

I was never a fan of Lindros or the Flyers, but I think he's definitely a Hall of Famer. He's got serious hardware and serious numbers that can't be overlooked. If Neely is in, I think Lindros and Bure are in. The numbers, in fact, are interesting.

As for being best in the world, Forsberg won a Calder, Art Ross, Hart, and he was voted by his peers as the best in the world a couple of times during international play--once during the Olympics and once during the World Cup, I believe. He's also the only non-Russian in the double triple gold club (and had the game winning goal for his first Olympic gold and the game winning assist for the second Olympic gold. Regarding team mates, I think not playing with a Sakic makes Lindros's case stronger. But, let's remember that Forsberg rarely skated with Sakic, except on power plays, until later in his career. That explains their very divergent stats, especially in the playoffs, where, as Sakic often pointed out in interviews, Forsberg usually drew the opponent's top checking line.

And, Sakic is a good benchmark. Consider these playoff stats for Sakic, Neely, Bure, Lindros, and Forsberg (look at +/- and it's clear that Sakic and Forsberg rarely played together and that Forsberg had a monumental role in the Avs's playoff success):

Player GP Pts PPG +/-

Neely 93 89 .96 -9

Lindros 53 57 1.08 +8

Sakic 172 188 1.09 -2

Bure 64 70 1.09 +8

Forsberg 151 171 1.13 +47

All amazing careers. All HOF careers, if you ask me, especially if you use Sakic and Neely as benchmarks. I was actually a little surprised by the Neely and Bure numbers. But, considering their net benefits to their teams when the chips are down, Forsberg is just in a different class altogether--49 more playoff points to the Avs than even Sakic, to be precise. And that's not to put down Sakic, who is an obvious first ballot Hall of Famer.

On a different note, I hope Forsberg does not come back, as is being speculated about once again.

[Neal 41]

Forsberg didn't spend that much time on the same line as Sakic, and it's pretty fair to say that Leclair and Renberg weren't exactly hacks for linemates. Overall, Leclair was much better than Hejduk, and Renberg was arguably better than the likes of Adam Deadmarsh that played with Forsberg during most of his dominant years. As for the argument that Lindros saw less top pairing D-men because Sakic and Forsberg created two dominant lines for the Avs, its pretty fair to say that both of these teams were solid top to bottom, so the matchup issue isn't as big of a deal as your making it out to be.

So, this is the same Leclair that never scored more than 25 goals without Lindros as a linemate but scored 50 twice with Lindros.

And the Renberg you are talking about is the one who scored 26 and 38 with Lindros but never scored more than 16 with anybody else.

If you can set aside the off-ice distractions and the injuries, Lindros should be in. And the off-ice distractions were imo, more about his parents and Clarke and the injury bit has been answered by Neely's inclusion.

[mrusse01 0]

Forsberg was one of the best playoff performers of all-time in my opinion, he was virtually unstoppable. I think he must have toned his game a bit down in the regular season because of injuries and that sort of thing, but when he did play, he put up some big big stats. That one season when he missed the whole year and came back in the playoffs like he hadn't missed a beat, that's pretty impressive.