Eric Lindros, a Hall of Famer?

[Law Goalie 147]

Taking international play into account, I think Forsberg is a lock.

He and Lindros both might get extra consideration based on the 'Howie Morenz Rule' - that a player whose career or performance was seriously curtailed by injury is given extra credit. Now, Lindros and Forsberg both sort of petered out, in contrast with Morenz actually dying, but it's there to consider.

[phunky_monkey 6]

Forsberg should never not be considered, he was an absolute superstar and my favourite player for sure. I mean c'mon, he came back last season and put up 14pts in 9 games at his age, riddled with injuries and on a suspect team, while being a great defensive forward. Absolute lock for the HOF.

As for Lindros, he was without a doubt one of the most dominant players of his time. It's a hard one though as his career was short, but I think he has a place in there, as does Bure.

[k13 0]

Its the Hockey Hall of Fame, not the NHL hall of fame. With his international success, Forsberg is a lock.

[spoonhead 0]

Lindros on talent alone may be qualified to enter the hall of fame, but his overall contribution to the game is so lame he just can't be considered.

Maybe he was a throw back to the 50's where a mean streak was a good thing, but in his time it just diminished his game. In my mind he was nothing more than a more talented Darcy Tucker.

There are a lot of players that qualify before him.

BTW I hated that guy.

[McCabe#1 0]

Obviously you hate him if you compare him to Darcy Tucker. In the mid 90's, Lindros was UNBELIEVEABLE. He dominated the game with his speed, size and skill. If you any one has any of the Don Cherry Rock'em Sock'em tapes from when he was at his peak, watch Lindros in those, and I haven't seen a player able to dominate like he did since then.

[Chadd 916]

A bigger Messier would be a better comparison, both had a mean streak. The funny thing is that I wasn't a fan of his when he was in his prime.

[spoonhead 0]

Thats not a bad comparison at all. I liked Messier because I felt he had character. The reason I disliked Lindros was that I felt he lacked character, he always talked like he was bigger than the game, something that the elite players don't do. I will admit that for a short period he was in the elite zone with the top 5 players, I would admit that he did have the talent. I did some checking and its hard to believe that it was just 10-11 years ago that he was the the highest paid player for a short while.

[dsjunior1388 81]

Forsberg has to be a hall of famer, add his Olympic success and his NHL career and it's a lock. With just the NHL, I'm on the fence, leaning towards no, but you can't ignore what he did in the Olympics/international play and it helps him.

Lindros, on the other hand, I would vote against. Yes, he won a pearson and a hart, he was dominant for a period, but he never won a cup and while forsbergs injuries were his body unable to handle what his brain wanted, Lindros's injury problems were more based on his own inability to adapt from junior, where he could dominate with his head glued to the ice, to the NHL. In that respect hes not like Neely, whos career was cut short by a cheapshot by Ulf Sameulson, or guys like Orr and Bossy, who's knees couldn't keep up. I don't think the howie morenz effect should count if a deep flaw in your game contributes to your injuries. If lindros had learned to skate with his eyes up like the rest of us, he is closing in on five hundred goals, and probably wins a cup along the way. And he really has only one person to blame for his concussions, in my opinion.

And yes, Lindros has a gold medal from the salt lake games, but Forsbergs contribution to his team in 94 FAR exceeds lindros's contribution in O2

[Chadd 916]

Forsberg has to be a hall of famer, add his Olympic success and his NHL career and it's a lock. With just the NHL, I'm on the fence, leaning towards no, but you can't ignore what he did in the Olympics/international play and it helps him.

Lindros, on the other hand, I would vote against. Yes, he won a pearson and a hart, he was dominant for a period, but he never won a cup and while forsbergs injuries were his body unable to handle what his brain wanted, Lindros's injury problems were more based on his own inability to adapt from junior, where he could dominate with his head glued to the ice, to the NHL. In that respect hes not like Neely, whos career was cut short by a cheapshot by Ulf Sameulson, or guys like Orr and Bossy, who's knees couldn't keep up. I don't think the howie morenz effect should count if a deep flaw in your game contributes to your injuries. If lindros had learned to skate with his eyes up like the rest of us, he is closing in on five hundred goals, and probably wins a cup along the way. And he really has only one person to blame for his concussions, in my opinion.

And yes, Lindros has a gold medal from the salt lake games, but Forsbergs contribution to his team in 94 FAR exceeds lindros's contribution in O2

You can't really hang the cup thing on Lindros, Bobby Clarke seemed to think that you didn't need a true #1 goalie to win a cup.

[kosydar 0]

Exactly. I know its not really fair to play that game because of how complicated things got with all the trades, but Lindros instead of Forsberg on those Avalanche teams still wins two Cups. Forsberg on the Flyers doesn't win any Cups.