JagerMeister Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 @pilldocFantastic post and classy giving some credit to another great poster (@JR Ewing) I only disagree with your take on #18. Lindros was a special talent for a big guy. Some of the softest, quickest hands ever. He could let it rip or dish it, made lots of little plays. I feel he was a unique talent in everything he did. Truthfully, #18 is the most difficult for any player to receive a point in. And I'm quite certain the number of players who would receive a point in #18, you can count on your fingers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ruxpin Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Truthfully, #18 is the most difficult for any player to receive a point in. And I'm quite certain the number of players who would receive a point in #18, you can count on your fingers. That's why the Hall of Fame has a special #18 room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I think a more comparable example is Bobby Hull.... I have to greatly disagree with you there. Ciccarelli is borderline to me. I've never put him through JR's criteria that was talked about above, but he strikes me as very borderline on the face of things from his stats. Hull was a no-brainer to get in. My point is that if character issues didn't keep Ciccarelli out, who -- as I said -- is borderline in my opinion, it shouldn't keep out Lindros whom I think has a stronger case based on his play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 That's why the Hall of Fame has a special #18 room. If they don't, we should start it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 I have to greatly disagree with you there. Ciccarelli is borderline to me. I've never put him through JR's criteria that was talked about above, but he strikes me as very borderline on the face of things from his stats. Hull was a no-brainer to get in. My point is that if character issues didn't keep Ciccarelli out, who -- as I said -- is borderline in my opinion, it shouldn't keep out Lindros whom I think has a stronger case based on his play.In regards to dominant players, both Bobby Hull and Eric Lindros had personality issues... Why is Eric Lindros omitted from the Hall, while Hull was inducted without a second thought despite his off ice actions... What's worse, wife beater of whiny narcissist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottM Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 In regards to dominant players, both Bobby Hull and Eric Lindros had personality issues... I agree with that. My only point was that if Ciccarelli gets in despite his issues, it's a travesty to exclude Lindros based on only that reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Pavel Bure has approximately his amount of games and was inducted into the HHOF. Pavel Bure is not superior to Lindros. It wasn't the amount of games...it was the amount of games Lindros played at a HOF level. He played a lot of games as a lesser player due to injury. I'm not saying he doesn't belong. I'm saying the reason I think he isn't in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 @JR Ewing Understood. Good stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JagerMeister Posted November 24, 2015 Author Share Posted November 24, 2015 It wasn't the amount of games...it was the amount of games Lindros played at a HOF level. He played a lot of games as a lesser player due to injury. I'm not saying he doesn't belong. I'm saying the reason I think he isn't in there. Ah I see. However, the same statement can be applied to Pavel Bure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BluPuk Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 He should be there IMHO. He is at least the equal of several HOF members and better than a lot of them. Let it go Bobby..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podein25 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Let it go Bobby.. I know you're not the first one in this thread to make this point, but Clarke is on record saying that he thinks Eric should be in the HOF. Now, people can say they don't believe him when he says that, but Clarke isn't famous for that. He's famous for the very opposite of that, being too blunt, too honest. I, for one, believe him. Because he can separate his dislike for Eric The Petulant and His Annoying Parents and Eric the dominant hockey player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JR Ewing Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 In regards to dominant players, both Bobby Hull and Eric Lindros had personality issues... Why is Eric Lindros omitted from the Hall, while Hull was inducted without a second thought despite his off ice actions... What's worse, wife beater of whiny narcissist... The off-ice issues are the only negative against Hull, with his on-ice qualifications being about as perfect as a player can have. Lindros has less going for him in that area AND has baggage to go along with it. More than a few former players disrespect him for his dealing with both the Nordiques and Phil Esposito. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Line Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 Pavel Bure has approximately his amount of games and was inducted into the HHOF. Pavel Bure is not superior to Lindros.I agree with that statement. Lindros was a better hockey player than Bure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 My opinion is he was bad for the sport. He ushered in the spoiled brat era.. the I'm too good for the league era.. who the hell refuses to play for the team that drafts them until he shows up? His numbers are competitive with some who are in, but his reputation was always a negative outside of Philly. That isn't the image the NHL wanted or needs, so leave him out. *cough* Wayne Gretzky *cough* Gretzky took a pass on the NHL draft, and the NHL itself to go play in a rival league for more money. The league folded almost immediately and Gretzky found himself in the NHL anyway. Gretzky was the first "Lindros" in this respect, but it's always Lindros that people remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Lindros defined the term "power forward". He was arguably the first such player of his kind. Lindros is a no doubt HOFer. They're just making him wait a bit because of him being whiny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yave1964 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Because he wasted his career away, he had more talent than all but a half a dozen players who ever played the games and did less with more talent than anyone who ever played. His numbers were good, not great, he never won a cup and had a short career. Add in the Quebec thing, add in the arguments between Bobby Clarke and his Daddy, it just was too much. The good, when he was on, was very good bordering on elite. He just didn't do it often enough or with passion. And the bad far outweighs the good. Puff, puff pass. Off the top of my head I can think of a dozen much more worthy candidates waiting on the outside most of whom will never see the Hall of Fame without buying a ticket, all of whom I would take before Eric. Hall of fame talent? God yes. Hal of fame career? God no. Probably not a popular sentiment in here, a Philadelphia dominated forum but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Because he wasted his career away, he had more talent than all but a half a dozen players who ever played the games and did less with more talent than anyone who ever played. His numbers were good, not great, he never won a cup and had a short career. Add in the Quebec thing, add in the arguments between Bobby Clarke and his Daddy, it just was too much. The "never won a Cup" thing is not something I hold against an individual player. Sundin never won a Cup, and he was the ultimate professional: highly talented, consistent, reliable, and low maintenance. If you get stuck with a crappy team, or if you run into a dynasty in the final, there's not much that one guy can do about it. Lindros vs Fedorov, Yzerman, Lidstrom, Shanahan, Hull, etc...... My goodness how stacked was Detroit back then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyercanuck Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 *cough* Wayne Gretzky *cough* Gretzky took a pass on the NHL draft, and the NHL itself to go play in a rival league for more money. The league folded almost immediately and Gretzky found himself in the NHL anyway. Gretzky was the first "Lindros" in this respect, but it's always Lindros that people remember. Gretzky went to play in the WHA before he was of age to play in the NHL. It wasn't like he snubbed the league, he was just easily good enough to play pro and the offer was there.In his junior draft year his father told the Soo he wouldn't play there...they picked him anyway...and he played there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WordsOfWisdom Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Gretzky went to play in the WHA before he was of age to play in the NHL. It wasn't like he snubbed the league, he was just easily good enough to play pro and the offer was there.In his junior draft year his father told the Soo he wouldn't play there...they picked him anyway...and he played there. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pilldoc Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 Hall of fame talent? God yes. Hal of fame career? God no. Probably not a popular sentiment in here, a Philadelphia dominated forum but it is what it is. Probably the most honest statement I have seen about Lindros. Looking at his statistics in an era where 100 pts players were the norm, Lindros only had 3 season with greater than 90 pts. and 5 seasons with pint totals in the 70's. I loved Lindros when he played, but IMO he simply did not have a HOF career. Alot of that was due to injuries which certainly is not his fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jammer2 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 I think when you are a bubble HOF candidate like Lindros, being a douche can hurt your cause. If you rub your fellow players, executives AND sports writers the wrong way, it can hurt your chances. Some of these guys do the voting, people can say it's all based on play an stats, but humans hold grudges. Personally, I don't feel there was enough elite play for long period of time. That is why a beloved and revered athlete like Cam Neeley with the exact same problem as Lindros....longevity... is in and Eric is not. Everyone, and I do mean everyone respected Cam, and that was part of pushing him over the threshold. Cam also was his own man, not a little Mommy and Daddy's boy, but alas, a story for another day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.