The One and Only Eric Lindros

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

Lindros' OHL draft season was a 2.60 PPG average which is right around what Crosby was doing. Plus it was the OHL, not the 2000s Q.

Whilst in the NHL, Lindros scored 600 points in his first 431 games in his first 7 seasons, which is a 1.39 PPG good for an average of 113 points per 82 games.

Maybe he didn't have the longevity or championship to cement his status as an all-time great but during those years he was utterly dominant.

FWIW, quoting from Stat Shot:

Player	GVT
Gretzky	25.67
Crosby	23.77
Tavares	21.35
McDavid	21.29
Lemieux	20.49
Lindros	19.63

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

These are the greatest draft year seasons by any prospect in history ranked by GVT (goals above threshold similar to WAR). Note that Gretzkys only junior season was his 16-17 year whereas every other player was 17-18?

 

[MadLuke]

Lindros' OHL draft season was a 2.60 PPG average which is right around what Crosby was doing. Plus it was the OHL, not the 2000s Q.

Was scoring lower in the late 80, early 90s OHL than the 2000s Q ?

Rank	Player	Team	Points
1	Eric Lindros	Oshawa	149
2	Chris Taylor	London	128
3	Todd Simon	Niagara Falls	125
4	Jason Winch	Niagara Falls	122
5	Rob Pearson	2 teams	118
6	Jason Firth	Kitchener	112
7	Brett Seguin	Ottawa	111
7	Joey St. Aubin	Kitchener	111
9	Jason Cirone	2 teams	110
10	Jarrod Skalde	2 teams	104

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

vs

Rank	Player	Team	Points
1	Sidney Crosby	Rimouski	168
2	Dany Roussin	Rimouski	116
3	Marc-Antoine Pouliot	Rimouski	114
4	Maxime Boisclair	Chicoutimi	108
5	David Desharnais	Chicoutimi	97
6	Stanislav Lascek	Chicoutimi	90
7	Alex Bourret	Lewiston	86
8	Alexandre Picard	Lewiston	85
8	Josh Hennessy	Quebec	85
10	Brent Aubin	Rouyn-Noranda	84
10	Philippe Dupuis	Rouyn-Noranda	84

[TBODY] [/TBODY]
[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I imagine higher level, but with goaltending equipment of those days. But same ballpark for sure.

 

[koyvoo]

Yeah, he was a beast. Lindros still had a great HOF career, etc., but I do feel he was uniquely a victim of three things:

-- his size (made him a bit careless with skating through open ice)
-- his parents (taught him he was entitled to be the #1 guy in the world based on having played Junior hockey)
-- the hockey culture of the 80s/early-90s that shaped him (rewarded him for highly risky physical hockey)

If you go back and watch videos, etc., of Lindros when he was just 18 or 19, he comes off as a pretty nice, modest guy, considering his stature. I've never felt he was a bad guy. The problem there was with his parents. Going from Carl & Bonnie to Bobby Clarke was all the mentoring he needed to prematurely end his career.

Young fans today who think McDavid or whoever is over-hyped probably can't imagine what it was like with Lindros in 1991-1993. Here he is on Arsenio Hall in 1993... this is after his rookie season!:


Arsenio points out that Lindros is not only the new hockey hype, but was named one of People's 50 Most Beautiful People.... Can't make this stuff up!

Early 90s and they’re already talking about the violence in the game has sharply decreased.

 

[sr edler]

I'd be inclined to believe a quote from someone who was directly associated with him at the time.

"During the 2005-–06 season, his last in Ottawa before signing with Boston, Chara approached the Senators coaching staff with an unprecedented proposal: He wanted to play an entire game. Sixty minutes. No joke. “He was serious about it, for sure,” former assistant John Paddock says. “We all agreed that he could’ve done it.”"

https://www.si.com/nhl/2018/04/04/zdeno-chara-boston-bruins-playoffs

Were talking the greatest athlete or most imposing talent, not best hockey player who is also big, so I fail to see how Chara growing into his body in his early years has any bearing on this.

Yeah, you're believing something about someone believing something else. That's cool though, I agree Chara's a top tier athlete from a physical standpoint. Not that he was the greatest physical talent translating directly to hockey though, unless we're talking about a really long curve here and are giving some free cards.

Chara's skating just way too suspect to do this one for me. Skating just way too big part of the game. Put him 60 minutes on big ice and put McDavid or young Bure out there against him and I guarantee you he'll have to do some serious reverse floating, plus some serious hacking and whacking, and a few futile attempts at Lidström-esque subtle holding, and he'll probably get called for at least a minor, probably a double minor too, and a major for fighting is not out of the picture looking at his temper issues as someone'll probably try to tease him into something. So say ≈ 54 minutes, resting at least 5–6 minutes in the penalty box.

Difference between Lindros and Chara is that Lindros talent translated straight out of the gate, he had the whole package from the get go. Didn't have to adjust it for 5 years. Chara had to fight (literally, goon style) his way up through the WHL and the AHL to even get a chance with an Islanders club where Ds like Jamie Rivers and Jamie Heward and Aris Brimanis were cracking the full time roster.

 

[daver]

Lindros' OHL draft season was a 2.60 PPG average which is right around what Crosby was doing. Plus it was the OHL, not the 2000s Q.

Whilst in the NHL, Lindros scored 600 points in his first 431 games in his first 7 seasons, which is a 1.39 PPG good for an average of 113 points per 82 games.

Maybe he didn't have the longevity or championship to cement his status as an all-time great but during those years he was utterly dominant.

Offensively? He was elite, and up until Jagr's 98/99 season when Jagr took it up a notch sans Mario, I would say he was going toe-to-toe with Jagr. But this does not put him close to being "utterly dominant" offensively, especially if one uses that term to describe Mario.

As for his draft year PPG, league scoring in the O (5.92) was significantly higher than the the Q (4.46) in Crosby's draft year.

In Lindros' year, there were at nine other 100 point scorers (maybe more, I am not sure) and in 66 games, and nine teams out of 16 scored over 300 goals.

In Crosby's year, there was one non-linemate that hit 100 points and in 70 games only one team out of 16 scored over 300 goals, noone else was close.

Crosby hit a higher offensive peak than Lindros which backs up the claim he was the better offensive prospect. He was closer to Wayne and Mario than he was to Lindros.

 

[Boxscore]

Lindros was a modern day Gordie Howe. In his prime, he was big, skilled, mean and feared. He also came with, perhaps, the most hype ever. Eric was a physical specimen and we'll never see another player quite like him. But in terms of "athlete"--he wasn't the greatest athlete to play hockey. He was rather clumsy and awkward at times--didn't even have the polish that Messier did, to be honest. But he was an animal.

 

[slapshot101]

Eric Lindros fulfilling expectations was heart and gold

 

[ozzie]

Always have a spot for the Big E. We saw glimpses, we had stretches, but he fell short. I felt robbed as a sports fan, to be honest. Crosby has at least come closer to meeting the expectations and hype. Some may even consider Crosby a disappointed, I rather say he is the best 200 foot grinder of all time.

But I am happy seeing Crosby and how he turned out. The Big E, left a lot of unfinished business out there, if not for Scott Stevens, who knows? I wish he had reached his absolutely peak. I still dislike how he disrespected the game, nose up at Quebec. But honestly, would Gretzky have reported to the Devils in the 80's?. So I've forgiven the Big E and now all these years later, I acknowledge he was a great player, with some bad luck.

 

[daver]

Always have a spot for the Big E. We saw glimpses, we had stretches, but he fell short. I felt robbed as a sports fan, to be honest. Crosby has at least come closer to meeting the expectations and hype. Some may even consider Crosby a disappointed, I rather say he is the best 200 foot grinder of all time.

But I am happy seeing Crosby and how he turned out. The Big E, left a lot of unfinished business out there, if not for Scott Stevens, who knows? I wish he had reached his absolutely peak. I still dislike how he disrespected the game, nose up at Quebec. But honestly, would Gretzky have reported to the Devils in the 80's?. So I've forgiven the Big E and now all these years later, I acknowledge he was a great player, with some bad luck.

I think he was somewhat finished with the hits he took before the Stevens one. One could argue that he was never fated to finish his business from the very get go. He had one almost full season (a strike shortened one at that) in his first eight seasons. All others had significant to very significant time missed to injuries.

He, and to a lesser extent Forsberg, seemingly relied on his physicality to generate offense. Lindros was even close to being the offensive force he was earlier in his career after he toned down his physicality.

He was going toe-to-toe with Jagr offensively thru the 96/97 season but then Jagr took it up a notch and Lindros continued to not be able to play a full season.

At the end of the day, he was prone to injuries and perhaps wasn't as offensively skilled as his offensive numbers at his peak indicated.

He was certainly unique as at his peak he was arguably the best offensive player (when Mario was not playing) and arguably the most imposing physical threat the league had ever seen.

 

[Zanex]

I hate the Flyers but Lindros was an absolute beast who more than deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. Longevity is so overrated. Show me how the player was at their peak! And few were better at their best than Eric Lindros.

 

[86Habs]

He was a loser. I relish in the fact he never won a Stanley Cup championship and that the team that traded him away won multiple.

 

[86Habs]

Always have a spot for the Big E. We saw glimpses, we had stretches, but he fell short. I felt robbed as a sports fan, to be honest. Crosby has at least come closer to meeting the expectations and hype. Some may even consider Crosby a disappointed, I rather say he is the best 200 foot grinder of all time.

But I am happy seeing Crosby and how he turned out. The Big E, left a lot of unfinished business out there, if not for Scott Stevens, who knows? I wish he had reached his absolutely peak. I still dislike how he disrespected the game, nose up at Quebec. But honestly, would Gretzky have reported to the Devils in the 80's?. So I've forgiven the Big E and now all these years later, I acknowledge he was a great player, with some bad luck.

I mean, Lindros also refused to play for Sault Ste. Marie. Do you know who played a season in the Soo? Gretzky.

 

[frisco]

Yeah, he was a beast. Lindros still had a great HOF career, etc., but I do feel he was uniquely a victim of three things:

-- his size (made him a bit careless with skating through open ice)
-- his parents (taught him he was entitled to be the #1 guy in the world based on having played Junior hockey)
-- the hockey culture of the 80s/early-90s that shaped him (rewarded him for highly risky physical hockey)

I don't see Lindros as a victim. He ran guys full throttle into the boards at every opportunity. It was only a matter of time that teams were going to take his number and get theirs. Sort of live by the sword, die by the sword.

My Best-Carey

 

[Janvonpobben]

Same could be said of Forsberg and his injuries.

 

[Boxscore]

I don't see Lindros as a victim. He ran guys full throttle into the boards at every opportunity. It was only a matter of time that teams were going to take his number and get theirs. Sort of live by the sword, die by the sword.

My Best-Carey

Truth.

I'm a Lindros guy to the core but he was a grade-A predator. The biggest issues with Eric were:

-- His bad habit of keeping his head down
-- The Flyers trying to convince him not to fight (but never bringing in a nuke bomb like Twist to protect him)

Prime Lindros was more vicious than guys like Neely and Messier, who picked their spots. Lindros was like a bull chasing a matador at all times. I was in the Spectrum for a preseason game vs. the Devils one year and Eric destroyed 3 players on one play -- like blew them up completely -- and I've never seen anything like it since. There was a roar in the crowd the second he hopped over the boards.

 

[Zanex]

He was a loser. I relish in the fact he never won a Stanley Cup championship and that the team that traded him away won multiple.

The team that traded him away won nothing. They moved to Colorado and no longer exist.

There are no losers in The Hall of Fame, by the way.

 

[psycat]

Always liked Lindros(even cheered for the Flyers when I was young even though games was barely accessible for me this side of the pond). Wen't on a nostalgia trip now and watched clips, interviews etc and the only thing that can pop up in my head now is sadly Big Steroids, I am a fan of cycling and people chastise the psychopath Lance Armstrong over doping etc but I truly wonder how much goes on in the NHL with such obvious cases around, his face structure changed over a year or two after entering the league.

Anyway I will choose to remember the exictment he brought but also gotta admit that I nowadays, as a boring old man I suppose, can't condone such dangerous and reckless players in sports and he did get what he deserved.

 

[The Panther]

It's amazing how, to this day, the facts of Lindros's career are overshadowed by people's emotional response to him. He's so polarizing to many. We have every response in this thread from "top 5-10 player of all time if not for injuries" and "modern-day Gordie Howe" to "loser" and "got what he deserved".

Hard to see how Lindros was a "loser" as he actually won pretty much everything -- Memorial Cup, Canada Cup, Olympic Gold, NHL Conference champ, NHL MVP, NHL scoring title -- except the Stanley Cup, and when he didn't win that he was the playoffs' leading scorer. He never had to work again after age 33, and made the Hall of Fame. Not really my definition of a loser.

It probably is fair to say that he lived by the sword and died by it, but some people talk like Lindros was out of hockey by age 22 and was never heard from again! Lindros, in fact, played 760 NHL games (and 53 more in the playoffs), which is more games than Bobby Orr or Cam Neely played in their entire careers.

For nine seasons (over ten years, and it includes his first season in New York), Lindros was a tower of power. He was +207 over this period (558 games), or +30 per season for nine seasons. He was frequently up with Jagr and Sakic (and in '97, Lemieux) in scoring pace. His teams did very well. He was the scariest physical player in the League. He was both a goal scorer and a play-maker.

I was kind of stunned by how low Lindros ranked on this Forum's historical player ranking when he came in 96th. I mean, whatever, I don't care about rankings and it's only the opinion of seventeen random fans, but clearly Lindros at his best was a superior player to MANY of the players ranked under him (Duncan Keith, Boris Mikhailov, Borje Salming, to name only a few).

In addition to having a grudge against Lindros, I suppose a lot of forum people rank longevity more than I do. So, whatever, we all have different opinions. But for me, if you brought it at an elite level for 7 or 8 seasons, that's enough for me.

Anyway, carry on...

 

[Zanex]

In addition to having a grudge against Lindros, I suppose a lot of forum people rank longevity more than I do. So, whatever, we all have different opinions. But for me, if you brought it at an elite level for 7 or 8 seasons, that's enough for me.

I feel the same. Longevity is so overrated in my book. Show me the player when they were at their best!

I personally rank each legend by their top 5 seasons and pit those 5 seasons head to head vs another players top 5. Whichever players top 5 was better is the superior player in my book.

Of course there are exceptions and longevity can influence my ranking somewhat, but only in a very limited capacity.

There are a lot of players ranked way to high here who played forever but had very average peaks. Lindros should be way higher than 96.

 

[Perennial]

He absolutely lived up to the hype until injuries derailed his career...

• Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 300 points (210 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (159), Mario Lemieux (186) and Peter Šťastný (186);
• Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 400 points (277 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (197), Mario Lemieux (240) and Peter Šťastný (247);
• Fifth-fastest player in NHL history to score 500 points (352 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (234), Mario Lemieux (287), Peter Šťastný (322) and Mike Bossy (349);
• Sixth-fastest player in NHL history to score 600 points (429 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (273), Mario Lemieux (323), Peter Šťastný (394), Mike Bossy (400) and Jari Kurri (419).

He was also +177 over his first 431 games

 

[Bustedprospect]

Calling an MVP and a captain leading his team to an SC-final is a little hard. His peak was simply great going toe to toe with some star player in those years in a high competition era.

The era simply was harsh. Plenty of great players like Forsberg, LaFontaine, Kariya had really short careers. Hopefully the league has learned something at least and this can be avoided more in the future.

 

[tabness]

Growing up, Lindros was the player of the nineties it felt (I guess Lemieux was a bit older and also retired in 1997) just by acclaim. Getting to watch him in old games now as an adult only really serves to underscore that point more to be honest.

 

[86Habs]

Eh, maybe loser is a little harsh. I’ll admit that as a French Canadian (who lived in Quebec City at the time) I intensely disliked Lindros for much of his career due to the sense of entitlement he seemed to carry with him throughout his junior and NHL career. There were seasons or partial seasons where he more or less lived up to expectations, but putting aside the hype around him when he entered the league I don’t think he had a particularly noteworthy or remarkable career.

He had natural talent, and was physically imposing and knew how to use it effectively, but his game never seemed to mature and while hindsight is 20-20 it was apparent that he wasn’t destined to have a lengthy career. In the NHL, there was always going to be a bigger, stronger, meaner alpha and Lindros was a moving target (with his head down) so it was only a matter of time until he got his bell rung. Live by the sword, die by the sword I guess, and I don’t think Lindros would expect anything different. He was just never able to carve out that space for himself like someone like Messier did, despite being willing and able to drop the mitts.

And as far as leadership goes, I just didn’t see him take his game to another level in postseason play or internationally. 1997 was a good run, nothing remarkable really and obviously getting swept in the finals isn’t ideal. No real other noteworthy playoff runs. Not counting 2002, when he was a depth forward on team Canada (Canada would have won gold without him and his 1 goal against Belarus) he didn’t really win anything post 1991. Some big failures (1992 World Juniors), and some times when he was just kind of…there…not good, not bad (1996, 1998).

So sure, the loser label is harsh. I’ve actually enjoyed seeing him interviewed post career, he seems like a good dude. We all get better with age I guess. His career was too short, but I think it’s fair to say we saw him at his best, if only for a brief period.

 

[Hanji]

Same could be said of Forsberg and his injuries.

I dunno.
Both were injury prone but Forsberg never had to modify his game, nor did his injuries alter his general effectiveness.

The Big E’s game was unsustainable. He was a shell of his former self by 27-28, while Forsberg was winning the Hart at age 29.

 

[Janvonpobben]

I dunno.
Both were injury prone but Forsberg never had to modify his game, nor did his injuries alter his general effectiveness.

Totally false. Forsberg played on one foot last 5 seasons