Was Lindros supposed to be better than Lemieux?
- Thread starter SnowblindNYR
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
Plural
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2011
- 33,873
- 5,084
If he was supposed to be better than Gretzky, then by definition he was supposed to be better than Lemieux too.
But I don't think people were actually expecting Lindros to be better. But he was recognized as a talent that had the possibility to challenge Gretzky. Similarly to what was said about Crosby too. People didn't expect it to happen. But those two prospects were viewed to have an upside of that magnitude. Sort of "if everything goes perfectly" kind of scenario.
But I don't think people were actually expecting Lindros to be better. But he was recognized as a talent that had the possibility to challenge Gretzky. Similarly to what was said about Crosby too. People didn't expect it to happen. But those two prospects were viewed to have an upside of that magnitude. Sort of "if everything goes perfectly" kind of scenario.
He was supposed to be the next Mark Messier. No one expected him to be as good as Lemieux or Gretzky. According to Bob Mackenzie, he is to date, the most hyped player to ever come out of junior. More than Crosby. More than McDavid.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,262
- 14,259
Lindros was a rare combination of extreme physicality and high-end offensive skill, but I don't think people thought he was as talented as Gretzky or Lemieux.That's just on top of my head though.
Where to start with the expectations of Eric Lindros?
He was never expected to produce points like Gretzky or Lemieux. But he was expected to dominate the game at the same level, in his own way, with his unique 5 tool skill set.
Yes he was compared to a peak Messier in terms of leadership and edge, with an unmatched physical game more in line with a true power forward.
People often confuse points and how a player dominates the ice, the guy everyone watches out. Lindros had that unique ability.
Points wise he was probably expected to be a fairly consistent 40-55 goal player, with 110 to 135 point range, combined with terrorising and influencing the game like no other play ever had before. Yes he wasn't going to score 200 points or even 150, but he didn't need to.
He was never expected to produce points like Gretzky or Lemieux. But he was expected to dominate the game at the same level, in his own way, with his unique 5 tool skill set.
Yes he was compared to a peak Messier in terms of leadership and edge, with an unmatched physical game more in line with a true power forward.
People often confuse points and how a player dominates the ice, the guy everyone watches out. Lindros had that unique ability.
Points wise he was probably expected to be a fairly consistent 40-55 goal player, with 110 to 135 point range, combined with terrorising and influencing the game like no other play ever had before. Yes he wasn't going to score 200 points or even 150, but he didn't need to.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
But man, has Bob & co. at The Sidney Network try.
That would have been a sane comparison. I was 22 when he was drafted and he was hyped to be "better" than Gretzky by some even.puckpilot said:
The most reasonable claims were about how he will be THE best player in the game at some point in the future, that he will be the next one that all others are compared to. NOT that he will be better in an all-time sense.
There is a Bobby Orr thread on the history board, and a lot of us were saying that we hadn't really heard anyone compared to Orr in all the time since because the comparison is instantly laughable. It's kind of the same with Gretzky (even though as some have mentioned Lemieux came and arguably gave him a run for his money). If my memory serves, people weren't really mentioning Gretzky and Lindros in the same sentence, just because they were so utterly different. Lindros had a large-ish proportion of Gretzky's skill (I don't know how to quantify that) - but then he also had all the physicality of Gretzky's meat shield, Marty McSorley, and then some. They were just impossible to compare, it was very obvious, and I don't really remember a lot of people trying to do so.
EDIT: I didn't realize that this was on the History board
EDIT: I didn't realize that this was on the History board
Was he really viewed as a natural leader like Messier? I thought if anything there were concerns about his attitude coming into the league.
Other than that, spot on. His peak was elite offensively, a contender for the Art Ross, and the most feared physical force in the league.
IMO, he had the Best Player in the World title after Mario's retirement in '97 but lost it to Jagr soon after.
They expected him to be a different player, one putting up elite all time points and changing the face of the game with his meaness/physicality. His impact to the game was considered to have the potential to be close to the other two. Times had changed he was never going to put up what Lemieux/Gretzky would, but he'd still be at the top of the league.
And he was that for a time. Before the collapsed lung (where everything seemed to take a downturn, although the concussions started not long after) he was 5th all time in points per game and only starting to enter his prime years. Every time he stepped on the ice the game changed.
Maybe it was the fact that Gretzky and Lemieux had some great talent with them when they were at the top of their games, but to me it just seemed Lindros was much more of a focal point on the ice. John LeClair was a nice player, but a 50 point player without Lindros and a 100 point player with him. He was no Jagr, no Kurri, no Coffey. When Lindros was on the ice it was all about him, probably even more so than Gretzky or Lemieux, which is just amazing to consider.
Its been quite a while, but my feeling at the time was people thoguht he could have the same effect upon the outcome of a game as a Lemieux (no one would have said Greztky) without putting up quite as many points.
Was Lindros expected to be that great offensively? He wasn't really close to Wayne or Mario offensively in his junior days.
Stephen23
Registered User
No, but he was supposed to be more of a force if you will. Which you can argue he was. He was a monster physically with elite skill. One of the best power forwards of all time. Was for a brief period arguably the best player in the world for a few years. Or at least in the discussion. Unfortunately his playing style and injuries caught up to him. I am glad he is in the Hall as he so rightly deserves. But in summary, never was seen as better than Mario, just a slight notch below. Still elite. Mario is just one of the best of all time and no shame being a shade behind him.
I remember reading an article about Lindros when he was still 16 where the comparisons were made to Gretzky and Lemieux. They said something along the lines that he would be best player since Gretzky, like Lemieux but more physical. But that was 1989 and memories can be a funny thing.
The Panther
Registered User
No, nobody thought he was the new "Gretzky", because, as mentioned, he didn't have that type of unique skill-set and he was an enormously physical player. Yes, he was compared to Messier. Probably, there was a general expectation that he would be a major franchise player and one of the elite few players of his generation, if not the #1. And he almost was, if not for injuries.
Here's the points Lindros would have scored (roughly, of course) if he'd been healthy each of his seasons with Philadelphia and the first with NYR (simple per-game pace, but bear in mind he played at least 74% of the games every year, so this shouldn't be considered too speculative), along with where he would have finished in scoring if healthy:
1992-93: 103 (18th NHL)
1993-94: 125 (2nd NHL)
1994-95: 125 (1st NHL)
1995-96: 129 (3rd NHL)
1996-97: 125 (1st NHL)
1997-98: 94 (2nd NHL)
1998-99: 107 (2nd NHL)
1999-00: 88 (4th NHL)
2001-02: 83 (4th NHL)
That's pretty awesome considering he was up against Mario and Jagr (by pace, he beat Lemieux in '97), and considering he was simultaneously the biggest physical force in the game (at least, the forward game).
He was certainly the most hyped draft-player ever.
Here's the points Lindros would have scored (roughly, of course) if he'd been healthy each of his seasons with Philadelphia and the first with NYR (simple per-game pace, but bear in mind he played at least 74% of the games every year, so this shouldn't be considered too speculative), along with where he would have finished in scoring if healthy:
1992-93: 103 (18th NHL)
1993-94: 125 (2nd NHL)
1994-95: 125 (1st NHL)
1995-96: 129 (3rd NHL)
1996-97: 125 (1st NHL)
1997-98: 94 (2nd NHL)
1998-99: 107 (2nd NHL)
1999-00: 88 (4th NHL)
2001-02: 83 (4th NHL)
That's pretty awesome considering he was up against Mario and Jagr (by pace, he beat Lemieux in '97), and considering he was simultaneously the biggest physical force in the game (at least, the forward game).
He was certainly the most hyped draft-player ever.
1989-90 Compuware Ambassadors NAHL 14gp 23g 29a 52pts ... 123 pim
Weirdest statline ever.
Actually my favourite player in the mid 90s
Better than Lemieux? I doubt people thought that but i guess opponents rather faced Mario than him, he was a beast!
Weirdest statline ever.
Actually my favourite player in the mid 90s
Better than Lemieux? I doubt people thought that but i guess opponents rather faced Mario than him, he was a beast!
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,769
- 5,306
He was supposed to be the Next One
I don't think he was ever expected to be as offensively productive as a Gretzky / Lemieux but I think the expectation was that he would be as effective in his own way by combining great size, skill, offensive ability, and then adding a physical edge that Gretzky and Lemieux didn't have.
Until injuries really set him back I think you can make the case he did it.
I don't think he was ever expected to be as offensively productive as a Gretzky / Lemieux but I think the expectation was that he would be as effective in his own way by combining great size, skill, offensive ability, and then adding a physical edge that Gretzky and Lemieux didn't have.
Until injuries really set him back I think you can make the case he did it.
Voight
#winning
Exactly. Nobody was expecting him to be better than Gretzky (who was already the GOAT by then), just to take the mantle as the best in the league. Being better than Lemieux wasn't out of the question however.
Pretty much this, except with a bit more offensive flair.
"He is unquestionably the best player in the game" *played 22 games all of 2012*
tony d
New poll series coming from me in June
I remember he was supposed to be a good one for sure. Not sure on if he was supposed to be as great as Lemieux or Gretzky.
This is drastically understating the hype I remember. Keep in mind, Lindros was drafted during the still high-flying early 1990's. The NHL was only a couple years removed from FOUR players scoring 150 points or more. His rookie year, four players scored over 135 points. There were a lot of people who thought he could out-score players like Lafontaine or Oates (two of the four who scored over 135 in 1992-3). There were certainly many who expected Lindros would break the 160 point barrier, and perhaps even sniff around the mythical 200 point barrier.
The same hype train which proclaimed Lindros "the Next One" definitely thought he had the talent/game to stand with Gretzky and Lemieux in the ultra-upper-echelon points scorers. Those expectations may have not been reasonable, but nothing about anointing anyone "the Next One" is tempered by reason.
In the defense of the hype-train, the NHL had just witnessed the two greatest offensive forces in history appear within a few years of each other. At the time, it was harder to appreciate just how rare Gretzky/Lemieux level talents really were, and thus it seemed more reasonable to predict "the Next One" would appear in short order.
overpass
Registered User
Keep in mind that Lemieux won his first Cup during Lindros's draft year. Before that point there were some who saw Lemieux as a scorer but not a winner. If Lindros at 16 or 17 was being compared to Lemieux it was Lemieux as he was rated in 1989-1991, not 1993 or today. Everyone knew he was an incredible player but there were still a few question marks at the time.
Surprised a Howe comparison hasn't been mentioned, as in he was going to be a bigger and meaner version of Gordie. That certainly would have put him up there with Mario at the time.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
This is exactly how it was. No one (maybe I shouldn't suggest ABSOLUTELY no one...) dared to believe he'd be actually "better" than Gretzky, or Lemieux after him. But his combination of size, skill, and nasty foretold of an impact on the game that likely no one had ever seen before - whatever points eventually ended up on the scoresheet. Perhaps more than the "Next One", he was maybe seen as the "Next Kind" (of supremely dominant player) - on a Gretzky/Lemieux-like level above the rest of the league, but in an excitingly different way.
David Bruce Banner
Acid Raven Bed Burn
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 77
Leclair was a great player and scorer on the Flyers (and Team USA) with or without Lindros. Saying he was a 50 point guy without Lindros is just simply wrong.
Just like Kurri with Gretzky. Kurri is still great when he wasn't with 99.
