No at anytine was he said to be better. I think they hoped he would be close to that level though
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
DisgruntledGoat*
Registered User
- Dec 26, 2010
- 4,301
- 28
I believe Bobby Clarke did once say he had the potential to be the best player of all time.
I distinctly recall hearing, 'the skill of Gretzky, the size of Lemieux, the competitiveness of Messier' more than once.
But I also think you have to sometimes seperate 'hype' from, 'expectations'.
I'd also say that if McDavid isn't AS hyped as Lindros, he's close. Couple examples: Craig Button saying he'll end his career as the best post-expansion forward along with Gretzky and Lemieux; the Hockey News saying he has the best puck control at high speed EVER; Martin Biron saying he could be a 2 PPG as early as THIS SEASON.
I distinctly recall hearing, 'the skill of Gretzky, the size of Lemieux, the competitiveness of Messier' more than once.
But I also think you have to sometimes seperate 'hype' from, 'expectations'.
I'd also say that if McDavid isn't AS hyped as Lindros, he's close. Couple examples: Craig Button saying he'll end his career as the best post-expansion forward along with Gretzky and Lemieux; the Hockey News saying he has the best puck control at high speed EVER; Martin Biron saying he could be a 2 PPG as early as THIS SEASON.
If you go by what Philadelphia traded for and what the rangers reportedly offered, that means that there were at least two teams that thought he would at least be on par with Lemieux if not better. The funny thing is that he didn't end up being the best player in that deal.
Big Phil
Registered User
- Nov 2, 2003
- 31,703
- 4,172
Both Gretzky and Lemieux were still prolific in 1991. Lemieux just finished a 44 point playoff campaign and Gretzky had a 163 point season. I don't think Lindros was expected to put up those points. But if there was any indication of what he was supposed to do I think you can look at the 1996 season as an example. 115 points in 73 games. A far cry from Lemieux who had 161 in 70 but Lindros also had that terrifying presence on the ice when he didn't have the puck. He literally scared the opposition with what he could do physically. I personally expected him to have a string of seasons similar to 1996. In other words, not a peak Gretzky or Lemieux, but the next best player in the NHL. And considering Gretzky and Lemieux were both much older, the idea was that once they retire or decline it would be Eric's NHL. That's where he got the "Next One" title from.
RedWingsMan1951
Registered User
It will always be the "WHAT IF" and "HAD HE STAYED HEALTHY" that will be on LINDROS. He was a great physical player but he was never gonna beat GRETZKY numbers or break Gretzky Records. He was the all around power forward that the NHL was marketing and hoping to be the next Gretzky once Wayne was gone.
Too bad Injuries and Concussions wrecked his career, some people think he didn't deserve the HOF induction but I have no problem with it as he was a dominant force when healthy and still put up numbers similar/better than other HOF'amers such as CAM NEELY/CLARK GILLIES etc etc.
It would have been nice to see ERIC play if he could have kept his head up but since Junior he was always the biggest player by far so he always played with his head down, When he came to the NHL they have players just as big or bigger and they took him out. 5 Goals in his last season was pretty bad though, he shouldn't of even played that last year in DALLAS.
Too bad Injuries and Concussions wrecked his career, some people think he didn't deserve the HOF induction but I have no problem with it as he was a dominant force when healthy and still put up numbers similar/better than other HOF'amers such as CAM NEELY/CLARK GILLIES etc etc.
It would have been nice to see ERIC play if he could have kept his head up but since Junior he was always the biggest player by far so he always played with his head down, When he came to the NHL they have players just as big or bigger and they took him out. 5 Goals in his last season was pretty bad though, he shouldn't of even played that last year in DALLAS.
Ohashi_Jouzu*
Registered User
Bro, I've already said something like this multiple times, but he got hit a thousand times by all those big NHL players. Most who tried to hit him legally bounced off or got laughed at. It took multiple "dirty" (certainly by any definition from the past decade or more) hits targeting his head to actually put him out long term and affect his play.
Bigger players were no obstacle to Lindros, even at the top level of the NHL. Dirty hitters, on the other hand, were, as they were to everyone.
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 77
Lindros himself was a very dirty hitter, innumerble times. So getting taken down by a few "dirty" hits is not exactly unfair or something.
Just saying...
Given the state of the Q at that time, you just cannot compare numbers.
But in any case CHL numbers only translate so well. Greztky had the one year only as a 16 yr old, averaging just under 3 points a game, finishing second in scoring (points and goals), team 5th of 6 in their division, made quarters. Lindros (due entirely to his own attitude) did not really play much as a 16yr old, but did average just under 3 points a game as a 17 yr old finishing first in scoring (goals and points, not far off PIM leader) and led his team to first in the regular season and lost out in the OHL finals. Lindros was also a large factor in winning the memorial cup the year before.
There is definitely a decent difference between a 16yr and 17yr old, but Lindros was really not too far behind Gretzky when it comes to his impact to the CHL league at the time.
Different players, different eras.
LeClairs season (outside rookie and 3 injury plagued years) without Lindros were 44/43/51/55/51. Pretty much the definition of a 50 point player. He did have a 28 in 35 without Lindros (65 point pace), his best year. Playoffs without Lindros was 27 points in 80 games.
With Lindros? 97/97/87/90/77. When he was traded from Montreal in the 95 season he was on a 46 point pace per 82. Same season, with Philly he was on a 109 point pace, a 136% increase the next day when paired with Lindros. Playoffs he had 62 points in 74 games with Lindros.
Production wise there is simply no comparison, his production was effectively doubled when with Lindros.
Poignant Discussion*
I tell it like it is
Not the way the game was played in the 80's early 90's. There was no slowing down of games. Lindros, I don't think anyone really thought he would score 200 points or anything.
But in his prime he was the ultimate hockey player in my eyes. The Nancy's on these boards would have a new thread each time Eric played
You can compare how much each player dominated their respective leagues. Wayne at 16 and Mario at 17 were significantly more dominant for their ages than Lindros was. Crosby too.
I think where he plateaued offensively in his era (between the Sakic/Forsberg/Selanne level and Jagr's level) was indicative of his offensive performance in juniors. Crosby was much closer to Wayne and Mario as a prospect and, IMO, has plateaued above Lindros, albeit much closer to him than Wayne and Mario.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,769
- 5,306
Yeah, the never kept his head up thing is a caricature. That said, for a long time people did literally bounce off Lindros more often than not. And yes, Lindros crossed the line himself at times.. he played on that line of aggressive/dirty all the time in his prime. It was part of what made him so effective.
But you're right he was very much so in a king of the hill type of situation. Everyone was gunning for Lindros trying to take him down and it took a while before the toll on his body accumulated up. Dirty hits also played a factor.
I always say Lindros lived by the sword and died by the sword. I wonder what a guy like him would have done in today's game where beaning people is frowned upon. He'd have to be less physical as well but he would still be the strongest player on the ice.
If you read what LeClair said about Lindros' induction you get the feeling that Lindros work ethic and passion may have helped vault LeClair up some. That and just their pure chemistry.
However, people will point to LeClair's points when Lindros was injured to show you that he was more than a 50 point player on his own.. except that doesn't account for the influence Lindros might have had in making him break out and become that player in the first place.
I don't know if it qualifies as hype when you're that good. He was the real deal until the injuries really hampered him.
It is harder comparing the Q thouh, it has historically been a far less deep league, especially at the otp end, which allows the betetr players ot be more dominant.
I wouldn't say Crosby dominated more than Lindros (at 17). Lindros led the league in goals and points and was near the top in PMs. Crosby led in points.
I'm not sure I would agree, but I do see the argument. Lindros was top 5 PPG all time before injuries set in, which is about where Crosby is now. But Lindros had the physical play that adding a dimension to his game Crosby does not have.
Lindros was never close Lemieux and Gretzky, no matter impact he had. Because he focused too much on bullying opponents and lacked hockey IQ in orchestering the game. He cold pass but his game relied too much on force and was not able to shift tempo.
Sure he made the crowd go "wow" but he was not the bona fide franchise person or player. Mario and Gretz were great ambassadors, who could express themselves as intellectual persons. Lindros was a brute.
Sure he made the crowd go "wow" but he was not the bona fide franchise person or player. Mario and Gretz were great ambassadors, who could express themselves as intellectual persons. Lindros was a brute.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,769
- 5,306
Crosby almost Marioed the Q at age 17 and he did lead in goals. Lindros simply was not as dominant over the rest of the league on a relative basis as Crosby was.
As for PPG, they played in different eras. PPG needs context. Setting aside raw point finishes which clearly favours Crosby, Crosby's ceiling was higher, closer to Jagr's than Lindros'.
Nathaniel Skywalker
DIG IN!!! RiGHT NOW!!!
- Oct 18, 2013
- 14,328
- 6,021
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,193
- 18,165
...However a few of these 43-to-55 points seasons can be explained by usage. If you aren't used as the main threat of your team, you won't put up points. I'd also add that Leclair wasn't the best LW on Montreal when he was there, so there was no point deploying him like he was such a player.
But it's obvious that Lindros "unleashed the beast" to some extent.
As far as I can remember, Lindros was the Next One as in the next face of the league. He was not expected to be on the level of Lemieux let alone Gretzky. At the time people thought that it might take decades to get to see the next Gretzky - and apparently we were right.
However Lindros was clearly expected to be the next big thing. A bit like Crosby is now, and McJesus is expected to be in a couple of years.
Let me emphasize that this is how I remember it and even I don't expect it to be accurate after all the decades, if it ever was. Perceptions and such.
However Lindros was clearly expected to be the next big thing. A bit like Crosby is now, and McJesus is expected to be in a couple of years.
Let me emphasize that this is how I remember it and even I don't expect it to be accurate after all the decades, if it ever was. Perceptions and such.
Of course playing with Lindros and Renberg boosted LeClair's confidence, but but but...
LeClair's production with the Flyers was pretty consistent with/without Eric. Lindros missed a lot of games during LeClair's peak and it's not as though LeClair regressed to his Montreal numbers whenever Lindros got injured.
There were stretches when LeClair was more valuable to the Flyers than Lindros himself.
Meanwhile not even Lindros could stop Renberg's rapid decline following the injury.
Great players can definitely elevate good teammates' game to an even better/greater level, but unless you're up to it, they can only take you so high, and -- sorry -- Lindros was no Lemieux nor Gretzky.
Son Goku
henlo u stinky egg
it's more than a shade. Crosby is considered better than Lindros, Crosby is considered behind Jagr who was nowhere near as good as Lemieux.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,769
- 5,306
Crosby has had a better career than Lindros but if we're taking one of them at their bests, I'd take Lindros.
I think Crosby/Lindros/Jagr are all in the same area depending on how you weigh different aspects of their games.
sharkhawk
Registered User
That's the way I remember it too. American papers were hyping him in his draft year.
