If you saw him live - Lindros was the equivalent of a unicorn shyting rainbows. EL had the combination of incredible physical gifts, absolutely elite skillset, and a power forward mentality, and IMO he was absolutely a generational player. I'm not a huge hockey historian - but from a total package perspective the comparison that comes to mind is probably someone like Gordie Howe. Or an even more physically imposing Mark Messier.
People say unicorn because it's a metaphor about mythological creature that basically rare and shouldn't exist. Lindros wasn't something cute you wanted to see. He was a monster and a villain, more like a minotaur. It's not like now where you'd watch Ovi, Crosby, CMD and you felt lucky that you got to witness a hockey great live. You saw that guy and you wanted to see him defeated and once he was, you were glad he was gone. I'm pretty sure even with the hate that certain rivals had back in the day, they'd rejoice together to see Eric Lindros taken down a peg.
He didn't end up as a generational player in the history of the game. But that package certainly hasn't popped up before him or after his career ended.
I don't think there's a player that invoked the same combinations of feelings about the game of hockey as Lindros did. It wasn't really awe it was more like a respectful disdain.
Imagine if Samoa could start putting out hockey players. Those boys are built like tanks, athletic, and feisty.
Honestly, the way certain guys physically dominate in rugby is an appropriate visual comparison to how Lindros just blew threw people or muscled his way through groups of people. We say tank or freight train for the way certain guys have played in the last few decades, but Lindros when playing in that manner would certainly be in his own upper class of tank or freight train.
I appreciate your effort to sway. I don't love or hate Eric. My assessment has nothing to do with the Nords or the mess that was the trade.
I don't understand what any of that has to do with Lindros' hockey IQ. I also never mentioned the Nords or the trade.
You're the one who said you had issues with the notion he was a high IQ player. I'm saying you do not cement yourself as a top 10-20 player of all time to score 600 points without having a high level of hockey IQ.
Again, the list in post 1 of that thread were real accomplishments. Not projections.
Watched every year of Lindros' career. He was a top 5 player in his prime, unique package, high IQ yes, but not even in the building of Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux or McDavid.
His peak year of 115 pts in a little over 70 games, a 30 year old Lemieux scored 160 pts and Jagr put up 140+ as well. If his pace as a Flyer is viewed as statistically amazing, then Jagr and Kucherov must be the same level of player. It's a flimsy argument. Or the year before, where once again, Jagr did the same thing.
He absolutely was a cheapshot artist and an asshole who got what he deserved. His legacy is largely anecdotal as your paragraphs of hyperbole attest and again I watched it - it is overstated and not even close to what Mario accomplished. It's just a story that meant nothing in the W column. No one cares about strength or narratives - they care about winning and scoring. Neither of which he did enough of over the span of his career.
Oh, I see what you mean. I didn't say he was a generational player though. I personally do not ascribe to the fact he is a generational player in the same realm as Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux or McDavid. I am saying he's a generational combo. I think that's the confusion. We're not talking about the same thing.
Objectively, no one before him or after him has really shown up with excellence scores in all categories for showing he was a top player in the league from day one, size, overwhelming strength/physicality, speed, IQ, skill and mean streak combination for hockey. Everyone else is typically missing excellence at least one or two of those categories.
Again, I agree he's not generational player (as in he didn't perform to be one) but I don't agree if someone wants to say he wasn't one of the best to play the game. As you said, he didn't maintain performance over the span of a multi decades career to cement himself as the highest echelon to have played the game. Longevity is an absolutely important facet for hockey history. He also never won a cup which is another key attribute that takes him out of that generational echelon. I agree with you.
You brought up Jagr/Kucherov but those aren't correct comparisons, nor a full argument, nor what many posters are saying.
Lindros was historically one of the top 10-20 fastest to accumulate points, but that's not why he's considered a generational combination. It's the ridiculousness of the completeness of his game as a guy who basically had everything and how there's no true comparable to that type of completeness that gets him in those conversations. That's why this conversation keeps resurfacing rather than disappearing. He's like this weird flawed prototype that surfaced that hasn't been matched. I agree we won't see another Lindros. The rules of the game has changed that an archetype like that wouldn't really be allowed in the league.
