Overrated
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2018
- 1,314
- 565
What if they were both available in the same draft class...but you know the outcome of their respective careers...who do you take?
I think OV's longevity was due to his lethal shot not his smarts. IMO, he was more of an instinctual player. But maybe in comparison to Lindros he is smart.
John Tavares a prime example.Here's a dirty secret we don't talk about but is absolutely true -
Draft position matters in these discussions. The reason? It helps create the narrative. Lindros was dominant talent and if it weren't for <blank>, he would have been <blank>.
First overall picks have to prove they aren't great. .
IF Forsberg and Crosby play and St-Louis has no 1 finish, does it change anything ?Marty has finishes of 1, 1, 2, 5, and 6.
1. | Peter Forsberg* • COL | 1.41 |
2. | Marc Savard • ATL | 1.16 |
3. | Martin St. Louis* • TBL | 1.15 |
4. | Robert Lang • 2TM | 1.14 |
Alex Tanguay • COL | 1.14 |
1. | Sidney Crosby • PIT | 1.56 |
2. | Martin St. Louis* • TBL | 1.25 |
3. | Steven Stamkos • TBL | 1.19 |
4. | Patrick Kane • CHI | 1.17 |
5. | Alex Ovechkin • WSH | 1.17 |
1. | Mario Lemieux* • PIT | 2.30 |
2. | Jaromír Jágr • PIT | 1.82 |
3. | Eric Lindros* • PHI | 1.58 |
4. | Ron Francis* • PIT | 1.55 |
5. | Joe Sakic* • COL | 1.46 |
1. | Mario Lemieux* • PIT | 1.61 |
2. | Eric Lindros* • PHI | 1.52 |
3. | Jaromír Jágr • PIT | 1.51 |
4. | Paul Kariya* • MDA | 1.43 |
5. | Teemu Selänne* • MDA | 1.40 |
If if if.IF Forsberg and Crosby play and St-Louis has no 1 finish, does it change anything ?
Those are St-Louis Art Ross seasons:
Points Per Game
1. Peter Forsberg* • COL 1.41 2. Marc Savard • ATL 1.16 3. Martin St. Louis* • TBL 1.15 4. Robert Lang • 2TM 1.14 Alex Tanguay • COL 1.14
and
1. Sidney Crosby • PIT 1.56 2. Martin St. Louis* • TBL 1.25 3. Steven Stamkos • TBL 1.19 4. Patrick Kane • CHI 1.17 5. Alex Ovechkin • WSH 1.17
While those are not seen as great:
1. Mario Lemieux* • PIT 2.30 2. Jaromír Jágr • PIT 1.82 3. Eric Lindros* • PHI 1.58 4. Ron Francis* • PIT 1.55 5. Joe Sakic* • COL 1.46
1. Mario Lemieux* • PIT 1.61 2. Eric Lindros* • PHI 1.52 3. Jaromír Jágr • PIT 1.51 4. Paul Kariya* • MDA 1.43 5. Teemu Selänne* • MDA 1.40
1994-1999m min 200 games
Jagr....: 1.49
Lindros.: 1.42 +149
Forsberg: 1.28
Selanne.: 1.29
Kariya..: 1.25
Sakic...: 1.22
This is another good point. There's a difference between getting hurt sometimes and being hoisted by your own petard. Whether that's a natural disposition for injury (like Forsberg's leg sizes/ankle bones) or Lindros's aloof stylings), that's more of a penalizing factor for me than penalizing someone who gets cheapshotted semi-regularly...Staying healthy - playing a style that leads you to be available to your team - that's a skill too. These aren't freak accidents. This is a 6'6 dude thinking he's invincible despite constant reminders he wasn't.
He probably needed a coach to protect him. He was a giant among NHLers... what the f*** was he up against in the CHL? He would literally be close to a foot up on a solid chunk of his competition. He needed to adapt. I don't know if he could without someone doing it for him.I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?
I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.
If it was Québec drafting they'd take the Lindros trade again without blinking.
That's a good thought. It might have made things easier for him. The thing about being a winger and being on the boards is that there's only one direction where a threat can get you. At center, it's two-sided and Lindros wasn't very good at managing/tracking that much ice.What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?
I always put Lindros as a winger in fantasy rosters because his game seems like it translates so easily to the wing. He was a fairly straight line player and he could rip wrist shots and cycle the puck just as easily as a RW. I have no memory of prime Lindros playing anything other than centre but it should work, probably he'd lose some assists but see his goals go up.I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?
I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.
This is fun. Even in the handpicked perfect time and the benefit of the shortened season, he still misses a game every five.Yet in his first 7 NHL seasons, Lindros still appeared in 431 of 544 possible games. That's just shy of 80% of the games, and if you add in playoff games in that period he's well over 80%.
Okay, let's do different players' first 8 seasons (Lindros's entire Phlly career):This is fun. Even in the handpicked perfect time and the benefit of the shortened season, he still misses a game every five.
He also missed the first 82 games of his NHL career by holding out too. That's a chunk that a lot of people don't seem to account for.
Season | Games | Missed | Season | Games | Missed | |||
1992 | 80 | 80 | 2006 | 82 | 1 | |||
1993 | 84 | 23 | 2007 | 82 | 3 | |||
1994 | 84 | 19 | 2008 | 82 | 39 | |||
1995 | 48 | 2 | 2009 | 82 | 5 | |||
1996 | 82 | 9 | 2010 | 82 | 1 | |||
1997 | 82 | 30 | 2011 | 82 | 41 | |||
1998 | 82 | 19 | 2012 | 82 | 60 | |||
1999 | 82 | 11 | 2013 | 48 | 12 | |||
2000 | 82 | 27 | Lindros | 2014 | 82 | 2 | Crosby | |
2001 | 82 | 82 | Played in | 2015 | 82 | 5 | Played in | |
Missed | 788 | 302 | 61.7% | Missed | 786 | 169 | 78.5% | |
92 out | 708 | 222 | 68.6% | |||||
92+01 out | 626 | 140 | 77.6% |
I've often wondered what Lindros could have become if he played under a more forward-thinking player management organization in Philly or New York. Setting aside his physicality and ability to really work-over d-men and cycle down low, what skills and capabilities did he have as a player? I remember him having a very good (near-elite, perhaps even elite) hard, accurate shot, good playmaking ability, and he was a very good skater for a big man. What if his coach shifted him to the wing, stripped away some/most of his puck carrying and distribution responsibilities, paired him with a playmaking centre and asked him to focus on using his size/strength to get to the inside and score?
I think he may have become a Jamie Benn-type player after his peak and into his later prime years - a player who could certainly pick his spots physically but, as a winger, take better advantage of the biggest strengths in his game while at the same time lessening his exposure to his "weaknesses" (for lack of a better term) that ultimately got him into trouble...and of course an extended career.
I appreciate your attempt at good-natured (if slightly dick-ish) humor, but:I'll pull an Igor Larionov and "find" some game sheets for Lindros and submit them to H-R for you and pad those numbers...in exchange, you put Lemieux over Gretzky in our next HoH project and admit that Crosby probably would have had a 216 point season in the early 80's...
Crosby obviously ranks higher due to his enormously impressive consistency and his solid (if less than spectacular) playoff resume. But at their best, Lindros was probably better.Glad it's definitively settled that Crosby > Lindros, at least.
Ignoring Lindros's missed games for a minute (I'll get there), let's look at each forward's PPG finishes:
Lindros
1 (over Jagr 1995)
2 (slightly behind Lemieux, marginally ahead of Jagr 1997)
3 (behind Gretzky and slightly behind Neely; ahead of Fedorov 1994)
3 (behind Lemieux and Jagr 1996)
4 (behind Jagr and Selanne; marginally behind Sakic 1999)
4 (behind Jagr, Forsberg, Selanne; tied with Modano & Turgeon 1998)
9
9 (with NY Rangers 2002)
St. Louis
2 (behind Crosby; ahead of Stamkos, Kane, Ovechkin 2013)
3 (behind Forsberg; marginally behind M. Savard; marginally ahead of Lang & Tanguay 2004)
3 (behind Crosby & D. Sedin; marginally ahead of Perry 2011)
7
9
I think it should be clear that Lindros both (a) had the stiffer competition at the top and (b) was the superior scorer, overall.
In his top seasons, Lindros had 1 season where he was outscored by Gretzky, 2 seasons where he was outscored by Lemieux (one of those only marginally), and 4 where he was outscored by Jagr (and one where he outscored Jagr, but lost the Art Ross).
I would argue that Gretzky, Lemieux, and Jagr are each top-5 all-time forwards and each was a greater offensive player than Crosby, whom St. Louis finished behind twice.
___________________
Another issue is how many games Lindros missed. Some people tend to exaggerate it. He did consistently miss a lot of games, with only 1995 (short season), 1996, 1999, and 2002 being seasons in his prime where he appeared in almost all the games.
Yet in his first 7 NHL seasons, Lindros still appeared in 431 of 544 possible games. That's just shy of 80% of the games, and if you add in playoff games in that period he's well over 80%.
For comparison, in Crosby's first 7 NHL seasons, he appeared in 434 games -- a grand total of 3 more games than Lindros -- of 574 total. That's 75.6% of the games, quite a bit less than Lindros.
And yes, I'm aware that starting in 2013-14, Crosby's career takes a turn for the healthy and he ages well, etc., etc.
It just seems to be the case with Lindros that people here exaggerate his faults.
Less players suffer debilitating injury this eraLindros couldn’t adapt to survive his own era, I see no reason why he’d adapt to survive this one.