Was Eric Lindros the most dominating player ever?

[centrehice]

That Suter cross-check was nasty business. He's just lucky that Gretzky's head didn't collapse on the boards, as Gretz hit the ice first. Gretzky could easily have been in a wheelchair being fed by a slingshot, had his head hit the boards.

Suter was, Is, and always will remain a Stick-hack Bum.

[30ranfordfan]

Agree very much.

One thing that I would point out, the Oilers (and then the Kings) did a better job of placing guys on the ice with Gretzky to deal with some of the cheap shots. Semenko was paid to beat the tar out of anyone would looked at Gretzky the wrong way. McSorley too (which is why he was part of the trade). Mario never had that. With his size... he was a more capable of bouncing guys off him (I met Mario a few years ago, and despite being retired for many years - he was still huge. I never realized how big the man really was) but you can only take so much abuse, no matter how big you are.

Gretzky, no doubt, was never quite the same player after the Suter hit. The fact that it came during a goal celebration.... and not even a cheap shot during play makes it all that more sickening.

Disagree. Gretzky was hammered into the boards and started getting the back spasms the same way Mario did. The one season where Gretz had returned, Gary Suter cross-checked him into the boards from behind, and the rest was history.

Gretzky and Mario both had to retire, not because they weren't effective any longer, but because they had BOTH sustained severe cross-checks to the back, causing permanent injury.

I liked Wayne Gretzky, but he was not on my team. I cannot however stand the punk that is Gary Suter. When you ruin the career of arguably the greatest that's ever played and aren't remorseful, then there is no room for you as a human.

[ravens_creed]

There is some totally biased blasphemy in here! Let me set the record straight on a few points that are missing the mark badly...


Eric Lindros > Milan Lucic
Eric Lindros > Tomas Holmstrom
Eric Lindros > Dave Schultz
Eric Lindros > Jeff Odgers
Eric Lindros > either Bialowis brother
Eric Lindros > every other goon/enforcer he is being insultingly compared to here.

He was a much better skater and puck handler than he is being given credit for here, and being compared to 4th-line goons is beyond an insult.

[centrehice]

There is some totally biased blasphemy in here! Let me set the record straight on a few points that are missing the mark badly...


Eric Lindros > Milan Lucic
Eric Lindros > Tomas Holmstrom
Eric Lindros > Dave Schultz
Eric Lindros > Jeff Odgers
Eric Lindros > either Bialowis brother
Eric Lindros > every other goon/enforcer he is being insultingly compared to here.

He was a much better skater and puck handler than he is being given credit for here, and being compared to 4th-line goons is beyond an insult.

Edited cause I was mean

When you talk dominate in the history of the NHL, the standard is Gordie Howe when it comes to it all. Lindros cannot even sit in the shade of the shadow that Gordie Howe casts, let alone walk behind him.

Funny how you didn't mention Gordie Howe in the names above, in your bias for Lindros, cause I certainly mentioned him, why is that?

Lindros was more a controversial figure because of his parents meddling and his narcissistic attitude, not because of what he did on the ice. Flash in the pan, the NHL has seen plenty of them.

[ravens_creed]

Please, be mean. I can take it. Why you feel the need to be mean in a simple difference of opinion, when I've never said or done anything negatively towards you in my years on this site, confuses me. But hey, I hate myself and my life these days, so taking insults from someone I've never had beef with seems par for the course. Have at 'er.

Eric Lindros was a dominating player. The most dominating? I don't know, but I know I saw him rise to the top of the world as a hockey player, and in his prime, he could do it all, so why everyone now wants to talk about him like he was some 3rd line bum who didn't accomplish anything, is ludicrous. You don't have to like the guy, heck, I never did much, but his level of dominance was memorable, far moreso than what I've seen from the likes of, say, Tomas Holmstrom.

The reason I won't mention Gordie Howe is because he is nothing more than a picture on cards and a bunch of statistics that I can look up to me. Everyone talks about how great he was, and his numbers speak for themselves, but anything beyond a numerical analysis, I'd be making it up. This is about to be an argument pitting different generations against each other, and there's never a clear answer when arguing over who was better between Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, other, etc. It's likely that you'll tell me that the players I didn't get to see play were the best, if only to try and win the argument on the basis of something I can't speak about, while making me feel frustrated and disconnected from the history of the game, or wishing that I had had that chance. In other words, straying from the original discussion about Lindros' dominance, which, I will add, could very well have exceeded Howe's if he had been given a chance to play in the 50s and 60s when his competition would have been smaller, slower, and the goaltending a far cry from what he had to deal with (goalies with oversized equipment, protective crease rules, and styles that actually worked, like the butterfly). We'll never know, will we? And I have nothing but respect for Howe and Orr and other players that hung up the skates before I was born. How can I be expected to promote their dominance, though? And, therefore, are only fans who have been around since the 50s qualified to participate in this discussion?

I'm not even arguing that Lindros was the most dominant. He was a dominating, big player with lots of skill, and most guys were afraid of him, and that's not an exaggeration. "Dominating" is a relative term, though, and I might be inclined to say that Mario Lemieux could single-handedly dominate a game better than any other player I have ever had the chance to watch.

[centrehice]

Please, be mean. I can take it. I'm happy to dish it back.

And yes, I'm going to go there, even though I'm 33 years old and have never seen Gordie play a meaningful game of hockey in my life (I don't count the one-time hurrah with the Detroit Vipers). This is already becoming a generational argument, and depends far too much on the differences in the game at the different times, as well as the reluctant of older fans like yourself to give up the idea that Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr were the best hockey players ever, and nobody will ever top them. I'm so happy for you old guys that you're able to reflect upon what was happening in the sport 40+ years ago, when guys didn't know how to train, or lift weights, or ... well, let's not even get into talks about the goaltending.

Eric Lindros was a dominating player. The most dominating? I don't know, but I know I saw him rise to the top of the world as a hockey player, and in his prime, he could do it all, so why everyone now wants to talk about him like he was some 3rd line bum who didn't accomplish anything, is ludicrous, and that isn't even acknowledging that his career was cut short by a hit that in today's game would be a multi-game suspension for an elbow to the head... alas, another "age" factor that makes this whole thread, argument, and whatever insults you felt to levy against me but then go back and erase, completely irrelevant and based on opinion and nothing more.


But... show some respect where respect is due. He was the best player in the world and only a select few guys in the history of hockey can lay claim to that moniker.

He's not a 3rd line bum, but he simply does not belong in the Hall, and neither do Cam Neely, Bernie Federko, Rod Langway or Clark Gillies.

I am fair to everyone here. It's the Hall Of Fame, not the Hall of Popularity. Guys like Damphouse with 1,200 points, Verbeek over 500 coals, and Housley, the 1st American Defenseman to score over 1,000 points are all by passed because of reduced popularity.

I have a huge problem with handing over the keys to the Hall to anyone that is not deserving, and Lindros is in that group.

Housley should have been in the Hall, long before Leetch, and he still isn't.

[ravens_creed]

I took too long to edit my original post. The first one (the one I wanted to change) must have been up for too long. Dammit!

[jmatchett]

Flash in the pan.

That's a bit simplistic I think. A guy who was a flash in the pan was Patrick Lalime or Jim Carey. Guys who were unstoppable at first, and quickly fizzled within a season or two. Lindros was a dominant force both physically and skill-wise for a number of seasons spanning 92/93-99/00.

[mooneyes]

Please, be mean. I can take it. Why you feel the need to be mean in a simple difference of opinion, when I've never said or done anything negatively towards you in my years on this site, confuses me. But hey, I hate myself and my life these days, so taking insults from someone I've never had beef with seems par for the course. Have at 'er.

Eric Lindros was a dominating player. The most dominating? I don't know, but I know I saw him rise to the top of the world as a hockey player, and in his prime, he could do it all, so why everyone now wants to talk about him like he was some 3rd line bum who didn't accomplish anything, is ludicrous. You don't have to like the guy, heck, I never did much, but his level of dominance was memorable, far moreso than what I've seen from the likes of, say, Tomas Holmstrom.

The reason I won't mention Gordie Howe is because he is nothing more than a picture on cards and a bunch of statistics that I can look up to me. Everyone talks about how great he was, and his numbers speak for themselves, but anything beyond a numerical analysis, I'd be making it up. This is about to be an argument pitting different generations against each other, and there's never a clear answer when arguing over who was better between Howe, Orr, Gretzky, Lemieux, other, etc. It's likely that you'll tell me that the players I didn't get to see play were the best, if only to try and win the argument on the basis of something I can't speak about, while making me feel frustrated and disconnected from the history of the game, or wishing that I had had that chance. In other words, straying from the original discussion about Lindros' dominance, which, I will add, could very well have exceeded Howe's if he had been given a chance to play in the 50s and 60s when his competition would have been smaller, slower, and the goaltending a far cry from what he had to deal with (goalies with oversized equipment, protective crease rules, and styles that actually worked, like the butterfly). We'll never know, will we? And I have nothing but respect for Howe and Orr and other players that hung up the skates before I was born. How can I be expected to promote their dominance, though? And, therefore, are only fans who have been around since the 50s qualified to participate in this discussion?

I'm not even arguing that Lindros was the most dominant. He was a dominating, big player with lots of skill, and most guys were afraid of him, and that's not an exaggeration. "Dominating" is a relative term, though, and I might be inclined to say that Mario Lemieux could single-handedly dominate a game better than any other player I have ever had the chance to watch.

A lot of great points, well said mate

[dornhoffer]

Mario Lemieux in my opinion, but Lindros' 1.13 ppg (19th all time) and 1398 pim's, large stature and hard hitting play certainly made him as complete a player as any and a possible nomination for the title I suppose.
"poor man's Lucic ' made laugh histerically; and I like Lucic and his .59 ppg. I think the only thing Lucic does better than Lindros would be fight.