If he goes into the hall, they definately need to put him next to Scott Stevens. Under Stevens, if that’s possible…

I don’t mean to suggest Lemieux was a disappointment. Far from it. That he accomplished as much as he did in the face of the obstacles in his path speaks to the player he was.

The point is that both players had to face obstacles not of their making that perhaps resulted in both not achieving the full potential of their talent. Lemieux has those Cups and MVP awards and scoring titles, but had he not have his own obstacles to overcome, he might be called “The Great One.”

In Lindros’ case, without his history of concussions (which in a purely hockey sense, in terms of being able to play the game, had — in my opinion — more of an impact on him that Lemieux’ problems had on him) he might have had the record of accomplishment you noted for Lemieux.

That’s the unsatisfying “well never know” thought.

http://www.tsn.ca/nhl/news_story/?ID=222465&hubname=

He was a talent. It is sad to see him broken down and out.

On the other hand, he never exceeded 50 goals in a season, and exceeded one hundred points only once. He’s below 500 goals and 1,000 points for his career. (Yes, many of hall of famers don’tmeet that standard, but those stats can sway a close case.) He looks good next to Cam Neely, though, with more points and more honors (Neely’s only trophy was the Masterton, which no one really aspires to win). So, on the Neely scale he should make it, but I’m not at all sure he will. Neely basically got in through sheer sentimentality. People loved the way he played, so they overlooked the obvious shortcomings in his injury-shortened career. I don’t see Lindros getting the benefit of that kind of sentimentality. Neely was beloved, in Boston and elsewhere. I don’t think Lindros is beloved anywhere.

I see what you’re saying, and for the most part I agree, but I’ve never heard anyone suggest that Mario Lemieux was a disappointment.

In spite of his battles with cancer and a bad back, Mario still won two back-to-back Stanley Cups, three Hart trophies, two Conn Smyths, six League scoring titles, an Olympic Gold medal, and set a pile of scoring records…

Lindros, of course, was by no means a wash-out (as some folks in the hockey world have very unfairly suggested that he was). However, his injuries did mean that a lot of his talent and potential went unrealized. For a variety of reasons, that simply was not the case with Lemieux.

…neither. From his first game until his first (reported) concussion in March 1998 he was 191-237-428 in 308 games. Over an 82-game season, that’s 51-63-114. That’s pretty much what was expected of him coming into the league.

He was a victim of circumstance, of his Achilles heel that was more his “Lindros’ head.” I don’t know that he was a hockey hero — he never played long enough at high enough a level to merit that. And I don’t think he was a disappointment, any more than Mario Lemieux was for having contracted Hodgkin’s Disease or enduring a chronic back problem.

He was a guy with immense talent and, as it turned out, immense vulnerability.

As for Lindros…yeah, he doesn’t carry the baggage. His numbers are comparable to Neely’s, and that’s with losing a lot of time to injury. The NFL is going through the same debate right now, with Terrell Davis. What kind of numbers would they have had if injury didn’t cut their careers short? I think Lindros will get in…Davis, I just don’t know. I don’t think he played long enough. Dino…the guy scored 600 goals (most of them while getting his a** kicked in the crease) and 1200 points I don’t care if he kicks dogs, babies and old people, based on those numbers…he should be in the Hall. lol.

I hear you, but Dino is also a pretty controversial character, in a way that guys like Lindros and Neely just aren’t. No question that his numbers are Hall-worthy, but he was in enough trouble both on and off the ice that you can make a case for keeping him out.

Even if you don’t buy the argument for Ciccarelli’s exclusion (and not everyone does), you have to admit that Lindros doesn’t carry the same kind of baggage.

Before Lindros gets a look, I’d like to see Dino in.

My $0.02 worth (which is $0.02 Cdn, so its worth more than it used to be!):

I don’t count myself as a Lindros fan, but I’m not sure its fair to hold lofty teenage expectations against a guy at Hall of Fame voting time and expect such a measurement to be fair and meaningful.

I’ve heard a few people argue that if Cam Neely made it into the Hall, Lindros can’t be considered too long of a shot. Not that I have any objection at all to Neely being there—I do think its worth pointing out, though, that Lindros and Neely had comparable production over a comparably short period of actually healthy playing time. Neely never won a Hart Trophy, though, nor did he play on some of the weak teams on which Lindros played (remember, he had the misfortune of being in New York when the Rangers were truly stinking up MSG).

Plus, Lindros was also in his absolute prime during the worst of the trap years, whereas Neely’s began in 1983, when Swiss Cheese defense was the style.

Again, not looking to dump on Neely in any way–just saying that we have to keep Lindros’ career in context. At the end of the day, you have to judge the record and not the pre-career hype.

Food for thought.

“But then I come to my senses and remember where I live. The Eric Lindros of sports towns.”

It was interesting to watch Flyers fans (or which there were many at my alma mater) turn on him, though not as interesting as Stillers fans turning on Kordell Stewart.

I remember Jason Doig knocking Lindros out before the lockout too.