I just saw chicken little in the leafs thread.

I think he'll get in soon too, comparing the two is like like comparing a Ferrari F60 and a Bugatti Veyron - I'd be happy with either.
- LeftCoaster

I'd be happier with the Bugatti

Short period of time? He was dominant his first 7 years in the league, he only played 12 years. Outside of injury he was one of the best.

Ray Ferraro said it today, "I played 20 years and I can only name on one hand the number of players that were more dominant than Lindros, we game planned solely around him and it only worked 20% of the time." End quote

Neely never won a Cup, Bure never won a Cup, fact remains he was an absolute game changer. He did win the Hart Trophy BTW.
- LeftCoaster

Ok, I wasn't sure if he won any hardware or not, but plenty of players put up better numbers during that time and and won Cups. Neely and Bure both went to a Final and Bure nearly won one. Bure and Neely both changed the way the game was played and Lindros did not, at least not to the degree Bure/Neely did. That being said... I agree with the sentiment that if Bure is in the Hall, then so should Lindros as both had shortened careers but put up numbers during that time.

I think he'll get in soon too, comparing the two is like like comparing a Ferrari F60 and a Bugatti Veyron - I'd be happy with either.
- LeftCoaster

We can compare apples and oranges all day I still prefer apples.

I'd be happier with the Bugatti
- Gullzy

ok Forsberg is the Bugatti and Lindros is the F60.

We can compare apples and oranges all day I still prefer apples.
- thundachunk

Preference plays no bearing when you're talking about whether a guy was great or not, you said Lindros was a good player, when in fact, he was one of the best players in the history of the game/

Short period of time? He was dominant his first 7 years in the league, he only played 12 years. Outside of injury he was one of the best.

Ray Ferraro said it today, "I played 20 years and I can only name on one hand the number of players that were more dominant than Lindros, we game planned solely around him and it only worked 20% of the time." End quote

Neely never won a Cup, Bure never won a Cup, fact remains he was an absolute game changer. He did win the Hart Trophy BTW.
- LeftCoaster

+1

Ok, I wasn't sure if he won any hardware or not, but plenty of players put up better numbers during that time and and won Cups. Neely and Bure both went to a Final and Bure nearly won one. Bure and Neely both changed the way the game was played and Lindros did not, at least not to the degree Bure/Neely did. That being said... I agree with the sentiment that if Bure is in the Hall, then so should Lindros as both had shortened careers but put up numbers during that time.
- DariusKnight

With Lindros, it's not all about numbers. The guy physically DOMINATED pretty much any time he was on the ice. You can actually make an argument for him changing the way the game is played - sheer power plus finesse (interesting to note that is the same way Forsberg played and that they are inexorably linked). I also agree with your selections of Neely and Bure but if they are in the Hall then Lindros should be in as well. I see very similar metrics as either one (and also including Forsberg) had phenomenal numbers in a shortened career

I think a lot of it is the perception on a personal level. However, as someone mentioned earlier, the Hall is not a popularity contest. There are some controversial players that have all been inducted regardless.

In any event, bottom line is, Lindros should be in and I'm cautiously optimistic that, in due course, any sort of ridiculous political aspects will give way to common sense and induction.

Ok, I wasn't sure if he won any hardware or not, but plenty of players put up better numbers during that time and and won Cups. Neely and Bure both went to a Final and Bure nearly won one. Bure and Neely both changed the way the game was played and Lindros did not, at least not to the degree Bure/Neely did. That being said... I agree with the sentiment that if Bure is in the Hall, then so should Lindros as both had shortened careers but put up numbers during that time.
- DariusKnight

First of all Lindros went to a final, 26 points in 19 games when they lost to Detroit in 97. I think you should check your facts before debating.

It's not about 50 goal seasons or 100 point seasons, it's about the speed in which he reached say 500 or 600 points, faster than anyone at the time except Gretzky Lemieux P. Stastny and Mike Bossy. The fact he has one of the highest PPG averages both regular season and playoffs in the history of the game. He'll get in one day because he was one of the best ever.

Leafs game is out of control

8-0 Preds over Leafs

8-0 Preds over Leafs
- VANTEL

Holy @#$@#@$ Stanley Cup!

Leafs gonna Leaf


(Sorry Yeti/Lums, but you guys would enjoy yourselves in the reversed roles)

I think if Henrik gets in then Daniel will as well - as was noted, they are basically a package and the success each has had pretty much depended on the others. Even just for the 'novelty' of having twins who play/played at such a high level should earn them some additional points in terms of getting in
- Zogg

I was just bugging Lefty

I was just bugging Lefty
- VANTEL

oh you are incorrigible, young man (in an octogenarians body )

8-0 Preds over Leafs
- VANTEL

First of all Lindros went to a final, 26 points in 19 games when they lost to Detroit in 97. I think you should check your facts before debating.

It's not about 50 goal seasons or 100 point seasons, it's about the speed in which he reached say 500 or 600 points, faster than anyone at the time except Gretzky Lemieux P. Stastny and Mike Bossy. The fact he has one of the highest PPG averages both regular season and playoffs in the history of the game. He'll get in one day because he was one of the best ever.
- LeftCoaster

Then by that logic Neely and Bure shouldn't be in the Hall because they weren't the 'best ever'. Again, it's about entirety of a players career, not just numbers, not just PPG averages, so he'll get in because he a good to great career (albeit shortened) and he played on a team that regularily dominated the Eastern Conference. However I'll still say there were many players of his era who were better and now that Fedorov and Forsberg are in, now it's his turn.

Then by that logic Neely and Bure shouldn't be in the Hall because they weren't the 'best ever'. Again, it's about entirety of a players career, not just numbers, not just PPG averages, so he'll get in because he a good to great career (albeit shortened) and he played on a team that regularily dominated the Eastern Conference. However I'll still say there were many players of his era who were better and now that Fedorov and Forsberg are in, now it's his turn.
- DariusKnight

Bure is ranked in the top five all time at Goals per game. Thats a pretty crazy stat.

He should have been in the hall 5-6 years ago.

Then by that logic Neely and Bure shouldn't be in the Hall because they weren't the 'best ever'. Again, it's about entirety of a players career, not just numbers, not just PPG averages, so he'll get in because he a good to great career (albeit shortened) and he played on a team that regularily dominated the Eastern Conference. However I'll still say there were many players of his era who were better and now that Fedorov and Forsberg are in, now it's his turn.
- DariusKnight

Bure was one of the best ever, less than ten players in the history of the game have ever scored multiple 60 goal seasons, he almost did it three or four times.

Neely being in is debatable, I don't buy he was one the first power forwards, a few players like Clark Gilles, Bob Nystrom and John Tonnelli all did it before Neely. Don't get me wrong I loved Neely's game but he wasn't a generational player or one of those players that brought fans outta their seats like Lindros and Bure.

Bure was one of the best ever, less than ten players in the history of the game have ever scored multiple 60 goal seasons, he almost did it three or four times.

Neely being in is debatable, I don't buy he was one the first power forward, a few players like Ckark Gilles, Bob Nystrom and John Tonnelli all did it before Neely. Don't get me wrong I loved Neely's game but he wasn't a generational player or one of those players that brought fans outta their seats like Lindros and Bure.
- LeftCoaster

These are all good points.

Plus, He was straight up Electric. Bures entertainment value was like nothing I had ever seen before.

And as bias as it may sound. I dont think there has been a more entertaining player in the league since he left.

Not Ovechkin, Not Crosby.

Bure was the pinnacle of players that get me out of my seat.

These are all good points.

Plus, He was straight up Electric. Bures entertainment value was like nothing I had ever seen before.

And as bias as it may sound. I dont think there has been a more entertaining player in the league since he left.

Not Ovechkin, Not Crosby.

Bure was the pinnacle of players that get me out of my seat.
- vancity787

We may be bias but THIS THIS THIS>

Buf 4-1 over SJ , isn't that twice they lost against them this year

We may be bias but THIS THIS THIS>
- thundachunk

I know it really sounds bias. But I believe it to be the truth.

Buf 4-1 over SJ , isn't that twice they lost against them this year
- VANTEL

(frank)ing hilarious. I've been telling you guys that SJ has some serious issues.

Buf 4-1 over SJ , isn't that twice they lost against them this year
- VANTEL

I think they beat them 2-1 last time

Leafs and Sharks about to blow it up