2014 HHOF induction class

[DragonfromTO]

Big E had Foppa on goals but Foppa has a better assist per game and just .01 PPG behind Big E, so to me, while Big E was the better goal scorer, Foppa was a better play maker and his play making ability just about exceeds Big E's ability to score goals

I know it's a close debate but I just feel like Foppa made the big plays when it really mattered - and Foppa was putting up those numbers as probably the second option, right? Since they would key on Joe Sakic's line? To me that's pretty impressive

The point is simply that if their postseason points per game is almost identical how can you say that one failed to deliver "when it mattered" but the other excelled? Doesn't pretty much every playoff game "matter"?

And how on earth is it more impressive to put up points while not facing the top defensive units that Lindros has to face because those players are instead being deployed against Sakic's line? Shouldn't that information point you towards the exact opposite conclusion than the one you've come to?

 

[KennyBanyeah]

One guy I wish we'd seen more of in the NHL was Ziggy Palffy.

So much fun to watch.

 

[recon]

Hasek, Recchi, Modano

 

[Cobiemonster]

The point is simply that if their postseason points per game is almost identical how can you say that one failed to deliver "when it mattered" but the other excelled? Doesn't pretty much every playoff game "matter"?

And how on earth is it more impressive to put up points while not facing the top defensive units that Lindros has to face because those players are instead being deployed against Sakic's line? Shouldn't that information point you towards the exact opposite conclusion than the one you've come to?

Only twice in Eric Lindros' career did he have more than a point per game in the playoffs(15 points in 12 games in 94-95 and 26 points in 19 games in 96-97) - Peter Forsberg had more than a point per game in the playoffs seven different years - Eric Lindros did a lot of his damage in the one year in which the Flyers went to the Finals, the other years he wasn't dominant - imo, Peter Forsberg had more longevity as far as playing well in the playoffs every year, Eric Lindros had one big playoffs, the other ones weren't that dominant

EDIT: Peter Forsberg averaged 1.25 PPG in the regular season and Eric Lindros about 1.14 PPG

 

[forty_three]

It's nice to see someone besides me defend Lindros in the HoF discussion.

On the ice, there was only one player before him who had a similar effect game in and game out, Cam Neeley. What he did against pretty much every team he faced was exceptional, especially when you consider he was often playing hurt because his GM berated and belittled him in public. He made STARS out of Mikael Renberg and Brent Fedyk.

I think E needs to be there for the exact reason a lot of people detract from him and say he shouldn't be. The draft / business side and the mess that followed. The Hall is designed to honor greatness. And he was great. But is also meant to preserve the history of the game. And like it or not, he had a MAJOR impact on the way the business of the game is handled. from team doctors to concussion protocol to players having a say in their future. He affected all that.

I think Crosby's career would have been cut short if not for Lindros before him. Same situation - phenomenal talent. Incredible pressure. Wants to keep at it, but everyone saw that Lindros just went supernova and they protected Crosby better than Lindros ever was.

We can argue slight variances in numbers and nitpick who he played against. But he made a massive splash in the league and his legacy - the good the bad and the ugly - needs to be preserved.

 

[KennyBanyeah]

It's nice to see someone besides me defend Lindros in the HoF discussion.

On the ice, there was only one player before him who had a similar effect game in and game out, Cam Neeley. What he did against pretty much every team he faced was exceptional, especially when you consider he was often playing hurt because his GM berated and belittled him in public. He made STARS out of Mikael Renberg and Brent Fedyk.

I think E needs to be there for the exact reason a lot of people detract from him and say he shouldn't be. The draft / business side and the mess that followed. The Hall is designed to honor greatness. And he was great. But is also meant to preserve the history of the game. And like it or not, he had a MAJOR impact on the way the business of the game is handled. from team doctors to concussion protocol to players having a say in their future. He affected all that.

I think Crosby's career would have been cut short if not for Lindros before him. Same situation - phenomenal talent. Incredible pressure. Wants to keep at it, but everyone saw that Lindros just went supernova and they protected Crosby better than Lindros ever was.

We can argue slight variances in numbers and nitpick who he played against. But he made a massive splash in the league and his legacy - the good the bad and the ugly - needs to be preserved.

Pretty much agree with the post but not sure about the bold.

Lindros got concussed for VERY different reasons than Crosby.

Lindros got concussed because he never had to keep his head up until he got to the NHL. Even in major junior he could just plow his way through. Once he came up against the best of the best he tried the same crap, and got his bell rung again and again. He also never had the drive that Crosby did (eg. commitment to fitness).

Crosby never had the physical talents that Lindros did. Outside of Mario no one did. Crosby is just miles ahead of Lindros in smarts. He's continually adapting his game to maximize production, work with teammates and minimize his injury risk. Lindros never adapted one iota.

I digress though. I think Lindros has a claim to being in the Hall. He changed the game (not necessarily for the better) on the ice too. Him and the legion of doom convinced just about every GM in the league to draft a bunch of oversized oafs just about exclusively between 1994-2001 in hope they would be the next Lindros.

Never before, or after, has a team/line that never won a cup influenced team personnel ideals so thoroughly.

 

[forty_three]

Pretty much agree with the post but not sure about the bold.

Lindros got concussed for VERY different reasons than Crosby.

Lindros got concussed because he never had to keep his head up until he got to the NHL. Even in major junior he could just plow his way through. Once he came up against the best of the best he tried the same crap, and got his bell rung again and again. He also never had the drive that Crosby did (eg. commitment to fitness).

Crosby never had the physical talents that Lindros did. Outside of Mario no one did. Crosby is just miles ahead of Lindros in smarts. He's continually adapting his game to maximize production, work with teammates and minimize his injury risk. Lindros never adapted one iota.

I digress though. I think Lindros has a claim to being in the Hall. He changed the game (not necessarily for the better) on the ice too. Him and the legion of doom convinced just about every GM in the league to draft a bunch of oversized oafs just about exclusively between 1994-2001 in hope they would be the next Lindros.

Never before, or after, has a team/line that never won a cup influenced team personnel ideals so thoroughly.

I was looking more at the way they were handled *after* the bell rang. I think Crosby came back way too fast from the first one and got another really fast and since there was precedent, he (or team doctors) really played it safe and he has a career to speak of now.

Lindros probably had two or three before he missed any real number of games.

Lindros was a bull in a china shop for sure, and Sid is 10% smarter. But when you think about how dominant Eric was and was probably playing concussed... I would have been something to see him 100% for a long time.

 

[DevilishWon]

If you go to Eric's house you get to do keg stands with second tier guys like Desjardins, Vanbiesbrouck and Brind'amour instead of sitting around with Hall of Famers like Sakic, Roy and Blake with your pinkies in the air. Then when you're done Eric goes KooKoo Bananas and dumps a beer on your head.

2nd tier guy Brind'Amour led a Carolina team with much less talent than the flyers had to the cup. He also was by FAR the best player on the flyersin the finals the year they lost to Detroit. He played like a leader...Lindros did not

 

[KennyBanyeah]

I was looking more at the way they were handled *after* the bell rang. I think Crosby came back way too fast from the first one and got another really fast and since there was precedent, he (or team doctors) really played it safe and he has a career to speak of now.

Lindros probably had two or three before he missed any real number of games.

Lindros was a bull in a china shop for sure, and Sid is 10% smarter. But when you think about how dominant Eric was and was probably playing concussed... I would have been something to see him 100% for a long time.

I hear ya. I just think that more concussions were inevitable with Lindros whereas they weren't with Sid.

 

[forty_three]

I hear ya. I just think that more concussions were inevitable with Lindros whereas they weren't with Sid.

Very true.

Don Cherry's advice didn't help. It was something like "Don't let these guys push you around, go out there with a chip on your shoulder and push through 'em"

 

[thedddd]

Seeing the first year eligible players....

RIP
Karlis Skrastins
Ruslan Salei
Pavol Demitra

 

[forty_three]

Seeing the first year eligible players....

RIP
Karlis Skrastins
Ruslan Salei
Pavol Demitra

Dammit. I keep forgetting Karlis was on that plane too.

 

[DragonfromTO]

Only twice in Eric Lindros' career did he have more than a point per game in the playoffs(15 points in 12 games in 94-95 and 26 points in 19 games in 96-97) - Peter Forsberg had more than a point per game in the playoffs seven different years - Eric Lindros did a lot of his damage in the one year in which the Flyers went to the Finals, the other years he wasn't dominant - imo, Peter Forsberg had more longevity as far as playing well in the playoffs every year, Eric Lindros had one big playoffs, the other ones weren't that dominant

EDIT: Peter Forsberg averaged 1.25 PPG in the regular season and Eric Lindros about 1.14 PPG

Eric Lindros didn't even play in the playoffs 7 times, how is he supposed to match that raw total? In all 3 postseasons where he played more than 5 games he averaged a point per game or better.

 

[DragonfromTO]

2nd tier guy Brind'Amour led a Carolina team with much less talent than the flyers had to the cup. He also was by FAR the best player on the flyersin the finals the year they lost to Detroit. He played like a leader...Lindros did not

I'd say that the biggest factor in the Flyers getting swept that series was their goalies putting up a SV% of .861, not a lack of "leadership" by Lindros (who had 3 points to Brind'Amour's 4 in that series anyway).

And Brind'Amour was in a secondary role on that Carolina team too, Staal was the one doing the heavy lifting and leading the postseason in scoring.

 

[DragonfromTO]

It's nice to see someone besides me defend Lindros in the HoF discussion.

On the ice, there was only one player before him who had a similar effect game in and game out, Cam Neeley. What he did against pretty much every team he faced was exceptional, especially when you consider he was often playing hurt because his GM berated and belittled him in public. He made STARS out of Mikael Renberg and Brent Fedyk.

I think E needs to be there for the exact reason a lot of people detract from him and say he shouldn't be. The draft / business side and the mess that followed. The Hall is designed to honor greatness. And he was great. But is also meant to preserve the history of the game. And like it or not, he had a MAJOR impact on the way the business of the game is handled. from team doctors to concussion protocol to players having a say in their future. He affected all that.

I think Crosby's career would have been cut short if not for Lindros before him. Same situation - phenomenal talent. Incredible pressure. Wants to keep at it, but everyone saw that Lindros just went supernova and they protected Crosby better than Lindros ever was.

We can argue slight variances in numbers and nitpick who he played against. But he made a massive splash in the league and his legacy - the good the bad and the ugly - needs to be preserved.

Yeah I'm not even completely sure that I think he should be in the hall. I just don't see a lot of difference between him and Forsberg other than perceptions. I wouldn't be going crazy if they were both left out.

 

[Cobiemonster]

Eric Lindros didn't even play in the playoffs 7 times, how is he supposed to match that raw total? In all 3 postseasons where he played more than 5 games he averaged a point per game or better.

So does this diminish what Foppa did in Colorado? What if the Avs didn't have Foppa? You think they would have won as many cups without him?

 

[Cobiemonster]

Yeah I'm not even completely sure that I think he should be in the hall. I just don't see a lot of difference between him and Forsberg other than perceptions. I wouldn't be going crazy if they were both left out.

BTW, in all of this, I would like to see Eric Lindros in the HOF, he did do some great things, he did change the game and that's really important, but I think at the end of the day, Peter Forsberg was just more productive over a period of time in all facets(stats, cups, etc) - they should both be in

 

[DragonfromTO]

So does this diminish what Foppa did in Colorado? What if the Avs didn't have Foppa? You think they would have won as many cups without him?

That's not really the point. If you want to pose a similar question that is at least making some attempt to address what we are talking about the question should be "would the Avs have won as many cups with Lindros instead of Foppa?"

 

[DragonfromTO]

BTW, in all of this, I would like to see Eric Lindros in the HOF, he did do some great things, he did change the game and that's really important, but I think at the end of the day, Peter Forsberg was just more productive over a period of time in all facets(stats, cups, etc) - they should both be in

I don't disagree that Forsberg's career is better, I just think that it's by a much slimmer margin than I suspect the HoF voters are going to imply it is (and than the public probably thinks it is).

 

[Cobiemonster]

That's not really the point. If you want to pose a similar question that is at least making some attempt to address what we are talking about the question should be "would the Avs have won as many cups with Lindros instead of Foppa?"

They possibly would have won once with Eric Lindros, but I'm curious if you're making the assumption that he still has the injury issues even in Colorado? And also remember, if the Avs(Nordiques at the time) didn't trade Eric Lindros, the Avs would eventually be in the same spot as the Flyers because the Avs wouldn't have had all those pieces they got in return for Eric - that's why I feel like Foppa's role in the Avs winning the Cups are not taken seriously enough because without Foppa's major contributions, does Joe Sakic score more? Foppa was as important to that team as anyone sans Patrick Roy because they needed a guy to take the pressure off Joe Sakic in the scoring department, without Foppa who knows what happens