Is Eric Lindros a Hall of Famer?

[Score]

Sources confirm Eric Lindros will officially announce his retirement from the National Hockey League on Thursday.

The 34 year old former first pick overall ends a playing career that spans 13 seasons and includes:

* Named to NHL All-Rookie Team - 1993
* Hart Memorial Trophy - 1995
* Lester B. Pearson Award - 1995
* Won Olympic Silver Medal with Team Canada in 1992 Winter Olympic Games
* Won Olympic Gold Medal with Team Canada in 2002 Winter Olympic Games



NHL Totals:
GP:760
G:372
A:493
Pts:865
+/-: 215+


So, is Eric Lindros a Hall of Famer?

[Futuremoosefan]

I voted no...he was good but not great. Definately nowheres near as good as hyped.

[Score]

futuremoosefan said:

I voted no...he was good but not great. Definately nowheres near as good as hyped.

I totally disagree.

When he was healthy, not only was he great but he dominated the game. He was an absolute beast.

[albertawenzelfan]

admin said:

futuremoosefan said:

I voted no...he was good but not great. Definately nowheres near as good as hyped.

I totally disagree.

When he was healthy, not only was he great but he dominated the game. He was an absolute beast.

The problem is, he wasn't healthy for many seasons out of those 13. So what does the HHOF reward if this is the case? Dominance for a short term? I agree the LOD line was dominant, but they never carried into the playoffs. Lindros is missing the Stanley Cup to argue for his dominance and place in the HHOF. He made his linemates better for sure, but his team...not so much. So if that is the case you have to look simply at personal achievement, and his numbers don't argue for admittance.

[Score]

albertawenzelfan said:

admin said:

I totally disagree.

When he was healthy, not only was he great but he dominated the game. He was an absolute beast.

The problem is, he wasn't healthy for many seasons out of those 13. So what does the HHOF reward if this is the case? Dominance for a short term? I agree the LOD line was dominant, but they never carried into the playoffs. Lindros is missing the Stanley Cup to argue for his dominance and place in the HHOF. He made his linemates better for sure, but his team...not so much. So if that is the case you have to look simply at personal achievement, and his numbers don't argue for admittance.

So, should Cam Neely have a spot in the HOF then?

He didn't play 1,000 NHL games, score 500 goals or win a Stanley Cup.

Neely's Stats
GP:726
G:395
A:299
Pts:694


Lindros's Stats
GP:760
G:372
A:493
Pts:865

[habh8er]

I'd have to say Yes...if it was the NHL hall of fame I may not be so sure, but with his pro #'s and what he did for team Canada along with the dominance in junior I think he will get in.


The comparison to Cam Neely sold it for me.

[Captain Obvious]

If you leave out all the crap and just look at what he did and accomplished it's a no brainer....and I never liked him. The Neely comparison is the clincher. It's the Lemieux-Orr type situation, he had a pretty short career but when he was right he was one dominant player.

[Dalkiel]

You can't compare Neely and Lindros, they are 2 completely different players. Neely didn't go in to the HOF for his numbers, he went for his ability to dominate the physical play, Lindros has no argument other than good (not great) numbers and I just can't see those numbers getting in the HOF.

[robkennedy]

Score grabbed my comparison. If Neely is in, Lindros should be in.

[albertawenzelfan]

I see your point comparison with Neely and the Stanley Cup lacking as well. I'll argue that Neely carried an entire team whereas Lindros was a ghost outside his immediate line. Not a team player like Neely. But the point you bring up is valid, we can't reward team players with above average numbers (or else Ryan Smyth would be headed for the HHOF). So I see the point and I think that sets a precedent. However given Lindros's antics, I think it will be easier to leave him out, or at least make him wait 10 years.

[Porkchop]

I think the HHOF should be reserved for those who are really stars in the league...............The Gretzky's, Lemieux's, Orr's, Roy's.............A player who scores a point per game is just a very solid player, not a superstar, not a hall of famer........Lindros was above that ppg stat, but had enough baggage with him that I wouldn't nominate him........he isn't even a guy that would come to mind when talking about the hall of fame.........there are some in the ppg range that I'd consider based on other things.....leading teams to cups, captains who stood out, great leaders......Messier comes to mind in those categories.......Lindros shouldn't even be spoken in the same breath as guys like Messier.......

[Captain Obvious]

dalkiel said:

You can't compare Neely and Lindros, they are 2 completely different players. Neely didn't go in to the HOF for his numbers, he went for his ability to dominate the physical play, Lindros has no argument other than good (not great) numbers and I just can't see those numbers getting in the HOF.

Lindros was a more dominant physical player than Neely in his prime, bigger and stronger.

[MikeC]

I recognize that he may not be a shoo-in, but I would vote for him.

[qmjhlfan]

Anyone who is constantly fighting with his team's establishment is not a team player imo and that's the reason why Lindros should never get in the Hall of Fame.

[Captain Obvious]

qmjhlfan said:

Anyone who is constantly fighting with his team's establishment is not a team player imo and that's the reason why Lindros should never get in the Hall of Fame.

The hall of fame is about what you do on the ice not off the ice.