In his column on TSN.ca Dan Pollard brings up the Lindros/Forsberg debate. With Peter Forsberg closer than ever to the end of his career, the question is raised whether neither, both or just one of them should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. Pollard wants them both in, and so do I.
Pollard points out some of the similarities and differences between Eric Lindros and Forsberg, and there are of course many. Expectations from others fall in both categories, if you ask me.
The high expectations Lindros had to carry early in his career, being named "The Next One", are now becoming a yet another burden as he is seen almost as a failure for not living up to those impossible standards. But I don't agree that Forsberg didn't have very high expectations on his shoulders when entering the NHL back in 1994. Compared to those resting on Lindros I guess no one really has any expectations to talk about. However, Peter Forsberg has lived with people anticipating greatness since he was 15 and those hopes sure didn't diminish as he got cracking in the NHL.
During a period in the mid-nineties Eric Lindros was one of the most dominant players in the NHL and that is what he should be judged by. The same goes for Peter Forsberg. Not that his stats are bad, but goals and assists aside, Forsberg is arguably one of the best, if the not the best, two-way hockey player the NHL has ever seen.
When comparing the two it is often stated that Forsberg played on a better team, thus earning him 144 playoff games and two Stanley Cups. I'm not buying that argument. Lindros played on a great team for most part of the 90s. They got close to drinking from the cup, but a lot of great teams have lost in the Stanley Cup Final. You want to talk about someone who performes greatness on a bad team, it's not Eric Lindros, but perhaps Mats Sundin. But we will deal with him when the time comes.
I would say there are more than enough resons to induct both these great players. And if they for some reason decide not to, they will have to explain to future fans why those two hockey icons of the 90s aren't in the Hall of Fame.
7 comments:
I agree for the most part. They both get in but Forsberg should get a quicker entrance pass mainly because of #88's attitude problem.
In Lindros' case, and in my opinion, there were two "Big E's" throughout his playing days. The first one was a dominating force to be reckoned with but that talent came stapled with an attitude problem. A jerk! The second Big E was reduced to an average player at best but a really cool guy. Everybody loved Lindros in the end, even Leaf fans. He grew up too late but in time to redeem himself a bit .
As for Sundin, the best thing for Toronto and for the captain himself would be to trade him as soon as possible while he is still hot. Sundin deserves a shot at the Cup and the Leafs need to rebuild since they're going nowhere fast. After half a century of failing, Leaf fans should be able to ask themselves if their beloved Leafs are a Stanley Cup team and not just a playoff team. The only way to get there is to start over. But this is Toronto we're talking about. They'll never get it.
Back to the Forsberg argument, about him playing on a great team. I do agree with that point and a great example is when Colorado captured their second cup against the Devils, if I remember correctly. Forsberg did not dress for a single game in that Stanley Cup Championship Series due to injury and yet the Avalanche raised the Cup. Lindros also had a great team but I think the team was more depended on him than vice cersa, at least while he was still a jerk (a force to be reckoned with).
I guess what I was getting at was that he made it sound like Forsberg was just along for the ride (although I know that's not what he meant). Forsberg makes the players around him better, even more so than Sakic does. He did it in Philly, lifting both Gagne and Knuble to good numbers. I know he didn't in Nashville, but on the other hand, he didn't look 100% then.
But ok, I agree Lindros meant more to the Flyers, but his supporting cast was not too shabby.
About Sundin.. Perhaps they should seriously consider a trade. The Sundin for Ottawa's Mike Fisher is not as crazy as it may sound. Sundin would get a serious shot at the Cup (if the Toronto fans can get past the fact that he would get it with their worst enemy, and I think they could). And Fisher has a lot of potential and would thrive getting more ice time and responsibility. That is a guy they could form their offense around.
Yeah, Mike Fisher kicks ass!! Personally, if I was a Leaf fan (and I thank my lucky stars I'm not) I would like to trade Sundin, McCabe, Tucker, Kubina, Raycroft, and Gill for some high-end draft picks/prospects and rebuild the team from the ground. Finish last (or at least somewhere in the cellar) and pick up some awesome draft picks (like Tavares next year).
I would keep Kaberle, Wellwood, Steen, Stajan, and maybe Coliaicovo (spelling?). Build a brand new team around these guys.
Why stop there? How does the Las Vegas Green Leafs sound? Pretty damn good if you ask me.
Ha Ha. Sounds great!
Or another idea, move Nashville to Hamilton. I'll bet the farm that within 5 years a Stanley Cup would finally christen Southern Ontario. But it would go the winners "45-60 minutes down the road" and not the ACC.
We should probably be running the NHL.
I'm still waiting for some Leafs fans to post comments.
Post a Comment