Eric Lindros...Hall of famer???
 

There has been a lot of debate the past couple days, ever since Lindros announced his retirement, on whether he should be elected into the Hall of fame.
Initially I said no fucking way, and most of the "experts" were saying yes he should be.....and I'm saying are they fricken serious?????

But upon closer look at some of the people already in the Hall, and comparing statistics...I'm starting to change my opinion. Here is a comparison of a couple H o F's and Lindros:

Lindros.....760 gp 372g 493a 865pts.......1 Hart trophy, 1 Lester Pearson award, 6 all-star appearances.....2 Canada Cups, 3 olympics (1 gold, 1 silver)


Cam Neely......726gp 395g 299a 694pts 5 all-star appearances, 1 50 goals in 50 games season (a very impressive stat) and there have only been 10 other NHL's in the history to have averaged a better goals/game ratio over their career.



Clarke Gillies........ 958gp 319g 378a 697pts. won 4 straight Stanley Cups as a member of the New York Islanders Dynasty of the early 80's (argueably the greatest dynasty in NHL history) Considered by many as the toughest player of his generation.

lol. i voted and then before i scrolled down i was going to type "they let cam neely in" but the point has already been made

Cam Neely defined a power forward. Eric Lindros played a Cam Neely type game.

Now there are guys in the Hall of Fame who you do scratch your head at. IF Lindros gets in I wouldn't be upset or happy. There's reason for and against him getting in. When he was on top of his game he was one of the best but it was only for a short period of time and as he aged his play considerably dropped off. Had he been consistant his whole career I'd say yes. In his later years he was a joke of what he used to be.

But does being on top for a few years warrant hall of fame status? I don't think so. Pavel Bure, Markus Naslund, Todd Bertuzzi (yes Canuck fan here) were on top of the league themselves but I can't see them getting to the hall, is Lindros much different?

My first reaction was no way...but based purely on who else is in and comparing numbers.......I think you gotta say yes. But, I do feel the NHL hall of fame is far too easy to get into....they need to tighten up the requirements a little IMO...

I am going to have to agree with you kickass. I voted no, but now reconsidering, I have to agree. I also think that they should tighten up the requirements for the Hockey HOF.

I'm going with most of you guys. At first I said no way. But those stats really did it for me. They are all pretty close stat wise so I'd have to say yes. And on a side note, Cam Neeley was the friggin man!

No ..... faded off the charts the last half of his career.

Absolutely he should be in the Hall of Fame. There shouldn't be any debate about it.

I could not stand the political games he played, or should I say his parents. When he refused to go play for Quebec, like everyone else, I was thinking "who the hell does this guy think he is?". However, the Hall of Fame is not about what happens off of the ice.

He was a force to be reckoned with, of course when he was healthy. When he headed up the "Legion of Doom" line with Philly, they were one of the most dominant lines in the history of the league.

Really? History of the regular season maybe but they didnt' get the job done.

It's true....of all the criticism I've heard from the so called "experts" was his disapearing act in the Stanley Cup finals....although he lead the playoffs in scoring, he was a non factor in the finals.