Paper Jam Dipper wrote:His second best season of production came in the 70s.
Big#D wrote:your posts about lindros made some sense. there's always been debate about longevity vs. peak. i think a lot of people agree with you that lindros wasn't that deserving on praise because, despite his peak, he was able to sustain it. i'm not sure he'd make my top 100 if i made a list, but i'm not about to do so, so the point is moot.
WarriorOfGandhi wrote:I think you could poll a thousand hockey fans about Lindros and get a thousand different answers. In my mind, greatness deserves more recognition than consistency (or, in Lindros' case, durability). For six, maybe seven seasons Lindros was a top-five player in the game, and only decisively below Lemieux, Jagr, and Hasek in terms of performance. As little as four or five seasons as a top-five player is, in my books, better than twenty seasons of never being a top player like a Robitaille or a Francis or a Sundin.
Shawnathan Horcoff wrote:The Final Word
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest