| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 09:55:35
Lately it seems like the threads are being overrun with the term over-rated. Brings up an interesting point. We've heard of the Crosby and Sundin arguments about it, but are there other players that garner the same title? I'll throw a couple out there that come to my mind, but please add your own, or debate the choices, as I think there are/were better example than Mats and Sid the Kid. |
| 40 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest6459 |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 06:13:18
Most overated of all time? Alexandre Daigle hands down. |
| Guest4170 |
Posted - 02/05/2009 : 05:45:24
Where is Patrik Stefan these days? Can't believe he went #1 and nobody talks about him at all.
(ADMIN EDIT - LINK REMOVED - SPAM)
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:46:38
Here it is. I have already said that Lidstrom is the best d-man of his era. Does that put him in the Top 10 all time?? Ya, more than likely.
What I have argued is that those would consider Lidstrom as the hand's down, best defenseman to ever play, that is over rating him. And not just over rating him, grossly over rating him. Compared to Orr (weather you like it or not) my opinion is that no defenseman ever comes close. In comparing Lidstrom to Bourque, Potvin, Robinson, Harvey, or Pilote. That is an over rate as well. Putting Lidstrom in the top 5-10 all time, some might say it's a stretch but I would't argue that too much.
He is over rated when the statement of Top 5 to ever play the game is concerned. Grossly over rated when the statement is made as Lidstrom is the best of all time.
Hopefully that clears up my point. |
| Guest4744 |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:30:42
Alexander Daigle and Patrik Stephan |
| Guest8332 |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:24:32
I agree that Lidstrom is not #1 defencemen of all time. But for sure top 10. Is he over rated? No. Under rated? No.
Beans, considering that you have a soft spot for guys with little physical attribute but still produce (Bossy and Gretz). how about Lidstrom?
He is not fast, strong, physical.... but yet he is highly productive and effective. He is the most cerebral player since Gretz. Further, he rarely makes a mistake in a game. In a game I recently watched, his only so called mistake was to clear the puck too hard and was whistled for icing, otherwise, a perfect game.
Easily top 10 of all time. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 11:21:18
Wow...so much ado about nothing...
I don't think it's fair to say Lidstrom is over-rated, multiple Norris trophies confirm that he is one of the best defencemen to lace up.
Hold on! I said ONE of, not the best by any stretch, but certainly not an over-rated underachiever either.
As so many comparisons go, it's somewhat apples to oranges. One thing that often gets overlooked with Lidstrom is just how intelligent he is out there. Positionally, he may indeed be the best(arguably), of all time, as it is not what he does that stands out, so much as how he positionally plays that makes him great. No need to look for the big checks when you've broken the play up with a timely poke check or by forcing the player outside with body postioning. These are skills unto themselves and few do them better with the effectiveness, though lack of flash and dash, as Lidstrom.
In our ever increasing sound-byte mentality, if it's not a big hit, an end to end rush, or a highlight goal, players get passed up, and this is not a reflection on their talent, only on our ADD- like inability to see the game as a whole.
As stated, Lidstrom does not have the raw physical grace and skill of a Bobby Orr, nor the offensive abilites of a Paul Coffeyor Ray Bourque, he is not nearly as defensive as a Langway.
But, he does have enough of all these skills COMBINED, to make him a truly great defenceman. He is offensive as other posters have pointed out, he is a leader, he is strong defensively, he can be physical, just not punishingly so, he's able to use body postioning to accomplish the physicals while not taking himself out of the plays.
Over - rated?? No way....
Under - rated?? not really, as he has the awards to prove it.
The best?? Silly to say...
Certainly one of the best tho....in my opinion 
|
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/04/2009 : 08:00:11
I am just curious of a couple of things. Firstly, what have I embellished or hyperbolized??? I would love to see some examples because I just don't see it.
Is Lidstrom a better skater than Orr or Coffey??
No
Is Lidstrom a better offensive producer than Orr, Coffey, or Bourque??
No
Is Lidstrom better defensively than Orr, Langway, Potvin, or Robinson???
No
And the fact that he will retire with more than 1000 points is impressive, but that does not put him #1 automatically. One might want to consider that Orr (who you claim people have some kind of emotional attachment to) has nearly the same number of points, double the +/- rating and played in literally 1/2 of the games. You might also want to look at a guy like Larry Robinson, who has very close to the same amount of points and has double the +/- rating. And I am not even bringing up Ray Bourque.
Ever consider that Lidstrom had the benefit of playing for arguably the best coach in the history of the game coupled with the benefit of playing with Yzerman, Fedorov, and Shanahan who had a combined 4264 points??? Ask yourself this, if Lidstrom played in the same era, but played for Florida rather than Detroit, would he have been as productive or as rewarded with the number of Norris trophies??
Again, the answer is no.
Bourque, Coffey, and Robinson specifically proved they were tanks anywhere they played.
And Orr, well if you really think that Lidstrom is a better player than one who many consider the best player of all time, then I don't think it is me who is proving to everyone how smart they are not.
You make the comment of Lidstrom retiring with over 1000 points playing through the trap era. Yes, very impressive, and just another reason I think he is the best of his era, but not of all time. Unfortunately I do not have the information in front of me, but I would venture to say fairly confidently that if you looked at any era with the exception of the 80's, you will see that that scoring is rather close. And, if he played through the trap era, why are his defensive ratings not as high as others who played through the high scoring 80's???
And finally, I will concede that I did not watch Harvey or Pilote play. I have watched Orr, Robinson, and Potvin. Not a ton, but enough to think I have a reasonably good knowledge of them. I watched a ton of Bourque, Coffey, and Chilios. And I stand firm that Lidstrom, on the all time list, is not #1. Not even top 5. Ahead of Coffey?? Maybe. He doesn’t even come close to touching Coffey offensive but Lidstrom is better defensively. But Lidstrom's ability as a player does not put him ahead of Orr, Bourque, Robinson, and Potvin. The likes of Harvey and Pilote (even though I did not see them play) rank ahead based on what I read and learned from those who did watch them play. And this also doesn't include the guys like Mark Howe who might have been on of the most underrated players of all time.
Call me a liar or stupid or what ever else you wish to call me, Lidstrom is not the best defensemen of all time. Not in my opinion.
|
| hanley6 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 16:00:17
Guest6698 tried to say Lidstrom was the first non Canadian Captain to win the Stanley Cup.. Well, Lidstrom was not the first non Canadian Captain to win the Stanley Cup... Derian Hatcher was Captain for the Dallas Stars when they won the Cup in 1999 against the Buffalo Sabres. |
| Guest7761 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:50:10
Did I read that Coffey is better defensively than Lidstrom
That's a joke. Coffey was a great players but very poor defensively. When Coffey was on the ice, its was four foward and on defense.
Lidstrom is not overrated. Is a good defensemen and he bring a lot to the Red Wings. Does is one of the greatest of all time. Maybe not, but he's in the top defensemen.
|
| Thrasher |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:23:47
Lidstrom will not be in the top 5 of all time, sorry. He is not even the best defencemen of this generation. Pronger (as much as it pains me as an Oiler fan) is better than Lidstrom. Lidstrom may be one of the better offensive defencemen, but when looking at the players that have been on his teams during his cups. Yzerman led them 3 times, he may have been a solid D, but he was not the reason they won. Yes he was captain last year, but who really led the team? Datsyuk and Zetterberg did. The fact is, Pronger is a more well rounded defencemen, solid in his own end first and then jumps into the play. (Not saying Lidstrom is a bum in his own end, but not the same caliber as Pronger). Pronger carried an entire team to the cup finals, leading them in points all the way. Then when he leaves, he wins a cup with another team. I might even rank Scott Neidemayer ahead of Lidstrom.
(Just so you know, i was a HUGE Colorado fan during the 90's, so i am completely biased against him. ) |
| Guest6698 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:22:16
As far as the argument that Orr "changed" the game. First off I think that is insulting to the great D that played before him.
Secondly, Lidstrom too has "changed" the game. He is the most positionally sound defenseman of all-time. He is so positionally sound that he can control and defensively dominate a game without even throwing a single bodycheck. |
| Guest6698 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:16:11
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I
So, my vote for most overrated? Right now, off the top of my head, I'd have to say a couple of Red Wings come to mind - Osgood and Lidstrom. Yes, Lidstrom. To me, the Swede will probably quite innapropriately go down as one of the greatest defencemen of all time, because of the numbers - and he is good, no doubt. But in my mind, not even top ten all-time greatest for defence.
Obviously Lidstrom is a better player than Osgood, but they both get caught up in the fact that they were on a fantastic team and won a few cups, so they get overrated.
I'm sure I'll get attacked for the Lidstrom thing, but go ahead and make your case!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Agreed. I think Lidstrom has become the most overrated player ever. I've heard people say in all seriousness that he is the best defenceman of all time. Of course they cite his 6 Norris trophies as proof. I guess they just ignore the fact that he won them in a weak era for defencemen.
"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan
Your opinion is clearly biased and not based in fact at all.
I would like to see Orr put up 100 point seasons and skate in circles in today's NHL. Good luck with that. |
| Guest4150 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:12:43
Osgood might be considered underrated. 3 Stanley Cup rings for one of the lowest paid #1 goalies in the NHL.
(ADMIN EDIT - LINK REMOVED - SPAM)
|
| Guest6698 |
Posted - 02/03/2009 : 12:10:49
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I don't think Lidstrom is over rated for his era, but to say he is the best of all time, that is definately overrating him. He doesn't compare to many of the past greats. You can also say that through most of his Norris level career, there were only two other guys (Pronger and Neidermayer) that were really Norris worthy. Maybe Zubov during some of those years, but that's really it.
Lidstrom would have not been a Norris winner if played in the era of the others greats (Harvey, Orr, Potvin, Bourque, Langway, Chilios(in his prime), of Coffey) or if any of these players were in his era.
Lidstrom is by far one of the most under-rateddefensemen of all-time.
Bobby Orr this and Bobby Orr that. The fact is some people will never change their minds about Bobby Orr because he reminds them of their "generation" and have some emotional attachment to him. Conventional wisdom keeps recycling the name Bobby Orr, so new fans just adopt Bobby Orr. I bet you at least 40% of the people who say Orr is the best D of all time never saw him play in a single game, not even recored, they just look at the points, Norris trophies and that famous flying through the air goal and say well he must have been good. It will be exactly the same thing with Lidstrom whether you like it or not.
If Lidstrom played back in the late 70s, early, mid 80s he would have easily put up the point totals that Orr and Coffey did. Come on Beans you yourself have said different eras can't be compared and yet you say Lidstrom would never have won Norris if he played when those other D played? Utterly ridiculous. LOL. I mean you even went as far as listing Chelios and Langway. LOL. How many of Doug Harvey's games did you even watch?
Seriously Beans, you are a pretty nice guy but some of the stuff you say, well let's just say you are demonstrating to the forum how smart you aren't. You embellish and hyperbolize quite a bit for the sake of your own argument. And I was glad to see another person in this thread basically told you the same thing, it is not me Beans, it is you.
Trust me, once Lidstrom's playing career becomes more distant history, 10-15 years removed, he will be looked on as one of the top 2-3 of all time, as he is. Right now because Lidstrom is still playing he is analyzed on a game-to-game, season-to-season basis, people do not look on his career as a whole.
It is not an under-rated era for defensemen he is just so much better than the rest that he made the other defensemen look worse than they actually are. Nevermind he is the first non-Canadian to captain a Cup winner and now has 4 Stanley Cups to his name.
On top of that Lidstrom played through the trap era you yourself love to refer to and he will STILL retire with over 1000 points for a defensman. |
| hanley6 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 21:20:54
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Ok, first of all, I clearly said that Lidstrom is not over rated in his own era, but he clearly does not belong in the elite of all time.
And are you maybe missing the likes of Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Kovlov, Larionov, Murphy, Brett Hull, Robataille??? All were part of the winning Cup teams. To say that Lidstrom is the reason all these guys got the Cup is more than a joke.
Take nothng away from Lidstrom. Might be he best of his time, but not of all time. He could not defend like Orr, Harvey, Bourque, or Robinson. He did not have the offense like Orr, Coffey, or Bourque. He did not have the intimidation or physical play that Stevens, Chilios, or Robinson had.
And without questions, Harvey, Orr, and Bourque had every part over Lidstrom.
I'm not talking about different era,s, I am talking about what I have watched of players. Guys like Harvey and Orr I have seen limited, but enough to see things they did that no other players have ever done. I watched Coffey, Robinson, Chilios, and Bourque a lot. And, plain and simply, were better defensemen.
I agree, I can't say much about Orr I've never really seen him play other than reviews from Don Cherry, or my father... But guys like Paul Coffee, Raymond Bourque, Chris Pronger, Chris Chelios, Brian Leetch they are all overall better defensively and offensively better than Lidstrom.. That being said Lidstrom is still a great Defensemen and in my books should be in the top 50 D-Men of all time. |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 21:01:44
Ok, first of all, I clearly said that Lidstrom is not over rated in his own era, but he clearly does not belong in the elite of all time.
And are you maybe missing the likes of Yzerman, Shanahan, Fedorov, Kovlov, Larionov, Murphy, Brett Hull, Robataille??? All were part of the winning Cup teams. To say that Lidstrom is the reason all these guys got the Cup is more than a joke.
Take nothng away from Lidstrom. Might be the best of his time, but not of all time. (Honestly, I think Pronger's off ice action and arrogance hurts him. As an Oiler fan, it's hard to believe, but Pronger is the best D-Man in the league since Bourque retired). Lidstrom could not defend like Orr, Harvey, Bourque, or Robinson. He did not have the offense like Orr, Coffey, or Bourque. He did not have the intimidation or physical play that Stevens, Chilios, or Robinson had.
And without questions, Harvey, Orr, and Bourque had every part over Lidstrom.
I'm not talking about different era,s, I am talking about what I have watched of players. Guys like Harvey and Orr I have seen limited, but enough to see things they did that no other players have ever done. I watched Coffey, Robinson, Chilios, and Bourque a lot. And, plain and simply, were better defensemen. |
| J-Dog |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 20:02:27
Why is lidstrom being bashed so much? Look at it from a different perspective. Did the Detroit Red wings give Lidstrom a good shot and very able defensive skills? No. Maybe Lidstrom is the real reason the Red wings were even such contender over the last decade or so. Then we bring in different era's to compare with Lidstrom with harvey and such... They played the way they did, and they were noticed for it. There was no "better" era or "tougher" era per say, just because the stye of the game changed doesn't mean the players are better or worst. Heck some people say Gretzky wouldn't have broken records if he'd be playing now, then that means lidstrom would have won 12 norris trophys in the 50's? It can't be compared. What if Lidstrom is just that much better? I dont think he is the best, but he is one of the highest scoring defencemen of this era of hockey and I don't think it's fair to have that overlooked.
-J-Dog |
| Guest9544 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 19:42:12
hi Lindros is a bum and he don't deserve the hall of fame |
| kitkatla |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 19:06:36
I agree with Daigle - kind of. He isn't really overrated because he always sucked, and was never really held in high regard except for draft time. If you want to look at bad first round picks, you've got a lot of overrated players to choose from....Brian Lawton anyone? |
| Guest9838 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 09:27:48
haha... so that was to get a rise out of people right? How about Brodeur or Sakic or Yzerman... all way overrated... |
| Guest7570 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 09:22:52
iginla for sure |
| hanley6 |
Posted - 02/02/2009 : 02:02:30
I wouldn't blame Bob Clarke... Lindros was dumb enough to follow every little thing his parents told him to do even knowing it was a mistake... Don't play for Quebec.. If I was Lindros I wouldn't care if my parents didn't want me to play for a certain team, they should be happy for him even making it to the NHL he shouldn't be listening to them at all and happy and go play for whatever team signs you.
Clarke's problems with Lindros were attributed, in part, to Lindros's parents, Carl and Bonnie, both of whom influenced their son's career decisions. Lindros was the focus of many controversial decisions that created ill will toward him within the hockey community that had a negative impact on the way he was perceived as a player and on his suitability for induction. Lindros refused to play for the Sault Ste. Marie Greyhounds and the Quebec Nordiques, criticized the Flyers medical staff for failing to properly diagnose a concussion, and irked Clarke by rejecting an $8.5 million US qualifying offer for the 2000-01 NHL season. Clarke stripped Lindros of his captaincy, questioned the severity of his concussions, and later lashed out at his parents for meddling in their son's dealings with management. Lindros demanded to be traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs, but Clarke refused to make the swap, and he languished in limbo for several months before being dealt to the New York Rangers on Aug. 20, 2001.
|
| Guest1785 |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 21:52:03
quote:
Originally posted by Guest4798
Iginla....definately!!
Your a moron |
| Thrasher |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 20:59:10
Ryan Smyth....
No questioning his heart, but come on. If all i needed to do was stand in front of the net, get cross checked and try and tip shots to be called Captain canada, sign me up. Why do people think hes so good, i dont understand it. He is doing nothing in Colorado, and his glory days of being an Oiler are long past. I cant believe the Islanders traded for him thinking he would take them far into the playoffs.... |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 10:49:39
I don't think Lidstrom is over rated for his era, but to say he is the best of all time, that is definately overrating him. He doesn't compare to many of the past greats. You can also say that through most of his Norris level career, there were only two other guys (Pronger and Neidermayer) that were really Norris worthy. Maybe Zubov during some of those years, but that's really it.
Lidstrom would have not been a Norris winner if played in the era of the others greats (Harvey, Orr, Potvin, Bourque, Langway, Chilios(in his prime), of Coffey) or if any of these players were in his era. |
| willus3 |
Posted - 02/01/2009 : 10:42:49
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I
So, my vote for most overrated? Right now, off the top of my head, I'd have to say a couple of Red Wings come to mind - Osgood and Lidstrom. Yes, Lidstrom. To me, the Swede will probably quite innapropriately go down as one of the greatest defencemen of all time, because of the numbers - and he is good, no doubt. But in my mind, not even top ten all-time greatest for defence.
Obviously Lidstrom is a better player than Osgood, but they both get caught up in the fact that they were on a fantastic team and won a few cups, so they get overrated.
I'm sure I'll get attacked for the Lidstrom thing, but go ahead and make your case!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Agreed. I think Lidstrom has become the most overrated player ever. I've heard people say in all seriousness that he is the best defenceman of all time. Of course they cite his 6 Norris trophies as proof. I guess they just ignore the fact that he won them in a weak era for defencemen.
"Society, have mercy on me. Hope you're not angry if I disagree." - Jerry Hannan |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/31/2009 : 22:37:48
quote:
Originally posted by Guest9847
Why the f*** isn't Crosby in their!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why the f*** don't you read the poll question!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
| Guest9847 |
Posted - 01/31/2009 : 14:25:01
Why the f*** isn't Crosby in their!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
| MSC |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 12:25:10
I'd like to quickly point out that there's a difference between a "Bust" and "Overrated". |
| Beans15 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 10:37:29
Firstly, I can post when ever I feel I have something to add. If you don't like my opinion, that is not my problem. And I did not bash Lemieux. He had every right to do what he did as did Lindros to do what he did. Neither broke any rule. All I am saying is that if you are considering off ice things with Lindros, you have to do the same with others.
Secondly, I find this question nearly impossible to answer. There are countless players that did not meet their expectations. Some where supposed to be amazing and turned out horrible and others were supposed to be amazing and turned out average. Regardless, I think he has to be more defined.
What I would consider as overrated is a player that is heralded really highly but really wasn't that great. This is all opinion as well, and it doesn't matter what my answer is, people will argue.
One guy that comes to mind almost immediately is Chris Osgood. He is an average goaltender at best. He will more than likely finish his career quite high on the all time wins list, he has a couple of Cups, and has other awards and such. But really, he, more than any other player I can think of, benefited from playing most of his career on a brilliant team. I can think of tons of goalies that are better but will not have the numbers to back it up. And, I think that pretty much any average goalie could have acomplished what he has done if they played on the teams that Osgood has.
I'm sure there are others, but this is the one that comes to mind right now. |
| Guest7143 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 09:54:17
Jason Bonsignore is easily the most overrated player.
www.savetheleafs.com |
| Guest9289 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 07:52:18
Beans, please stop posting comments here. You more often than note say things that are totally false. Dont you ever talk bad about Lemieux. He was one of the best things that happened to hockey, who cares if he didnt shake the guys hand, and so what??? We are talking about who should of been great and didnt make it, injuries included in this.
So far. Alex Daigle was the most overrated of all time. |
| Guest9289 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 07:48:41
I would pick Alexandre Daigle. |
| Matt_Roberts85 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 07:45:57
I don't think overrated was the right term to describe how I and (It seems) Fat Elvis Rocked felt about Lindros. He hit the nail on the head when he said it was more of a hype vs result type thing. I always expected more from Lindros than what he actually delivered, but what he did deliver is definatley well above average.
I did feel bad for him during the whole Clarke saga, but I wasn't really taking sympathy into account. I still think he is the perfect example of someone not being what they were 'supposed' to be. But I guess that is totally different than being overrated.
My vote for most overrated would have to be Trevor Linden. I guess the love he gets from Canuck fans (and rightfully so) makes me think that he should have been a better player than he was (barring that run to the finals in '94 where he was really good, but aside from that I didn't see much else). But meh, there are lots of guys that seem overrated. If this was 2 years ago my vote hands down would have been Alex Kovalev, he was a dog, but Montreal seems to have revived his career in a big way.
There is no "I" in team, but there is an "M" and an "E". |
| n/a |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 04:41:29
I have to agree with Beans on this one - I used to have a real hate on for Eric Lindros - after all, he was a bit of a prick, and the whole Quebec thing was a debacle that blackened hockey, I think.
But I also had real sympathy for him during the Clarke debacle that ensued, specifically when he almost died because of medical staff negligence. And then he had to endure Clarke's idiotic insinuations that he was a wuss because the guy had too many concussions and had had a life threatening blood clot?!? It was then that I realised Lindros was doing penance for being an ass earlier, and my hate grew strong for Clarke. I figured it was a wash for Lindros' off-ice behaviour.
On the ice, he was awesome, no question; not overrated in the least when he was going full steam.
Mario is a similar situation, where early bad choices are outweighed later for me by a total change in attitude off the ice (perhaps more dramatic for Lemieux). Obviously no one calls Mario overrated (I hope).
So, my vote for most overrated? Right now, off the top of my head, I'd have to say a couple of Red Wings come to mind - Osgood and Lidstrom. Yes, Lidstrom. To me, the Swede will probably quite innapropriately go down as one of the greatest defencemen of all time, because of the numbers - and he is good, no doubt. But in my mind, not even top ten all-time greatest for defence.
Obviously Lidstrom is a better player than Osgood, but they both get caught up in the fact that they were on a fantastic team and won a few cups, so they get overrated.
I'm sure I'll get attacked for the Lidstrom thing, but go ahead and make your case!
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| Guest4798 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 04:39:46
Iginla....definately!! |
| Pasty7 |
Posted - 01/30/2009 : 00:52:26
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
Saku Koivu personally, and I am a Habs fan. This guy was supposed to be the next best thing to happen to the Habs and although you see a flair of what could've/should've been here and there, he is no where today what he was portrayed to be and also he is a terrific leader and what not and I believe he is a great 2nd line center, or needs good linemates to be a near successful 1st liner. Not calling him bad but what has he ever done to be credited as a great player, he is good but not great.
ok i'm going to reply to this now keep in mind with what i say i am half french canadien i am not prejudice in anyway and axey i noramly agree with what you say but wow................ how could anyone question saku koivu you sound like all my buddies here in quebec who are all so ticked off cuz koivu doesn't speak french,, come on the things this man bring to the blue blanc et rouge is un deniably great .. the greats of the habs lik beliveau and boom boom have all said i hope koivu gets his cup in mtl because noone desevers it more... the man is not a 100 point scorer and was never touted to be... he does everything right and nevr takes a shift off and is the best of the habs period. overated pffffffffff i say under
Pasty |
| hanley6 |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 22:03:34
I picked Lindros, but I'd also have to say Trevor Linden and Saku Koivu |
| Axey |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 21:14:42
Saku Koivu personally, and I am a Habs fan. This guy was supposed to be the next best thing to happen to the Habs and although you see a flair of what could've/should've been here and there, he is no where today what he was portrayed to be and also he is a terrific leader and what not and I believe he is a great 2nd line center, or needs good linemates to be a near successful 1st liner. Not calling him bad but what has he ever done to be credited as a great player, he is good but not great. |
| fat_elvis_rocked |
Posted - 01/29/2009 : 13:28:19
Beans, you are completely right regarding your comparisons to others regarding his play 'on the ice'. I guess I should have stipulated what I meant more clearly when phrasing the poll question.
My intent was over-rated as a whole, hype versus result, in the case of Lindros, in my opinion, the hype could have been met easily, had he not been such a wanker.
To be chosen 1st overall, and given the attention he was, has to carry some weight of responsibilty with it, in how he should conduct himself initially. This may be more of his handlers issue, but still, to the fans, or at least to this fan,he came across as pompous and aloof. He was being counted on in some respects to take the reins of the 'next big thing' and be the face of the game at that time. Mario may have snubbed the Pens initially, but he more than made up for it and took his role of 'Le Magnifique' to the heights intended and expected, and he learned to be the quiet ambassador he was along the way.
You are more than correct when talking of his dominance on the ice, but for me, the off ice stuff, clouds those accomplishments. From all accounts, and my opinions on this matter not, just heresay and gossip, Lindros was not much in the way of a team guy. There was a rumour that concussion number 2 or 3, can't remember which, was caused from activities not condusive to team play(again just rumour).
From the outright disdain at the Nordiques, to his squabbles with Philly, his persona, unfortunately outweighed his talent, in my opinion, keeping him in my top spot as over-rated.
You never did give your choice though Beans, do you have one?
I would think as a fellow Oilers fan, maybe a Peplinski or Otto might come to mind.... |
|
|
