| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
 Posted - 11/11/2007 : 07:14:56
|
I think you might be putting too much weight into that single Hart Trophy. Does that mean that Theodore has a Hart Trophy so he should go into the HOF?? I personally think that Jagr should have won the Hart that year, but he isn't a young Canadian Phenom who could be the next one.
What about Yzerman?? Marcel Dionne? Jari Kurri? Luc Robattaille?? Dennis Savard?? I could go on and on. None of these guys have a Hart Trophy and all of them are, in my opinion, better than Lindros.
My point is that there are some guys who win the Hart Trophy once and are some of the best ever, then there are guys who win it once because they had a great season but are not part of the best ever.
And to the guy who got in with all the projected stats. Nice work!! I totally agree. However, coulda, shoulda, woulda, and most importantly didn't.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
 |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 07:39:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I
And to the guy who got in with all the projected stats. Nice work!! I totally agree. However, coulda, shoulda, woulda, and most importantly didn't.
I don't think Eric has to rely on "coulda, shoulda, woulda". Some call it five years, some seven years, but whatever it was, he was a force in the league for more than just two or three years. Five or so would probably be my personal cutoff.
But I don't think you can totally disregard "coulda, shoulda, woulda" here either because, the more I think about it the more I wonder whether that is really one of main distinctions between Lindros and Neely. People see the "coulda, shoulda, woulda" more clearly with Cam cause he had 50 goals in less than 50 games a couple of years before he was forced to retire.
How do you distinguish the two, Beans? Or do you think Neely shouldn't really be in the Hall?
Also, remember, even if Eric was an a******, there are a fair number of those in the HOFs of the different sports. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 08:07:45
|
I think you can both say "...coulda woulda shoulda..." with Eric, but also could, would, and did.
This was not an Alexandre Diagle who never reached his potential.
This is not BRETT Lindros, whose career ended before it began.
This is a guy who, for a period of time, was THE dominant player in the world. He scored 100 points in the "dead puck era" as you call it, Beans. While doing so, he was the most feared hitter in the game, and an absolutely unstoppable physical force. Had he done this for his entire career (which also should have lasted 4 more seasons), his numbers would have been astronomical. As it is, they are just simply fantastic. The PPG needs to be noticed here.
Take personal stuff out of the equation, and there is no doubt he belongs in the Hall. Will the voters do this? I'm not sure - but they should. I kind of think they won't, because of their Draconian way of looking at things done by guys who don't follow the rules of the great establishment.
Eric Lindros is not the anti-Christ. He's a guy with meddling parents who was wealthy before hockey, good looking, and smart. That's why people hate him, and I think that is jealous bullcrap, and I don't subscribe to it. |
|
|
|
-Al-
Top Prospect
Canada
5 Posts |
Posted - 11/11/2007 : 18:45:57
|
I agree completely with you Beans on the fact that those projected statistics I posted could be categorized as a kind of "coulda, woulda, shoulda" thing, but the fact remains that he did as much statistically, if not more, in the first 9 years of his career than even Mark Messier did in his first 9 seasons...
Now tomorrow night, Messier is going to be officially inducted into the HHOF, and considering Lindros had a talent that enabled him to play at a similar level statistically, I am forced to agree also with fly4apuckguy, as he did have a natural talent for the game. He could play at a level matched only by the greatest players in the sport's history, and, when he was healthy, he would be one of the most dominant players in the game, both physically and statistically.
His career was bound to end like this though. He played a very physical game, just as Peter Forsberg did in his younger days. Forsberg's physical play has caught up to him now, as it has played a factor in his becoming more prone to injuries as he's gotten older. In the same way, Lindros' physical play would have caught up to him, but his playing style had one other downfall that did not allow him such a lengthy career. Had he not played with his head down, he would probably have had a longer career, but there's no doubt injuries would likely still have caused an early end to his career regardless. As I said before though, I don't think there's any reason to keep Lindros out of the HHOF. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 13:24:13
|
A couple of things I wanted to throw out there. In his entire career, included this 5ish years he dominated, how many time was he in the top 10 in scoring, let alone lead scoring?? I counted three times in the Big E's entire career that he cracked the top 10 in scoring.
Take a look at two other players who I would consider HHOF material during the same period of time that Lindros "dominated" being Jagr and Selanne.
Stats between 93-94 and 98-99
Lindros - 370 games, 222 goals, 303 assists, 525 points.
Jagr - 431 games, 252 goals, 390 assists, 642 points.
Selanne - 401 games, 237 goals, 275 assists, 512 points.
When you look at season averages during that time
Lindros - 62 games, 37 goals, 51 assists, 88 points.
Jagr - 72 games, 42 goals, 65 assists, 107 points.
Selanne - 67 games, 40 goals, 42 assists, 85 points.
What's my point behind all of this. Two things:
1) In my opinion, Lindros was not the dominante player in those years in the 90's. Jagr was. Difference is, Jagr is not a Canadian Phenom so he didn't get the credit. praise, or media attention that Lindros got.
2) Question yourself this, would you put in Selanne or Jagr in if they had only this 6 solid years in the league? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but it would be close.
Lindros is not in that easily. It's not cut and dry.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 13:50:28
|
To answer a few other questions thrown at me.
1) The difference between Neely and Lindros?? All off the ice. On the ice, their numbers were very much the same. I personally like Neely a lot better as he had shown time and time again that he bled hockey. He didn't want to retire. When he left, those tears were real. I never really got that total dedication to hockey from Lindros that I did from Neely.
2) Comparing Lindros to Messier is more than a bit of a stretch. Take a look that their stats during the exact same years they played in the league together. 93-04. Lindros had 817 points. Messier had 746 points. Difference of 71 points. Another big different, Lindros did that between the ages of 20 and 31. Messier was 32 through 43. Lindros has age, size, and strength on Messier. So, in the grand scheme of things, Lindros averaged 6.5 more points then Messier and was 11 years younger. I wouldn't say that Lindros was so much better.
Oh, and Messier's first 9 years in the league netted him 747 points. Lindros had 732 points.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 14:02:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
A couple of things I wanted to throw out there. In his entire career, included this 5ish years he dominated, how many time was he in the top 10 in scoring, let alone lead scoring?? I counted three times in the Big E's entire career that he cracked the top 10 in scoring.
Take a look at two other players who I would consider HHOF material during the same period of time that Lindros "dominated" being Jagr and Selanne.
Stats between 93-94 and 98-99
Lindros - 370 games, 222 goals, 303 assists, 525 points.
Jagr - 431 games, 252 goals, 390 assists, 642 points.
Selanne - 401 games, 237 goals, 275 assists, 512 points.
When you look at season averages during that time
Lindros - 62 games, 37 goals, 51 assists, 88 points.
Jagr - 72 games, 42 goals, 65 assists, 107 points.
Selanne - 67 games, 40 goals, 42 assists, 85 points.
What's my point behind all of this. Two things:
1) In my opinion, Lindros was not the dominante player in those years in the 90's. Jagr was. Difference is, Jagr is not a Canadian Phenom so he didn't get the credit. praise, or media attention that Lindros got.
2) Question yourself this, would you put in Selanne or Jagr in if they had only this 6 solid years in the league? Maybe you would, maybe you wouldn't, but it would be close.
Lindros is not in that easily. It's not cut and dry.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Here's a classic situation wherein the stats do not paint the whole picture.
Lindros did not play a style anything like Jagr or Selanne.
Lindros played an extremely physical game. A power forward with a goal scoring and playmaking touch. He could do it all.
Big difference between him and the two offensive minded players you mentioned.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 15:03:48
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
To answer a few other questions thrown at me.
1) The difference between Neely and Lindros?? All off the ice. On the ice, their numbers were very much the same. I personally like Neely a lot better as he had shown time and time again that he bled hockey. He didn't want to retire. When he left, those tears were real. I never really got that total dedication to hockey from Lindros that I did from Neely.
To me, you kind of show the problem with keeping Eric out of the Hall with the above answer. You don't want to say "Neely shouldn't be there", so you kind of slide around that question. I certainly can understand that.
If the only real significant difference that we can come up with is the "off the ice" thing, then it is pretty hard to let that stop Eric's entry into the HHOF in my opinion.
What I want to know is whether there is anyone out there who takes the position that Neely shouldn't have gotten into the Hall. To me, that's the consistent route out of this for the "NO TO ERIC" guys here. |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 15:38:47
|
The whole "off the ice" thing is total bunk.
Half the guys in the NHL have stuff they are not proud of (the immortal Mario Lemieux not only would not go down on the stage when drafter by Pittsburgh, but let's not forget - he was also involved in a sticky situation with a female in a hotel room where charges were laid). Whatever, the point is, not every guy in th HHOF is Mother Theresa, by far.
andyhack nailed it when he said stats are not the entire story.
Look, I hate Jaromir Jagr. HATE HIM. I hate that stupid gesture he used to do after he scored a goal, I hated his riduculous helmet, and so on. He's a coach-killing, ocssionally amazing player who goes in streaks where he's awful because he pouts and complains about how he is being used.
But I am willing to say he's a first ballot Hall of Famer, based on his dominance on the ice at certain times during his career. Lindros - same thing, and in their respective primes, I think Lindros is an even more valuable asset. Not many GMs would disagree with that. Not because he was Canadian, but because he was DOMINANT on the ice. Jagr could score, but he was not able to put fear into the opposition like Big E. did.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 15:41:31
|
Willus, I disagree. Everyone is talking about his "numbers" on here. I am just suggesting that his "numbers" weren't head and shoulders above his peers, let alone the games greatest. And if the only difference is that Lindros played physical, I can't see how that puts him so far ahead in the rankings. Honestly, I think Jagr played a physical game when he wanted to. How many times have you seen Jagr get knocked off the puck?? Because the guy doesn't check doesn't make him not physical. I think Jagr took just as much physical pressure as Lindros did. Lindros gave it back. That's fine. Jagr didn't. What is your point again??
Secondly, I never once said that there is no way Lindros belongs, I am just saying that it's not cut and dry that he's in.
And lastly, did anyone else watch the Off the Record with Gillies, Coffey, and Stastny. There was one of the Hall of Famer on the panel, they listed it as Trottier, but it wasn't him. I think it may have been Michel Goulet. Regardless, all of them were asked if Lindros gets in. Statsny couldn't answer because he's on the selection committee. All three of the others didn't say he gets in. All of them said he was great for a short period of time, but was that time too short??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 15:54:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
Willus, I disagree. Everyone is talking about his "numbers" on here. I am just suggesting that his "numbers" weren't head and shoulders above his peers, let alone the games greatest. And if the only difference is that Lindros played physical, I can't see how that puts him so far ahead in the rankings. Honestly, I think Jagr played a physical game when he wanted to. How many times have you seen Jagr get knocked off the puck?? Because the guy doesn't check doesn't make him not physical. I think Jagr took just as much physical pressure as Lindros did. Lindros gave it back. That's fine. Jagr didn't. What is your point again??
Secondly, I never once said that there is no way Lindros belongs, I am just saying that it's not cut and dry that he's in.
And lastly, did anyone else watch the Off the Record with Gillies, Coffey, and Stastny. There was one of the Hall of Famer on the panel, they listed it as Trottier, but it wasn't him. I think it may have been Michel Goulet. Regardless, all of them were asked if Lindros gets in. Statsny couldn't answer because he's on the selection committee. All three of the others didn't say he gets in. All of them said he was great for a short period of time, but was that time too short??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
I didn't see that, but I did see where Bobby Clarke said he SHOULD get in. The guy who should hate him as much as anyone, but who actually bases it on his game, said he should be in.
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 16:12:13
|
Actually Willus is the guy who should get credit for the "stats are not the entire story" post, but I definitely agree with him.
Regarding the "off the ice" stuff, my main point was that even if it were all true, or even if he was an evil Ty Cobb-like character, or slept with all of his teammates wives (AND all of their sisters!), even if during the "Quebec thing" he would have gone on an anti-Quebec tirade listing 88 terrible things about the province every night on all the late night talk shows, even if he would have fought with teammates regularly before, after and during the game,... I don't think any of this should have much bearing on whether he shoud get in the Hall.
I do agree with you on one thing though Beans. I don't think it is such an easy call. Again, the key to me is that in 2040 I'll be talking about the way Lindros played to my grandkids - more than Pierre Turgeon or Adam Oates, more than Ron Francis, and at least as much, if not more, than Al MacInnis and Scott Stevens. That tips the scale for me.
Edit - I just got the tail end of that show Beans - did they throw the Neely question at them then? I think that's a great show by the way. the one the other day with Middleton and Nilan was terrific. Nilan - what a character! HNIC should sign him up - love the Beantown accent! |
Edited by - andyhack on 11/12/2007 16:24:50 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 16:35:33
|
The "what about Neely" came out but really wasn't talked about. Lansberg was trying to bring it up, but the guys just ignored it. What are you going to do when they are 4 HOFers in front of you.
By the way, in 2040 when I am talking to my great Neices and Nephews (no kids for me!) I will be talking about Jagr, Messier, Yzerman,Sakic, Lemiuex, Gretzky, Lidstrom, Bourque, Hasek, Bordeur. Lindros will be in the could have been a GOAT, but didn't dominate for long enough.
I hate to say it, but I wouldn't even put Lindros in the top 20 players of the 90's list.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
fly4apuckguy
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
834 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 17:36:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
I hate to say it, but I wouldn't even put Lindros in the top 20 players of the 90's list.
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!!
Beans, with all due respect (and I do respect most of what you say), that is completely insane. I think you are letting your dislike of the man seriously cloud your judgement about the player.
Like I said, it's one thing to dislike a guy (I dislike Fedorov, Jagr, Hasek to name three), but I don't disqualify their abilities. They were all top 20 players. Did you watch Lindros at all, bro? At the top of his game, he was nearly untouchable. Not just physically, but like Bobby Clarke said on Off The Record yesterday, he was almost as good as Mario Lemieux and Gretzky and those type of guys, but bigger, faster, and stronger. Yeah, he said that!
Not only is he in the top 20, he's arguably number 1. |
|
|
|
ED11
Rookie
Canada
224 Posts |
Posted - 11/12/2007 : 21:08:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by fly4apuckguy
I continue to laugh at the hypocracy displayed here.
It's okay, I've heard it for years in Lindros's case. What a terrible person he is for not going to Quebec when they drafted, him...Oh boohoo, you have to play for the team that picks you, that's just how it works.
Watching PrimeTime Sports today, they suggested that really, when you get down to it, the draft is illegal, except for the fact that it is a part of collective bargaining. How can you tell someone where they are to be employed? Really?
In what other profession aside from sports are you bound like that, where you HAVE to work for someone just because they choose you? Are hockey players indentured servants, or slaves?
If you were offered a job tomorrow at 9:00 am by a company that gave you the hebee-geebees, maybe because the manager seemed a little wacky, perhaps an embezzler but you were not sure, and you know you could work anywhere you darn well wanted because dozens of other places want you....you're telling me you HAVE to take the first option because they picked you? That, my friend, is what you are saying. Exactly the same thing.
How is it different? Because he should be "honored" to be chosen? What a load of crap. Wade Belak should be honored to be in the NHL. Lindros was a sure thing. Just like a high school dropout should be honored to have a job at McDonalds, but for a college graduate, it's a pathetic option.
The Greyhounds argument is even more ridiculous. Aside from hockey, who in the world would fault a 15 year old for wanting to play a GAME close to his home? Who would fault his parents for wanting him close to home???? Funny, I actually think that's good parenting. Better than sending him to play under Graham James or something. I'd do the same with my kid.
Why are hockey players (15 or otherwise) held to a different standard? As the guy on PrimeTime said, people who are angry are angry not because of the moral issue, they are angry because of JEALOUSY. Jealous that they have no skill that affords them such options as Eric had.
That is honestly one of the best and humorous points that I have heard in awhile. You are bringing something different to this forum fly. I like it.
Here is my take on Eric Lindros. Eric Lindros is the 5th fastest player to get to 500 points. He did it in a time where scoring was pretty low. He entered the NHL when he was only 19 years old. I believe he was one of only 3(now 4) players to play for the junior national team at the age of 16. They were players by the names of Gretzky, Lemieux, and now Crosby. Now I am not comparing the career of Lindors to any of those players but I am saying that that is good company to be in. Apart from that I really liked Lindros. And I watched him play. He was very dominant. It was unfortunate what happened to him. He ran into injuries named Scott Stevens. In my mind Eric Lindros is a Hall of Famer. |
|
|
|
redwings85
Top Prospect
Canada
20 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 05:59:50
|
I personally think it would be terrible if Lindros did not make it into the Hall of Fame, look at his career stats, there pretty good for a guy who played 760 some odd games, 850 something pts?
Back in the 90s he was a force, he was unstoppable, until his concussion's, sure ya... he didn't win a cup and all, but he was close to winning one, you don't need to win a cup to make it into the Hall.
What happened if Gretzky didn't win them cups, but still had them points would you still call him a Famer? what if he was apparently an a****** to his teammates, and in the club... Would you still put him in? What if he refused to play for his draft team? and wanted to play for another team?
That means nothing . . So what he didn't want to play for Quebec... you know what I don't blame him. . . he made a smart move to get out of that club.
So he has bad attitude... who cares, it's all about how we play the game, not what we do off the ice, in the locker room.
Christ look at Claude Lemieux... he made it in the Hall lots of people say why? he was a pansy, etc etc. . I still don't know why he got in.
If he can get in, Lindros should def, get in by far.
Good Luck Lindros, to the future, I hope one day he makes the Hall. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 09:47:25
|
Hey Fly, I might have been a little agressive on the not in the top 20 comment. But #1?? You can honestly say that he might be #1??
Lemiuex, Messier, Gretzky, Jagr, Brett Hull, Modano, Roenick, Oates, Forsberg, Sakic, Yzerman, Lafontaine, Fedorov, Bure, Selanne, Sundin, Recchi.
There are 17 guys off the top of my head that produced similar or better offensively during the 90's. This doesn't include "players" such as Bourque, Lidstrom, Hasek, Stevens, Neidermayer, Roy, and the likes who played great hockey through the 90's and won.
Not taking any of the off ice stuff into account, I can honestly say that I would put Lindros ahead of some of these players, but definately not all of them. On the list of the top 20?? Maybe, but for sure not number #1
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 11/13/2007 : 10:28:43
|
quote:
[i]Christ look at Claude Lemieux... he made it in the Hall lots of people say why? he was a pansy, etc etc. . I still don't know why he got in.
If he can get in, Lindros should def, get in by far.
Good Luck Lindros, to the future, I hope one day he makes the Hall.
Claude isn't in the Hall nor do I believe he will make it in.
Lindros will get in.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
Guest4912
( )
|
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 10:32:12
|
| first of all the injuries he ran into werent named scott steavens there were numrous injuries, yes he did give him a concussion but thats it. but then after that later in the series [CONTENT REMOVED - 4912 you do not have to insult people when you respond - it's ok to disagree but you do not have to insult] you would see scott steavens getting his faced uppercutted and right jabbed by eric "the big E" lindros. eventually TOTALLY DESTROYING YOUR BELOVED scot steavens |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 11:23:45
|
Wow, a lot has been said here. Great topic!
My cut and dry opinion, based solely on the numbers: Lindros shouldn't be in the HOF. Yes, that means I also think Cam Neely shouldn't be in there either.
Now, for personal opinions - completely seperate from HOF stuff: I did not like Eric, having met him on a few occasions. My sister's friend dated him for a month or two, and my first impression at a small gathering of friends where he showed his face for half an hour or so was of a self-conceited, I'm the baddest man in town kind of guy. By her accounts, Eric was a total a****** who she was with because he was "hot and famous". Being a huge hockey fan, I even tried to speak with him those few times I encountered him, but he was always surrounded by a bevy of women and a few guys all slobbering for a look or a word from the Next One.
Then, a year or so later, a couple of run-ins with Eric at a club, where I was helping my buddy who was a bouncer clear out troublemakers from the basement where the washrooms were. All of a sudden, the big Ego is trying to take some girl with him into some room (almost broke down the door, actually) that was restricted to the public. My buddy told him he couldn't go in there politely (we both immediately knew who he was), and Eric reacted as if he were about to punch him. My buddy was ready for it, as I thought "holy s***, we're gonna get in a fight with Lindros" to myself, lining up beside my buddy. He backed off though, mouthed off at us and threatened to come back and beat the s*** out of us, etc. and walked off. Of course, the girl was somehow impressed with this, but that's bunnies for ya.
Eric was a prick; his brother, OTOH, was a very nice, down-to-earth guy. I guess that's the price of fame - but then again, maybe it's just a strong influence, as many of the greats have been real nice people. |
|
|
|
Alex
PickupHockey All-Star
Canada
2816 Posts |
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 14:18:04
|
Out of curiosity, what is your sister's friend's name?
Habs get number 25 this year |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 04:24:25
|
Her name (sister lost contact with her years ago now) was Angela, or Angie. Short, dark hair, mediterranean look, beautiful face, big hooters. Very cute back in the day.
This was back in K-W, btw. I also forgot to mention - these were the years just before Eric played in the NHL (and during holdout). |
|
|
|
Guest4912
( )
|
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 12:01:59
|
[ADMIN EDIT - GUEST 4912 I do not have time to follow you around and edit your posts all day. Please refrain from the personal attacks. Just post your opposing view and try to INVITE someone into a discussion rather that push them away. We are attempting to have DIALOGUE here, this is the whole point of this forum. Obviously you have some very intelligent things to say but they are diminished everytime you hurl an insult - Much appreciated]
now eric lindros. he was an amazing hockey player for a good span of 6-8 years. however, if you want to judge him by standards as high as the " next one ", then he was not up to par. he never won a cup, which isnt entirely his fault, but he was never up there with lemieux in the mid 1990s. not playing for the nordiques, though, got him off on completely the wrong foot. and if you look at the player he was traded for, peter forsberg, won multiple stanley cups and had a better overal career than lindros, although bot were severly punctuated by injury.
in the end, he might become a hofer, but it will take a very long time, maybe decades from now actually. personally, i dont think he belongs.
|
|
|
|
nashvillepreds
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1053 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2008 : 14:13:05
|
I completely disagree. Lindros was supposed to be one of the best, and he was. His career got deminished though by concussions and other injuries.
I'm sure he lost his determination after his 4th concussion and frankly, I don't blame him.
Ellis or Mason?
Go Preds Go! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Eric Lindros To Retire Thursday - An Opinion Poll 
Topic Locked
