Jump to content
The Official Site of the Montréal Canadiens
Canadiens de Montreal

Hall of Fame


MIASUN

HOF worthy  

12 members have voted

  1. 1. Who deserves to be in the HOF?

    • Steve Shutt
      4
    • Eric Lindros
      1
    • Pavel Bure
      9
    • Pierre Turgeon
      1
    • Steve Larmer
      0
    • John Vanbiesbrouck
      1
    • Mike Richter
      1
    • Wendel Clark
      1
    • Phil Housley
      2
    • Dave Andreychuck
      1


Recommended Posts

Please limit to 2 choices. I would have left it at one but I certainly believe that both Eric Lindros and Pavel Bure should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

If you look at past inductees many of them are there simply because of longevity and putting up numbers in a watered down league. (cough, cough Ciccarelli) At no point, in many of the HOFers careers could it be argued that they were the best player in the league for any stretch or best goal scorer, for that matter they may not have been the best on their own team at any point.

Lindros redefined the way the game was played. He was an absolutely unstoppable beast and were it not for injuries and his off-ice nonsense, he'd already be inducted. He was the best and most feared player in the league until Stevens wrecked his career but if Cam Neely with lesser numbers and a similar style are in the HOF (Deservedly so) than Eric Lindros must be in the Hall of Fame. Simply, hockey wise he was a generational player and talent.

Bure was a 50-time 5 goal scorer! He scored 60 twice. In the trap era NHL. The year he scored 58 for the Panthers, nobody else scored more than 44. He was the modern day Mike Bossy. He was certainly the most exciting player in the league in his prime and the best pure goal scorer. He also had off-ice issues but that does not take away from his credentials. Anybody that scored that many goals in that few games was clearly a HOF talent, his numbers are actually surprisingly high considering he only played 702 games, of which ~150 were on one leg.

There is no doubt that he belong in the HOF, especially if you consider how many other inferior players in relation to the league have been inducted.

To me, a HOF player is the kinda guy you will remember 20-30 years from now. Lindros and Bure, on the ice are both DEFINITELY in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please limit to 2 choices. I would have left it at one but I certainly believe that both Eric Lindros and Pavel Bure should be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

If you look at past inductees many of them are there simply because of longevity and putting up numbers in a watered down league. (cough, cough Ciccarelli) At no point, in many of the HOFers careers could it be argued that they were the best player in the league for any stretch or best goal scorer, for that matter they may not have been the best on their own team at any point.

Lindros redefined the way the game was played. He was an absolutely unstoppable beast and were it not for injuries and his off-ice nonsense, he'd already be inducted. He was the best and most feared player in the league until Stevens wrecked his career but if Cam Neely with lesser numbers and a similar style are in the HOF (Deservedly so) than Eric Lindros must be in the Hall of Fame. Simply, hockey wise he was a generational player and talent.

Bure was a 5-time 50 goal scorer! He scored 60 twice. In the trap era NHL. The year he scored 58 for the Panthers, nobody else scored more than 44. He was the modern day Mike Bossy. He was certainly the most exciting player in the league in his prime and the best pure goal scorer. He also had off-ice issues but that does not take away from his credentials. Anybody that scored that many goals in that few games was clearly a HOF talent, his numbers are actually surprisingly high considering he only played 702 games, of which ~150 were on one leg.

There is no doubt that he belong in the HOF, especially if you consider how many other inferior players in relation to the league have been inducted.

To me, a HOF player is the kinda guy you will remember 20-30 years from now. Lindros and Bure, on the ice are both DEFINITELY in that category.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pavel Bure and Pierre Turgeon for me.

But this conversation also merits a discussion of the builders category. And it's a disgrace that Pat Burns is still absent.

Pat Burns. Absolutely. I was focused on players but Burns not being inducted yet again is an embarrassment to the league.

Curious, why Turgeon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pat Burns. Absolutely. I was focused on players but Burns not being inducted yet again is an embarrassment to the league.

Curious, why Turgeon?

Mostly just my personal bias, I think. :) Of the players on that list (other than Bure), Turgeon was my favorite. I liked watching him play, he was an absolutely dynamic player until the mid/late 90s. I'm not the biggest Lindros fan, either. I think there's probably a more legitimate case to be made for Andreychuk, Shutt, and Housley, but I couldn't resist voting for Turgeon. Being a child of the 90s, it's him and Bure in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the guys on your list, the only one I can get behind 100% is Bure. As you said, this guy was a multi-year 50-goal scorer and was often thought of as being the most dangerous forward in the league. I think he's a no-brainer.

As for the others, I'm sorry but although I'm on the fence for a couple, there isn't anyone else that screams out to me that they should be in. Lindros was a game-changing player, but also relied a lot on his size and the majority of his good years came playing on that Legion of Doom line with Mikael Renberg and John LeClair. That line did a lot of their damage at a time when players were a little smaller and they were able to be physically imposing. In other words, I think a fair part of Lindros' success came from the the line as a whole and because of size, not just skill. He was never able to win a Stanley Cup and he didn't put together enough good years for me to consider him.

Dave Andreychuk is a guy I would think about, if I had to choose another player. He put together quite a number of successful campaigns and I remember him being a pretty consistent scoring threat throughout his career. But he wasn't even the best player on his own team for many of if not all of those seasons, so it's hard to decide whether he's hall of fame worthy. Vanbiesbrouck only flourished late in his career. Richter was a good goalie but I think his support is being boosted by the fact that he's American. Housley was a one-way D man, akin to Mike Green of present time and although he's exciting to watch, I don't think of him as an all-time elite player. Clark was a warrior for the Leafs but I think there's a lot more sentimentality driving support there rather than true skill. Larmer just doesn't warrant being on this list in my opinion. Turgeon and Shutt are also close calls for me as to whether they should get in, but Shutt's been retired for a long time now and it'll be hard for him to sneak in at this point. I think he was a good player but overshadowed by the success of many of his other teammates. Turgeon was often times the best player on his team, but he played on teams that were not exactly powerhouses and never had much playoff success as the leader, so it's hard to throw a lot of support his way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Shutt,Wendel Clark and Steve Larmer all three of thjese guys had talent but had to bust their backsides to make the NHL and then worked hard every game through injuries.That to me should be the players that teammates would say deserve to be there and all were great to the fans.

Steve Shutt,Wendel Clark and Steve Larmer all three of these guys had talent but had to bust their backsides to make the NHL and then worked hard every game through injuries.That to me should be the players that teammates would say deserve to be there and all were great to the fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In discussing Eric Lindros, I would say let's separate the off-ice incidents from the on-ice dominance. Somebody mentioned the great Legion of Doom line. John LeClair and Mikael Renberg both benefited from Eric Lindros far more than he did from them.

LeClair was a very good player but Lindros was a dynamite playmaker and completely dominated the puck while John set up shop looking for one-timers and rebounds, I am not taking away from JL but Lindros was the beast on the line.

As somebody said Bure was the best goal scorer in the league for a decent stretch, I would say that Lindros was a top 5 player in the league his entire career in Philadelphia and the most dominant forechecking force the league has ever seen. His mark on the league and dominance outranks everybody else on the list beside Bure and even in that case, when healthy, if you polled GM's in the league, Lindros would have been everybody's number one pick to build a team, based on his on-ice presence solely, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Wendel Clark and Pavel Bure

It is my honest opinion that Eric Lindros doesn't deserve to ever be in the HHOF, the whole crap with refusing to play for the Québec Nordiques is one of the most downright insulting things you could do in sport. If it was off ice for different reasons ie, substance abuse, I'd be more willing to see him in the HHOF, but his off ice conduct was directly related to hockey, and his attitude towards the Nordiques was insulting to the game of hockey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve Shutt is already in the Hockey Hall of Fame

Wow. You're right. Messed that one up!

Still, I stand by Lindros and Bure as HOF hockey players. Not people. I am aware that the HOF criteria includes sportsmanship and character and as stated above, Lindros vs the Nordiques was awful BUT it was also at the age of 18, under the heavy influence of his parents. He has become a massive contributor to charity as he matured and he also was an active member of the NHLPA. At 25, he was ranked as the 54th greatest hockey player of all-time by the Hockey News. It's a tough call but the truth is Eric Lindros is one of the greats of the last 20 years and his numbers and impact on the league are even greater than Cam Neely in a similar amount of injury riddled games. Also, a lot of his issues with the Flyers in hindsight show he may have been ahead of his time with concussion concerns if you consider all the new information about head injuries. IMHO, he has done enough to inducted into the HOF, because he truly was a once in a lifetime HOCKEY PLAYER.

Bure's case has been well supported, I think most of us would agree he was also a large jerk off the ice but was absolute magic on the ice, and as pure of a talent as the league has EVER seen.

For the record, here are the HOF selection criteria:

http://www.hhof.com/htmlInduct/indelection.shtml

They certainly make a compelling argument against induction of both just as much as inclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of the guys on your list, the only one I can get behind 100% is Bure. As you said, this guy was a multi-year 50-goal scorer and was often thought of as being the most dangerous forward in the league. I think he's a no-brainer.

As for the others, I'm sorry but although I'm on the fence for a couple, there isn't anyone else that screams out to me that they should be in. Lindros was a game-changing player, but also relied a lot on his size and the majority of his good years came playing on that Legion of Doom line with Mikael Renberg and John LeClair. That line did a lot of their damage at a time when players were a little smaller and they were able to be physically imposing. In other words, I think a fair part of Lindros' success came from the the line as a whole and because of size, not just skill. He was never able to win a Stanley Cup and he didn't put together enough good years for me to consider him.

A few questions/comments. If Lindros didn't put together enough good years for you, how did Bure? Lindros played 58 more games and had close to 90 more points. Also, while Bure was more explosive as you mention, Lindros definitely brought a better all around game in his prime.

Neither play has a Cup, both player did make the finals, Lindros has a Hart trophy, unlike Bure. As for him playing on the Legion of Doom, watching that line it was pretty clear he was the engine that made it go, Leclair and Renberg both exploded after being put with him, and while Leclair was always a great player, neither had quite the same level of success without Eric.

As for the size argument, it's definitely part of what made him such a freak, he was not only big but incredibly strong but what separated him from other men of that size is that he would have been great at 6'1, he had the rarest combination of size and skill I've probably ever seen.

I think part of the issue with Lindros is people simply didn't like him and thus don't really have fond memories of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few questions/comments. If Lindros didn't put together enough good years for you, how did Bure? Lindros played 58 more games and had close to 90 more points. Also, while Bure was more explosive as you mention, Lindros definitely brought a better all around game in his prime.

Neither play has a Cup, both player did make the finals, Lindros has a Hart trophy, unlike Bure. As for him playing on the Legion of Doom, watching that line it was pretty clear he was the engine that made it go, Leclair and Renberg both exploded after being put with him, and while Leclair was always a great player, neither had quite the same level of success without Eric.

As for the size argument, it's definitely part of what made him such a freak, he was not only big but incredibly strong but what separated him from other men of that size is that he would have been great at 6'1, he had the rarest combination of size and skill I've probably ever seen.

I think part of the issue with Lindros is people simply didn't like him and thus don't really have fond memories of him.

NAILED IT! If Neely is in the HOF, Lindros should be in period. He had the same physical tools as Cam but was a far more skilled player with better stats during his career.

Random scary thought: Could you imagine what a healthy Eric Lindros would do in a non-clutch and grab NHL?

:o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

HOCKEY HALL OF FAME INDUCTION CEREMONY GOES LIVE ON TSN2

Toronto, ON - TSN2 shines the spotlight on four legends of the game during live coverage of the 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony on Monday, Nov. 14 at 7:30pm et/4pm pt.

Hosted by TSN's James Duthie, the induction ceremony honours Ed Belfour, Doug Gilmour, Mark Howe and Joe Nieuwendyk as the newest members of the Hockey Hall of Fame's Player Category. In addition, Detroit Red Wings colour commentator Mickey Redmond will receive the Foster Hewitt Memorial Award for his outstanding contributions as a hockey broadcaster and Edmonton Sun writer Terry Jones will receive the Elmer Ferguson Memorial Award for excellence in hockey journalism.

SPORTSCENTRE

Leading into the induction ceremony, SportsCentre reports live from the red carpet at 6 p.m. ET with That's Hockey host Gino Reda and Hockey Insider Bob McKenzie interviewing guests as they arrive at the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto. SportsCentre hosts Jay Onrait and Dan O'Toole present the Top 10 Plays by the 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductees during the live broadcast of the induction ceremony, which also features special reports from Cabral 'Cabbie' Richards.

THAT'S HOCKEY

Reda also hosts a special edition of That's Hockey live from the star-studded event at 7 p.m. ET, while That's Hockey 2Nite with host Steve Kouleas airs at a special timeslot following the conclusion of the induction ceremony broadcast.

TSN.ca

TSN.ca celebrates the inductees with a special commemorative page featuring bios of all the players, as well as interviews and highlights from the induction ceremony on the TSN Video Player.

TSN Radio 1050

TSN Radio 1050 honours the newest Hockey Hall of Famers with coverage throughout the day. Special coverage begins at 9 a.m. ET and includes a live broadcast of the Hockey Hall of Fame's press conference at 10:30 a.m. ET. Cybulski & Company will feature interviews with guests attending the event during the drive home timeslot beginning at 4 p.m. ET, while Jim Tatti and Scott MacArthur host live coverage of the induction ceremony beginning at 7 p.m. ET. TSN Radio 1050 is available nationally online at TSN.ca.

ESPN Classic

ESPN Classic pays tribute to the honourees with memorable games played by each of this year's inductees. ESPN Classic will air the following games on Monday, Nov. 14:

1:30 p.m. ET

1985 Stanley Cup, Philadelphia @ Edmonton, Game 5, May 30, 1985: 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Mark Howe and the late Brad McCrimmon anchor the Flyers' defence

3:30 p.m. ET

1999 Stanley Cup, Dallas @ Buffalo, Game 6, June 19, 1999: 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Ed Belfour backstops the Stars to their only Stanley Cup to date. Fellow 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Joe Nieuwendyk is named Conn Smythe Trophy winner.

5:30 p.m. ET (encore on Tuesday, Nov. 15 at 2 p.m. ET)

1993 Campbell Semifinal, St. Louis @ Toronto, Game 1, May 3, 1993: The Leafs win Game 1 of this epic series on a memorable goal by 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductee Doug Gilmour.

9 p.m. ET (encores on Tuesday, Nov. 15 at 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET)

1989 Stanley Cup, Calgary @ Montreal, Game 6, May 25, 1989: The Calgary Flames walk into the Montreal Forum and leave with the Stanley Cup. 2011 Hockey Hall of Fame inductees Doug Gilmour and Joe Nieuwendyk play prominent roles for the Flames.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...