Better hockey player: Lindros or Forsberg? [not career accomplishments]

[Yuri35]

Forsberg without thinking twice.
Lindros was a physical monster but overrated otherwise in my opinion.

 

[Yuri35]

Eric Lindros was the better hockey player overall, but Peter Forsberg had more of a higher end technical, finesse skillset. The way Forsberg could hold the puck is still next generation 25 years later.

how was lindros the better hockey player overall when his only advantage to Foppa was his unique physical attributes?
Foppa had as you said better skillset, much better hands, better vision and was a better two way player.
Lindros is the type of player North Americans love but let's be honest, in term of pure skills and subtility, he was good but not incredible and certainly not at Foppa's level.

 

[amnesiac]

Lindros, top 5 player of all time when healthy.

17th all-time in PPG and never won the Art Ross is 5th GOAT now?

 

[Stephen]

how was lindros the better hockey player overall when his only advantage to Foppa was his unique physical attributes?
Foppa had as you said better skillset, much better hands, better vision and was a better two way player.
Lindros is the type of player North Americans love but let's be honest, in term of pure skills and subtility, he was good but not incredible and certainly not at Foppa's level.

Because Lindros' utterly dominant physical attributes changed the landscape of the game of hockey in the mid to late 90s. In terms of North American preference for the power game, I don't think it's that cut and dry. Lindros could be more effective skating through a guy than having to dangle around him with a finesse move. He was simply a more dominant factor when he used those blunt instruments.

 

[Thenameless]

Only thing Lindros had on Forsberg was size

Better shot. More physical. More intimidating.

 

[Ben White]

Sakic lol... ask the Avs’ fans. Forsberg was hands down the Avs’ bigger threat of that era. As for the poll: Basically no stats suggest Lindros to be the better player. Both are really underrated though

 

[Syckle78]

how was lindros the better hockey player overall when his only advantage to Foppa was his unique physical attributes?
Foppa had as you said better skillset, much better hands, better vision and was a better two way player.
Lindros is the type of player North Americans love but let's be honest, in term of pure skills and subtility, he was good but not incredible and certainly not at Foppa's level.

You absolutely didn't watch a young Lindros play. That is abundantly clear. Your questioning his skills is laughable.

 

[Syckle78]

17th all-time in PPG and never won the Art Ross is 5th GOAT now?

He said when healthy. Considering how his career went being 17th all time in ppg is freaking impressive despite you trying to use it to be disingenuous. Pretty sure his ppg was tracking for top 5ish territory for like the first 5 years or so to start his career. So many of you weren't around and are talking out of your butts. I didn't even like Lindros thought he was a giant dbag but yall need an education.

 

[Legionnaire]

Lindros. Not really close for me either.

 

[daver]

In the 90s you have Lemieux, Jagr, Hasek, Gretzky who all peaked at a higher level than Lindros. I'd probably have Lindros 5th - but guys like Forsberg, Sakic and a few others are in that vicinity too.

I'm not trying to disparage Lindros - he was great, especially at his best - but top 5 all time is such a ridiculous overstatement.

I saw Lindros as a Top Tennish talent/prospect all-time. It really depends on how much value you place on his physicality as his offensive game is more like Top 20 (among forwards). But his offense seemed to be tied into his physicality rather than being two separate entities like Howe for example. Once his physical game regressed, his offense did too.

So that being said, it is hard to place him if you think that a "healthy" Lindros was never going to be a thing unlike Orr, Mario or Crosby whose injuries were more bad luck than destiny.

 

[Iapyi]

Lindros.

Floppa has or is strongly in contention for the Massive Post-Career Over Hype Award.

I've even seen some posters on this site claim he was better than Sakic []

 

[sr edler]

Likewise he made the 1991 more or less based on hype..... (similar to how Laettner made the 92 Dream team).

Sakic had been top 10 in scoring twice before Lindros stepped foot on the ice and had scored 100 points twice already (would have been 3 times had he not missed some time in 92). Even with the hype, I cannot see him starting in the top line role with a guy like Sakic already there.

Hype matters in the context of giving someone leeway, which is what we're talking about here. And it's not like Lindros disappointed when he actually came in, except in the context of being famously injury prone. He brought the chips. Sakic had seasons with 102 and 109 points, yes, but that was in a high-scoring era and without him yet playing a solid two-way game. Lindros when he came into the league as a rookie scored at a 100 point pace too.

 

[bobholly39]

I saw Lindros as a Top Tennish talent/prospect all-time. It really depends on how much value you place on his physicality as his offensive game is more like Top 20 (among forwards). But his offense seemed to be tied into his physicality rather than being two separate entities like Howe for example. Once his physical game regressed, his offense did too.

So that being said, it is hard to place him if you think that a "healthy" Lindros was never going to be a thing unlike Orr, Mario or Crosby whose injuries were more bad luck than destiny.

As a prospect you don't even need to say top 10 - i'm fine saying top 5, you can even argue top 1. Very few players in history were viewed with higher expectations than him as a prospect - not Crosby nor McDavid for recent names. I'd probably have him behind Lemieux at least, but some might debate even that.

I wouldn't call him a top 10 talent though. He never became that good at the NHL level. Of course - it's such a tiny difference between top 10 and top 20, and as great a player as he became he didn't quite reach the level of his hype/projections even at his very best. Top 20 seems safer.

I think what bugs me most about people saying "top 5 if healthy" with Lindros is that he never showed me he had the ability to have such a career. Even if you assume he had no injuries (which is a huge IF - because unlike a player like Crosby for example where many injuries seem to be more due to bad fortune, most agree Lindros's playstyle was bound to lead to injuries) - I don't know that he showed enough to show us he had what it takes to have a top 10-15 career of all-time. Talent and ability is one thing - but you need to have the discipline and will to win and be consistent long-term and just ability to perform at such a level long-term.

Crosby? He has great compete level, and has shown great consistency his whole career. I don't think Lindros quite showed he had that over the long-run. I think under the best of projections with health in a full career, Lindros settles for a top ~20 career all-time maybe, but doesn't touch top 10. I also think - doing the same exercise for Forsberg - he falls slightly behind. I'd say Forsberg could have been top ~20-30 all time under the best conditions.

 

[Slapshot Sultan]

I love the style they both played. Hugely talented and physical. Lindros even more dominant physically of course. Both great playmakers, Forsberg a bit better. Lindros was more of a goalscorer than Foppa so Lindros for me.

 

[Ben White]

Lindros.

Floppa has or is strongly in contention for the Massive Post-Career Over Hype Award.

I've even seen some posters on this site claim he was better than Sakic []

then go ahead and make a poll on the Avs’ board, the people who actually know, and you’ll get an answer pretty quickly as to who were better of Forsberg and Sakic.

 

[Ben White]

Forsberg was the hands down best player in the world between 2002 playoffs and his mid season injury in 2006. It’s just that he only managed to string one remotely full season together in that span. But check the stats closely. How far ahead he was in the scoring race when injured in 2004, how he dominated a players poll pre injury in 2006 etc. how he won the Stanley cup scoring race without even making the finals in 2002 and without hardly any preparation after a year away from hockey prior to that playoffs. Without the injuries and without the 2005 lockout that would’ve been the Forsberg era and nobody would question his all time status, despite all the other injuries during his career. The man had a lot of bad luck which makes him extremely underrated from a historical perspective. (So underrated that people even call him overrated lol.) Both Forsberg and Lindros are two of the very most dominant players I’ve ever seen at their peak. Unstoppable. Both are top 10 talents all time with Forsberg slightly ahead due to more refined skill, vision and smartness.

 

[Iapyi]

then go ahead and make a poll on the Avs’ board, the people who actually know, and you’ll get an answer pretty quickly as to who were better of Forsberg and Sakic.

lol

I don't need to ask other people who was a better player. The very fact you think that someone would know better just because they are a 'fan' of a certain team shows how strong the disconnect is.

lol

 

[Iapyi]

Forsberg was the hands down best player in the world between 2002 playoffs and his mid season injury in 2006. It’s just that he only managed to string one remotely full season together in that span. But check the stats closely. How far ahead he was in the scoring race when injured in 2004, how he dominated a players poll pre injury in 2006 etc. how he won the Stanley cup scoring race without even making the finals in 2002 and without hardly any preparation after a year away from hockey prior to that playoffs. Without the injuries and without the 2005 lockout that would’ve been the Forsberg era and nobody would question his all time status, despite all the other injuries during his career. The man had a lot of bad luck which makes him extremely underrated from a historical perspective. (So underrated that people even call him overrated lol.) Both Forsberg and Lindros are two of the very most dominant players I’ve ever seen at their peak. Unstoppable. Both are top 10 talents all time with Forsberg slightly ahead due to more refined skill, vision and smartness.

 

[amnesiac]

He said when healthy. Considering how his career went being 17th all time in ppg is freaking impressive despite you trying to use it to be disingenuous. Pretty sure his ppg was tracking for top 5ish territory for like the first 5 years or so to start his career. So many of you weren't around and are talking out of your butts. I didn't even like Lindros thought he was a giant dbag but yall need an education.

I saw Lindros his whole career. Exceptional talent, amazing peak, no doubt... but to say hes 5th all-time with his small sample size is just a ridiculous statement. He has one Hart to his name in a 48 game season, may have had 2 if he were healthy in 95-96. But he wasnt exactly leading the league in PPG during his 6 year prime. He was up there, but if youre going to be dubbed 5th GOAT, you sure as hell better be showing insane numbers.... Gimme a break 5th all-time.

Gretzky
Mario
Howe
Crosby
Jagr
Ovie
Hull sr
Lafleur
Mikita
Espo
all better and more proven peaks/primes.

very arguable:
Beliveau
Richard
Clarke
Malkin
Bossy
Messier
Sakic
Yzerman
Trottier
Forsberg

 

[Merrrlin]

then go ahead and make a poll on the Avs’ board, the people who actually know, and you’ll get an answer pretty quickly as to who were better of Forsberg and Sakic.

Why would Avs fans be the only ones to know is Forsberg was good? Easy on the gate keeping...

 

[Northern Avs Fan]

I don’t think you can say one of Forsberg, or Sakic was discernibly better than the other one. They were pretty much equal imo. Sakic was more valuable obviously because he was able to stay healthy for a much longer period of time. But, in terms of what they brought to the Avs, it was pretty similar.

I’m not sure why Forsberg gets knocked for playing with Sakic. They centred separate lines for the most part.

Last I checked Lindros had some great talent on his line when he was putting up big numbers.

 

[ScaredStreit]

When healthy Lindros is a top 10 player of all time-that's not an exaggeration. Problem is he was rarely healthy.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Sakic lol... ask the Avs’ fans. Forsberg was hands down the Avs’ bigger threat of that era. As for the poll: Basically no stats suggest Lindros to be the better player. Both are really underrated though

Why only Avs fans? The entire world saw the Avs win a cup in 2001 with their "bigger threat" playing exactly zero games in the WCF and SCF.

 

[Ben White]

Why only Avs fans? The entire world saw the Avs win a cup in 2001 with their "bigger threat" playing exactly zero games in the WCF and SCF.

haha what a garbage argument. If he wasn’t playing, how can you compare? No point starting arguments with people who are unwilling to even start digging through the surface.

 

[Ben White]

lol

I don't need to ask other people who was a better player. The very fact you think that someone would know better just because they are a 'fan' of a certain team shows how strong the disconnect is.

lol

So what you say is that you honestly think you watched as many games as the people on the Avs’ board, in average, with both Sakic and Forsberg playing on the same team? If you didn’t, your opinion isnt as valid.

I bet you didnt even watch them a lot during Forsberg’s prime. When both primed and healthy Forsberg was a tire above Sakic, and most Avs’ fans agree with that.

Sakic is basically a glorified Markus Naslund with worse hands but better hockey IQ. Yes he was very consistent and durable but other than his shot Forsberg was literally better in every other aspect of the game.