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

[The Abusement Park]

I don’t think a player who won a Lindsay award and was top 2 in scoring two years in a row and top 4 three years in a row could possibly be ranked lower than top 200. The comparison two Sakic was about playing style and major strength. I said his hockey iq set him apart.

And you also said his skill level wasn’t anything special...

 

[The Abusement Park]

You may want to read my OP again, you seem to be making up your own rules. I asked who the better player was when healthy.

Please stop changing the rules of the thread - you can go ahead and make your own thread if those are the discussions you want, but calling out others for simply answering the question the way it was asked and not by your own idea of what's right is pretty arrogant.

How they were injured or how they played while suffering from the lingering effects of injury are irrelevant.

I wanted to know which player was better in their ideal state without injuries.

They’re pretty similar. Both were high skill players that were incredibly physical. Foppa the better playmaker quite easily while Lindros the better scorer.

 

[newfy]

The “when healthy” crowd for Lindros isn’t wrong that he was dominant, but the same can be said of Forsberg. Of note, both played 13 seasons. Lindros managed to dress in 760 games, amassing 865 points. Forsberg only dressed in 708 games, racking 885 points. I get that just because he was dressed didn’t mean he was healthy (again, same argument can be made for Foppa), but Lindros is a fair bit behind in points per game and both players dragged their careers on after injuries had made them a shell of themselves and lowered their P/PG.

For a guy who was 6” shorter, Forsberg had a pretty massive impact on the game, at both ends of the ice, and especially in the playoffs. It’s a good poll though. Very difficult to pick a side.


For two players with the same number of seasons, similar numbers of games played and total points, from the same era, I will say:

Highest peak season: Forsberg 116pts, Lindros 115

Forsberg 2 +100pt seasons, 2 +90pt seasons, 2+85pt seasons

Lindros 1 +100pt season, 2 +90pt seasons

Couple things to take into consideration.

In the 90s Lindros had 263 goals, Forsberg only 142 (I'm counting 99-00 season for that). 486 games for Lindros, 393 for Forsberg. Lindros was averaging 44 goals per 82 games, Forsberg only 29 goals per 82 games. I went with the 90s just because that was kinda before injuries really derailed these guys bad. A difference of 15 goals a season is significant. At his very best 2-3 seasons, Lindros paces to be a ~55 goal scorer, Forsberg isnt anywhere close.

You also have to take their teams into consideration. Sakic helped take some pressure off of Forsberg, Lindros was the clear number one guy on his team that everyone game planned for and didnt have to split up any defensive help, they would just work on shutting him down. Forsberg clearly had more help around him.

I dont think its necessarily a huge edge, but Lindros was definitely more dominant at his best. Similar overall points but youre getting 25-30 goals from one and 45-55 from the other at their best. Lindros much more dominant physically (Forsberg wasnt a slouch by any means but he wasnt Lindros either). If their places were switched on their teams, it would be an even bigger gap

 

[GoldenSeal]

Gimme Lindros on the ice and lock his parents in a closet.

 

[Samsquanch]

Probably Lindros. 2 of the most overrated players on HF though.

It wasnt just HFboards, these two played an extremely lovable style of hockey for fans that admire physical play, and the hockey media was very much behind these two guys.

Hard to argue against them being incredibly dominant at their absolute peaks.

I would be curious to see how Datsyuk would do in a poll against the guys, who is someone I feel like is actually pretty overrated by Hfboards.

 

[Ben White]

Couple things to take into consideration.

In the 90s Lindros had 263 goals, Forsberg only 142 (I'm counting 99-00 season for that). 486 games for Lindros, 393 for Forsberg. Lindros was averaging 44 goals per 82 games, Forsberg only 29 goals per 82 games. I went with the 90s just because that was kinda before injuries really derailed these guys bad. A difference of 15 goals a season is significant. At his very best 2-3 seasons, Lindros paces to be a ~55 goal scorer, Forsberg isnt anywhere close.

You also have to take their teams into consideration. Sakic helped take some pressure off of Forsberg, Lindros was the clear number one guy on his team that everyone game planned for and didnt have to split up any defensive help, they would just work on shutting him down. Forsberg clearly had more help around him.

I dont think its necessarily a huge edge, but Lindros was definitely more dominant at his best. Similar overall points but youre getting 25-30 goals from one and 45-55 from the other at their best. Lindros much more dominant physically (Forsberg wasnt a slouch by any means but he wasnt Lindros either). If their places were switched on their teams, it would be an even bigger gap

Interesting cherry picking here... why on earth choose the 90’s for both players when Forsberg’s peak was between 2002 playoffs and 2006 mid season injury, when most stats (in context), player polls etc. suggest he was the unanimous best player in the world. Also why put such a high weight on goal scoring when your comparing a shoot first guy to a pure playmaker?

 

[Yuri35]

This is one of, if not the, lamest excuses to say one player is better than another one. Like get serious dude.

According to Wayne Gretzky anyone who has ever played hockey is better then him.

anyone except the ones he played against when he was at his peak...

 

[NYSPORTS]

Oh so you mean just like Forsberg.

Legion of Doom was awesome yet Philly likely should have kept their players including Forsberg. Yes, Forsberg was physical yet Lindros was at a whole different physical and cheap level. (kicking out players feet in a fight, punching a guy when he’s down and the fight is over, etc).

 

[LokiDog]

Couple things to take into consideration.

In the 90s Lindros had 263 goals, Forsberg only 142 (I'm counting 99-00 season for that). 486 games for Lindros, 393 for Forsberg. Lindros was averaging 44 goals per 82 games, Forsberg only 29 goals per 82 games. I went with the 90s just because that was kinda before injuries really derailed these guys bad. A difference of 15 goals a season is significant. At his very best 2-3 seasons, Lindros paces to be a ~55 goal scorer, Forsberg isnt anywhere close.

You also have to take their teams into consideration. Sakic helped take some pressure off of Forsberg, Lindros was the clear number one guy on his team that everyone game planned for and didnt have to split up any defensive help, they would just work on shutting him down. Forsberg clearly had more help around him.

I dont think its necessarily a huge edge, but Lindros was definitely more dominant at his best. Similar overall points but youre getting 25-30 goals from one and 45-55 from the other at their best. Lindros much more dominant physically (Forsberg wasnt a slouch by any means but he wasnt Lindros either). If their places were switched on their teams, it would be an even bigger gap

So in their first 5 seasons Ovechkin had 269 goals (393 games) andd Crosby had 184 (371 games). 40 per 82 for Crosby and 56 per 82 for Ovechkin.

Ovechkin was dominant physically. I’d say Crosby, while physically engaged was nowhere near Ovechkin or Forsberg in that department.

At his best Ovechkin was a 65 goal scorer. Sid had 51, once.

Ovie was the clear #1 guy on his team and Sid had Malkin as well, like Forsberg and Sakic.

Is Ovie considered better than Sid during this span? The consensus has always been that Sid was the best in the world. Ovie was the bigger, more physical player, and probably “the most dominant” in the world.

I know, I know Ovie isn’t “good defensively”. But, like Crosby, Forsberg was consistently in the Selke voting.



It’s funny that in modern times we have almost the same argument between Sid and Ovie, but everyone takes Sid. Talking about prime, first 5-6 years, Ovie was the athletic freak of nature, behemoth, punishing physical player who posted the big goal totals, scored the outrageous, dominant solo effort goals and had less support on his team. Crosby was the smaller, smarter, all around player who played a complete game, scored less goals but more points and played with arguably, the other best center in the league on his team. In the past, apparently, the Ovechkin equivalent wins the argument over the Crosby equivalent, in the present, the Forsberg wins over the Lindros.

The Canadian always wins.


Also, wow. Lindros had 263 goals in 486 games. Ovie has 269 in 393. Unrelated to the argument but pretty crazy.

 

[Iapyi]

anyone except the ones he played against when he was at his peak...

Yeah okay. What a compelling post, not the least bit pointless.

It reeks of the typical European bias against Canadian players in particular and North American players in general.

 

[Iapyi]

So in their first 5 seasons Ovechkin had 269 goals (393 games) andd Crosby had 184 (371 games). 40 per 82 for Crosby and 56 per 82 for Ovechkin.
Ovechkin was dominant physically. I’d say Crosby, while physically engaged was nowhere near Ovechkin or Forsberg in that department.
At his best Ovechkin was a 65 goal scorer. Sid had 51, once.
Ovie was the clear #1 guy on his team and Sid had Malkin as well, like Forsberg and Sakic.
Is Ovie considered better than Sid during this span? The consensus has always been that Sid was the best in the world. Ovie was the bigger, more physical player, and probably “the most dominant” in the world.
I know, I know Ovie isn’t “good defensively”. But, like Crosby, Forsberg was consistently in the Selke voting.It’s funny that in modern times we have almost the same argument between Sid and Ovie, but everyone takes Sid. Talking about prime, first 5-6 years, Ovie was the athletic freak of nature, behemoth, punishing physical player who posted the big goal totals, scored the outrageous, dominant solo effort goals and had less support on his team. Crosby was the smaller, smarter, all around player who played a complete game, scored less goals but more points and played with arguably, the other best center in the league on his team. In the past, apparently, Ovechkin wins the argument, in the present, Crosby does.

The Canadian always wins.


Also, wow. Lindros had 263 goals in 486 games. Ovie has 269 in 393. Unrelated to the argument but pretty crazy.

The thing is we are exceptionally humble about it as well.

Of course the Anti-Canada Crowd likes to poke and jab and slough foot and spear and slash but we just cleanly fight through it and play a complete and clean game.

The similarities between what happens on the ice and what happens on the keyboard are freakally identical.

 

[daver]

So in their first 5 seasons Ovechkin had 269 goals (393 games) andd Crosby had 184 (371 games). 40 per 82 for Crosby and 56 per 82 for Ovechkin.

Ovechkin was dominant physically. I’d say Crosby, while physically engaged was nowhere near Ovechkin or Forsberg in that department.

At his best Ovechkin was a 65 goal scorer. Sid had 51, once.

Ovie was the clear #1 guy on his team and Sid had Malkin as well, like Forsberg and Sakic.

Is Ovie considered better than Sid during this span? The consensus has always been that Sid was the best in the world. Ovie was the bigger, more physical player, and probably “the most dominant” in the world.

I know, I know Ovie isn’t “good defensively”. But, like Crosby, Forsberg was consistently in the Selke voting.



It’s funny that in modern times we have almost the same argument between Sid and Ovie, but everyone takes Sid. Talking about prime, first 5-6 years, Ovie was the athletic freak of nature, behemoth, punishing physical player who posted the big goal totals, scored the outrageous, dominant solo effort goals and had less support on his team. Crosby was the smaller, smarter, all around player who played a complete game, scored less goals but more points and played with arguably, the other best center in the league on his team. In the past, apparently, the Ovechkin equivalent wins the argument over the Crosby equivalent, in the present, the Forsberg wins over the Lindros.

The Canadian always wins.

The better offensive player always wins. The better all around player (physicality, defense, leadership etc...) always wins.

Lindros was better offensively at a younger age than Forsberg.

 

[blundluntman]

Eric Lindros at his peak was a slightly worse playmaking Forsberg with the same (maybe greater) intensity, a bigger frame, and 50 goal potential. Even as an Avs fan I have to go with Big E.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

So in their first 5 seasons Ovechkin had 269 goals (393 games) andd Crosby had 184 (371 games). 40 per 82 for Crosby and 56 per 82 for Ovechkin.

Ovechkin was dominant physically. I’d say Crosby, while physically engaged was nowhere near Ovechkin or Forsberg in that department.

At his best Ovechkin was a 65 goal scorer. Sid had 51, once.

Ovie was the clear #1 guy on his team and Sid had Malkin as well, like Forsberg and Sakic.

Is Ovie considered better than Sid during this span? The consensus has always been that Sid was the best in the world. Ovie was the bigger, more physical player, and probably “the most dominant” in the world.

I know, I know Ovie isn’t “good defensively”. But, like Crosby, Forsberg was consistently in the Selke voting.



It’s funny that in modern times we have almost the same argument between Sid and Ovie, but everyone takes Sid. Talking about prime, first 5-6 years, Ovie was the athletic freak of nature, behemoth, punishing physical player who posted the big goal totals, scored the outrageous, dominant solo effort goals and had less support on his team. Crosby was the smaller, smarter, all around player who played a complete game, scored less goals but more points and played with arguably, the other best center in the league on his team. In the past, apparently, the Ovechkin equivalent wins the argument over the Crosby equivalent, in the present, the Forsberg wins over the Lindros.

The Canadian always wins.


Also, wow. Lindros had 263 goals in 486 games. Ovie has 269 in 393. Unrelated to the argument but pretty crazy.

First 5 years OV was absolutely viewed by the majority as better than Crosby. Media had him ahead in hart voting 4/5 seasons, players had him ahead in lindsay voting 4/5 seasons, stats had him ahead 4/5 seasons. There were obviously the davers and Sidmieuxs floating around, but the majority definitely had OV as the better player and the proof is in the stats, media and player voting (Crosby was healthy for 4/5 of those seasons before anyone pulls the injury excuse).

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Interesting cherry picking here... why on earth choose the 90’s for both players when Forsberg’s peak was between 2002 playoffs and 2006 mid season injury, when most stats (in context), player polls etc. suggest he was the unanimous best player in the world. Also why put such a high weight on goal scoring when your comparing a shoot first guy to a pure playmaker?

Unanimous best player who never won a lindsay lol. Keep holding on to those "player polls" though.

 

[Fig]

Some of you guys are crazy in your evaluations of Lindros.

Objective stats:

Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 300 points (210 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (159), Mario Lemieux (186) and Peter Šťastný (186);

• Fourth-fastest player in NHL history to score 400 points (277 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (197), Mario Lemieux (240) and Peter Šťastný (247);
• Fifth-fastest player in NHL history to score 500 points (352 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (234), Mario Lemieux (287), Peter Šťastný (322) and Mike Bossy (349);
• Sixth-fastest player in NHL history to score 600 points (429 games) behind Wayne Gretzky (273), Mario Lemieux (323), Peter Šťastný (394), Mike Bossy (400) and Jari Kurri (419).

Forsberg didn't accumulate points as fast as Lindros (whose career was also marred by injuries like Lemieux and Forsberg who was even less healthy) and Lindros was a bigger nastier complete prototypical player. Lindros had the higher PPG earlier in his career I believe and dropped way off at the end to Forsberg. There's reasons to choose Forsberg over Lindros in many other comparison threads, but the way OP lined this one up, this should be healthy Lindros in a landslide.

Even with health issues, Lindros has accomplishments like the above that show as a testament of his capabilities. Foppa does not. Preferring a healthy Foppa on your modern team (better suited for modern game without adjustments) over Lindros is a different argument that who is a better player when healthy.

Lindros is the better player when healthy, even if he's not your preferred player.

 

[newfy]

Interesting cherry picking here... why on earth choose the 90’s for both players when Forsberg’s peak was between 2002 playoffs and 2006 mid season injury, when most stats (in context), player polls etc. suggest he was the unanimous best player in the world. Also why put such a high weight on goal scoring when your comparing a shoot first guy to a pure playmaker?

Because they played head to head during that time and injuries hadnt hampered any of them yet. Forsbergs game was at its best then but its pretty hard to get a read on him at all in that time compared to a 6 season pretty much healthy sample. He missed the entire season leading up to the playoffs that year. He had a huge playoff but its a 20 game sample. He had his best season the next year and then didnt have another healthy season in the span youre talking about. Theres literally one full, healthy season (he stilled missed 7 games as well) in that time frame. Take those chunks of Crosbys career where he missed significant time and his numbers appear much better than he could ever produce in an actual season, its hard to give credit for games not played. As for the comparison though, Forsbergs goal scoring was better early in his career so it doesnt make a huge difference in my comparison anyways and is kinda irrelevant to the goal scoring discussion, if anything I kinda helped him by using his peak goal scoring years instead of his best actual seasons.

As for why I would put a huge weight on goals, theres almost 2 assists for every single goal scored. A guy playing on the second bet team of his era racking up a lot of assists shouldnt carry as much weight as the go to guy on his team almost doubling him in goals. Teams need playmakers, but the hardest thing to do in the NHL is put the puck in the net. Lindros did it ridiculously better than Forsberg ever could.

So in their first 5 seasons Ovechkin had 269 goals (393 games) andd Crosby had 184 (371 games). 40 per 82 for Crosby and 56 per 82 for Ovechkin.

Ovechkin was dominant physically. I’d say Crosby, while physically engaged was nowhere near Ovechkin or Forsberg in that department.

At his best Ovechkin was a 65 goal scorer. Sid had 51, once.

Ovie was the clear #1 guy on his team and Sid had Malkin as well, like Forsberg and Sakic.

Is Ovie considered better than Sid during this span? The consensus has always been that Sid was the best in the world. Ovie was the bigger, more physical player, and probably “the most dominant” in the world.

I know, I know Ovie isn’t “good defensively”. But, like Crosby, Forsberg was consistently in the Selke voting.

It’s funny that in modern times we have almost the same argument between Sid and Ovie, but everyone takes Sid. Talking about prime, first 5-6 years, Ovie was the athletic freak of nature, behemoth, punishing physical player who posted the big goal totals, scored the outrageous, dominant solo effort goals and had less support on his team. Crosby was the smaller, smarter, all around player who played a complete game, scored less goals but more points and played with arguably, the other best center in the league on his team. In the past, apparently, the Ovechkin equivalent wins the argument over the Crosby equivalent, in the present, the Forsberg wins over the Lindros.

The Canadian always wins.


Also, wow. Lindros had 263 goals in 486 games. Ovie has 269 in 393. Unrelated to the argument but pretty crazy.

I disagree. Ovie was 100% seen as right there with Sid neck and neck every single season. When Ovechkin put up 65 goals people were saying he had passed Sid. They were seen as close until Ovie all of a sudden hit a wall for a couple seasons. People forget that Ovechkin dropped from 50 goals to 32 goals over one season. That same year Sid got hurt but put up as many goals in half the games. The big lead Ovechkin had was in goal scoring over Crosby and he lost it. Ovechkin then put up a sub 40 goal season and only 65 (!!) points. Crosby and Ovechkin were seen as neck and neck with each other for like half a decade until Ovie shit the bed 2 years in a row. Crosby went on to win Smythes and gold medals and the narrative shifted, but that wasnt how their careers started at all.

As for the defensive player stuff. Lindros was a much more engaged 2 way player than Ovechkin was at that time as well and also more physically dominant. I get where youre coming from with this comparison but I think youre forgetting/omitting some pretty key points to make it seem like everyone is just Canadian biased. Ovechkin slipped up (and Crosby was outproducing him in half seasons hurt) and thats when Ovie stopped being compared with Crosby.

 

[LokiDog]

Because they played head to head during that time and injuries hadnt hampered any of them yet. Forsbergs game was at its best then but its pretty hard to get a read on him at all in that time compared to a 6 season pretty much healthy sample. He missed the entire season leading up to the playoffs that year. He had a huge playoff but its a 20 game sample. He had his best season the next year and then didnt have another healthy season in the span youre talking about. Theres literally one full, healthy season (he stilled missed 7 games as well) in that time frame. Take those chunks of Crosbys career where he missed significant time and his numbers appear much better than he could ever produce in an actual season, its hard to give credit for games not played. As for the comparison though, Forsbergs goal scoring was better early in his career so it doesnt make a huge difference in my comparison anyways and is kinda irrelevant to the goal scoring discussion, if anything I kinda helped him by using his peak goal scoring years instead of his best actual seasons.

As for why I would put a huge weight on goals, theres almost 2 assists for every single goal scored. A guy playing on the second bet team of his era racking up a lot of assists shouldnt carry as much weight as the go to guy on his team almost doubling him in goals. Teams need playmakers, but the hardest thing to do in the NHL is put the puck in the net. Lindros did it ridiculously better than Forsberg ever could.



I disagree. Ovie was 100% seen as right there with Sid neck and neck every single season. When Ovechkin put up 65 goals people were saying he had passed Sid. They were seen as close until Ovie all of a sudden hit a wall for a couple seasons. People forget that Ovechkin dropped from 50 goals to 32 goals over one season. That same year Sid got hurt but put up as many goals in half the games. The big lead Ovechkin had was in goal scoring over Crosby and he lost it. Ovechkin then put up a sub 40 goal season and only 65 (!!) points. Crosby and Ovechkin were seen as neck and neck with each other for like half a decade until Ovie shit the bed 2 years in a row. Crosby went on to win Smythes and gold medals and the narrative shifted, but that wasnt how their careers started at all.

As for the defensive player stuff. Lindros was a much more engaged 2 way player than Ovechkin was at that time as well and also more physically dominant. I get where youre coming from with this comparison but I think youre forgetting/omitting some pretty key points to make it seem like everyone is just Canadian biased. Ovechkin slipped up (and Crosby was outproducing him in half seasons hurt) and thats when Ovie stopped being compared with Crosby.

I don’t recall Ovie ever being given the clear advantage. I remember fierce debates over it season after season, but as far as I remember it (look, we’re going back 10-15 years, cut me some slack) it was always hotly debated and Crosby had the louder supporters. But the point wasn’t to debate Crosby and Ovie at all, just to highlight the similarities. Two phenoms who are peers, from two different generations and they pair up quite similarly. My meaning was that this is probably closer than this poll and many posters are claiming. About as close as arguing peak Ovie versus peak Crosby.

 

[nowhereman]

First 5 years OV was absolutely viewed by the majority as better than Crosby. Media had him ahead in hart voting 4/5 seasons, players had him ahead in lindsay voting 4/5 seasons, stats had him ahead 4/5 seasons. There were obviously the davers and Sidmieuxs floating around, but the majority definitely had OV as the better player and the proof is in the stats, media and player voting (Crosby was healthy for 4/5 of those seasons before anyone pulls the injury excuse).

Not quite.

Although OV had the hardware in his corner, there was plenty of debate over who was the better player and it wasn't just from the fringes. I've been frequenting this site since about 2006 and watched the endless back-and-forth on this board that would disprove the notion that the majority felt OV was the obvious best player. Additionally, most of of the media supported the notion that Crosby was the best player. TSN, ESPN, The Hockey News, Sportsnet, etc. usually had Sid at the top, as did most of the player/coach/GM polls. Many felt that, although OV was the flashier player, Crosby was the better overall player and was seen as premier playoff performer. It essentially became an argument over who was 1A and who was 1B.

As far as I'm concerned, the results are hard to ignore and you have to give OV the nod during that span of time. But it's incorrect to state that it wasn't a hotly contested debate that was quite widely embraced at the time.

Now, back to the debate about Forsberg vs. Lindros

 

[LokiDog]

Not quite.

Although OV had the hardware in his corner, there was plenty of debate over who was the better player and it wasn't just from the fringes. I've been frequenting this site since about 2006 and watched the endless back-and-forth on this board that would disprove the notion that the majority felt OV was the obvious best player. Additionally, most of of the media supported the notion that Crosby was the best player. TSN, ESPN, The Hockey News, Sportsnet, etc. usually had Sid at the top, as did most of the player/coach/GM polls. Many felt that, although OV was the flashier player, Crosby was the better overall player and was seen as premier playoff performer. It essentially became an argument over who was 1A and who was 1B.

As far as I'm concerned, the results are hard to ignore and you have to give OV the nod during that span of time. But it's incorrect to state that it wasn't a hotly contested debate that was quite widely embarrassed at the time.

Now, back to the debate about Forsberg vs. Lindros

Are the two arguments not quite similar?

 

[Lambo]

Peter the great

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

Not quite.

Although OV had the hardware in his corner, there was plenty of debate over who was the better player and it wasn't just from the fringes. I've been frequenting this site since about 2006 and watched the endless back-and-forth on this board that would disprove the notion that the majority felt OV was the obvious best player. Additionally, most of of the media supported the notion that Crosby was the best player. TSN, ESPN, The Hockey News, Sportsnet, etc. usually had Sid at the top, as did most of the player/coach/GM polls. Many felt that, although OV was the flashier player, Crosby was the better overall player and was seen as premier playoff performer. It essentially became an argument over who was 1A and who was 1B.

As far as I'm concerned, the results are hard to ignore and you have to give OV the nod during that span of time. But it's incorrect to state that it wasn't a hotly contested debate that was quite widely embarrassed at the time.

Now, back to the debate about Forsberg vs. Lindros

05/06-09/10
Ovechkin--Crosby

Hart: 2--1
Finalist: 3--1

Lindsay: 3--1
Finalist: 4--2

Media and especially the players clearly had OV ahead.

Anyways, we are going off topic lol.

 

[Yuri35]

Eric Lindros at his peak was a slightly worse playmaking Forsberg with the same (maybe greater) intensity, a bigger frame, and 50 goal potential. Even as an Avs fan I have to go with Big E.

lool

 

[daver]

As for why I would put a huge weight on goals, theres almost 2 assists for every single goal scored. A guy playing on the second bet team of his era racking up a lot of assists shouldnt carry as much weight as the go to guy on his team almost doubling him in goals. Teams need playmakers, but the hardest thing to do in the NHL is put the puck in the net. Lindros did it ridiculously better than Forsberg ever could.

Forsberg increased his goalscoring noticeably in the playoffs.

During Lindros' playoff peak, Forsberg was as good a goalscorer. NHL.com Stats

 

[blundluntman]

lool

Okay fair lol, Forsberg was definitely better. Lindros was able to rack up assists too though.