Eric Lindros vs Peter Forsberg

Better player?

  • Eric Lindros

    Votes: 85 43.1%
  • Peter Forsberg

    Votes: 112 56.9%

  • Total voters
    197
Status
Not open for further replies.

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,967
5,835
Visit site
Lindros had Top Ten all-time talent, Forsberg had Top 20 talent. I am more sure that Forsberg would have reached the Top 20 if not for injuries than Lindros reaching the Top Ten.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Plural

bathdog

Registered User
Oct 27, 2016
920
157
Peak, prime, career, potentially how things could have played out injury free?

As played out, it's Forsberg for me. Lindros physical abilities are among the best ever though.
 

JackSlater

Registered User
Apr 27, 2010
18,100
12,754
Both great, I think that Lindros at his best was a bit better than Forsberg at his best, but I'm going with Forsberg for actually doing more.
 

sr edler

gold is not reality
Mar 20, 2010
11,905
6,346
Lindros was a better shooter and goalscorer but Forsberg was a better playmaker. I personally would go with Forsberg because he always felt like a smarter and more adaptable player.
 

daver

Registered User
Apr 4, 2003
25,967
5,835
Visit site
At their absolute best it's Lindros. Had it not been for injuries (yes I'm aware it comes with the territory of his play style) we might be talking about a Big 5

I don't see Lindros reaching the offensive heights that some of the best of the non-Big 4 players reached. I think his best would have put him in the conversation for the #5 player but think his career worked as it was destined to for the most part.
 

bobholly39

Registered User
Mar 10, 2013
22,320
15,018
At their absolute best it's Lindros. Had it not been for injuries (yes I'm aware it comes with the territory of his play style) we might be talking about a Big 5

I've never felt that Lindros is the type of player with the drive to make it that far.

Look at Crosby. Insane compete level. Wants to win at every level, leader, etc. You need some of that stuff to make a big 5 and Lindros is lacking.

With no injuries he would have made it far but not top 5.
 

Unspecified

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Apr 29, 2015
6,115
2,987
Not a hard decision.. Lindros. In his prime he was arguable the best player in the NHL and if not for his injuries he could easily been in the top 5 players of all time.
 

GlitchMarner

Typical malevolent, devious & vile Maple Leafs fan
Jul 21, 2017
9,962
6,689
Brampton, ON
For the playoffs, I think I'd rather have Forsberg in his prime than prime Lindros.

Big E played in three playoffs through 1997 and scored 53 points in 43 games in those playoffs, averaging of 1.23 points per game. Lindros was a combined +13 in his first three playoffs.

Forsberg played in 151 games in the playoffs in his career and scored 171 points in those games, averaging 1.13 points per game. Forsberg had a career +54 rating in the playoffs.

That's a difference of just .10 points per game despite the fact the Forsberg played more than three times as many games in the playoffs as Lindros did up to 1997 and despite scoring the fact that the NHL was a higher scoring League in 1995 and 1996 than it has been since 1996 (though the scoring rate was slightly higher in '06 than in '95).

Presumably, Lindros was healthy during those first three playoffs. He certainly was in his prime and not damaged goods during them anyway. Forsberg did have the luxury of having Sakic on his team, but I'd still want him instead for the post season.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JFG

Nick Hansen

Registered User
Sep 28, 2017
3,122
2,652
Lindros was a better shooter and goalscorer but Forsberg was a better playmaker. I personally would go with Forsberg because he always felt like a smarter and more adaptable player.

That's my feeling too. Forsberg was still great after the lockout despite skating on only one leg. When Lindros couldn't be that menacing beast because of the concussions, he just wasn't the same impact player. A lot of his game was built on that crushing power.

With regards to goalscoring, I agree that Lindros was better but Forsberg had a really good shot that he really didn't utilize enough. Very accurate.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,382
19,230
w/ Renly's Peach
Lindros was an absolute bull that was insanely hard to handle, but Foppa was more varied, he could overpower Hatcher and he could outskill Lidstrom. Plus he had the much better defensive game and that ridiculous playoff resume.

Two players who's body's just couldn't handle their playing style. So I'm homer voting.
 

blundluntman

Registered User
Jul 30, 2016
2,653
2,846
I've never felt that Lindros is the type of player with the drive to make it that far.

Look at Crosby. Insane compete level. Wants to win at every level, leader, etc. You need some of that stuff to make a big 5 and Lindros is lacking.

With no injuries he would have made it far but not top 5.

Fair point for sure. I suppose it's better to say as far as tools go, he's one of the most gifted players in league history. But you're right that doesn't guarantee that level of success.
 

authentic

Registered User
Jan 28, 2015
25,903
10,962
Both absolute beasts, but I'm lying to myself if I don't take Peter. The playoffs is where he separated himself, and he still ended up having a better regular season career anyway with similar overall dominance at his best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad