Eric Lindros vs Peter Forsberg

[cgf]

That specific category is unquestionably Lindros. Forsberg was quite physical for a skill player. Lindros was probably the most physical player in the NHL and much bigger than Forsberg.

In general yeah, but a pissed of Forsberg was able to just bully some of those ogres that used to "play defense" to. I think that difference in frame is a big part of why Lindros brought that bull-in-a-china-shop mentality on every shift while forsberg turned it off & on when needed. But at their burliest? I have a tough time saying Lindros was definitively more physical.

...though my dog is named Peter, so I'm less than impartial in this conversation...

 

[JackSlater]

In general yeah, but a pissed of Forsberg was able to just bully some of those ogres that used to "play defense" to. I think that difference in frame is a big part of why Lindros brought that bull-in-a-china-shop mentality on every shift while forsberg turned it off & on when needed. But at their burliest? I have a tough time saying Lindros was definitively more physical.

...though my dog is named Peter, so I'm less than impartial in this conversation...

You can like Forsberg all you want. He's most likely the better player between the two. There is no case that he was a more physical player than Lindros though. None. He wasn't as big as Lindros, as strong as Lindros or as mean as Lindros. Prime Lindros is the most physical player in the last several decades. He was huge, aggressive and (to his detriment) rarely picked his spots. Forsberg may belong to the category of physical playmaking centres like Getzlaf or Trottier, but Lindros was a different kind of beast.

 

[authentic]

You can like Forsberg all you want. He's most likely the better player between the two. There is no case that he was a more physical player than Lindros though. None. He wasn't as big as Lindros, as strong as Lindros or as mean as Lindros. Prime Lindros is the most physical player in the last several decades. He was huge, aggressive and (to his detriment) rarely picked his spots. Forsberg may belong to the category of physical playmaking centres like Getzlaf or Trottier, but Lindros was a different kind of beast.

Forsberg was more punishing than Getzlaf, Trottier not so sure about. Lindros was just more wreckless and like you say much bigger and stronger. One thing that amazed me about Forsberg was his ability to lay out punishing body checks in an upright stance to huge players while maintaining perfect balance, something he definitely did better than Lindros or anyone else I can recall for that matter.

 

[Thenameless]

Forsberg had the better career but lindros was "better"

Bingo.

 

[Thenameless]

The correct answer to the poll is Lindros. He was the better player. Forsberg had a better career.

 

[authentic]

The correct answer to the poll is Lindros. He was the better player. Forsberg had a better career.

This always seems like a bit of a cop out to me when it's simply stated as fact. As mentioned already in this thread their careers basically overlapped entirely except Lindros' first 2 seasons and Forsberg was the better player from his 3rd or 4th season on. I also don't think the injury excuse bodes well for Eric considering Forsberg dealt with a few concussions himself and a whole whack of other injuries.

Forsberg has the best full season of either player, the best playoff run, comparable half-three quarter season stretches, and a better overall regular season and playoff resume. Lindros was bigger, more physically punishing, was better on faceoffs, fought people (those aren't really very big factors anyway) and was a better goal scorer. Every other conceivable hockey skill, including hockey sense and defensive play are in Forsberg's favour on top of it all.

 

[Thenameless]

This always seems like a bit of a cop out to me when it's simply stated as fact. As mentioned already in this thread their careers basically overlapped entirely except Lindros' first 2 seasons and Forsberg was the better player from his 3rd or 4th season on. I also don't think the injury excuse bodes well for Eric considering Forsberg dealt with a few concussions himself and a whole whack of other injuries.

It's certainly more of an opinion thing than actual fact, but when I try to look at the two objectively, Lindros checks off the more important boxes of how "better" would be defined for me. Overall offensive talent goes to Lindros with a definitive albeit not large gap. Forsberg gets the nod on the defensive end, which is less important for me. Lindros takes the physical/intimidation side of the game, and you can put whatever value you want on that.

I don't want to diminish Forsberg's game in any way, but he had a nicer situation playing 1A/1B center with Sakic. The same type of benefits that Gretzky/Messier, Lemieux/Francis, Yzerman/Fedorov, and Crosby/Malkin (all Cup winning tandems) had. Lindros and the Flyers were a one line team with the Legion of Doom, and it's not so easy to win that way.

 

[authentic]

It's certainly more of an opinion thing than actual fact, but when I try to look at the two objectively, Lindros checks off the more important boxes of how "better" would be defined for me. Overall offensive talent goes to Lindros with a definitive albeit not large gap. Forsberg gets the nod on the defensive end, which is less important for me. Lindros takes the physical/intimidation side of the game, and you can put whatever value you want on that.

I don't want to diminish Forsberg's game in any way, but he had a nicer situation playing 1A/1B center with Sakic. The same type of benefits that Gretzky/Messier, Lemieux/Francis, Yzerman/Fedorov, and Crosby/Malkin (all Cup winning tandems) had. Lindros and the Flyers were a one line team with the Legion of Doom, and it's not so easy to win that way.

I believe they were very close offensively, but yeah I respect this reasoning.

 

[Thenameless]

I believe they were very close offensively, but yeah I respect this reasoning.

They were very close offensively career wise with Forsberg ahead by 20 points in total. Lindros' scoring is more heavily tilted towards goal scoring than assists.

What I remember most about Forsberg was puck possession. It was very hard to take it away from him. Like Crosby, he combines his talent with the ability to grind it out in the corners. Very strong on his skates too - almost never got knocked down or knocked off of the puck.

Lindros was a very different animal. He definitely looked to score more goals on his own. What I like most about him though was the dichotomy of being a bull in a china shop, with super soft hands and at times an almost otherworldly hockey sense. He couldn't do it as often as Gretzky and Lemieux, but sometimes Lindros would make plays that could really "wow" the viewer.

I sometimes wonder what kind of a dynasty Quebec/Colorado would have been with Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros (no Forsberg and Roy in this scenario). It should be noted that at different times in their careers, Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros all led their respective teams in scoring during the regular season - just imagine if all of these guys had stayed together on the one team.

 

[psycat]

I prefer Forsberg but it's basically a toss up.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

At their absolute best Lindros is slightly ahead for me. Career is obviously Forsberg.

 

[al secord]

In their prime, I take Lindros. Body of work, Forsberg.

 

[bauer]

peak Lindros was slightly better, but Forsberg had the better career.

 

[Luigi Lemieux]

Lindros had the potential to be better, but Forsberg was better. Lindros didn't play in nearly enough big games to build any kind of legacy.

 

[quoipourquoi]

I sometimes wonder what kind of a dynasty Quebec/Colorado would have been with Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros (no Forsberg and Roy in this scenario). It should be noted that at different times in their careers, Sakic, Sundin, Nolan, and Lindros all led their respective teams in scoring during the regular season - just imagine if all of these guys had stayed together on the one team.

I don't think Colorado (or Quebec) becomes a dynasty if they're missing out on Claude Lemieux, Mike Ricci, Patrick Roy, Peter Forsberg, Sandis Ozolinsh. In fact, I think that would make Detroit the dynasty. But it sure would make the East a lot more competitive from 1995-2004.

 

[PatrikBerglund]

Forsberg.

Better ppg
Better defensively

Better internationally

Simply better.

 

[Steve]

Forsberg had the better career but lindros was "better"

This

Lindros was a full tier above Forsberg but his career was derailed by injuries. Forsberg has the better career no question.

 

[Thenameless]

I don't think Colorado (or Quebec) becomes a dynasty if they're missing out on Claude Lemieux, Mike Ricci, Patrick Roy, Peter Forsberg, Sandis Ozolinsh. In fact, I think that would make Detroit the dynasty. But it sure would make the East a lot more competitive from 1995-2004.

Don't forget though that you're only "starting" with that core of 4 stars. I'm sure that with that kind of star power they would have been able to pick up good role players like Claude Lemieux and Mike Ricci and an offensive defenseman like Ozolinsh. Admittedly, if they don't actually get Patrick Roy, then unless they end up with Hasek, they will have an inferior netminder. Still, that kind of firepower up front makes up for a lot of sins.

 

[KoozNetsOff 92]

This

Lindros was a full tier above Forsberg but his career was derailed by injuries. Forsberg has the better career no question.

Are you talking about Filip Forsberg? Because Lindros was definitely not a tier above Peter Forsberg.

 

[Plural]

Foppa. Offensively speaking, they were close. Lindros scored more but Foppa had better dishing skills. Physically Lindros has the edge but Foppa was more resilient. Defensively it's a small edge to Foppa. Playoffs? All Forsberg.

 

[Steve]

Are you talking about Filip Forsberg? Because Lindros was definitely not a tier above Peter Forsberg.

IMO lindros, in his brief prime, was the best player in the world. Lindros couldn’t stay healthy and as a result Forsberg had the better career but Lindros was unstoppable imo. Just my opinion and this is no slight to Forsberg who was an exceptional player.

 

[tucker3434]

Peak: Lindros
Career: Forsberg

Voted Forsberg because Lindros just didn’t have enough peak time.

 

[DDRhockey]

Is this a joke? People are excusing Lindros for Injuries when Peter Forsberg had over 20 surgeries in his career.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lindros was the better player but Forsberg had the better career.

 

[Nick Hansen]

Is this a joke? People are excusing Lindros for Injuries when Peter Forsberg had over 20 surgeries in his career.

They played roughly the same amount of games. The difference is that when Lindros had to be more wary of what he was doing on the ice because another concussion could literally ruin his life, he wasn't the same force any more. Forsberg had a more cerebral style of play (even if he also was very physical) and while he was injured a lot, it is another thing than banging your head too much. So he could still play like he usually did, for the most part.