Discussion in 'National Hockey League Talk' started by delled, Sep 29, 2018.
Would he maintain his physicality?
At his peak (Hart Trophy) and his insane playoff runs.. He was comparable to Crosby.
Especially stylistically. They play very similar games.
Top notch hockey IQ. Very strong on his skates.
His style would easily be just as effective in today’s game as it was in his playing days.
Think Claude Giroux but much better in both ends of the ice
He'd perform well.
He'd find a way to win basically, insane winning mentality and stubborn as a mule
Less clutching and grabbing = less stamina drain. He'd do just fine.
Has the game gotten faster? Yes, but it's a narrative that's being exaggerated. In today's NHL, we've seen a 36 year old Joe Thornton be a PPG player, and a 43-44 year old Jaromir Jagr put up 66 points. Matt Cullen, who turns 42 in a month, is still keeping up. I think he has 3 or 4 goals this preseason. There's no reason why a prime Peter Forsberg, who's game was never built around speed in the first place, would not be widely successful in today's NHL.
Ten straight Hart Trophies.
80-90 point player in this league.
i'd say more. in my opinion, he would be 1b in the whole league second only to mcdavid, but close
Nah, Malkin is a rich man's Forsberg
Nah, Forsberg is a rich man's Malkin
Forsberg was a much better skater IMO.
They don't make them like Forsberg anymore.
I would pay to watch what he does to outsmart this one-gear league. I bet he would slow the game down a lot. He had his own very unique rhythm.
Not sure about the physicality. But he would definitely be one of the three best players in the game. Maybe the best.
If he is playing and clutching, grabbing, and interference are called as penalties, he would have the puck seemingly the entire game.
He really was. When his spleen was removed he was demanding to play the very next day (IIRC). His desire to compete and win was something I've never seen before.
They don't really play alike. Geno is better goalscorer and Foppa was better playmaker and defensive player. Forsberg also played more physical.
Malkin, Crosby and Ovechkin were better in their prime/peaks and are maybe still better. McDavid is definitely better now, so I would say 3rd-5th somewhere. I see him as a better Getzlaf, or a poor mans Malkin imo.
Jagr is the only one of the late 90's/early 00's stars that are relevant at the top of the all time rankings. (defencemen/goalies excluded)
That's a possibility, but also take into account how much more tenacious he was than 99% of the 90 point getters in this league today. He'd be a much bigger monster than the stats tell.
Forsberg was much more physical.
If by that you mean that Malkin is richer than Forsberg, then perhaps you're right.
Neither of those players are good comparisons IMO. The closest player to Forsberg these days stylistically is Crosby. It still isn't a great comparison but their body type and size both build/built their game around lower body strength.
The things Forsberg was great at would make him successful in any era of hockey, past or present. I don't really even understand the question. Of course he would succeed in today's league. What that means exactly in terms of points or ranking is anyone's guess, but it'd be at the top of the league for sure.
Yeah, Forsberg being a physical freak wouldn’t be a bad thing in any era. A better question would be how would a guy like Gaudreau have fared 15-20 years ago.
Separate names with a comma.