Fish on The Sand
Untouchable
the 99 pens were something like 5-20 in games he missed, but still made the playoffs behind another scoring title for Jagr.Toadliquor said:
Jagr vs Forsberg
- Thread starter ForsbergForever
- Start date
- Status
He never did. It wasn't his style of playing the game as it is not the style of Jagr's as well. Moreover he has always been relatively slow. But there wouldn't be so much scrutiny into his game because he is canadian.There is a stupid notion that if the player does not check hard or do not run like an idiot on the ice he is lazy. I call it being smart and intelligent. Intelligent players do that to preserve energy and do what they do best - think ahead of everyone, that's what Jagr and all greats can and could do. Fosrberg is included of course, but his style of playing the game is different. Though I have never seen him running around ever. Because he is as smart.Kaizer said:Do you want to provide the link with Mario destroying anyone or Sakic or Yzerman ?Just interesting
Kaizer
Registered User
revolverjgw
Registered User
Forsberg supplies comparable amounts of offense to Jagr (better PPG in the playoffs), Tocchet didn't. Jagr >>> Tocchet.
Forsberg's superior physical game and defense is just an ''icing on the cake'' kind of thing. If you got one guy that puts up 1.5 points per game and can knock you on your butt and take the puck away from you, he'll have more effect on a game than a guy that puts up 1.5 points per game but floats around the ice not hitting anyone.
Special passes are given to wimps like Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, because they put up insane amounts of offense, nobody could compete. But when you got two guys that put up similar numbers... why NOT take the tougher guy?
(of course, the rough and tough guy is more likely to get injured... life just ain't fair sometimes!
)
Rogalo
Registered User
Dude trust me. Do not compare Mario to Jagr. There were cases when Mario had radiation treatment in the morning and was on the ice in the evening. Played with broken hand and kept leading his team in scoring and on the bench and so on. Please do not go there.Kaizer said:Do you want to provide the link with Mario destroying anyone or Sakic or Yzerman ?
Sakic is a no but Yzerman? Yzerman plays physical especially in playoffs. I do not think he destroyed anyone on the ice but he definitely threw his body around good work in the corners. Both man give up 30-35lbs to Jagr.
I was not even asking for Scott Stevens type of hit. I simply haven't seen Jagr to deliver a hit. Any type of hit or check or anything in regular season game or playoffs. Jagr is the best RW all time in the world IMO but when it comes to playoffs I'd rather have Forsberg or Yzerman or Mario.
Style or not style. I didn’t see this man get frustrated and start something, throw a useless check, push some one or put your hands up, grab someone on the face in the huddle. It might be useless but when your captain does that the team follows, guys get angry and pissed off, it’s energy, you can not wait to get on the ice and do some damage, any kind of damage. If you do not know that you haven’t played one game of hockey. Enjoy your couch and your Bud.
Done talking to you.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kaizer
Registered User
Ok, thanks for sharing your thoughts about their style of play. I apreciate itRUS said:
but maybe you have something to say about my question ? 
revolverjgw
Registered User
Forsberg has missed only a handful of playoff games, barring that time when an organ inside him was ready to explode. Forsberg is ALWAYS good to go come playoff time, no matter how hurt he is. And the teammate thing is so such a desperate crutch. Jagr didn't suddenly put up more points in Washington when he had superstars like Bondra, Oates and Gonchar, he put up far less. You don't just take a guy and plug him in with great teammates and BAM, instant boost in points, the real world doesn't work like that. It didn't work like that for Jagr.
And Forsberg gets away from Sakic and suddenly his PPG shoots up and he turns a guy that had 44 points the year before into the league's leading goal scorer. Forsberg and Jagr don't need great teammates, they dominate singularly and make their teammates look way better than they are.
1- Jagr put up bigger numbers with Mario and Francis. So you can never know how many points he would have put with some all star teammates, but you can bet it'd be even higher than with Hrdina and Miller.revolverjgw said:
2- He still put up over a point a game in Washington.
3- Jagr's ONLY bad playoff year was 2001. Other than that, he was always dominant in the playoffs, with inspiring performances and a real one man force.
revolverjgw
Registered User
Mario is a special case. Your points would spike up when you played with him no matter who you were and how you were playing. Normal stars, that's a different story. I saw with mine own two eyes, Jagr's points plummet when he got on a team with a handful of legit star scorers. Could he have put up more points if he was with a DIFFERENT group of star scorers? Maybe, but you don't get that many chances in hockey and the ''what-if'' game is lame. All I know is, that bet you alluded to is not one I'd be comfortable taking, and there's plenty of proof to suggest the teammate argument is tired and massively flawed.
It's not massively flawed.
You ignore the fact Jagr's best numbers were on a loaded team.
Mario's best numbers were on loaded teams.
Gretzky's best numbers were on loaded teams.
etc...etc...etc...
Really it doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to see that you have a better chance at getting a point when you pass to Joe Sakic than Kip Miller.
You have better chance at getting points when the defenses have to focus on many players than on opne single player.
What you completely miss is that what makes Jagr so special is the fact that teams were preparing to stop him, and he was the only target. And yet they couldn't. They didn't manage to contain him.
There's no disputing the fact Jagr had a two years hole in his career, starting with the 2001 playoffs until he joined the Rangers.
All the Forsberg apologists or Jagr haters cling to these two years either because they're too young to know hockey, or because they hope blind arguments will convince the others.
Jagr has dominated hockey in a 4-5 years span like VERY FEW others have done before him (99, 66, Orr, Howe and Richard, that's it). He was EASILY the top player in the game, head and shoulders above any other player. Nobody was even close.
The north american media got tired and gave an undeserved Hart trophy to Pronger (while the players gave the Pearson to Jagr), but the fact remains that it was a one man game at the time.
You ignore the fact Jagr's best numbers were on a loaded team.
Mario's best numbers were on loaded teams.
Gretzky's best numbers were on loaded teams.
etc...etc...etc...
Really it doesn't take a whole lot of thinking to see that you have a better chance at getting a point when you pass to Joe Sakic than Kip Miller.
You have better chance at getting points when the defenses have to focus on many players than on opne single player.
What you completely miss is that what makes Jagr so special is the fact that teams were preparing to stop him, and he was the only target. And yet they couldn't. They didn't manage to contain him.
There's no disputing the fact Jagr had a two years hole in his career, starting with the 2001 playoffs until he joined the Rangers.
All the Forsberg apologists or Jagr haters cling to these two years either because they're too young to know hockey, or because they hope blind arguments will convince the others.
Jagr has dominated hockey in a 4-5 years span like VERY FEW others have done before him (99, 66, Orr, Howe and Richard, that's it). He was EASILY the top player in the game, head and shoulders above any other player. Nobody was even close.
The north american media got tired and gave an undeserved Hart trophy to Pronger (while the players gave the Pearson to Jagr), but the fact remains that it was a one man game at the time.
revolverjgw
Registered User
I'm not ignoring that, I'm just considering other factors that go against this logic. Why didn't Jagr's numbers go up when he joined a Caps team with great players coming off two strong years? Aren't teammates supposed to equal points? Why have Forsberg's numbers only gone UP after leaving the safety of Sakic's shadow? I suppose opposing checkers are too busy worred about Michael Handzus and a couple of rookies to bother with Forsberg?
OBVIOUSLY it CAN be easier to put up points when you're on a better team, but by no means is it guaranteed that you're going to put up more points if you're given better teammates, or that you'll put up less if you have great teammates taken away from you. Hence, the teammate argument is very flawed.
(and actually, I don't think Jagr's best seasons were a result of loaded teams... the key was LEMIEUX, he put up 150 points because of LEMIEUX. But his 120 point seasons are even more impressive to me, because he was the man and it was the dead-puck era. He put up 120 points in an era where it was extremely hard to do so, and he didn't do it on loaded teams)
Again, why didn't Jagr's numbers go up when he was passing to guys better than Kip Miller? He wasn't the only scorer to target in Washington, and his numbers didn't go up. Cite the Mario Lemieux years all you want, but you'd just be doing what you're accusing me of doing, ignoring a chunk of time that goes against that logic.
It would be very naive to ignore those years in Washington and just focus just on those amazing Mario-less years in Pittsburgh when he never even got past round 2. Those three Washington years are important. They answered questions people are always asking, like ''what if Jagr had better teammates''? ''What if Jagr wasn't the only target''? Well, we got something closely resembling answers, and I thought they were pretty interesting.
revolverjgw
Registered User
revolverjgw said:
And you still come back to these two years in Washington.
Have you read what I've wrote?
And are you HONESTLY comaring this year's NHL to the previous years (Forsberg putting up more points)?
You have to be kidding!
It would be naive to focus on 11 of Jagr's 13 NHL seasons?
I think it's pretty naive to focus on the two years he was seemingly uninterested.
Bottom line :
- when Jagr was on an allstar team, he put up number Forsberg couldn't dream of. Undeniable #1.
- when Jagr was on a pitiful team, he still put up better numbers than Forsberg. Undeniable #2
- he "only" averaged over a point a game in Washington as he was seemingly uninterested in hockey at that point. Undeniable #3
- Jagr played through injuries and was fit enough to produce even when injured. Undeniable #4
- Jagr was a playoff force all his career except for the 2001 post season. Undeniable #5
If after these 5 points you can't see how superior Jagr is, I can't help you.
You coming back to these two years in Washington ressembles the lone pitiful argument short memories fans try to use when they want to downplay Jagr without the slightest notion of what a great player is.
Jagr is of the race of the greatest players in NHL history. Forsberg is far, far from it.
revolverjgw
Registered User
I've read it, but you're being every bit as stubborn and narrow focused as you say I am, haha. Man we make a good pair. You keep trying to get away from Washington, I gotta keep bringing it up because I think it matters more than you do. You keep asking ''what if Jagr had somebody else on his team other than Kip Miller and Danny DeVito''. The answer, or at least part of it, is right there in Washington. And it doesn't matter if he was disinterested or bored or whatever. This isn't NHL 2K6, you can't mix and match until you get things the way you like. Jagr always has to have his ''clique'', whereas I like guys that can click with anyone and will not get ''disinterested''. Weird, I know...
Why not? Higher scoring or not, it doesn't matter, because relatively speaking, he's still easily leading the NHL in PPG, and he doesn't have Sakic or Hejduk. He hasn't fell at all, he's right where he usually is, making a decent scorer look amazing, and dominating the PPG race. What's wrong with citing that? He lost Sakic, who was supposedly Peter's meal-ticket, drawing the best defenders. So why hasn't he dropped to, I dunno, 10th in scoring or something? Don't teammates make the man? He's still the most productive player in the league on a per-game basis.
And I concede, Jagr was super in Pittsburgh. I've stated that again and again and again in my previous posts. Jagr was awesome, dominated games by himself, etc. But I can only extract so much data from those years. I mean, he scored a lot of regular season points and a bunch of playoff points, but at the end of the day he never led them past the 2nd round (Lemieux/Hedberg did in 2001 though). A big part of that lack of success was the Penguins being a pretty ordinary team for the duration. What I wanted to know during those unsuccessful Pittsburgh years is ''how would he fare on a better team with some stars? What kind of teammate would he be? How would he affect the chemistry and morale on a different team? What would he do in a playoff run that lasted more than three rounds''?
I got my answers. Am I saying that the Washington years prove he wasn't a great player? Not at all, I've never said anything like that. I don't see why you keep saying I'm ignoring his Pittsburgh years. He was awesome, I keep saying that over and over again. This isn't about denying that Jagr was/is bodacious, it's about showing why I think he was/is a LITTLE BIT less bodacious than Forsberg. When I examine Forsberg's career, it's a little less checkered. That's the deal breaker for me.
You're right, in a way. Mostly because of injury, Forsberg's regular season numbers are severely stunted. But Forsberg has a very comparable PPG and a comfortably superior playoff PPG. Jagr has done nothing in the postseason to separate him from Forsberg. Forsberg doesn't have to ''dream'' about matching Jagr's playoff production, he's done it and then some.
(and played tougher and with superior defense while doing it but that's neither here nor there, since with Jagr, points are the only thing that matters, right?)
? Define ''pitiful''. Jagr never played on pitiful teams, they were merely ordinary. And even in the WORST situations, he was always playing with guys that had put up points before landing in Pittsburgh or put up lots of points after leaving. Alexei Kovalev matched him point for point in the '99 playoffs and Straka outscored him (albeit in a few more games). So Jagr was never ''alone''. Alexander Ovechkin is an example of a guy that is dominating with no help whatsoever, not Jagr.
Pittsburgh usually had a horrible blueline, but they ALWAYS had very talented forwards that could play with Jagr and help him put up numbers.
It's pretty depressing that ''disinterest'' is being used almost to defend him and justify his sub-par play. I can't think of any other hockey great that ever succumbed to that.
Agreed. Except for 2001, he was always a beast. Forsberg played through a myriad of injures, too. They're similar in that way.
Agreed. But so was Forsberg (and without exception).
Yeah, definitely the latter. If anything, it just demonstrates how comparable these two superstars are.
Jagr is a great player and was awesome in Pittsburgh, I've said it again and again. This isn't about me trying to deny that. The topic is ''Forsberg vs Jagr'', not ''Jagr, was he awesome or was he just OK''? There's no shame in finishing second to Forsberg (in my mind). I think it's really close.
See, now that's just blatant hyperbole. What has Jagr done in the playoffs to separate himself substantially from Forsberg? Nuthin', ever. As far as the ''who's the better player'' goes, it IS close, very close. In fact, I remember somebody here posting a carefully researched study of the NHL's all-time most dominant regular season scorers, with era-adjustments and whatnot. Jaromir Jagr finished very high, and just a few places below him, was one Peter Forsberg.
(keep in mind the list was just based on raw stats,and it didn't factor in defensive and physical play, which Forsberg has clear advantages in, ho ho, or the playoffs)
As far as the NHL is concerned, Jagr and Forsberg are both among the best/most dominant players ever. They're both in the same group of elite players and neither has done anything in the post-season to pull signifigantly ahead of the other. I think it's strange that you're arguing that it's not close. I'm not saying silly things like ''FORSBERG IS BETTER THAN JA-GIRL, HANDS DOWN!''. I recognize why this is such a popular debate... because these two players are very comparable. There's plenty of evidence to suggest that.
Playoff PPG
Jagr- 1.05
Forsberg- 1.16
I'm not saying those numbers prove Forsberg is better than Jagr, but don't you think it illustrates that maybe, just maybe, they might be pretty close?
Note- Jagr has obviously had the better regular season career, Forsberg's been snakebitten. But he misses very few playoff games, unless he suffers a freak accident. In regular season hockey pool terms, Jagr is way more valuable than Forsberg, it's no contest.
Anyway, look, I gotta start limiting my participation in this topic. Sometimes I enjoy internet debates way too much. It's been fun and certainly you're a better debater than Pens1566... at least you didn't repeatedly quote me out of context or something stupid like that. But we're clearly on different wavelengths, value different things, and we're way too stubborn, it's the irresistable force vs the immoveable object. And I have stuff to do. You can get the last word in, I want this to be my last big post in this topic.
But one last thing... I'd take Joe Sakic and Steve Yzerman over Jagr... do you think I'm being silly?
Last edited:
Two last things.revolverjgw said:
First : scratch the 2001 playoffs (again, I'm not denying Jagr was not himself) and Jagr's playoff's PPG average goes WAY up.
And on the last thing. Yzerman I could understand, Sakic no way.
Jagr>Forsberg>Sakic
Well its hard to compare Forsberg with Sakic so lets not involve Sakic in here cause it would just make the debate even more complicated.
I'll always remember Peter Forsberg skipping out the 2001-2002 season and coming back just for the playoffs and putting up 27 points in 20 games.
tom_servo
Registered User
Jordoe28 said:
Tugnutt was traded from Ottawa, with Janne Laukkanen, for a just-about-washed-up Tom Barrasso.
His success with the Pens in the playoffs that season was a surprise.
The Pens never had the defense, nor the goaltending, to make a serious run while Jagr was the team's top player.
Vyruz Reaper
Registered User
Dark Metamorphosis said:
then explain to me how lindros is not on this list. Eric played similar to forsberg, but he was way more physical
- Status
