Joe Sakic or Sergei Fedorov?

[Hasbro]

et's also not under estimate what a headache Feds could be. Especially after Pornakova got her hands on him.

 

[Avsfanftw]

The guy who won my team 2 stanley cups.

 

[seventieslord]

for me, the surprise vote is overpass picking Fedorov. I'd be interested in hearing why.

 

[overpass]

for me, the surprise vote is overpass picking Fedorov. I'd be interested in hearing why.

Well...it's close. And I might be a little contrarian on this. It's certainly not hard to make a case for Sakic, and I won't say that it's wrong. But I'd take Fedorov.

In the mid to late 90s and into the early 00s, the Western conference had some great teams led by great centres. Detroit had Fedorov and Yzerman. Colorado had Forsberg and Sakic. Dallas had Modano and Nieuwendyk. Fedorov was arguably the best of them all.

In the playoffs, Fedorov was Scotty Bowman's go-to guy for the tough matchup in every series. He was the most important player on Detroit's team. He went up against Forsberg, Modano, and the other top forwards on opposing teams. And he usually won those battles. In 1997, he beat Peter Forsberg in a playoff series head-to-head like nobody else has ever done.

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

Playoffs, 1995-2002:

Peter Forsberg: +38 in 115 GP
Sergei Fedorov: +35 in 126 GP
Steve Yzerman: +12 in 127 GP
Joe Sakic: +8 in 129 GP

and Forsberg and Fedorov faced tougher competition (including each other).

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I'm always changing my mind on who was better in their primes. Most people think Fedorov had the best year of the two, but Sakic in 2001 was just as good if not better. Fedorov wasn't even top 5 in points per game in his 1994 season, won the Selke. Compare that to Sakic who blew everyone away offensively besides Jagr and Lemieux that year, and finished 2nd in Selke voting. Also 54 goals in 2001 > 56 goals in 94, 118 points in 2001 > 120 points in 1994.

It is true though that as good as Sakic was in the playoffs, Fedorov was likely better. Him and Zetterberg are players who I have a hard time judging overall because they're too consistently good in the playoffs for me to believe they're trying the entire regular season, especially offensively speaking.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

and Forsberg and Fedorov faced tougher competition (including each other).

He also had a Smythe-worthy 2001 playoffs, during which he played the 3rd and 4th rounds both without Foppa and with a shoulder injury (although the injury had definitely subsided by the end of the 4th).

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Well, this one is close. I feel like "calibre-wise" I'm comparing Ovechkin and Toews here. One of those guys would likely be chosen by the majority as the "guy you'd want to build around" or have in the playoffs, and is more consistent, but the other guy is likely actually "better" (whatever you want that to mean, I guess). Similarly, I have to vote Fedorov here as the "better" player in his prime, although it's easy to vote Sakic based on more tangible or readily available evidence like production/awards/whatever. Watching them over the years, though, I always felt Fedorov at his peak was just a small blip above Sakic at his best on the Calibre-O-Meter. Maybe it was just some kind of Russian player novelty effect or something, I don't know. I'm still voting Fedorov, and I love, love, love Sakic.

 

[BrutalWolf]

He also had a Smythe-worthy 2001 playoffs, during which he played the 3rd and 4th rounds both without Foppa and with a shoulder injury (although the injury had definitely subsided by the end of the 4th).

Sakic had surgery in the offseason. He endured the pain, and was still able to play at a high level, but it was a fairly serious injury that, in the regular season, he would have been out a month.

 

[WingsFan95]

I have a bias, and I missed the early part of Fedorov's prime, and don't recall his Hart season at all.

So being a Colorado hater, I guess my opinion doesn't stand as viable.

 

[Unaffiliated]

Sakic had surgery in the offseason. He endured the pain, and was still able to play at a high level, but it was a fairly serious injury that, in the regular season, he would have been out a month.

wow, didn't even know that. was only 10 at the time so


i assumed he was fine because:




well, that's even more impressive then.

 

[nik jr]

Well...it's close. And I might be a little contrarian on this. It's certainly not hard to make a case for Sakic, and I won't say that it's wrong. But I'd take Fedorov.

In the mid to late 90s and into the early 00s, the Western conference had some great teams led by great centres. Detroit had Fedorov and Yzerman. Colorado had Forsberg and Sakic. Dallas had Modano and Nieuwendyk. Fedorov was arguably the best of them all.

In the playoffs, Fedorov was Scotty Bowman's go-to guy for the tough matchup in every series. He was the most important player on Detroit's team. He went up against Forsberg, Modano, and the other top forwards on opposing teams. And he usually won those battles. In 1997, he beat Peter Forsberg in a playoff series head-to-head like nobody else has ever done.

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

Playoffs, 1995-2002:

Peter Forsberg: +38 in 115 GP
Sergei Fedorov: +35 in 126 GP
Steve Yzerman: +12 in 127 GP
Joe Sakic: +8 in 129 GP

and Forsberg and Fedorov faced tougher competition (including each other).

i was obviously very happy about the outcome of that series , but part of the reason that may have been the worst series of forsberg's career is that he was injured. he was recovering from a concussion and i think a leg injury, but i don't completely remember.

 

[Preisst*]

I think we all agree on the answer to this question. But still, Fedorov was the type of player that may never come around again. He was spectacular in every facet of the game, albeit tailing off in the regular season after the offer sheet in 98.

Remember this? Game 7. I know it's an aging Wayne, but it's hard to not think about what would have happened if Gretzky had been able to get the puck to Hull, or even just be in a position to make a play (shoot or pass). It's not just about the back-checking, it's the circumstances and the situation. Not only was Fedorov on the other side of the ice after taking the shot, but even when he somehow circled to the puck side, he was also skating back towards Gretzky, who was already headed up ice. When he saw the shot blocked, he stopped and headed the other direction instantly. It's a little ridiculous. The guy began wearing an "A" for Scotty Bowman at age 25. Not just any guy, but a 25 year old Russian. That's how you know he was special. I mean, in 2002, on a team with 7 other HOF skaters (F or D), Fedorov was third on the Wings, behind Lidstrom and Chelios, in in ice time during the playoffs. Sakic is Sakic. But Fedorov stands up to just about every other center from that era.

In todays NHL Fedorov would have gotten a penalty for hooking.

I've got Sakic and it's not that close for me. While Fedorov was a great player Ordinary Joe was simply better IMHO. They were both complete players.

 

[foppagirl21]

Not to be biased, I would take Sakic over Fedorov. Yes, Fedorov had a few phenomenal seasons that make me cringe back in the day, especially during the heat of the Avs-Wings rivalry. However, to me Sakic had a longer period of success. I'm not saying that Sakic had any seasons like Federov did, but to me Fedorov tapered off faster than did Super Joe. Anywho, who can deny the leadership qualities of Joe? He is a stand-up guy who was clutch and got things done flying under the radar.

Both were complete players. Both were crucial components to their respective teams and Cups. You can't say that Sakic's performance in '96 was solely due to the attention Forsberg detracted away from Sakic. Not to be rude, but how can you say that 20 points put up by Fedorov in 3 rounds is more "complete" than Sakic putting up 34 points in 4 rounds AND winning the Conn Smythe? Just curious.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Not to be biased, I would take Sakic over Fedorov. Yes, Fedorov had a few phenomenal seasons that make me cringe back in the day, especially during the heat of the Avs-Wings rivalry. However, to me Sakic had a longer period of success. I'm not saying that Sakic had any seasons like Federov did, but to me Fedorov tapered off faster than did Super Joe. Anywho, who can deny the leadership qualities of Joe? He is a stand-up guy who was clutch and got things done flying under the radar.

Both were complete players. Both were crucial components to their respective teams and Cups. You can't say that Sakic's performance in '96 was solely due to the attention Forsberg detracted away from Sakic. Not to be rude, but how can you say that 20 points put up by Fedorov in 3 rounds is more "complete" than Sakic putting up 34 points in 4 rounds AND winning the Conn Smythe? Just curious.

To quote overpass this is why

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

Sakic defensively in 96 was not the same player as he was in his later years.

When you compare the impact that both players had in 96, Sakic and Federov, a strong case can be made for both for the Smythe IMO.

At the end of the day it's still only one season and Burnaby Joe was hardly anything at all defensively when he came into the league , it was something he acquired along the way.

Even at their peaks, I haven't seen anything concrete other than opinion to indicate that Sakic was any better than Forsberg defensively .

 

[JackSlater]

To quote overpass this is why

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

Sakic defensively in 96 was not the same player as he was in his later years.

When you compare the impact that both players had in 96, Sakic and Federov, a strong case can be made for both for the Smythe IMO.

At the end of the day it's still only one season and Burnaby Joe was hardly anything at all defensively when he came into the league , it was something he acquired along the way.

Even at their peaks, I haven't seen anything concrete other than opinion to indicate that Sakic was any better than Forsberg defensively .

Fedorov was a great playoff performer, and more consistent in his playoff greatness than Sakic, but Sakic's 1996 playoff performance is clearly better than any that Fedorov had.

 

[canucks4ever]

To quote overpass this is why

Sakic was the second banana to Forsberg on Colorado. He won the Conn Smythe in 1996 in part because Forsberg was getting all the attention from opposing teams (including Fedorov in the conference final). Not to say he didn't deserve it...but you can't compare Sakic's 34 point playoff to Fedorov's 20+ point playoffs. They had different roles. Fedorov was the more complete player and had greater responsibilities.

Sakic defensively in 96 was not the same player as he was in his later years.

When you compare the impact that both players had in 96, Sakic and Federov, a strong case can be made for both for the Smythe IMO.

At the end of the day it's still only one season and Burnaby Joe was hardly anything at all defensively when he came into the league , it was something he acquired along the way.

Even at their peaks, I haven't seen anything concrete other than opinion to indicate that Sakic was any better than Forsberg defensively .

So, fedorov's defense makes up for sakic nearly doubling his offensive production, lol. This is why defensive forwards are the most overrated players on hoh. You honestly think feds is as good defensiively as serge savard and lidstrom.