- Feb 10, 2010
- 13,624
- 10,239
Peter Forsberg was the most complete hockey player who ever lived.
- Thread starter Lemons
- Start date
- Status
With how good Foresberg apparently was you'd think the Avs would have won 6 cups in a row.
Also with how good he was you'd figure he would have been the best center on his team, instead of 2nd best. Mysteries we'll never understand I guess.
Also with how good he was you'd figure he would have been the best center on his team, instead of 2nd best. Mysteries we'll never understand I guess.
Gretzky and Lemieux won two cups in a row, Orr one.
Offensively Forsberg was 1.30 and Sakic 1.23 points per game during their common years in Colorado. As for the more defensive aspects of the game, Forsberg was +190 and Sakic +117.
Yeah but Foresberg is the most complete player to ever live, he blows Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux out of the water.
The avs didn't even need Foresberg to win in 01, Sakic won without him, lol. As the first line center Sakic also played against stronger competition and was a few years older but don't let that get in the way of the GOAT peter FORESBERG.
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 1,776
- 1,787
So, on this page...
Yes, at the top, being healthy is definitely part of being complete.
Being ‘the most complete player ever’ wouldn’t necessarily make one better than Gretzky or Lemieux, for Streitz. I don’t think Peter is necessarily the most complete player ever even ignoring the injuries, but I think he is in the running, at least for the period I would focus on - the last twenty years. On this site we have some problems with being able to see the years before that without bias one way or another. I think you can talk about this twenty year span honestly, and still come out thinking that the best guy in a department should at the least be comparable to older eras.
Not as physical as Lindros, also didn’t fight, and scored less. Played d better, owned the puck better, better playmaker, better in playoffs.
Not as defensive as Datsyuk or Bergie, but better pretty much everywhere else, and close to even in goal scoring, better in playoffs at goal scoring.
Better defensively than Crosby, really similar in many ways, not as good a goal scorer, and I’d add not as quick or accurate with movement of puck... although I would then counter that he possessed the puck and slowed it down more. Just different styles, but both exceptional.
Probably less capable than Fedorov, but brought it night in and night out.
Who else is there that is close in that period? Sakic, I guess.
Really, in what I call modern, full world, big money hockey, there hasn’t been anyone who hit elite, scored elite, controlled game and play made elite, was healthy for a long time....
I guess I’d take Crosby at this point, if only for health. Forsberg is in the mix, depends on what attributes you value higher in ‘completeness’..
Plus, there is a push for a Crosby Selke. God knows he will get it if the media wills it so. Makes me wanna gag, even though he is solidly responsible.
Yes, at the top, being healthy is definitely part of being complete.
Being ‘the most complete player ever’ wouldn’t necessarily make one better than Gretzky or Lemieux, for Streitz. I don’t think Peter is necessarily the most complete player ever even ignoring the injuries, but I think he is in the running, at least for the period I would focus on - the last twenty years. On this site we have some problems with being able to see the years before that without bias one way or another. I think you can talk about this twenty year span honestly, and still come out thinking that the best guy in a department should at the least be comparable to older eras.
Not as physical as Lindros, also didn’t fight, and scored less. Played d better, owned the puck better, better playmaker, better in playoffs.
Not as defensive as Datsyuk or Bergie, but better pretty much everywhere else, and close to even in goal scoring, better in playoffs at goal scoring.
Better defensively than Crosby, really similar in many ways, not as good a goal scorer, and I’d add not as quick or accurate with movement of puck... although I would then counter that he possessed the puck and slowed it down more. Just different styles, but both exceptional.
Probably less capable than Fedorov, but brought it night in and night out.
Who else is there that is close in that period? Sakic, I guess.
Really, in what I call modern, full world, big money hockey, there hasn’t been anyone who hit elite, scored elite, controlled game and play made elite, was healthy for a long time....
I guess I’d take Crosby at this point, if only for health. Forsberg is in the mix, depends on what attributes you value higher in ‘completeness’..
Plus, there is a push for a Crosby Selke. God knows he will get it if the media wills it so. Makes me wanna gag, even though he is solidly responsible.
Nathaniel Skywalker
Registered User
- Oct 18, 2013
- 13,827
- 5,400
Forsbergs career high is 116 points in 82 games. That same season Lemieux scored 161 in 70. But yeah forsberg is the goat
Always worth mentioning too how Forsberg has a higher goals per game in the playoffs than...
Crosby
Malkin
Jagr
Fedorov
Stamkos
Kovalchuk
Selanne
All 50 goal scorers, and he played more games and in a tougher era than most of them in the playoffs while still being an elite playmaker and very good defensively.
Detailed look at Sakic and Forsberg at Even Strength
...
Conclusion
The narrative that Peter Forsberg consistently played easier minutes than Joe Sakic during their time together in Colorado appears to be false. At the most, Forsberg's incredible peak numbers from 2002-03 are a bit less impressive because they came against easier competition, but otherwise the narrative doesn't hold up. As a result, their plus-minus numbers can be fairly compared as a measure of even strength effectiveness. While both were great hockey players, Peter Forsberg was the better even strength player.
That's a nice opinion but Sakic was a substantially better hockey player, hence why he played on the top line and against the hardest competition.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
Sakic openly has said that the opposing team tried to shut down Forsberg much more, freeing him up on the ice. It’s not a matter of “opinion,” there are facts behind it with Sakic himself saying such.
Yeah and Gretzky probably said he was the least important player on his line.
What's your point?
There's zero proof or facts in the thread, it's literally just a wall of text/opinions.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
You can choose to be obtuse or actually take the facts as they are. Sakic isn’t calling Forsberg the greatest player to ever play, he was saying that Forsberg took the top defensive units away from Sakic, allowing him space.
I mean your statement is wrong based on that alone, I don’t see how you have the credibility to denounce it.
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
I’m baffled by your denial.
Or.....call me crazy.....he is proving what many are already saying. I think Joe Sakic has a better Opinion on this than you or I, but you want to treat it like Gretzky proclaiming this/that player as the best since him.....completely different praise. Stop comparing them.
No, I don't care about Sakic's false modesty.
One things for sure though dude, they're both better then Thornton
GreatGonzo
Surrounded by Snowflakes
I don’t think it’s modest saying Forberg was seen as a threat to the other team. Forsberg was basically a top center playing behind another amazing center. Even the previous data shown backs Sakics word.No, I don't care about Sakic's false modesty.
One things for sure though dude, they're both better then Thornton
Your superiority complex worries me. Your a fan who watched them, telling a player that played with him, that they are wrong. Your opinion must be one of bigger status and importance.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Devils team discussion (news, notes and speculation) - offseason part I
- Latest: NjdevilfanJim
