Peter Forsberg was the most complete hockey player who ever lived.

[Eye of Ra]

Lindros rather than Foppa. Datsyuk and Henri Richard in a way too.

You can not be serious.

After Gretzky and Lemiuex, Forsberg is the best ever.

 

[Sentinel]

You can not be serious.

After Gretzky and Lemiuex, Forsberg is the best ever.

In what universe is Forsberg better than Gordie Howe? Hell, he was not even "the best evah" on his own team.

 

[Mighty Makar]

In his prime, Forsberg was a beast. I'm glad I was able to watch his whole career in the NHL. He was a treat to watch. His determination was 2nd to none. One of the best hockey players I've ever seen.

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Fedorov was far better defensively, and more complete.

Malkin is better Han Forsberg as well.

 

[Eye of Ra]

In what universe is Forsberg better than Gordie Howe? Hell, he was not even "the best evah" on his own team.

Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better. If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

 

[Sens Rule]

Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better. If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

You really should not be posting in the History section of this board with takes like this.

 

[quoipourquoi]

We welcome all takes in History of Hockey. Including the appropriate counter-arguments to the idea that Peter Forsberg would have 2 points-per-game in the Original 6 era. Extended shifts might have accelerated the end of his career, because he was born with a bad foot.

 

[Sens Rule]

Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better. If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

Forsberg never scored more than 30 goals. Howe scored over 30 goals 14 times in a lower scoring era. Forsberg only played 13 seasons,

Forsberg led the playoffs in scoring 2 times. Howe did it 5 times.

Forsberg led the NHL in assists once. Howe did it three times.

Forsberg has one Art Ross. Howe has 6 of them.

Forsberg was tough and physical and dirty and relentless. Gordie Howe was Gordie Howe.

I love Forsberg. But anyone putting him on some tier far above his peers like Sakic, Yzerman, Lindros, Jagr is nuts. I even get thinking he was slightly better than these peers of his at his peak. I disagree. But so many of those that worship Forsberg have him at some mythical level far, far, far above his actual results on the ice.

Peter Forsberg can not remotely touch Gordie Howe. Howe is at worst the 4th best player ever. Forsberg needs a really good argument to be 40th. Likely is barely top 100 all time given his huge injury issues and lack of games played compared to other superstars.

 

[tony d]

Forsberg was always an amazing player for sure. Very good playmaker, good defensively, still the guy was not the most complete player ever. That was Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau.

 

[Sentinel]

Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better.

Better than what "time"? The 40s, 50s, 60s, or 70s? Cuz Howe played in all of these eras that are somewhat different from each other. He played 1924 total NHL games, which is 2.2x more than Forsberg's 859. More than twice the number of games!

So you bet Howe has smaller PPG than Forsberg. I assure you: had Forsberg played into his 40s (or 50s), his PPG would also took a dive.

If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

Except he didn't win a Conn Smythe like Sakic has, and was not second in Selke voting, like Sakic was. Also, are you sure about that 2 PPG? Maybe it would've been 3? Or 6? Would "50s Foppa" score every time he set his (oft-injured) foot on the ice? Of course all these points would have to be assists, because it's unlikely he would've broken a 30 goal mark in a lower scoring era. Most likely, he would've broken his foot again.

Fedorov and Malkin were more "complete" players for my money.

 

[quoipourquoi]

Except he didn't win a Conn Smythe like Sakic has, and was not second in Selke voting, like Sakic was.

His lack of a Conn Smythe in 1999 and 2002 has more to do with Colorado's lack of depth scoring than anything Forsberg did wrong, and he did finish 2nd in Selke voting in 1996-97.

 

[bathdog]

Except he didn't win a Conn Smythe like Sakic has, and was not second in Selke voting, like Sakic was.

Top-10 Selke finishes:

Sakic: 2, 9, 10.

Forsberg: 2, 4, 6, 8.

Malkin being more complete is probably based on his 46th place Selke finish?

 

[Moridin]

Some people overrate him, and some underrate him. He can be slotted anywhere from 30-120 on a best player of all time list, depending on how you value achievements.. I'd rate him ahead of Lindros, Modano, Sundin and other contemporary centers, but behind Clarke and Trottier.

However, there are two aspects in which Foppa stands out in, where he could arguably rival anyone at.

Entertainment - he was so damn fun to watch play. The special feel when he was on the ice and in the zone.

Will to win - He would try everything. Tackle, outskate, outpass, forecheck, dive, whine to the refs.. anything

 

[Trafalgar Sadge Law]

Forsberg put up more points than Howe when looking at ppg, and forsberg did this in a time where hockey was way better. If Forsberg played in Howe*s time he would probaly have 2.0 in ppg. I dont see how Sakic is better than Forsberg. Forsberg did all Sakic did but with higher ppg and more grit.

Yeah at this point the title should be changed to "Peter Forsberg was the most overrated hockey player who ever lived"

 

[GreatGonzo]

I never got to really see Bobby Clarke in his prime, but I always felt he has to be in he conversation for "most complete" player. I would put Lindros and Fedorov above Forsberg though, but he definitely deserves to be mentioned.

I wonder how Crosbys game will develop as years go on. He has already proven himself as an elite playmaker, goal scorer, and has developed a much greater defensive game over the past few years. He's already getting selke consideration, maybe in the future he might get a crack at winning one. Would that make him one of the most complete players?

 

[Killion]

I never got to really see Bobby Clarke in his prime, but I always felt he has to be in he conversation for "most complete" player...... Would that make him one of the most complete players?

No comprende senor... you cannot possibly be comparing Clarke to Crosby..... c'mon here. night & day. completely absurd.

 

[Eisen]

would go with howe here AINEC

theres not a single flaw in his career

Compared to the big 4, his insane peak was rather short, and not as high as Orr's.

 

[GreatGonzo]

No comprende senor... you cannot possibly be comparing Clarke to Crosby..... c'mon here. night & day. completely absurd.

I never compared the two at all.....in fact I don't see where you came to that conclusion...

I was simply stating that I feel you can't have a "most complete" player discussion without Clarke. Then I went in to ask if Crosby would become a more dominant defensive player in the near future, would he be in the talk as well for that status..

Two completely different statements....just saying.

 

[Moridin]

No comprende senor... you cannot possibly be comparing Clarke to Crosby..... c'mon here. night & day. completely absurd.

While Crosby is a better player, and put up better numbers, I would take Clarke over him due to

- Physical Intimidation.
- Durability.
- Defensive Play

3 harts vs 2 harts, 2 cups each, 1 selke vs 2 art ross.

The difference isn't huge.

 

[bathdog]

I would put Lindros and Fedorov above Forsberg though, but he definitely deserves to be mentioned.

I'm actually a little bit curious how your reasoning goes here.

I can definitely see an argument for someone finding either of those players being more complete, but when rating both more complete, by what criteria and is it applied consistently?

The most common opinions would probably go something like...

Fedorov was better defensively than Forsberg, but then Forsberg was better than Lindros in that aspect.

Lindros could be argued better offensively than Forsberg, but then you'd struggle to rank Fedorov ahead of Forsberg in that aspect.

If physicality is of great importance to you, Lindros was more physical than Forsberg, but then Forsberg was more physical than Fedorov.

If durability is of great importance to you Fedorov was more durable than Forsberg, but then you'd struggle to rank Lindros ahead of Forsberg in that aspect.

 

[threetimer*]

Lindros could be argued better offensively than Forsberg, but then you'd struggle to rank Fedorov ahead of Forsberg in that aspect.

I would not.

I would on the other hand struggle putting Lindros ahead of either of those guys in terms of offensive skill.

Fedorov's offense is very underrated here. Few guys could make the plays he DID make. And Lindros was not one of them.

If anyone by chance didn't get to watch Fedorov too often, I strongly encourage them to watch this:



I understand that judging players by highlight reels feels flimsy, but when a highlight reel runs for an hour, that in itself should tell you something.

Even offensively, Fedorov could be argued over almost anyone. These two guys included.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Compared to the big 4, his insane peak was rather short, and not as high as Orr's.

Amazing that so many players are being touted, but little mention of Orr as the complete player. What was Orr not great at?

 

[Sens Rule]

Amazing that so many players are being touted, but little mention of Orr as the complete player. What was Orr not great at?

Babe Ruth was an elite pitcher. I never saw Orr strap on goalie pads and win a Vezina.

That is all I have got.

 

[authentic]

I would not.

I would on the other hand struggle putting Lindros ahead of either of those guys in terms of offensive skill.

Fedorov's offense is very underrated here. Few guys could make the plays he DID make. And Lindros was not one of them.

If anyone by chance didn't get to watch Fedorov too often, I strongly encourage them to watch this:



I understand that judging players by highlight reels feels flimsy, but when a highlight reel runs for an hour, that in itself should tell you something.

Even offensively, Fedorov could be argued over almost anyone. These two guys included.

If we're basing this on ability rather than results, sure. But then we could also throw Kovalev in there too but no one would really take that argument seriously. Plain and simple, Lindros and Forsberg were clearly better offensive players based on their actual production, at peak, prime and career. Though peak is extremely close.

I think Forsberg is an odd player for a consensus ranking because a lot of people seem to have hated the guy for some reason, maybe he was dirty or whatever, but tons of players were from that era anyway. I see a lot of people use the "but he never scored more than 30 goals" argument, which makes him sound like some type of scrub, but the deeper you look into Forsberg's numbers and stretches of dominance in the regular season and playoffs, the more you realize how great of a player he was.

Watching his highlight reels which are arguably the most impressive ever, doesn't even do justice for what an amazing player he was. I watched all the Colorado and Detroit series back in the day and I was fully convinced he was the best player of that era, though I can see Jagr or Lindros at his peak being considered better even if I don't quite agree with it. Fedorov for exactly 1 season was on their level, and arguably for a few playoff runs. Forsberg was on that level for about a good 10 year period while he was on the ice atleast.

As for comparing him to Orr, or anyone before, it's different eras, they're all great in their own, and obviously Orr and Howe were legends of their own time who should not be compared to any modern player IMO, they were clearly the best before 1980. Among players from 1980-present, I would say less than a handful of players have any argument for being more complete than him at most. He's the best player (2a and 2b with Crosby actually) I've ever seen in my lifetime besides Lemieux in 92-93. Ovechkin, Jagr, and peak Lindros are all close behind. Fedorov, Datsyuk, Sakic and Malkin would be slightly behind them as well to round out my top 10... Lidstrom, Pronger and Bourque for defensemen.

 

[John Eichel da GOAT]

I love Forsberg, but have to quickly disagree without reading past the OP. Durability immediately takes him off the "most complete list".

Edit: Actually read some of the posts in here and there are some insane ones regarding the godliness of Forsberg. The guy had all the tools, but only put it all together for 2 complete seasons and 3 playoff runs.

He may also be the only player to have a tab in wikipedia strictly for injury proneness.