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.
Gee, I had a nice long answer written down and it disappeared.
Kovalev? Not sure why you brought him up in here.
He had a circus skill that amazed and amused his teammates during trainings, a skill that he found a good / little / no use for in the game depending on how the stars aligned.
He's almost like the opposite of Sergei.
Unlike Fedorov, he never seemed to be pacing himself to save the best for when the stakes were high (though, fair enough, he often did deliver in the big games). He was not the one to control things. He was like scattered monkeys. Unpredictable in the bad way. Probably even to himself. And while he did show way more skill than average NHL players, to me, he never "radiated" brilliance like the best men in the game. Kovalev "the most skilled player in the game" is as much a myth as Fedorov "the most complete player in the game" was reality. For Kovalev was the most skilled player in the
training session.
Fedorov indeed was money in the game. I even like him for the fact he became a good wine for snobs. I like the fact that so many people can't appreciate him fully. Especially when their reasoning comes down to "but he didn't attempt to score 2+4 every night like Forsberg did, or 6+1 like Bure always did!" That's when I am a happy man. Because they get it without getting they do.
Fedorov was unpredictable. But it worked. Because he controlled his unpredictability. And laziness, LOL.
I know he didn't always look like trying hard when not producing, but he rarely looked like trying hard even when he did produce. That's because he was intelligent and he literally skated circles around people (a smooth long stride there, Sergei).
You basically like Forsberg and Crosby. Good choice. I often liked Fedorov better (and sometimes not).
Forsberg was great too and offensively more consistent, but definitely not
always the best player on the ice during the RW's / Avs series. Sometimes, and especially in the later days, yeah. But not always. No-one was. Too close, too tight, too mad for that.
(And no, he wasn't at his peak for ten years. No-one is (at their peak for ten years.))
I agree though that he was a better scorer than his goal totals make it seem. Not a fifty-something guy though, not that.
When you talk about Lindros and Forsberg being clearly the better offensive players, to my ears, you say they were clearly the more successful offensive players in the strictest sense of the word. Higher in the hitparade, selling more singles.
But Fedorov could kill you off just like them. And not only that. He could bury you without even scoring. He was the Chuck Norris of hockey, LOL. I'm off before making fun of it again.
As for the original question. Forsberg is a pretty legit choice.
Besides Quorporquoporkquoquoroi, most people forget he began as a bit of Nordique-Fedorov knock-off / heir, getting lumped with Fedorov as an elite two-way center. In 97, I thought -- and I was far from the only one -- that he would get the Frank J. Selke. For whatever reason, they decided it was time to leave the "give it to the best defending player among offensive stars" doctrine again and Forsberg was basically out of
that race for good as he was just about to break through as a fully fledged offensive star.
Fedorov from 93 or 96 wouldn't have gotten the 97 Frankie either. So when people stereotype him as (necessarily) the better defensive player because of those two trophies, they do just that, stereotype.
Not that simple, no, ever.
