Sakic vs Forsberg

[BenchBrawl]

Who was the better player?

Click to read more...

 

[Alex Jones]

When he was healthy, it was Peter Forsberg.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

When he was healthy, it was Peter Forsberg.

/end thread. He was the best of his era.

 

[tucker3434]

Peak or prime? There were very few better than Forsberg at the pinnacle of his game but Sakic was so good for so long.

 

[Avsboy]

Better career was Sakic. Forsberg would have had the better career.

 

[HarryLime]

Sakic

 

[Nihiliste]

Forsberg was so dominant when he was on. When he was firing, there was no contemporary player who could touch his level. But the injuries are a direct product of his gamestyle and so I think you have to consider the time missed when considering the effect on a season. Sakic was nearly as effective, and could be relied upon to be who he was season after season without major injury concerns. And at the end of the day, we won both cups when Sakic was leading the way.

 

[Cynthesis]

Peak = Forsberg easily. Sakic obviously had the better career.

 

[Cousin Eddie]

Sakic. Peak Forsberg was slightly better than peak Sakic but career Forsberg doesn't touch career Sakic. Sakic's peak was from 2000-2003 but the rest of his career was pretty close to that peak which is so impressive.

 

[hockeyfish]

Who was the better player?

Yes!

 

[Boulder Avalanche]

Forsberg when on his game was seriously something else. One of the greatest of all time when he was playing at his peak no else in his era could match him. Sakic was more consistent and did not suffer through such a horrible decline.

 

[McMetal]

I'd argue Sakic. One of the best pure goal-scorers of all time and a born leader to boot. He didn't really do the flashy stuff that Forsberg could do, but he had a nose for the net that few players of any era could match. When a goal needed to be scored in a game, you'd turn to Sakic to put it through, any day of the week. Forsberg was an amazing, unique player with a level of creativity that probably doesn't even exist in the league anymore, but comparing their careers I don't see how you could say Forsberg was the guy you'd rather have on your team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes!

Gotcha

 

[shadow1]

Voted Sakic. He was the prototypical, do everything, #1 center. Except he was better at it than almost anyone to ever play.

Forsberg's skill set was more unique. I think he had the best vision ever, and I think he was more talented than Sakic, and pretty much anyone else.

 

[5280]

I voted Forsberg, loved his game.

 

[Puckstop40]

Sakic

 

[5280]

I really didn't even want to vote though, at the risk of taking something away from how much I respect the other guy.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Voted Sakic. He was the prototypical, do everything, #1 center. Except he was better at it than almost anyone to ever play.

Forsberg's skill set was more unique. I think he had the best vision ever, and I think he was more talented than Sakic, and pretty much anyone else.

Foppa too was do it all.

When someone asks these types of question who is the better player, I always compare them at their best. As in who was the better player at their best, for me it's forsberg.

 

[Ivan13]

Peak Forsberg was better than Sakic in 95/96 and 00/01? Yeah, how about no.

 

[dahrougem2]

Peter Forsberg could take over a game, and arguably a series.

Joe Sakic could take over an entire playoff season en route to a stanley cup. Not that Forsberg couldn't, but in 1996 Sakic was the #1 reason we won the cup, and in 2001 Sakic was the #2 reason behind Roy why we won the cup. He took over.

I don't think I've ever seen any player have the ability to take over a single game like Forsberg, and I do think he was the more skillful player but at the end of the day, the better player was Sakic. But my favourite will forever be Forsberg.

 

[amoboko]

Foppa

 

[JAS 39 Gripen]

Voted Sakic, menat to vote for Forsberg

 

[expatriatedtexan]

I'm actually surprised by the voting. I was expecting Forsberg to be up 90/10 (as he should.)

 

[AvsRobin]

Who cares? We had them both

 

[Iceberg]

To answer this question all you need to remember is this: Forsberg was the one that faced the toughest assignments in the playoffs. Lidstrom, Hatcher-Matvichuk, Norstrom, Hannan. And yet he always performed.

Sakic redeemed himself in a BIG way in the 01 playoffs, when he put the team on his back offensively after Forsberg went down. But in the two years prior to that he would go MIA at times and was heavily criticized for it, especially against the Stars.

And even in 01, we would not have gotten past the Kings if not for Forsberg.

While Sakic had the better career, Forsberg was the better, more complete player.