Which line would you rather have right now all at peak level?

[Albatros]

Well, it's clear to me that many people never got a chance to watch Lindros or Bure or Fedorov.

That line would beat you to a pulp physically, burn you with speed, and be rock solid defensively.

Lindros and Bure used to play together and I don't miss it one bit.

 

[North Cole]

Because if you had replaced Forsberg with Fronsbrig (a theoretical player with the exact same stats as Foppa), almost nobody would pick that group.
For some strange reason, Forsberg is revered as the ultimate player on these boards.

3, 1, 5, 2, 4

If I were to rank these lines, I'd pick them in that order.

Maybe. Personally, Jagr is the main reason I picked it. I feel like you could use this same nebulous argument and replace Lindros with a dude named Linus. Honestly, its somewhat difficult to see which player has a bigger mythos around here, since I find them to both be somewhat overrated.

Lindros - 760gp for 372g/493a/865p
Forsberg - 708gp for 249g/636a/885p

Its basically the same offense, starting near the same time in the 90's and playing through the DPE. They both have a Hart, one has an Art Ross to the other's Pearson. Hard to find fault with taking Forsberg because of him being "revered" when Lindros seems to be considered Hercules on skates. I think you'd have more of a point if you didn't also select the group with Lindros as #1.

 

[J bo Jeans]

This isn't a fair poll considering no one of Mackinnon-Matthews-Mcdavid have reached their peaks. Give it a few years and a lot of posters would vote for the triple M.

 

[Spirit of 67]

Since we don't yet know what the peak of line 2 is but I went ahead and assumed.
And I assumed it was insanely high.

But it was tough to pass on line 5.

 

[shaner82]

At first glance I had no idea. Then I decided to play the lines against each other in my head. I feel like if you put lines 4 and 5 against each other, line 5 blows them out of the water. Datsyuk would be doing all the work and it wouldn't be enough to overcome the one way play of the other 2. I kind of think line 2 would suffer the same way, although not nearly as bad. They just wouldn't be able to get the puck back very effectively. Line 1 would be better, but still not enough.

Line 3 vs line 5 would be a good matchup. Lindros and Federov could get the puck back, giving them a pretty good chance. I think line 5 comes out on top though.

My rankings if they played against each other in some kind of round robin format

1. Line 5
2. Line 3
3. Line 1
4. Line 2
5. Line 4

 

[authentic]

At first glance I had no idea. Then I decided to play the lines against each other in my head. I feel like if you put lines 4 and 5 against each other, line 5 blows them out of the water. Datsyuk would be doing all the work and it wouldn't be enough to overcome the one way play of the other 2. I kind of think line 2 would suffer the same way, although not nearly as bad. They just wouldn't be able to get the puck back very effectively. Line 1 would be better, but still not enough.

Line 3 vs line 5 would be a good matchup. Lindros and Federov could get the puck back, giving them a pretty good chance. I think line 5 comes out on top though.

My rankings if they played against each other in some kind of round robin format

1. Line 5
2. Line 3
3. Line 1
4. Line 2
5. Line 4

I'm not sure if current McDavid, Matthews and MacKinnon would struggle getting the puck back. Also a line with the defensive play and puck possession of Datsyuk as well as the forechecking, transition and physical play of Ovechkin wouldn't really be at much of a disadvantage there either. Otherwise I pretty much agree with your rankings, but I would probably have line 2 over 1 because of the even strength dominance of Matthews and McDavid combined with MacKinnon being a bit better overall than peak Stamkos. Really though lines 3 and 5 would probably be just insane to go up against, and line 5 would just own the puck to a ridiculous level.

 

[pcruz]

Maybe. Personally, Jagr is the main reason I picked it. I feel like you could use this same nebulous argument and replace Lindros with a dude named Linus. Honestly, its somewhat difficult to see which player has a bigger mythos around here, since I find them to both be somewhat overrated.

Lindros - 760gp for 372g/493a/865p
Forsberg - 708gp for 249g/636a/885p

Its basically the same offense, starting near the same time in the 90's and playing through the DPE. They both have a Hart, one has an Art Ross to the other's Pearson. Hard to find fault with taking Forsberg because of him being "revered" when Lindros seems to be considered Hercules on skates. I think you'd have more of a point if you didn't also select the group with Lindros as #1.

I picked that grouping because Fedorov might be the most underrated player out of that entire list.
Bure, at the top of his game, was right there with Ovechkin as the best goal scorer.
And yet, at the top of his game, the best player of that line is still Lindros.

 

[shaner82]

I'm not sure if current McDavid, Matthews and MacKinnon would struggle getting the puck back. Also a line with the defensive play and puck possession of Datsyuk as well as the forechecking, transition and physical play of Ovechkin wouldn't really be at much of a disadvantage there either. Otherwise I pretty much agree with your rankings, but I would probably have line 2 over 1 because of the even strength dominance of Matthews and McDavid combined with MacKinnon being a bit better overall than peak Stamkos. Really though lines 3 and 5 would probably be just insane to go up against, and line 5 would just own the puck to a ridiculous level.

In 5 years the McDavid line might be ranked very differently. Defensive play is often the last thing perfected by star players. Matthews has improved significantly, but he's still a bit inconsistent. I feel like their best years, especially defensively, are still to come. So the poll is a bit unfair to those guys, but since i have to rank them right now, they're near the bottom

 

[daver]

This isn't a fair poll considering no one of Mackinnon-Matthews-Mcdavid have reached their peaks. Give it a few years and a lot of posters would vote for the triple M.

Not sure I see any of the Triple M's surpassing what they already done by very much. And unfortunately, this season will be judged to be not normal in assessing that.

McDavid is above a lot of players on the list, Matthews and Mac are near the bottom.

 

[LokiDog]

I said line 5 but I think line 4 is a sneaky underrated one. I feel like people have forgotten Ovie’s peak due to his longevity and Datsyuk’s due to it being a while ago and him having moved on, but that line and the particular combination of Ovie’s peak physicality, puck rushing and shot with Dats’ playmaking, sneaky shot, magic hands and two way play and Kane’s ability to dazzle would be pretty lethal. All in their peak, that’s an insane line.

Still, couldn’t pass on Jagr and Forsberg dominating possession all game long with Sakic ripping pucks home.

 

[biturbo19]

As much as Bure and Federov are among my favourite players of all time...It's line 5. That combination would be absolutely lethal in today's game. They'd just own the puck, dominate possession, and have the shots to put it away at will.

 

[biturbo19]

This isn't a fair poll considering no one of Mackinnon-Matthews-Mcdavid have reached their peaks. Give it a few years and a lot of posters would vote for the triple M.

I honestly don't think this really matters. It's questionable whether we're seeing their respective peaks right now or not (i'm inclined to think we probably are, more or less).

The bigger issue for me, is that i just don't see McDavid and MacKinnon as the greatest duo, chemistry-wise. What the two of them like to do, and predominantly thrive off of...is so fundamentally the same. Only one guy can rush the puck up ice at a time. Matthews with either or those guys, and somebody else...heck give me Matthews-Mcdavid-Draisaitl and i genuinely might take that. Starts to make more sense. But as is...i'm not sure that's a great formula for an epic "all time greats" line.

Whereas Line5...you can immediately see how that line would hypothetically mesh, and dominate.

 

[bobholly39]

Line 5 has no weaknesses. For single season peak they all have a case for #1 (Forsberg more for level of play than a full 82 game season).

Crosby/Malkin could give them a run for their money...but not with Stamkos

Every other line has as most 1, or maybe 2 in some cases, at that level for peak.

Line 5 all 3 are at that level for peak. Plus they're great in playoffs. Plus great international. Plus great prime/career numbers. Hard to beat

 

[TheGoldenJet]

Peak Fedorov being criminally underrated in this thread. He was certainly one of the best players in this poll series with all at their peaks.

Was Bure ever considered as the top guy ? Fedorov ?

Bure, no. Fedorov, yes.

 

[Mrb1p]

Peak Fedorov being criminally underrated in this thread. He was certainly one of the best players in this poll series with all at their peaks.



Bure, no. Fedorov, yes.

You think Fedorov was the best player in the world in 93-94?


Thats assuming Lemieux stopped existing ?Thats right in Lemieux peak, Fedorov only got the trophies because Lemieux got injured, I don't think anyone would kid themselves into thinking Feds was the best player in the world, same way no one thought Jamie Benn was the best player in the world either.

And if you want to discount Lemieux, I mean, he's the anomalies of anomalies in that time frame... Theres a guy named Lindros that was outpacing Fedorov and who who the hart pearson the year just after and got AS-1, AS-2.

Fedorovs hart season is great, but its not a "hes the best in the league" season, its a Carey Price perfect storm season.

 

[Mrb1p]

You guys should consider this when voting

 

[LokiDog]

You guys should consider this when voting

Why? He was 5’10 190. This guy is 6’3 230...

 

[Mrb1p]

Why? He was 5’10 190. This guy is 6’3 230... View attachment 422619

I hear you, but then we'd have to consider the sheer bearness and I will raise you with this

 

[LokiDog]

I hear you, but then we'd have to consider the sheer bearness and I will raise you with this

Ovie - Lindros - Jagr
Chara - Pronger

 

[Mrb1p]

Ovie - Lindros - Jagr
Chara - Pronger

Have them play with helmets, gloves and skates, nothing else

 

[SpezDispenser]

Forsberg and Jagr on the same line would be too much for the defense to handle. Their puck possession would be off the charts.

And then some guy, Sakic, centering them.

 

[pcruz]

You think Fedorov was the best player in the world in 93-94?


Thats assuming Lemieux stopped existing ?Thats right in Lemieux peak, Fedorov only got the trophies because Lemieux got injured, I don't think anyone would kid themselves into thinking Feds was the best player in the world, same way no one thought Jamie Benn was the best player in the world either.

And if you want to discount Lemieux, I mean, he's the anomalies of anomalies in that time frame... Theres a guy named Lindros that was outpacing Fedorov and who who the hart pearson the year just after and got AS-1, AS-2.

Fedorovs hart season is great, but its not a "hes the best in the league" season, its a Carey Price perfect storm season.

Hart, Selke, 120 point season, 2nd in Art Ross to Gretzky, 56 goals, 1st team All-Star ahead of Gretz.

Sounds like a pretty dominant season to me.

Also, Bure had back to back 60 goal seasons in Vancouver. 58 and 59 goal seasons in Florida. 16 goals, 31 points in 24 playoff games the year the Canucks almost won the cup.
He was no slouch.

Lindros had 9 consecutive seasons to start off his career at above 1 point per game. 47 goals, 115 points, 163 PIM in one season (73 games). Never played an 82 game season, and the closest he got, was with the Rangers when his career was essentially freefalling.
As a rookie: 61 GP, 41 G, 34A, 75 Pts, 147 PIM.
Sophmore: 65 GP, 44 G, 53 A, 97 Pts, 103 PIM.

A line of very underrated superstars, that one.

 

[pcruz]

Ovie - Lindros - Jagr
Chara - Pronger

That defensive pairing would have forwards just jump off the ice.
At their worst, I'm not sure which I would fear most - the 6'9", or the dirtiest player in the game who was still 6'6".

Ovechkin - Lindros - Jagr

At the top of their game would beat you to a pulp, dazzle with fantastic goals, and you'd never see anything but ass.

 

[Mrb1p]

Hart, Selke, 120 point season, 2nd in Art Ross to Gretzky, 56 goals, 1st team All-Star ahead of Gretz.

Sounds like a pretty dominant season to me.

Also, Bure had back to back 60 goal seasons in Vancouver. 58 and 59 goal seasons in Florida. 16 goals, 31 points in 24 playoff games the year the Canucks almost won the cup.
He was no slouch.

Lindros had 9 consecutive seasons to start off his career at above 1 point per game. 47 goals, 115 points, 163 PIM in one season (73 games). Never played an 82 game season, and the closest he got, was with the Rangers when his career was essentially freefalling.
As a rookie: 61 GP, 41 G, 34A, 75 Pts, 147 PIM.
Sophmore: 65 GP, 44 G, 53 A, 97 Pts, 103 PIM.

A line of very underrated superstars, that one.

I don't think any of these players are "slouch" and all these guys had pretty dominant seasons, but the topic was about being the best player in the world, he's pitted against guys like Crosby, who have been the best players in the world for a decade each, Ovechkin who was the best in the world for 3-4 years, McDavid who has been the best in the world over a 32 YO Crosby, Forsberg was the best player for a 100ish game period over Lemieux, Lindros, Jagr, Hasek...

Being an underrated superstar does not cut it, not when compared to these guys.

 

[Mrb1p]

That defensive pairing would have forwards just jump off the ice.
At their worst, I'm not sure which I would fear most - the 6'9", or the dirtiest player in the game who was still 6'6".

Ovechkin - Lindros - Jagr

At the top of their game would beat you to a pulp, dazzle with fantastic goals, and you'd never see anything but ass.

Probably the 2nd most dominant starting line-up you can create after

Crosby-Lemieux-Howe
Robinson-Chelios