HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Polls - (hockey-related only) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=72)
-   -   Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos vs Jagr/Forsberg/OV (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1282241)

theboss* 11-12-2012 11:18 AM

Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos vs Jagr/Forsberg/OV
 
Which trio do you take?

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 11:41 AM

3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.

cgf 11-12-2012 11:51 AM

It's tough to pick against the 3 centers but Foppa and Sakic are a wash, Jagr > Crosby and prime OV > Stammer, at least for now. This is very close.

Spinkis 11-12-2012 11:51 AM

I presume that it's 07-08 OV and 90s Jagr/Foppa?
If so Jagr/Forsberg/OV

Colorado Avalanche 11-12-2012 11:55 AM

I think Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos wins more trophies for my team.

Razor29 11-12-2012 11:56 AM

I picked option 2 just cause I dislike Crosby that much. ;)

Stansfield* 11-12-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg (Post 55710959)
3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.

Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?

Human 11-12-2012 12:43 PM

usually you pick the three centers, but Jagr is the best player of the bunch, so you can make a great case for his trio.

gifted88 11-12-2012 12:48 PM

as a trio LW Sakic - C Crosby - RW Stamkos would be amazing imo.

Yes all three are natural centers but Sakic is competent on the left side. Just not so sure about Stamkos on the wing.

Christian Litscher 11-12-2012 12:58 PM

At their peak?
Jagr
Crosby
Ov
Sakic
Forsberg
Stamkos

Option 2

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stansfield (Post 55711897)
Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?

Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.

pdd 11-12-2012 01:15 PM

I have to say take the Jagr/Forsberg/Ovechkin group.

Given we are taking them at their peak:

Jagr>>Sakic (all-around offensive force)
Forsberg<Crosby (injury-prone all around center)
Ovechkin>>Stamkos (elite goal-scoring winger)

Given we are taking career value:

Jagr>>Sakic
Forsberg<Crosby
Ovechkin>>>Stamkos

Furthermore, Jagr is the best player in the group and Stamkos is the worst. Ovechkin has been equivalent to Crosby for most of their careers, and Sakic/Forsberg were comparable mot of their primes.

So the decision baically boils down to this:

Jagr or Stamkos?

Stansfield* 11-12-2012 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg (Post 55712367)
Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.

So in other words... 2C+1W > 3C > 1C+2W :loony:

dr robbie 11-12-2012 01:25 PM

this is hard. both groups would be amazing. i'm definitely more of a fan of crosby and tend to dislike ovi, but you can't ignore the sheer force jagr/ovi/forsberg would have.

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stansfield (Post 55712675)
So in other words... 2C+1W > 3C > 1C+2W :loony:

You're not making any sense. 3C > 1C+2W because one of Stamkos/Crosby/Sakic can be converted to a winger so you have a strong 1-2 punch.

Stansfield* 11-12-2012 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg (Post 55712887)
You're not making any sense. 3C > 1C+2W because one of Stamkos/Crosby/Sakic can be converted to a winger so you have a strong 1-2 punch.

I was just showing the irony of the </> system.

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stansfield (Post 55713083)
I was just showing the irony of the </> system.

Not sure why you were confused.

Eskimo44 11-12-2012 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eva unit zero (Post 55712635)
Jagr>>Sakic (all-around offensive force)

I genuinly think Joe Sakic was easily the better player. He was a two way force who led his team to more success than Jagr did his clubs.

Stansfield* 11-12-2012 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg (Post 55713221)
Not sure why you were confused.

I'm not/wasn't confused.

If someone had no idea what C and W stood for and you said 3C > 2W+1C, that person would also assume 3C > 2C+1W even though that's not the case.

MastuhNinks 11-12-2012 01:56 PM

Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stansfield (Post 55713455)
I'm not/wasn't confused.

If someone had no idea what C and W stood for and you said 3C > 2W+1C, that person would also assume 3C > 2C+1W even though that's not the case.

No it wouldn't, and it's a hockey forum im sure people know what C and W stand for when talking about play positions.

Stansfield* 11-12-2012 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg (Post 55713599)
No it wouldn't, and it's a hockey forum im sure people know what C and W stand for when talking about play positions.

I understand this, my point was that it's ironic that your opinion contradicts the proper use of the </> signs in that particular situation. Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, just that it's mathematically incorrect in the literal sense.

FoppaForsberg* 11-12-2012 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stansfield (Post 55713719)
I understand this, my point was that it's ironic that your opinion contradicts the proper use of the </> signs in that particular situation. Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, just that it's mathematically incorrect in the literal sense.

I understand the use of </>, but okay.

WildcatMapleLeafs28 11-12-2012 02:27 PM

Crosby= Best playmaker in then NHL
Stamkos= Best goal scorer in the NHL
Sakic= One of the game's all time greats

Trio= Amazingly successful

Bure All Day 11-12-2012 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MastuhNinks (Post 55713503)
Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...

peak Ovi > peak foppa


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:46 AM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.