View Single Post
08-06-2008, 08:52 PM
Registered User
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 17,194
vCash: 1012
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I'll echo Lugaid..

If someone says "In their prime" it not expected that you take injuries out of the context?..

If that's the case, I'll take Forsberg...

Any other scenario, Sakic..
Yeah, but Forsberg "prime" consist of a consistent season + some stretches of brillance between injuries while Sakic's prime consist of a contiuous 15 years of pure brillance. I don't think the choice is too difficult here.

If you take Forsberg in his prime that means that you'd have him only for a complete year while you'd have Sakic for 15 years in his prime. You just cannot take injuries out the equation in my opinion. Forsberg was dominant and probably would have been more dominant then Sakic without all the injuries, but we'll never know for sure because, actually, he was never better than Sakic except for one little season.

JordanStaal#1Fan is online now   Reply With Quote