View Single Post
08-06-2008, 09:48 PM
Dark Shadows
Registered User
Dark Shadows's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,986
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
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.
I have a feeling the original poster meant "Peak", not "Prime". Meaning the player during his best year vs the other player in his best year.

If the argument is prime, then Sakic has a clear margin of victory. peak is another matter, and is very close between him and Forsberg

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote