View Single Post
08-07-2008, 09:24 AM
Registered User
infinitesadd's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 933
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
Mario was dominant for a long period of time DESIPITE his injuries and that his why he is so great. If he hadn't been injured/ill he would be considered as the best player ever and there would be virtually no arguments. Forsberg never was dominant during long periods and he never played at the level Mario did. Mario is in a league of his own, Forsberg isn't. Forsberg showed glimpse of brillance and a great peak value but if we're analysing both their peak yes, you could vote for either Sakic or Forsberg, but when you talk about prime, you HAVE to consider injuries and durability. Do comparable talent with such a disparity between their primes' lenght can REALLY be argued about? Especially considering the fact that one could make an argument for either guy when talking about peak value... Sakic longetivity and constance take the cake, IMO.

Oh, and, btw, call me back the day Forsberg scores 160+ points despite missing nearly 20 games...
My point still stands. Forsberg was the better player in his prime. Injuries or not. Just like Mario missing 20 games in a season and domination the rest of the year. Yea, Mario was hurt, doesn't diminish his greatness. The same for Forsberg.

And no, I am not saying Forsberg is anywhere near Mario, I'm comparing the injury arguement.

infinitesadd is offline   Reply With Quote