View Single Post
08-10-2008, 10:41 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,422
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.
Why are we forgetting the fact that in 97, 98 and 99 Forsberg outscored joe sakic and was better defensively.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote