View Single Post
08-12-2008, 06:40 AM
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Tellus
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 13,722
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
No actually, I am showing how Sakic dominated the game without being flashy or noticeable like Forsberg. And yes, he did dominate.

And yes, he dictated the game. Opposing teams put their top Defenders on Sakic just as much as they did Forsberg. More if you count that Sakic played on average 2-3 more minutes a game than Forsberg(More 1st line minutes). Sakic makes people on opposing teams nervous every time he is on the ice. You don't get top 10 in points 10 times(top five 5 times) while being solid defensively by NOT dominating.

Lidstrom dominates the Defensive zone without being flashy, yet to you, he gets a free pass because he is Swedish.

Whatever you think of the Selke voting, or the veracity of the trophy, Sakic was a better defensive forward than Forsberg. I posted the stats already. Sakic blocked more shots(Around double Forsberg's total blocked shots on average, even on his Hart year playing 15 less games), Sakic has far less giveaways, and Sakic has more takeaways + a better faceoff percentage. All this while almost always matching or bettering Forsberg in points.

Yep. Next coming is "Alfredsson was more dominant than Sakic" which would be a humongous joke.

Forsberg had less icetime, since he gave more when he was on the ice.

Just like Lidström isn't as physical and gritty as alot of other defenders, which gives him more juice to play those extra minutes and be on top at the latter stages of his career. If he had a game with more focus on physique (IE hitting and getting in peoples faces) he wouldn't play 30 min/game at age 38-39, more like 22-23.

Look at the guys who played that game to its limit, Forsberg and Lindros.

One is retired, the other is but a shell of his former self. BUT, when they played and was at the top of their games, they brought everything and dominated every shift they made, Sakic never did.

But then there's the question; would you rather take Lindros & Foppa playing a softer game, having less of an importance to their team, but at the same time having a longer healthier career? I don't think that was ever the choice with those guys since they had that mentality, they were both all heart. Yeah, anyone who says Lindros played with no heart don't know their elbow from their @ss.

Which would you take.

Lidström & Sakic playing at 95% for 18 years


Forsberg & Lindros playing at 100% for 5 years

I'd take Sakic and Lidström, but for those 5 years, Forsberg & Lindros dominated the game in a way neither of the other two was capable of. And dominance can't be measured simply with stats.

And what I meant about Bure vs Sakic, was that Bure was more noticeable.

Anyone disputing that?

Ofcourse Sakic was the better over all player...

Nordic* is offline   Reply With Quote