View Single Post
05-20-2013, 03:21 PM
Big Phil
Registered User
Big Phil's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 19,505
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Sakic found a way to win Cups? 1996, sure, but if Patrick Roy had played as well against Dallas in 1999 (.905) and Detroit in 2002 (.900) as he did against St. Louis and New Jersey in 2001 (.939, .938), are we really having this conversation? You're giving Sakic credit because a different teammate pulled a rabbit out of a hat when Forsberg was gone. The Stanley Cup shouldn't be a "difference" at all.

Sakic stepped up big when Forsberg was playing concussed in 1997 or out with his spleen surgery in 2001, but so did the supporting cast of Lemieux, Kamensky, Hejduk, Drury, and Roy. But how many people stepped up in 1999 and 2002? Greg de Vries? It was obvious that Sakic and Fleury were AWOL in 1999 after the San Jose series, and we're talking about a team that had three of the top-six scorers in the world but was only being supported by one. Hejduk had 23 points in the 2001 playoffs but only 6 points in the 2002 playoffs.

You mention that Forsberg didn't get it done in Game 6 or Game 7 against Detroit, but maybe you forgot that he scored the GWG in both Game 6 (2-1 OT) and Game 7 (1-0) in the series before that. If we're going to point our fingers at anyone for the Avalanche failing in three WCF Game 7s in four years, Forsberg is the last player to start with.
I'm not going to derail this thread, but if the question is posed to me then Sakic has without a doubt the better career and in the years they were together for a decade I find Sakic to be slightly the more valuable player. Plus 1996 was a ridiculous year for Sakic in the postseason. I don't think we can underrate that. This isn't to devalue Forsberg, but if I am picking one for my team, it's Sakic.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote