HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > National Hockey League Talk > Polls - (hockey-related only)
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2

Forsberg, Joe or Sundin - Who would you take in their prime!?

View Poll Results: In their prime:
Forsberg 149 60.57%
Sakic 92 37.40%
Sundin 5 2.03%
Voters: 246. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-06-2008, 07:41 PM
  #26
Burnaby_Joe*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 7,271
vCash: 500
Sakic
Forsberg



Sundin

Burnaby_Joe* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 07:50 PM
  #27
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Van Cleef View Post
Forsberg was just unreal in his prime so I have to go with him.
He was unreal for what, 8 months?

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 07:52 PM
  #28
Harrison Ford
Registered User
 
Harrison Ford's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 19,978
vCash: 500
Sakic
Forsberg





Sundin

Harrison Ford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 08:45 PM
  #29
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,382
vCash: 500
I'll echo Lugaid..

If someone says "In their prime"...is it not expected that you take injuries out of the context?..

If that's the case, I'll take Forsberg...

Any other scenario, Sakic..

Gobias Industries is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 08:52 PM
  #30
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gobias Industries View Post
I'll echo Lugaid..

If someone says "In their prime"...is it not expected that you take injuries out of the context?..

If that's the case, I'll take Forsberg...

Any other scenario, Sakic..
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.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 09:14 PM
  #31
czechmate25
Registered User
 
czechmate25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Hershey, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,188
vCash: 500
Sakic for me.

czechmate25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 09:35 PM
  #32
Gobias Industries
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Gobias Industries's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,382
vCash: 500
Quote:
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 that's the case, Forsberg versus almost any star's prime will end in a lopsided vote..

Gobias Industries is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-06-2008, 09:48 PM
  #33
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
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
Old
08-07-2008, 12:14 AM
  #34
Happyhary9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,097
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
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
Either way I go with Joe. Funny thing is that their "peak" years were the same year. And Joe outscored Forsberg. Joe scored 51g 69a 120p to Forsbergs 30g 86a 116p. Forsberg was flashier, more physical and better playmaker. Joe was the better leader and a lot better goal scorer. Both were superstars and great players.

Sometimes I think Forsberg is overrated. When people say that "in his prime he was the best player in the world" I just don't see that at all. In my opinion the best player in the world has a higher then 30g in a season for a career high.

Happyhary9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 12:46 AM
  #35
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happyhary9 View Post
Either way I go with Joe. Funny thing is that their "peak" years were the same year. And Joe outscored Forsberg. Joe scored 51g 69a 120p to Forsbergs 30g 86a 116p. Forsberg was flashier, more physical and better playmaker. Joe was the better leader and a lot better goal scorer. Both were superstars and great players.

Sometimes I think Forsberg is overrated. When people say that "in his prime he was the best player in the world" I just don't see that at all. In my opinion the best player in the world has a higher then 30g in a season for a career high.
I disagree. Scoring the most points in a given year does not indicate their peak years. Also, Goal scoring is irrelevant. Total points is what matter. A good playmaker's assists are just as good as a goal. A ham Sandwich could have scored off half the passes Forsberg passed.

Crosby only scored 36 goals and won a Hart. Thornton only scored 29, Messier 35. Bobby Clarke scored 27 and 30 in 2 of his Hart years.....

Anyways, the season they scored more points were not their best years. Scoring was much higher leaguewide in 95-96

I would say Sakic's peak year was 2000-01. He won a Hart + Pearson, was Runner up for the Art Ross, high selke finish...

Forsberg's peak year would be his Hart, Art Ross(Despite playing 7 less games than the runner up) and high Selke finish year combined with an absolutely dominant physical presence and making everyone around him better.

Its a 1A and 1B situation

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 02:54 AM
  #36
MG91
Registered User
 
MG91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Surrey, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,873
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
1) Sakic. Just as effective as Forsberg in his prime, AND able to stay healthy. A leader and one of the best playoff performers of all time.

2) Forsberg just behind Sakic. I expect him to win this poll, however, because his style was a lot flashier.

3) Sundin in 3rd by a wide margin.
Bingo. My thoughts exactly. Sakic was so consistent and able to sustain it for so long. Next would be Forsberg, because all though he was oft injured he was absolutely dominant in his prime.

MG91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 06:09 AM
  #37
the_speedster
Registered User
 
the_speedster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,284
vCash: 500
did someone forget to tell mats sundin and his missing hair they were INELLIGIBLE to vote on this? .....2votes? very suspicious

the_speedster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 06:10 AM
  #38
the_speedster
Registered User
 
the_speedster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 6,284
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mishaal View Post
Bingo. My thoughts exactly. Sakic was so consistent and able to sustain it for so long. Next would be Forsberg, because all though he was oft injured he was absolutely dominant in his prime.
wow!... do you by any chance write for playgirl?

the_speedster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 06:33 AM
  #39
Fredrik_71
Registered User
 
Fredrik_71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,016
vCash: 500
I voted Forsberg. But I do think both Forsberg and Sakic are equally good during their peak/prime. What made med vote Forsberg is his style and physical presence. When Forsberg was on the ice things happend regardless of where he was. He could bang with the best, he could skate with a checker on his back, he could deliver passes like Gretz and he could score goals. But most importantly he made everyone great on his line (read the Duke).

I do think Sakic had the most wicked wristshot ever and he skated like a demon. Just awesome.

/Cheers

Fredrik_71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 06:40 AM
  #40
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thornton_19 View Post
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
I agree with you that if it is peak value that we're talking about, it is way closer than I originally thought. I might even give a little edge to Forsberg but 00-01 makes me wanna vote for Sakic. Anyway, that's an interesting argument.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:03 AM
  #41
infinitesadd
Registered User
 
infinitesadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morozov View Post
Sakic, not basing my team around a guy who in 15 seasons played 80+games once and 70+games 4 times. Since his second season he never played more than 80 games. Ill take the guy who in his prime is dominating the league for 82 games than the guy who dominates it for 60.

yea, Mario wasn't healthy either. So I'd probably take Joe Sakic over him.




I'd take Forsberg.

infinitesadd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:07 AM
  #42
Zine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 8,810
vCash: 500
Forsberg (if healthy)
Sakic





Sundin

Zine is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:09 AM
  #43
HappyGilmour
Registered User
 
HappyGilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
He was unreal for what, 8 months?
Did you even watch hockey from 1996 to 2005?

HappyGilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:10 AM
  #44
HappyGilmour
Registered User
 
HappyGilmour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Addiction View Post
Without Sakic Forsberg i don't think would of been as great as he was.... Ill take Joe!
Without Forsberg, Sakic would've been facing top-pairing D-men.

HappyGilmour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:11 AM
  #45
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesadd View Post
yea, Mario wasn't healthy either. So I'd probably take Joe Sakic over him.




I'd take Forsberg.
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...

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:12 AM
  #46
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shooter Mcgavin 21 View Post
Did you even watch hockey from 1996 to 2005?
Yes, I did, but Forsberg never outplayed Sakic during that time. He did when he won the scoring title and that is basically it. But his peak/prime wasn't really longer then those 8months of dominance.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 09:24 AM
  #47
infinitesadd
Registered User
 
infinitesadd's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 933
vCash: 500
Quote:
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
Old
08-07-2008, 10:02 AM
  #48
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by JordanStaal#1Fan View Post
Yes, I did, but Forsberg never outplayed Sakic during that time. He did when he won the scoring title and that is basically it. But his peak/prime wasn't really longer then those 8months of dominance.
??

Forsberg Certainly outplayed Sakic in 1996-97 and 1997-98 and 2002-03. Aside form that, he was never healthy enough so you point is taken, but you are isolating his peak far too much to one year without taking a deeper look.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 10:03 AM
  #49
JordanStaal#1Fan
Registered User
 
JordanStaal#1Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Asbestos, Qc
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,922
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesadd View Post
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.
Fair enough, but I don't think Forsberg was better than Sakic when we compare both players peak value. That is my opinion and I stand by it but I respect yours. Anyway, it is very close between those two.

JordanStaal#1Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-07-2008, 10:08 AM
  #50
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,928
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by infinitesadd View Post
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.
You mean "Peak" not Prime.

Sakic's prime is a large step ahead of Forsberg's because it was 15 years long and almost always healthy

His peak is almost equal.

In Sakic's peak Regular season year, he won a Hart, Pearson, Would have won an Art Ross if not For Lemieux's return(Jagr had 44 points in 38 games from October through December. He finished with 77 points in his final 43 games after Mario came back.) and he was Runner up for the Selke(Forsberg never finished higher than 4th for the Selke)

In Sakic's peak Playoff he was the undisputed MVP with 18 goals and 34 points in 22 games.

I do think Forsberg has a very slight peak edge, but certainly not a large one when you take a good look at Sakic's peak


Why is it I am taking both sides of the argument?

Mostly because I do not like seeing either player demeaned.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:47 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.