Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos vs Jagr/Forsberg/OV

[theboss]

Which trio do you take?

[FoppaForsberg*]

3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.

[cgf]

It's tough to pick against the 3 centers but Foppa and Sakic are a wash, Jagr > Crosby and prime OV > Stammer, at least for now. This is very close.

[Spinkis]

I presume that it's 07-08 OV and 90s Jagr/Foppa?
If so Jagr/Forsberg/OV

[Colorado Avalanche]

I think Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos wins more trophies for my team.

[Viking Mode]

I picked option 2 just cause I dislike Crosby that much.

[Stansfield*]

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg

3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.

Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?

[Human]

usually you pick the three centers, but Jagr is the best player of the bunch, so you can make a great case for his trio.

[gifted88]

as a trio LW Sakic - C Crosby - RW Stamkos would be amazing imo.

Yes all three are natural centers but Sakic is competent on the left side. Just not so sure about Stamkos on the wing.

[ColAvsFan]

At their peak?
Jagr
Crosby
Ov
Sakic
Forsberg
Stamkos

Option 2

[FoppaForsberg*]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?

Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.

[eva unit zero]

I have to say take the Jagr/Forsberg/Ovechkin group.

Given we are taking them at their peak:

Jagr>>Sakic (all-around offensive force)
Forsberg<Crosby (injury-prone all around center)
Ovechkin>>Stamkos (elite goal-scoring winger)

Given we are taking career value:

Jagr>>Sakic
Forsberg<Crosby
Ovechkin>>>Stamkos

Furthermore, Jagr is the best player in the group and Stamkos is the worst. Ovechkin has been equivalent to Crosby for most of their careers, and Sakic/Forsberg were comparable mot of their primes.

So the decision baically boils down to this:

Jagr or Stamkos?

[Stansfield*]

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg

Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.

So in other words... 2C+1W > 3C > 1C+2W

[dr robbie]

this is hard. both groups would be amazing. i'm definitely more of a fan of crosby and tend to dislike ovi, but you can't ignore the sheer force jagr/ovi/forsberg would have.

[FoppaForsberg*]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

So in other words... 2C+1W > 3C > 1C+2W

You're not making any sense. 3C > 1C+2W because one of Stamkos/Crosby/Sakic can be converted to a winger so you have a strong 1-2 punch.

[Stansfield*]

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg

You're not making any sense. 3C > 1C+2W because one of Stamkos/Crosby/Sakic can be converted to a winger so you have a strong 1-2 punch.

I was just showing the irony of the </> system.

[FoppaForsberg*]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

I was just showing the irony of the </> system.

Not sure why you were confused.

[Eskimo44]

Originally Posted by eva unit zero

Jagr>>Sakic (all-around offensive force)

I genuinly think Joe Sakic was easily the better player. He was a two way force who led his team to more success than Jagr did his clubs.

[Stansfield*]

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg

Not sure why you were confused.

I'm not/wasn't confused.

If someone had no idea what C and W stood for and you said 3C > 2W+1C, that person would also assume 3C > 2C+1W even though that's not the case.

[MastuhNinks]

Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...

[FoppaForsberg*]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

I'm not/wasn't confused.

If someone had no idea what C and W stood for and you said 3C > 2W+1C, that person would also assume 3C > 2C+1W even though that's not the case.

No it wouldn't, and it's a hockey forum im sure people know what C and W stand for when talking about play positions.

[Stansfield*]

Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg

No it wouldn't, and it's a hockey forum im sure people know what C and W stand for when talking about play positions.

I understand this, my point was that it's ironic that your opinion contradicts the proper use of the </> signs in that particular situation. Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, just that it's mathematically incorrect in the literal sense.

[FoppaForsberg*]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

I understand this, my point was that it's ironic that your opinion contradicts the proper use of the </> signs in that particular situation. Not that I necessarily disagree with your opinion, just that it's mathematically incorrect in the literal sense.

I understand the use of </>, but okay.

[WildcatMapleLeafs28]

Crosby= Best playmaker in then NHL
Stamkos= Best goal scorer in the NHL
Sakic= One of the game's all time greats

Trio= Amazingly successful

[Bure All Day]

Originally Posted by MastuhNinks

Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...

peak Ovi > peak foppa