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

Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos vs Jagr/Forsberg/OV

View Poll Results: Which Trio
Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos 102 56.35%
Jagr/Forsberg/OV 75 41.44%
Even 4 2.21%
Voters: 181. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-12-2012, 10:18 AM
  #1
theboss*
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Montreal
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,696
vCash: 500
Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos vs Jagr/Forsberg/OV

Which trio do you take?

theboss* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:41 AM
  #2
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:51 AM
  #3
cgf
Registered User
 
cgf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 11,553
vCash: 500
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.

cgf is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:51 AM
  #4
Spinkis
Registered User
 
Spinkis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,061
vCash: 500
I presume that it's 07-08 OV and 90s Jagr/Foppa?
If so Jagr/Forsberg/OV

Spinkis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:55 AM
  #5
Colorado Avalanche
Registered User
 
Colorado Avalanche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Lieto
Country: Finland
Posts: 16,023
vCash: 500
I think Sakic/Crosby/Stamkos wins more trophies for my team.

Colorado Avalanche is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 10:56 AM
  #6
Razor29
52-22-8
 
Razor29's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,602
vCash: 500
I picked option 2 just cause I dislike Crosby that much.

Razor29 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:42 AM
  #7
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg View Post
3 centers > 2 wingers and a center.
Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:43 AM
  #8
Human
cynic
 
Human's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Bandwagon
Posts: 4,864
vCash: 500
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.

Human is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:48 AM
  #9
gifted88
Dante the poet
 
gifted88's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Guelph, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,347
vCash: 500
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.

gifted88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 11:58 AM
  #10
Christian Litscher
Hockey's Future Staff
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,032
vCash: 500
At their peak?
Jagr
Crosby
Ov
Sakic
Forsberg
Stamkos

Option 2

Christian Litscher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:02 PM
  #11
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
Why is having Stamkos on the third line a good thing?
Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:15 PM
  #12
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,576
vCash: 500
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?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:17 PM
  #13
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg View Post
Center depth, Stamkos would probably be converted to winger.
So in other words... 2C+1W > 3C > 1C+2W

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:25 PM
  #14
dr robbie
Let's Go Pens!
 
dr robbie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,463
vCash: 500
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.

dr robbie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:28 PM
  #15
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
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.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:37 PM
  #16
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg View Post
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.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:43 PM
  #17
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
I was just showing the irony of the </> system.
Not sure why you were confused.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:52 PM
  #18
Eskimo44
Registered User
 
Eskimo44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 5,557
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
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.

Eskimo44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:55 PM
  #19
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg View Post
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.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 12:56 PM
  #20
MastuhNinks
Registered User
 
MastuhNinks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The Iron Throne
Posts: 4,494
vCash: 500
Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...

MastuhNinks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:01 PM
  #21
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
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.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:05 PM
  #22
Stansfield*
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 992
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FoppaForsberg View Post
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.

Stansfield* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:14 PM
  #23
FoppaForsberg*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 534
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stansfield View Post
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.

FoppaForsberg* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:27 PM
  #24
WildcatMapleLeafs28
Registered User
 
WildcatMapleLeafs28's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Atlantic Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,106
vCash: 500
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

WildcatMapleLeafs28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-12-2012, 01:44 PM
  #25
Bure All Day
Registered User
 
Bure All Day's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Vancouver Isl.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,450
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MastuhNinks View Post
Jagr > Crosby > Sakic > Forsberg > Ovechkin = Stamkos

IMO. This is tough...
peak Ovi > peak foppa

Bure All Day 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 02:25 PM.

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.