HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Battle of Peter the Greats!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-13-2005, 08:20 PM
  #1
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Battle of Peter the Greats!!

Who would you say was better? Peter Stastny or Peter Forsberg? Both had great players to play with like Goulet and Sakic respectively. Both had great playmaking abilities and were among the best of all time. Now in no way am I asking who has had the better career because the answer would be obviously Stastny, rather who had the best pure talent? Discuss!

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-13-2005, 08:35 PM
  #2
Mxpunk
Registered User
 
Mxpunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: RPV, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 1,269
vCash: 500
Well, if I had to choose one, it would be Forsberg. Although he can be a little whiny, his play on the ice is amazing. When healthy, he can dominate any type of game. Whether it's clutch and grab, hard hitting, or wide open, he's always effective...Also, he makes the other players around him better (i.e. Drury, Nieminen and even Hinote on occasion).

Mxpunk is offline  
Old
03-13-2005, 09:48 PM
  #3
Twist and Shout
Registered User
 
Twist and Shout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,394
vCash: 500
Foppa. Foppa. Foppa.

Twist and Shout is offline  
Old
03-13-2005, 10:00 PM
  #4
wedge
Registered User
 
wedge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: victoriaville
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,833
vCash: 500
I'll say Stastny. Underated IMO because he played for Quebec, an unknown team to the other cities.

wedge is offline  
Old
03-13-2005, 10:00 PM
  #5
ScottyBowman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Detroit
Country: United States
Posts: 2,292
vCash: 500
I'm not going to answer this question because I'm too young to recall Statsny. I think it would be better if posters who were old enough to see both play and make a decision from that because I sense a lot of Forsberg votes from the younger generations.

ScottyBowman is offline  
Old
03-13-2005, 11:51 PM
  #6
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Different eras, hockey is much more advanced now, and so are the players.

Clearly Forsberg is the better player, and IŽll base that purely on logic since IŽve never actually seen Stastny play.

C-J...* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 12:05 AM
  #7
RoyIsALegend*
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,815
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J...
Clearly Forsberg is the better player, and IŽll base that purely on logic since IŽve never actually seen Stastny play.
Wouldn't such grounds prove 'logic' impossible?

RoyIsALegend* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 04:29 AM
  #8
El_Loco_Avs
Registered User
 
El_Loco_Avs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: The Netherlands
Country: Netherlands
Posts: 8,203
vCash: 500
Slight annoyance,
Sakic is on the same team yeah, but they haven't played together that much.

Stastny is before my time, but was he ever a top 5 player for as long as Forsberg has been now? (genuine question btw )

El_Loco_Avs is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 04:43 AM
  #9
Peter25
Registered User
 
Peter25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,445
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Loco_Avs
Slight annoyance,
Sakic is on the same team yeah, but they haven't played together that much.

Stastny is before my time, but was he ever a top 5 player for as long as Forsberg has been now? (genuine question btw )
At his best Stastny could have been the second best center in the NHL behind Gretzky. He was that good.

Peter25 is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 08:15 AM
  #10
John Flyers Fan
Registered User
 
John Flyers Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Country: United States
Posts: 22,397
vCash: 500
Stastny was a tremendous player.

2nd in points during the 1980's to Wayne Gretzky.

Wasn't able to join the NHL until age 24 due to Communist Bloc restrictions.
Wasn't a big man but very strong and played a physical game.

Finished 6th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 12th, 6th, 5th during the first 8 years of his career.

He was never voted to a 1st or 2nd all-star team, but that says more about his contempararies (Gretzky, Trottier, Lemieux, Yzerman, Savard, Dionne, and Hawerchuk). The NHL has never seen a better frouping of center's at one time.

If I had to pick and take the player at it's absolute peak, I would give Forsberg just the slightest of edges (really just a coin flip).... but when factoring in durability etc. etc. Stastny would hold a clear edge.

John Flyers Fan is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 08:34 AM
  #11
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyIsALegend
Wouldn't such grounds prove 'logic' impossible?

I havent seen the American Army fight in WW2, I still know they would get their ***** handed to them if they fought the american army of today.

Like I said, different eras. Its not a fair comparison imho.

C-J...* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 10:06 AM
  #12
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Loco_Avs
Slight annoyance,
Sakic is on the same team yeah, but they haven't played together that much.

Stastny is before my time, but was he ever a top 5 player for as long as Forsberg has been now? (genuine question btw )
Goulet didn't play much with Stastny either. I'd take Forsberg in that he can be arguably called the league's best overall player while that wasn't the case with Stastny. Otoh, it wasn't his fault that Grets,Mario and Messier existed. Forsberg was more of a power player, I guess, very close call.

mcphee is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 11:59 AM
  #13
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,280
vCash: 500
Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.

hfboardsuser is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 12:51 PM
  #14
mcphee
Registered User
 
mcphee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 19,101
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg
Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.
They're so close that I can't really argue either way. I do dispute the bit about the scarcity of weapons on the Nordiques. Stastny had his brother Anton on his line while Goulet and Hunter on the other line were formidable. There was always offensive depth whether it was McKegney,Ashton, Marian Stastny, Sauve or whoever. They were hell to see your team play against because of their attack. D and goaltending always killed them imo.

mcphee is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 01:03 PM
  #15
bleedgreen
Moderator
 
bleedgreen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: colorado
Posts: 11,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg
Stastny. 1000+ points in a decade, NHL record for points in a road game, one of only 5 players in history to have at least 6 consecutive 100+ point seasons. I can go on and on

For being one of the only weapons on the Nords attack throughout the 80's- and by far the best weapon- Stastny had to face constant defensive pressure. And as the stats show, it didn't slow him down one bit.
i agree with you. hasnt forsbergs inablilty to stay in the lineup eliminated him in this competition? he never has shown the consistency of stastny, mostly because of injuries of course. im not saying forsberg was incapable of doing it, it just never worked out. stastny's career in the end was more impressive. its similar to the gretzky/lemieux arguement. i think lemieux was better, but when everyone points to the bottom line, that gretzky wins out because he did it, not because he COULD do it.....they're right. same holds in this case.

stastny was just as dominant as forsberg has been, most people here werent around for it, so they assume forsberg has to be better - false.
its unfair for me to say forsberg is eliminated because of injuries, but i feel its enough to say its at least a draw, if not a victory for stastny.

bleedgreen is online now  
Old
03-14-2005, 01:18 PM
  #16
Skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J...
Different eras, hockey is much more advanced now, and so are the players.

Clearly Forsberg is the better player, and IŽll base that purely on logic since IŽve never actually seen Stastny play.
Yes, we are talking about different eras but how is hockey much more advanced than it was 20 years ago? To take it a step further and claim that players are also much more advanced is ludicrous. They are in better shape, with more focus on strength. How else is Foppa much more advanced than Stastny?

like the other poster, I'll question your use of logic. (and no a 60 year difference in military technology is not a good analogy for a 10-20 year difference in NHL hockey).

Skylab is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 01:31 PM
  #17
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skylab
Yes, we are talking about different eras but how is hockey much more advanced than it was 20 years ago? To take it a step further and claim that players are also much more advanced is ludicrous. They are in better shape, with more focus on strength. How else is Foppa much more advanced than Stastny?

like the other poster, I'll question your use of logic. (and no a 60 year difference in military technology is not a good analogy for a 10-20 year difference in NHL hockey).

Allstarteam 2005 Vs Allstarteam 1985 = 10-0


Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.

C-J...* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 01:38 PM
  #18
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,872
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J...
Allstarteam 2005 Vs Allstarteam 1985 = 10-0


Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.
not in the all-star game

logically, if Stastny were to play in this era, he would be just as well conditioned and trained as modern players. do you really think a modern all star team would beat gretzky, lemieux, yzerman, messier, coffey, bourque, etc in their primes? brodeur would be our only hope, lol...

arrbez is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 01:49 PM
  #19
C-J...*
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,107
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez
not in the all-star game

logically, if Stastny were to play in this era, he would be just as well conditioned and trained as modern players. do you really think a modern all star team would beat gretzky, lemieux, yzerman, messier, coffey, bourque, etc in their primes? brodeur would be our only hope, lol...


Gretzky is probably the best offensive player ever (duh), but defensively hes got nothing on guys like Forsberg, Sundin, Fedorov and lots more, and these guys could deliver offensively aswell. Right now we are in a drout where the current stars are on the verge of retiering while the "next ones" havent really gotten there yet. Granted Heatley, Kovalchuk and some other guys are almost there. 2000 is probably the best year ever in my eyes. AS 2005 would still beat AS 1985 any day of the week and twice on sundays.,

C-J...* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 03:41 PM
  #20
_Del_
Registered User
 
_Del_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: SkullcrusherMountain
Posts: 5,170
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J...
Gretzky is probably the best offensive player ever (duh), but defensively hes got nothing on guys like Forsberg, Sundin, Fedorov and lots more, and these guys could deliver offensively aswell. Right now we are in a drout where the current stars are on the verge of retiering while the "next ones" havent really gotten there yet. Granted Heatley, Kovalchuk and some other guys are almost there. 2000 is probably the best year ever in my eyes. AS 2005 would still beat AS 1985 any day of the week and twice on sundays.,
I'd love to put money on that.... not that either of us would ever lose the money, but still......

_Del_ is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 04:14 PM
  #21
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Del_
I'd love to put money on that.... not that either of us would ever lose the money, but still......
If you put a team of the 80-s vs. a team of todays the 80-s would win.

I mean were talking about Lafleur, Bossy, Messier, Dionne, Lemieux, Gretzky, Robinson, Bourque, Coffee, Fuhr and Roy here.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 04:18 PM
  #22
Skylab
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Saskatoon
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by C-J...
Allstarteam 2005 Vs Allstarteam 1985 = 10-0


Well perhaps not that big diff, but anyway, those eras cant be compared. Players were possibly as talebted back then, but everything else evolved since then + the game is much more tactical and "tight" today.
Bottom line, in 1985 you were 8. Your ability to compare eras when you really didn't see one of them is limited.
There may be truth in what you are saying, I'm just questioning your ability to state so definitively things that you can't quantify about an era you didn't see.

Skylab is offline  
Old
03-14-2005, 04:43 PM
  #23
Jag68Sid87
Nothing Else Maattas
 
Jag68Sid87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 32,267
vCash: 500
2000 the best year ever? ooooook. For my money, I'll take 1992-93 over any year, ever. And NO it's not because the Canadiens fluked another Stanley Cup (I was rooting for Gretzky's Kings).

That regular season was as exciting as any, with record-breaking performances across the board. And the playoffs provided loads of drama.

As far as Stastny vs. Forsberg, it really is too close to call. A case could be made for both. Both have the edge in some categories, and lag behind in others.

I'd call it a draw.

Jag68Sid87 is online now  
Closed Thread

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 12:33 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.