Forsberg vs Sakic

[Ben White]

Ok hardcore Avs’ fans, let’s get down to it. Thought I had to get in here to get a real answer. Who was the better player, primed and healthy, Forsberg or Sakic?

Click to read more...

 

[The Abusement Park]

I picture it like Crosby/Malkin. Both are elite players and the best of the best but when Malkin is at his peak I don’t think anyone’s better than him. But Crosby is consistently at the top of the game.

Malkin is how I feel Forsberg was. Wasn’t consistently at his peak(mainly due to injury) but when he was there was no way to stop that man. But Sakic was the more consistent player. But overall it’s soooo close.

 

[Foppa2118]

Primed and healthy? Easy call IMO. Sakic was an all time great, but Forsberg was the best player I've ever seen play hockey.

In his prime the arena would light up when he had the puck because no one in the building or on the ice knew what he was gonna do with it, except him. And when he did it, they could only hook and hold him in hopes of slowing him down, but often it didn't. He was literally unstoppable during large portions of seasons and in the playoffs.

He (rightly) gets so much credit for his power game, that he's actually underrated in terms of how insanely skilled and smart he was.

 

[Avsavsavsavsavs]

This is hard, so many things to consider as well. Forsberg played such a different style and of course a style that led him to be more injury prone. There's no question that Forsberg was the more dynamic player, he had the wow factor, he was so strong on the puck and wanted to win so badly he just oozed competitor every time he stepped on the ice. Sakic had such a long and productive career, he played nearly double the amount of games Forsberg got in, the guy was a work horse and an iron man. Sakic had over 600 goals and 1600 points, he had 9 seasons of 80+ games, he put up 100 points at age 37. Two players that didn't have the same success without each other, but two amazing and different players.

TOO CLOSE TO CALL.

 

[McMetal]

I'm going Sakic, just based on their overall careers. People forget that he was really good on some really bad Nordiques teams. I guess on an individual game level Forsberg may have had more game-breaking talent when healthy, but over the long term, I take Sakic on my team.

 

[Papa Francouz]

Going with Sakic because I’m a Burnaby Joe fanboy, but Goddamn you for making me pick one.

 

[Foppberg]

This question always makes me sad. One because Foppa is gone, and two because how hampered his career was with injuries. I didn't get to see prime Forsberg (outside of watching old games that I could find), but even Forsberg on one leg was a treat to watch.

 

[Mighty Makar]

Don’t do this to me.

 

[forsbergavs32]

Thankfully I got to watch both in their primes. But if we are talking in prime and fully healthy i take Foppa every time. He just took over games.

 

[Pokecheque]

I feel like this is the Gretzky/Lemieux debate in a way. One guy has all the records and a much longer career, but I think, talent-for-talent, that Lemieux was the best ever. If Super Mario had managed to stay healthier I think we have a much closer debate as to who was better.

Similarly, I think Forsberg was the most talented player to ever play for the Colorado Avalanche (though...who knows, this #29 kid may prove me wrong on that) but if anyone asks me who the greatest Av of all time is, I say Joe Sakic. He carried this squad from start to his own finish, was the most complete player in franchise history, and played at an elite level his entire career, still the oldest player in league history to pass 100 points in a season. Looking back on those Q-coached teams, he and Hejduk did so very much to try and keep a very old and mediocre roster in the race.

 

[MarkT]

Sakic is my favourite all time player, but I voted Foppa here because the question was about them being primed and healthy. If I could have only one for their whole career I'd take Sakic, but a prime, healthy Foppa is in the conversation for best player of all time.

 

[UncleRisto]

I really should've voted for too young to know, lol.

 

[myperbixhurts]

The answer is always Forsberg!

The reason I became an Avs fan was Forsberg so no matter what, the answer is always Foppa

 

[Ivan13]

Forsberg will win because he was flashier, Joe was the better player though and it wasn't particulary close all things (goal scoring, shot, defensive play, durability, playmaking etc) considered.

Ps

I absolutely love how everyone always says "if he was healthy" for Foppa. Well he wasn't, and the way he played is a huge reason for that, the only way for him to prolong his career would be to change his game which would make him far less efficient. The "at his best" part is also absurd to give to him, when exactlly was he better than Joe was in 95/96 or in 00/01? An absolutely brilliant player, but he was no Joe Sakic, just like Malkin is no Crosby.

 

[The Kingslayer]

Peter Forsberg was the best player I have ever seen play this game. He dominated in all three zones.

 

[dahrougem2]

I think Peter Forsberg was a better hockey player than Joe Sakic, but I think Joe Sakic had a better professional hockey career than Peter Forsberg.

I can't even say I'd take Forsberg in a winner-take-all game 7 because Sakic was SO clutch in big games that he'd probably be the pick.

 

[FreshFitted67]

I refuse to pick. They’re both gods.

 

[Pierce Hawthorne]

In there prime and healthy? Forsberg 100%. Guy was an absolute bull on skates and pretty much couldn't be stopped when he was at 100% health.

 

[Makar to MacK]

That is a really hard question but I think I'm going with Forsberg but Sakic is really close

 

[Freudian]

Sakic better career. I like Forsbergs peak more.

 

[5280]

Absolutely love Sakic, but I've always been a Forsberg guy. I wonder what Sakic would say?

 

[Cousin Eddie]

I’m a Sakic fanboy through and through. But throwing “primed and healthy” in there makes this Foppa.

 

[authentic]

Forsberg will win because he was flashier, Joe was the better player though and it wasn't particulary close all things (goal scoring, shot, defensive play, durability, playmaking etc) considered.

Ps

I absolutely love how everyone always says "if he was healthy" for Foppa. Well he wasn't, and the way he played is a huge reason for that, the only way for him to prolong his career would be to change his game which would make him far less efficient. The "at his best" part is also absurd to give to him, when exactlly was he better than Joe was in 95/96 or in 00/01? An absolutely brilliant player, but he was no Joe Sakic, just like Malkin is no Crosby.

That comparison doesn't hold up so well considering Forsberg had the higher points per game in the regular season and playoffs during the time they played on the same team whereas Malkin is comfortably behind Crosby.

 

[AdrianTheMagician]

Absolutely love Sakic, but I've always been a Forsberg guy. I wonder what Sakic would say?

I remember Sakic saying after a game in theyre heyday that when healthy and playing no one was better on the team than forsberg....they knew it just like anyone who saw them in their prime knew it...forsberg would dominate the games, Sakic would stuff the stats....Easily forsberg for me

 

[MartinSkoulYa]

The question being primed and healthy so I voted Peter Forsberg and it was pretty hands down to me and that’s not a slight towards Joe Sakic.

Forsberg was just on another planet for the time. He just reached a certain point and his body broke down on him. The Roy trade drew me to the Avalanche as a kid but seeing Forsberg play is what turned me into a life long Avs fan.

However, I must say, growing older and realizing the steadiness and consistency Sakic brought to those teams, if I had to pick long term kind of start your franchise with either knowing how they turn out, I’d have to go Sakic under those circumstances.

Sakic was the engine and driving force for those teams but Forsberg was the turbo charger and premium gasoline that took it to another level.