Is Peter Forsberg underrated?

[daver]

Crosby definitely had the vastly superior career but I’m not sure he was the superior player at all. I’m leaning towards Forsbergs overall game. If I had to chose between the two in their prime with guaranteed health (I know this is fantasy land), I would want Forsberg on my team.

Crosby was a higher level offensively than Forsberg while playing a very good defensive game. His play in 10/11 before getting concussed was arguably the best hockey played since Wayne/Mario. He was scoring goals at a superstar rate, playing great all around, and doing it mainly on his own with average to below average linemates and an underperforming Malkin.

 

[Crow]

Crosby was a higher level offensively than Forsberg while playing a very good defensive game. His play in 10/11 before getting concussed was arguably the best hockey played since Wayne/Mario. He scoring goals at a superstar rate, playing great all around, and doing it mainly on his own with average linemates and an underperforming Malkin.

Yeah but great players go on 40 game hot streaks and fall off or taper off a lot. Not much to make of that. It’s not enough games.

 

[authentic]

Crosby was a higher level offensively than Forsberg while playing a very good defensive game. His play in 10/11 before getting concussed was arguably the best hockey played since Wayne/Mario. He was scoring goals at a superstar rate, playing great all around, and doing it mainly on his own with average to below average linemates and an underperforming Malkin.

He probably had the best 25 games atleast, 26 goals and 50 points in a consecutive point streak. I think mostly everyone has Crosby higher than Forsberg but at their peak I don’t see a whopping difference between them, and their playoff resumes overall along with Forsbergs overall game are basically proof Crosby wasn’t on some immensely higher level, Forsbergs is better there in goal scoring and offensive play alone (although they’re obviously extremely close). Even in those shortened seasons you alude to in that thread Forsberg and Crosby look pretty similarly dominant when taking into account Forsbergs overall game. If you ask me they are easily right behind McDavid for best players of the millennium at their peak along with Malkin and Ovechkin.

 

[authentic]

Yeah but great players go on 40 game hot streaks and fall off or taper off a lot. Not much to make of that. It’s not enough games.

Also 55 points in 39 games in a 5.14 goals per game NHL, immediately following a 75 game season where he put up the exact same points per game, with better defense and physical play, and averaging just above and below 19 minutes per game in each season.

Then starts the 2005-06 season with 39 points in 21 games, not so drastically different than Crosby’s 37 in 22 in a lower scoring season following his previous two shortened seasons.

 

[LeafGrief]

Crosby definitely had the vastly superior career but I’m not sure he was the superior player at all. I’m leaning towards Forsbergs overall game. If I had to chose between the two in their prime with guaranteed health (I know this is fantasy land), I would want Forsberg on my team.

If people are putting Forsberg in the same breath as Crosby, I’m voting overrated.

 

[Crow]

If people are putting Forsberg in the same breath as Crosby, I’m voting overrated.

Analyze their peaks and tell me how Crosby isn’t similar then. I wasn’t talking about their careers.

 

[frisco]

If people are putting Forsberg in the same breath as Crosby, I’m voting overrated.

Not too mention over Joe Sakic and Mark Messier...

My Best-Carey

 

[Fishy McScales]

I'm fine with looking outside of just full seasons for "best".

My point was - if you consider Sakic's 2001 regular season performance, was Forsberg ever better than that in the regular season, or even as good? And if you consider Sakic's 1996 playoffs - was Forsberg ever as good or better? I'm not sure the answer is yes to either question.

I think Sakic's 2nd best regular season, and certainly his 3rd best, is far behind his best. Whereas Forsberg, he was more consistently at or near his best for more years. Which is better? I don't know. But it can probably be argued either way.

I know you posted this like a month ago but stumbled on this today.

Highlighting single-season performance as an argument for Sakic is kind of odd given the fact that Forsberg has a Ross and Sakic doesn't. Numbers are relative season-to-season, winning is not.

Also, 1995-96 was Forsberg's second season and Sakic's eighth which helps explain that he was better in a cup run. In 2001 Forsberg was in his prime but ruptured his spleen so wasn't around for the full run. In 2002 he outproduced Sakic significantly despite missing the entire regular season.

It's tough to compare them as they were both great players with different skill sets. Both are big favourites of mine. If I had to pick one I'd pick Forsberg.