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.
Is Peter Forsberg underrated?
- Thread starter Ben White
- Start date
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
Registered User
- May 19, 2014
- 4,774
- 3,657
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.
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.
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.
If people are putting Forsberg in the same breath as Crosby, I’m voting overrated.
Crow
Registered User
- May 19, 2014
- 4,774
- 3,657
Analyze their peaks and tell me how Crosby isn’t similar then. I wasn’t talking about their careers.
frisco
Some people claim that there's a woman to blame...
Fishy McScales
Registered User
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.
If you want to argue that their best full season = their peak, that's reasonable.
But that means you cannot give Forsberg any credit for missing games in 02/03 without opening up a reasonable discussion about Crosby's 10/11 season or his 12/13 season where he was lapping the field before getting injured at an age where historically GOAT talent reaches their peak. The general consensus is that Crosby wasn't quite at the same level in 13/14 as he was 10/11 to 12/13.
So you choose what you want to consider their "peak".
Forsberg has two excellent 3 round playoff performance but they are not as good as Crosby's performance through 3 rounds in 2009.
Not sure that intangibles places Forsberg above Crosby to the extent that you ignore a superior offensive ceiling especially when quality of linemates is considered.
Sakic lost by three points to one of the all-time GOAT offensive talents whose numbers were jacked up by arguably the all-time GOAT offensive talent.
Forsberg won by two points over a player who is arguably not even the GNAT (Greatest Naslund of All Time).
Fishy McScales
Registered User
It's still an odd argument to single out in favour of Sakic. My point is exactly that it's not clear cut.
In general I find these arguments between players a bit daunting because people are rarely prepared to have their preconceived notions challenged.
There's also always a bias against Euros in these threads. People also bring up guys like Bure and Fedorov etc as overrated. Not saying you're doing it.
If Forsberg were Canadian and Sakic Swedish, I suspect Forsberg would be more widely considered the better player, but obviously it's a hypothetical that can't readily be proven or disproven.
I take offense to the insinuation of bias against any non-Canadian, I make it a point target my prejudices only towards Swedes.
It's not odd when it's clear that one can evaluate the strength of a season beyond a cursory look at where one finished in the scoring race.
Sakic was superior points-wise but it is very close in terms of per game dominance. Edge to Sakic for doing it over 82 games.
Fishy McScales
Registered User
Well you also can't do much more than finish first.
Besides, even if Markus finishes second on the GNAT list, he did have one hell of a season that year.
We saw what a healthy Forsberg could do against a peak Jagr in 98 and 99, and it wasn't going to be any better than what Sakic did.
SopelFanThe3rd
Cock of the Walk
Dingo
Registered User
- Jul 13, 2018
- 1,981
- 1,991
So, Forsberg's first two seasons (season and a half) are pre-trap. Scoring levels werent bad. Crosby's first two seasons were high powerplay, then it dropped, but not to as low as the remainder Forsberg's career. Crosby went on to do very well after this and had a bump in per game longevity brought on by the goalie pad reduction of 2017.
But, at this point here, its only down for Crosby AND Forsberg. Age and bad feet.
So, this is their entire primes - the league a bit more friendly overall for Crosby, but only just.
And BOTH of these guys are the 'what if they were healthy' per game type of player.
Its seen as laughable on here that Forsberg should be in the same breath as Crosby (and Sakic)??? Not to mention his better overall game (even moreso over Jags), but just on per game production...
ya, severely underrated, actually.
edit - second one runs from 94-95 to 03-04
Last edited:
Fishy McScales
Registered User
Equally ridiculous. You’ve decided on the smallest, vaguest sample size, each detail of which is incredibly debatable. Peak Crosby is a better scorer, better playmaker, better puck dominator, better leader, and won everything individual and team based he possibly could multiple times. Forsberg was a dynamite player and deserving of his laurels, but the list of players who are Crosby’s peers is only a handful long. Forsberg isn’t on it. You can argue that there was a magical five minutes where Forsberg was as good as Crosby was if you’d like, but it’s a) wrong and b) a ridiculous comparison point that you’ve chosen in the first place.
Enjoy your thread.
Xspyrit
DJ Dorion
It doesn't change the fact that some people still don't really get the idea of "per game" stats... man I was talking about that already 15+ years ago
Those stats were introduced to properly evaluate production performances despite irregular situations like injuries or shortened seasons. Of course a player playing 82 games is more valuable but to evaluate a player's ability, you will need "per game" stats. If not, you just look at the TOTAL columns and that's the end of any discussion. Anybody with a half a brain should be able to read these.
I already gave my opinion on how their peak seasons compare. Forsberg finishing 1st is meaningless in the comparison.
