Peter Forsberg: The Reality in Contrast With The Imagined, Romanticized Version.

[livewell68]

No he just found another instance when Forsberg were 6th in PPG which stil is at the top.

Not really, the poster mentioned how Forsberg was always either 1st or never lower than 3rd in PPG.

I displayed the fact that he was more often out of the top 5, than he was in the top 3.

He was top 3 or better in PPG three times in his career, while he was 6th three times and once 9th without even mentioning his 12-13th once.

This goes against the notion that he was the 2nd best forward of the DPE after Jagr. For starters, he wasn't even his team's best forward, that was on most occasions Sakic if Forsberg fans want to admit it or not. Forsberg's all-around game while great has also been discussed here and we have a lot of evidence to suggest that his Selke voting record is not necessarily merited as lets say Federov's is (a player I feel is far more underrated than Forsberg is). In fact it has been discussed that after 1998, Forsberg was used far less in a shut down role as that role became Sakic's. Another factor to consider is the linemate argument; although not superstars, Forsberg's regular linemates, Tanguay, Kamensky, Drury and Hejduk and on full time basis in 1998-99 Sakic (they formed a line of Forsberg-Sakic-Drury) were not the chopped liver some are making them out to be. He usually played with very good pure snipers like Hejduk and Gagne. Also when you are as predictable as Forsberg is (his reluctance to shoot and think pass first) you eventually become a more simple player to devise a game plan against and contain. Thornton in comparison has suffered the same fate as he went from being a 90 assists guy to no longer even being able to maintain a PPG pace since teams have learned how to face him and they just take away his passing options. In the 90's, no other "superstar" was as predictable as Forsberg was with the exception of Bure. All of Lindros, Jagr, Sakic Selanne, Karyia and Federov could be sublime set up men and still continue to score goals at a high rate.

I will stand by my opinion that Forsberg was the 7th best forward of the DPE following Jagr, Lindros, Sakic, Federov, Selanne and Karyia and overall in the 90's was a step below Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Selanne, Lindros, Messier and a peak Federov.

 

[Trottier]

The difference of opinions on this player have never ceased to confuse me. To be sure, it's understandable that some would consider others of Forsberg's era to be superior. But it's insulting, IMO, to suggest that one who favors the player simply has a "imagined" or "romanticized" point of view.

No, it's simply one that differs from yours (and others).

And count me among those who shares that view.

Would never engage in this discussion on the main board, but I'll simply say that in watching the game since the mid-70s, I rank a scant few players superior to Forsberg. And I saw only one forward bring a more consistently complete game to the ice. (I'll let you guess who that was.)

Again, one need not have that high an opinion of the player. But to rip his admirers is akin to those on the main board who mock Toews and those who appreciate his greatness. For there is a good case to be made for the player.

Just my opinion.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Not really, the poster mentioned how Forsberg was always either 1st or never lower than 3rd in PPG.

I displayed the fact that he was more often out of the top 5, than he was in the top 3.

He was top 3 or better in PPG three times in his career, while he was 6th three times and once 9th without even mentioning his 12-13th once.

This goes against the notion that he was the 2nd best forward of the DPE after Jagr. For starters, he wasn't even his team's best forward, that was on most occasions Sakic if Forsberg fans want to admit it or not. Forsberg's all-around game while great has also been discussed here and we have a lot of evidence to suggest that his Selke voting record is not necessarily merited as lets say Federov's is (a player I feel is far more underrated than Forsberg is). In fact it has been discussed that after 1998, Forsberg was used far less in a shut down role as that role became Sakic's. Another factor to consider is the linemate argument; although not superstars, Forsberg's regular linemates, Tanguay, Kamensky, Drury and Hejduk and on full time basis in 1998-99 Sakic (they formed a line of Forsberg-Sakic-Drury) were not the chopped liver some are making them out to be. He usually played with very good pure snipers like Hejduk and Gagne. Also when you are as predictable as Forsberg is (his reluctance to shoot and think pass first) you eventually become a more simple player to devise a game plan against and contain. Thornton in comparison has suffered the same fate as he went from being a 90 assists guy to no longer even being able to maintain a PPG pace since teams have learned how to face him and they just take away his passing options. In the 90's, no other "superstar" was as predictable as Forsberg was with the exception of Bure. All of Lindros, Jagr, Sakic Selanne, Karyia and Federov could be sublime set up men and still continue to score goals at a high rate.

I will stand by my opinion that Forsberg was the 7th best forward of the DPE following Jagr, Lindros, Sakic, Federov, Selanne and Karyia and overall in the 90's was a step below Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Selanne, Lindros, Messier and a peak Federov.

If I could take the liberty here of summarizing your arguments (for the sake of convenience), they would be as follows:

1. His offence is overrated (as evidenced by his PPG finishes).

2. He wasn't even his team's best forward.

3. His Selke record doesn't reflect his reputation as a defensive player and, as time went on, he lost the shutdown role to others on his team.

4. He had strong linemates.

5. His offence was somewhat one-dimensional.

OK, fine. With you so far. HOWEVER, then you go and rank Fedorov ahead of him.

Let's review Fedorov based on that same metric, shall we?

1. His offence is overrated (as evidenced by his PPG finishes)- Fedorov has three top ten finishes in PPG: 4th, 7th and 9th. Vastly, ridiculously, completely inferior to Forsberg's eight top-ten including two first place finishes.

2. He wasn't even his team's best forward- At least, Forsberg was competing against a prime Joe Sakic for ice-time. Steve Yzerman had declined a bit by the mid-90s but was still superior to Fedorov (I know some will argue this and my intent is not to start that debate so let's leave it at this: the argument for Yzerman over Fedorov is at least as good as the argument for Sakic over Forsberg). And that's not even mentioning Lidstrom who, if we expand the argument beyond forwards, was also clearly more valuable than Fedorov.

3. His Selke record doesn't reflect his reputation as a defensive player and, as time went on, he lost the shutdown role to others on his team- Fedorov has this one, for sure. Two Selke wins is solid. However, after Sergei's last win in 1996, Yzerman picks up the following Selke finishes: Fourth in 1999, First in 2000, Fifth in 2001. Fedorov on the other hand? Never does better than ninth after 1996. A lot of hay is made around here on Fedorov's Selke wins. The second half of his career, meanwhile, is ignored.

4. He had strong linemates- I'd say Sergei did OK in Detroit in this regard.

5. His offence was somewhat one-dimensional- You actually name Fedorov as one of the player that, 'could be sublime set up men and still continue to score goals at a high rate'.

Fedorov's top-ten GPG finishes: 5th in 1994.

Fedorov's top-ten APG finishes: 10th in 1996.

Forsberg's top-ten GPG finishes: 0

Forsberg's top-ten APG: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.

Maybe its me, but I wouldn't trade marginally better goal-scoring for hands-down superior playmaking.

And you didn't mention it, but the other argument that gets brought up with Fedorov is his playoff record. Which, at best, can only be argued to be as good as Forsberg's and not better.

This is a thread about Forsberg being overrated, and yet a few posters have named the clearly inferior Fedorov as someone who was as good or better. . . If that doesn't tell who is, in fact, overrated, I don't know what does.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

The difference of opinions on this player have never ceased to confuse me. To be sure, it's understandable that some would consider others of Forsberg's era to be superior. But it's insulting, IMO, to suggest that one who favors the player simply has a "imagined" or "romanticized" point of view.

No, it's simply one that differs from yours (and others).

And count me among those who shares that view.

Would never engage in this discussion on the main board, but I'll simply say that in watching the game since the mid-70s, I rank a scant few players superior to Forsberg. And I saw only one forward bring a more consistently complete game to the ice. (I'll let you guess who that was.)

Again, one need not have that high an opinion of the player. But to his admirers is akin to those on the main board who mock Toews and those who appreciate his greatness.

Just my opinion.

I generally agree with almost everything you post on here, buuut. . . 'only one forward brought a more consistently complete game to the ice since the mid-70s'???

Even allowing for the fact that 'consistently complete' is a term that's open for some interpretation, I just don't see any argument for Forsberg over Clarke or Messier.

 

[quoipourquoi]

If I could take the liberty here of summarizing your arguments (for the sake of convenience), they would be as follows:

1. His offence is overrated (as evidenced by his PPG finishes).

2. He wasn't even his team's best forward.

3. His Selke record doesn't reflect his reputation as a defensive player and, as time went on, he lost the shutdown role to others on his team.

4. He had strong linemates.

5. His offence was somewhat one-dimensional.

OK, fine. With you so far. HOWEVER, then you go and rank Fedorov ahead of him.

Let's review Fedorov based on that same metric, shall we?

1. His offence is overrated (as evidenced by his PPG finishes)- Fedorov has three top ten finishes in PPG: 4th, 7th and 9th. Vastly, ridiculously, completely inferior to Forsberg's eight top-ten including two first place finishes.

2. He wasn't even his team's best forward- At least, Forsberg was competing against a prime Joe Sakic for ice-time. Steve Yzerman had declined a bit by the mid-90s but was still superior to Fedorov (I know some will argue this and my intent is not to start that debate so let's leave it at this: the argument for Yzerman over Fedorov is at least as good as the argument for Sakic over Forsberg). And that's not even mentioning Lidstrom who, if we expand the argument beyond forwards, was also clearly more valuable than Fedorov.

3. His Selke record doesn't reflect his reputation as a defensive player and, as time went on, he lost the shutdown role to others on his team- Fedorov has this one, for sure. Two Selke wins is solid. However, after Sergei's last win in 1996, Yzerman picks up the following Selke finishes: Fourth in 1999, First in 2000, Fifth in 2001. Fedorov on the other hand? Never does better than ninth after 1996. A lot of hay is made around here on Fedorov's Selke wins. The second half of his career, meanwhile, is ignored.

4. He had strong linemates- I'd say Sergei did OK in Detroit in this regard.

5. His offence was somewhat one-dimensional- You actually name Fedorov as one of the player that, 'could be sublime set up men and still continue to score goals at a high rate'.

Fedorov's top-ten GPG finishes: 5th in 1994.

Fedorov's top-ten APG finishes: 10th in 1996.

Forsberg's top-ten GPG finishes: 0

Forsberg's top-ten APG: 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5.

Maybe its me, but I wouldn't trade marginally better goal-scoring for hands-down superior playmaking.

And you didn't mention it, but the other argument that gets brought up with Fedorov is his playoff record. Which, at best, can only be argued to be as good as Forsberg's and not better.

This is a thread about Forsberg being overrated, and yet a few posters have named the clearly inferior Fedorov as someone who was as good or better. . . If that doesn't tell who is, in fact, overrated, I don't know what does.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...tat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals_per_game

For whatever reason, H-R lists Forsberg's APG and PPG finishes in 2003-04 but overlooks his top-five GPG placement in the same season.

 

[Trottier]

I generally agree with almost everything you post on here, buuut. . . 'only one forward brought a more consistently complete game to the ice since the mid-70s'???

Even allowing for the fact that 'consistently complete' is a term that's open for some interpretation, I just don't see any argument for Forsberg over Clarke or Messier.

Fair point.

 

[Kranix]

For a player that could dominate the game like no one outside of Gretkzy and Lemieux, he has 1 scoring title.

Pffffhis face is on a stamp. A Postage Stamp!!

 

[Hardyvan123]

As an Avalanche fan, the biggest problem that I always had with Forsberg (especially "late Forsberg") was that you never knew if you could rely on him.

When he played and was healthy, there was no one on the ice I'd rather have.

This is pretty much how I feel about the post and Foppa in general, in the games he played in he was elite and the best Avs player, slightly ahead of Burnaby Joe.

But when injuries are taken into account, and they must be, Foppa's legendary status does take a bit of a tumble.

That being said even with no Conn Smythe Foppa was the better overall Avs player when he and Joe's time overlapped and it's not even really all that close.

Foppa is hands down one of the best 10 forwards in the playoffs ever, arguably top 5.

 

[Hasbro]

Well, people hold Lindros' injuries against him because of his playing style.

Are you kidding? That's the first thing said in defense of Lindros whenever he comes up.

I don't know what weight Walz quote should hold either. Bertuzzi had a goal and an assist in that 7 game series, shot his mouth off to the media and has been horrible playoff performer. In contrast Forsberg has 2 goals and 6 assists in the series that year.

 

[sr edler]

The Walz comment felt more like he tried to compliment on Bertuzzi than an insult to Forsberg. That said, Bertuzzi completely bombed in that Wild series with only 2 measly points in 7 games, and in that playoffs as a whole with 6 points in 14 games, so there's that. And in all his other playoffs in Vancouver as well. He never showed any Forsberg playoff magic. More like Tkachuk playoff "magic". Forsberg could turn on a switch in the playoffs and raised his goal ratio, because he felt he had to. Bertuzzi was a guy who did the opposite. He turned it off. And while he had soft hands, he never had close to Forsberg vision.

 

[JA]

I don't know what weight Walz quote should hold either. Bertuzzi had a goal and an assist in that 7 game series, shot his mouth off to the media and has been horrible playoff performer. In contrast Forsberg has 2 goals and 6 assists in the series that year.

The purpose of the Walz quote is to demonstrate that Forsberg's offensive talent was not unmatched during the Dead Puck Era; aside from Jaromir Jagr (who was better than Forsberg offensively), there were other players during the period who were on or above his level in terms of offensive talent.

The quotation is not meant as a comparison of playoff ability, as clearly Forsberg could elevate his game while Bertuzzi could not. The quotation itself refers to Bertuzzi's puck-handling abilities at the time, which these days have been largely understated; the focus is on their general abilities:

"You've got a power forward in Bertuzzi that probably handles the puck as well as Forsberg and he's fifty pounds heavier than Forsberg," Walz said after the Wild practice Thursday.

The Minnesota Wild, Colorado Avalanche and Vancouver Canucks were all in the same division. He would have seen Bertuzzi and Forsberg as often as six times each in any given year. Walz ranked third that year in Selke Trophy voting (2003). Thus, he would have had a strong sense of the talent level of both players.

There certainly appear to be those who believe Forsberg was the most talented offensive player in the league throughout the entire Dead Puck Era, but his point per game totals state otherwise, his playmaking was matched by some of his peers, defensively he was never the best player in the league (never won a Selke Trophy), and even his stickhandling was placed on a similar level as his competitors, particularly those who these days aren't talked about much for their abilities in 2003 (though Bertuzzi was 5th in Hart Trophy voting that year). Forsberg's talent level was on an equal level with some of his peers offensively (and below Jaromir Jagr's); his passing ability was better than his shot; he was never the best player defensively in the league either. He won the Art Ross Trophy in 2003, but did so on the final day of the season, and just barely.

There are those who speak of him, however, as if he was on a higher level either offensively or defensively than his peers consistently over a substantial period of time.

This thread is a load of crap IMHO.

...

Fact is when people say he controlled the pace of the game better than or as good as any except the generational talents (Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe), there's a reason why so many people say that, and that is of course because it's the truth. He simply dominated games at a level that not even Crosby or Malkin can, or a peak Datsyuk even.

 

[JA]

Yeah and there's already been two posters in this thread that listed Forsberg ahead of Messier. One of them had him ahead of Clarke, too.

OK, Im back on your side. He is definitely still overrated. (Bure was still a cherrypicker, though)

On the topic of Bure, my goal is to categorize his pre-1998 and post-1998 selves separately (a third category would be Rangers Bure, as a significant amount of evidence documents a return to his pre-1998 defensive tendencies).

In Florida, Pavel gained a reputation for cherry picking. I have analyzed some footage from that time, and I will agree to some extent this is true, although still not to the degree that some would argue.

His pre-1998 self, however, is a completely different matter. My work thus far has been to profile that Bure, as he is a far different individual. While I have contributed evidence to provide us with a greater understanding of the player, I have also preached to those who are interested to watch game footage to see for themselves the Bure who, for the most part, was hidden in Vancouver behind an unsatisfactory, local television deal and whose greatest asset, his goal-scoring ability, became the only thing sports journalists outside of the city ever talked about. There is a lot to say about that Bure, and more work is being done on the topic.

 

[Boxscore]

This is interesting. I believe there is something sentimental about Forsberg that separates him from his peers. It's hard to fully articulate but there's definitely something seductive and mystical about his skill and legend that makes him a rare jewel. The closest players I could compare him to in this regard are Maurice Richard, Valeri Kharlamov and Guy Lafleur.

I've watched the game loyally since the late-70s. To this day I insist that Forsberg was one of the absolutely greatest forwards I've ever watched with my own eyes. He wasn't the greatest goal scorer (far from it actually) and he wasn't the best passer (although he was an elite passer). He wasn't the top defensive forward I've ever seen and he wasn't the greatest pure leader. He also wasn't the best skater or the fastest or the most physical. But he was very good at everything, where others dominated in certain areas but fell terribly short in others. This made him standout every shift even when he wasn't scoring.

Here's the thing about Forsberg though: his raw talent was mesmerizing at times. In terms of artistry and brilliance, the only players I've seen over the years who trump Foppa are Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr. Period. Fedorov, Bure and D. Savard were close. As is Patrick Kane today. Outside of the NHL, I would put Makarov into the discussion, but that's it.

Forsberg was worth the price of admission and wowed me on many occasions. It could be an unbelievable pass or a perfect missile under the bar. Or it could be the way he would toss his body into a defender, knocking him on his rear. Or the way he used the back of the net like Clarke and Gretzky to make defenses look silly. Forsberg could do it all and do it all well. On top of that, he just looked great doing it. There was a certain style and artistry to everything Forsberg did that amazed me.

The other thing Forsberg did better than anyone I've ever seen outside of Gretzky or Fedorov was change his pace while entertaining the fans. The footage I've seen of Orr demonstrate this as well. Watching Forsberg perform was akin to watching Michael Jackson perform. Yes, it's a weird comparison, but there was just something "magical" about watching Peter the Great work.

Lastly, Forsberg was a very likable personality. He wasn't as outspoken as Esposito or Roenick, but he had a quirkiness and Euro rebel type of mystique about him. His crystal blue eyes, long hair and beard added to his mythical persona sort of like the visuals displayed by Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and Guy Lafleur.

A lot of what made Forsberg special appealed to people's emotions and senses. The visual, the art, the skill, the physicality and raw performance made his analytics shine better than they would on their own.

So, was Forsberg overrated? To each their own. Not in my book.

 

[Fred Taylor]

This is interesting. I believe there is something sentimental about Forsberg that separates him from his peers. It's hard to fully articulate but there's definitely something seductive and mystical about his skill and legend that makes him a rare jewel. The closest players I could compare him to in this regard are Maurice Richard, Valeri Kharlamov and Guy Lafleur.

I've watched the game loyally since the late-70s. To this day I insist that Forsberg was one of the absolutely greatest forwards I've ever watched with my own eyes. He wasn't the greatest goal scorer (far from it actually) and he wasn't the best passer (although he was an elite passer). He wasn't the top defensive forward I've ever seen and he wasn't the greatest pure leader. He also wasn't the best skater or the fastest or the most physical. But he was very good at everything, where others dominated in certain areas but fell terribly short in others. This made him standout every shift even when he wasn't scoring.

Here's the thing about Forsberg though: his raw talent was mesmerizing at times. In terms of artistry and brilliance, the only players I've seen over the years who trump Foppa are Gretzky, Lemieux and Jagr. Period. Fedorov, Bure and D. Savard were close. As is Patrick Kane today. Outside of the NHL, I would put Makarov into the discussion, but that's it.

Forsberg was worth the price of admission and wowed me on many occasions. It could be an unbelievable pass or a perfect missile under the bar. Or it could be the way he would toss his body into a defender, knocking him on his rear. Or the way he used the back of the net like Clarke and Gretzky to make defenses look silly. Forsberg could do it all and do it all well. On top of that, he just looked great doing it. There was a certain style and artistry to everything Forsberg did that amazed me.

The other thing Forsberg did better than anyone I've ever seen outside of Gretzky or Fedorov was change his pace while entertaining the fans. The footage I've seen of Orr demonstrate this as well. Watching Forsberg perform was akin to watching Michael Jackson perform. Yes, it's a weird comparison, but there was just something "magical" about watching Peter the Great work.

Lastly, Forsberg was a very likable personality. He wasn't as outspoken as Esposito or Roenick, but he had a quirkiness and Euro rebel type of mystique about him. His crystal blue eyes, long hair and beard added to his mythical persona sort of like the visuals displayed by Rocket Richard, Bobby Hull and Guy Lafleur.

A lot of what made Forsberg special appealed to people's emotions and senses. The visual, the art, the skill, the physicality and raw performance made his analytics shine better than they would on their own.

So, was Forsberg overrated? To each their own. Not in my book.

Good post. I'm glad you and Trottier both agree with me, two other knowledgeable posters who have also been watching since the 70's. My main problem with this thread is like Trottier stated, that the opinions of those who hold Forsberg on a very high level, are "imagined" or "romanticized", it's just insulting to fans of his. I guess you could say the same thing for the posters that don't even consider him top 5 of his era (which is horrendously underrating him), or that Selanne and Kariya were better? Just makes me wonder if we're all watching the same game.

 

[Fred Taylor]

Not really, the poster mentioned how Forsberg was always either 1st or never lower than 3rd in PPG.

I displayed the fact that he was more often out of the top 5, than he was in the top 3.

He was top 3 or better in PPG three times in his career, while he was 6th three times and once 9th without even mentioning his 12-13th once.

This goes against the notion that he was the 2nd best forward of the DPE after Jagr. For starters, he wasn't even his team's best forward, that was on most occasions Sakic if Forsberg fans want to admit it or not. Forsberg's all-around game while great has also been discussed here and we have a lot of evidence to suggest that his Selke voting record is not necessarily merited as lets say Federov's is (a player I feel is far more underrated than Forsberg is). In fact it has been discussed that after 1998, Forsberg was used far less in a shut down role as that role became Sakic's. Another factor to consider is the linemate argument; although not superstars, Forsberg's regular linemates, Tanguay, Kamensky, Drury and Hejduk and on full time basis in 1998-99 Sakic (they formed a line of Forsberg-Sakic-Drury) were not the chopped liver some are making them out to be. He usually played with very good pure snipers like Hejduk and Gagne. Also when you are as predictable as Forsberg is (his reluctance to shoot and think pass first) you eventually become a more simple player to devise a game plan against and contain. Thornton in comparison has suffered the same fate as he went from being a 90 assists guy to no longer even being able to maintain a PPG pace since teams have learned how to face him and they just take away his passing options. In the 90's, no other "superstar" was as predictable as Forsberg was with the exception of Bure. All of Lindros, Jagr, Sakic Selanne, Karyia and Federov could be sublime set up men and still continue to score goals at a high rate.

I will stand by my opinion that Forsberg was the 7th best forward of the DPE following Jagr, Lindros, Sakic, Federov, Selanne and Karyia and overall in the 90's was a step below Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr, Sakic, Selanne, Lindros, Messier and a peak Federov.

Forsberg was a step below Sakic, Selanne, Messier, and Fedorov?

7th best forward of the dead puck era? You realize he's second in points per game during the DPE (96/97 - 03/04) just slightly behind Jagr? That's underrating him by quite a bit. You could argue Fedorov for one season was better than Forsberg (though Fedorov for one season was better than almost everyone), Sakic and Messier I can see as being on his level, but Selanne? Kariya? Are you for real?

So you truly believe the 7th best forward of the DPE was better than the best forward today (Sidney Crosby)?

 

[Fred Taylor]

The purpose of the Walz quote is to demonstrate that Forsberg's offensive talent was not unmatched during the Dead Puck Era; aside from Jaromir Jagr (who was better than Forsberg offensively), there were other players during the period who were on or above his level in terms of offensive talent.

The quotation is not meant as a comparison of playoff ability, as clearly Forsberg could elevate his game while Bertuzzi could not. The quotation itself refers to Bertuzzi's puck-handling abilities at the time, which these days have been largely understated; the focus is on their general abilities:


The Minnesota Wild, Colorado Avalanche and Vancouver Canucks were all in the same division. He would have seen Bertuzzi and Forsberg as often as six times each in any given year. Walz ranked third that year in Selke Trophy voting (2003). Thus, he would have had a strong sense of the talent level of both players.

There certainly appear to be those who believe Forsberg was the most talented offensive player in the league throughout the entire Dead Puck Era, but his point per game totals state otherwise, his playmaking was matched by some of his peers, defensively he was never the best player in the league (never won a Selke Trophy), and even his stickhandling was placed on a similar level as his competitors, particularly those who these days aren't talked about much for their abilities in 2003 (though Bertuzzi was 5th in Hart Trophy voting that year). Forsberg's talent level was on an equal level with some of his peers offensively (and below Jaromir Jagr's); his passing ability was better than his shot; he was never the best player defensively in the league either. He won the Art Ross Trophy in 2003, but did so on the final day of the season, and just barely.

There are those who speak of him, however, as if he was on a higher level either offensively or defensively than his peers consistently over a substantial period of time.

Sorry, I must be imagining things.

How about that two-way beast Pavel Bure?

On a serious note though, has anyone ever called Forsberg the best defensive player in the game? Do you really believe Forsberg's hands were no better than Bertuzzi's? Forsberg had the best hands other than Lemieux and Jagr during his era. Also, I love how you mention he just barely beat out Naslund for the Art Ross, yet fail to mention that he played 7 less games, he was actually on pace for 12 more points, while being a far better overall player than Naslund was. You also fail to mention how he was hands down the best offensive player in 03/04, despite only playing half the season, and yes you've heard it before, but he lead the playoffs in points, twice, without even making it to the finals...

 

[Fred Taylor]

This is pretty much how I feel about the post and Foppa in general, in the games he played in he was elite and the best Avs player, slightly ahead of Burnaby Joe.

But when injuries are taken into account, and they must be, Foppa's legendary status does take a bit of a tumble.

That being said even with no Conn Smythe Foppa was the better overall Avs player when he and Joe's time overlapped and it's not even really all that close.

Foppa is hands down one of the best 10 forwards in the playoffs ever, arguably top 5.

I agree, and would even go as far as to say that he most certainly is top 5 ever in the playoffs among forwards.

 

[Epsilon]

I agree, and would even go as far as to say that he most certainly is top 5 ever in the playoffs among forwards.

I'd say it's pretty tough to claim any forward is "most certainly top 5 ever in the playoffs" other than Wayne, Mario, and arguably Messier.

Forsberg is 15th overall among forwards in total points, and 9th overall among forwards in PPG. On the later list I'd argue he's clearly better than at least 3 of the players in front of him: Crosby, Malkin, and Perreault. But the others are Kurri and Bossy who were both obviously beasts in the playoffs and big contributors to dynasties. And that's not even taking into consideration the players who are behind him in PPG, which include Howe, Beliveau, Gilmour, and Trottier - the later 3 of which all have more career playoff points.

Forsberg has a case for top 5 I think, but "certainly" is overstating it given the competition for the 3 non-Wayne/Mario slots.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd say it's pretty tough to claim any forward is "most certainly top 5 ever in the playoffs" other than Wayne, Mario, and arguably Messier.

Forsberg is 15th overall among forwards in total points, and 9th overall among forwards in PPG. On the later list I'd argue he's clearly better than at least 3 of the players in front of him: Crosby, Malkin, and Perreault. But the others are Kurri and Bossy who were both obviously beasts in the playoffs and big contributors to dynasties. And that's not even taking into consideration the players who are behind him in PPG, which include Howe, Beliveau, Gilmour, and Trottier - the later 3 of which all have more career playoff points.

Forsberg has a case for top 5 I think, but "certainly" is overstating it given the competition for the 3 non-Wayne/Mario slots.

Forsberg doesn't have a case for top 5. I don't see any case to have him over Gretzky, Messier, Beliveau, Richard, Lemieux, or Howe in the playoffs... and that's 6 already.

I would have him (barely) under Sakic on his own team, though I realize that one is certainly debatable.

 

[Epsilon]

Yeah I can't believe I forgot to list Richard. But the point of that exercise was more just to show that even on the most basic statistical metrics it's hard to make that case.

 

[DisgruntledGoat*]

Yeah, now matter how kooky you want to skew things in favour of the DPE players (and some can get pretty kooky), there is just simply no way Forsberg is top five in the playoffs.

 

[Plante]

I always Forsberg was quite overrated. In playoffs I was not nearly as afraid of him as I was of Sakic, C. Lemieux, Kamensky, or even Drury. And he was pretty darn far from "the most complete player of all time.". That would be Fedorov.

Why bother to lie?

 

[Moose Head]

I'm not an AV's fan. Foffa isn't one of my favourites. I'm not a fan of Swedish hockey.

That said, from the time he entered the league till 2003, there's not another forward in the world at the time I would have rather had if I wanted to win cups. A shame he had the injuries he had, because at his best he was every bit the player guys like trottier, Clarke and Messier were.

This isn't some romanized notion of mine. It's what I thought when I watched him and I've seen most of the best. I'm not a youngin like most around here.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Yeah, now matter how kooky you want to skew things in favour of the DPE players (and some can get pretty kooky), there is just simply no way Forsberg is top five in the playoffs.

Look I can see why guys might not have him in the top 5 and the comment that he is a lock for the top 5 probably started alot of this discussion, not my arguably comment.

That being said to say simply there is no way he is in the top 5 is equally unfounded as saying that he is a lock.

The field gets pretty open after Wayne IMO.

All the guys in the mix have cases for or high and low points for the argument of 2-5.

Foppa was easily the better 2 way player, and had more total impact,as indicated by the eye test and confirmed by the plus/minus compared to Sakic over the same time period.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points

 

[quoipourquoi]

Forsberg doesn't have a case for top 5. I don't see any case to have him over Gretzky, Messier, Beliveau, Richard, Lemieux, or Howe in the playoffs... and that's 6 already.

I would have him (barely) under Sakic on his own team, though I realize that one is certainly debatable.

Definitely not top-five: Gretzky, Lemieux, Beliveau, Richard, and Messier have that on lock. I think the argument of Sakic vs. Forsberg in the playoffs could be interesting, but Sakic certainly laid more eggs. Plus-minus had nothing to do with it though, as Hardyvan is insinuating, for reasons that have been covered 8,000 times.

Ultimately, it would be Forsberg over Sakic for me, because for the most part, he produced slightly better offensive numbers while facing better defenders. Sakic's best run in 1996 saw Forsberg draw Chelios in Chicago and Konstantinov in Detroit, not unlike how the attention given to Crosby in 2009 opened things up for Malkin. Then again, it's playoff overtime: Does anyone not want Joe Sakic over every other player in NHL history?