Peter Forsberg vs Stan Mikita

[Ziostilon]

Foppa's injury woes does not help his cause. But his talent cannot be overlooked

Who is the better player after your in-depth look?
Peter Mattias Forsberg or Stanislav Gvoth

Click to read more...

 

[MXD]

Foppa's injury woes does not help his cause. But his talent cannot be overlooked

Who is the better player after your in-depth look?
Peter Mattias Forsberg or Stanislav Gvoth

That's kindof unfair to Forsberg...

 

[Dreakmur]

Mikita may be the 3rd best center of all time, and he's at worst 5th.

Forsberg isn't even in the top 20 centers.

This one's not even close.

 

[Ziostilon]

Mikita may be the 3rd best center of all time, and he's at worst 5th.

Forsberg isn't even in the top 20 centers.

This one's not even close.

so is this a "what could've been", had Forsberg not been injured so often

 

[MXD]

Mikita may be the 3rd best center of all time, and he's at worst 5th.

Forsberg isn't even in the top 20 centers.

This one's not even close.

This is arguably more outrageous than the poll itself.

 

[seventieslord]

Forsberg's talent can be overlooked, if you're doing something as absurd as comparing him to Stan Mikita.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

That's kindof unfair to Forsberg...

I don't know how it could be that unfair. People seem to stop just short of using the term "generational talent" when talking about Forsberg, so...

It's one of those how much to you value peak versus career type comparisons. Career-wise, I don't think there's much arguing against a back-to-back Hart winner and two time back-to-back Art Ross winner.

But if I'm offered a time machine, and a chance as a GM to build a team around either Mikita in the mid-60s or Forsberg between lockouts, it's a much tougher decision. I obviously have Mikita ahead of Forsberg on my all-time list, but that's not helping me choose right now. Tempted to go with the conventional wisdom of Mikita (especially given injury concerns... assuming they're included and valid).

 

[jiboy]

seeing that pic of a young forsberg hurt me a little inside

what melancoly can do

 

[Blizzard]

Not much of a comparison and that is in no way is taking anything away from Forsberg but Mikita easily wins this one.


Stan Mikita 541 G -926 A -1467 PTS

Was the most feared center of the sixties, fantastic two way talent, great faceoff man, innovator with the curved stick and one of the first to use the slapshot, began his career as a physical player willing to drop the gloves then transformed into a 2 time Byng winner, second to only Howe when he retired, he could play any way you wanted to play, 1 Stanley Cup, 2 Harts, 2 Ross, 2 Byngs, 1 Lester Patrick, Only player to win the Hart, Ross, Byng in same season and he did it twice back to back, played his whole career in Chicago



Peter Forsberg 249 G- 636 A - 885 PTS

Excellent combination of skill and physicality, very good two way player, great international player and broke World Juniors scoring record, 2 Stanley Cups, 1 Ross, 1 Hart, and the Calder



Both have excellent resumes but without a doubt Mikita was the more dominant of the two. Mikita should be in the top 25 of any all time great players list regardless of position and Forsberg should not.

 

[Dreakmur]

This is arguably more outrageous than the poll itself.

He put up better offensive numbers than Beliveau, and did it with much less help. He's also better defensively than Beliveau.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Mikita may be the 3rd best center of all time, and he's at worst 5th.

Forsberg isn't even in the top 20 centers.

This one's not even close.

I'm not convinced Forsberg isn't top 20. He's somewhere around 20 IMO.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm not convinced Forsberg isn't top 20. He's somewhere around 20 IMO.

Yeah, you're right. He's around 20.

Does it really matter though? It's not even close either way.

 

[unknown33]

Voted Forsberg, because this poll is just stupid and onesided.

 

[tony d]

Stan Mikita but had Forsberg not been so injury prone it would be a lot closer and possibly the answer here would be Forsberg.

 

[MXD]

He put up better offensive numbers than Beliveau, and did it with much less help. He's also better defensively than Beliveau.

That's about the same value than if i'd say

- Beliveau was better offensively and better defensively.

 

[Oilers1*]

If you put this on the NHL board, it would be Forsberg in a landslide. . .

 

[Reds4Life]

I'd take prime Forsberg over prime Mikita, but career-wise it's Stan quite easily.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd take prime Forsberg over prime Mikita, but career-wise it's Stan quite easily.

I wouldn't even take Forsberg over Mikita at his peak.

At Mikita's absolute peak, he was the best player in the world, leading the league in assists and points, having a very strong two-way game, winning the Hart, being as durable as usual, and being a highly elite goalscorer. And it lasted two seasons. And it was against competition like Howe, Hull, Beliveau, and Orr.

At Forsberg's absolute peak, he was the best player in the world, leading the league in assists and points, having a very strong two-way game, winning the Hart, being as durable for a change, and being a piss-poor goalscorer as far as top-100 players go. And it lasted one season. And it was against competition like Naslund, Thornton, and Demitra.

 

[Fredrik_71]

Not another Forsberg vs thread

Forsberg 1.25 ppg and Mikita 1.05 ppg. But Mikita has excellent longevity, won the Art Ross 4 times and the Hart 2 times. Mikita by a mile.

/Cheers

 

[Reds4Life]

I wouldn't even take Forsberg over Mikita at his peak.

At Mikita's absolute peak, he was the best player in the world, leading the league in assists and points, having a very strong two-way game, winning the Hart, being as durable as usual, and being a highly elite goalscorer. And it lasted two seasons. And it was against competition like Howe, Hull, Beliveau, and Orr.

At Forsberg's absolute peak, he was the best player in the world, leading the league in assists and points, having a very strong two-way game, winning the Hart, being as durable for a change, and being a piss-poor goalscorer as far as top-100 players go. And it lasted one season. And it was against competition like Naslund, Thornton, and Demitra.

Well, Forsberg still kept his scoring pace in the playoffs, Mikita's PPG goes down. I just see Forsberg as the more dominant player in his prime. They are very close as far as peak goes and I prefer Forsberg in this one..

 

[seventieslord]

Forsberg was out in round 1 that season, so it's not like either player had a playoff for the ages in that season. It's a draw in that regard. Even if it wasn't, it would be tough to overcome the goalscoring, durability, competition, and length of peak gaps that still exist, on its own.

 

[Dreakmur]

That's about the same value than if i'd say

- Beliveau was better offensively and better defensively.

The numbers just don't support the offensive part. Mikita was more elite as a scorer.

I've not seen anything to suggest Beliveau was great defensively.

 

[seventieslord]

The numbers just don't support the offensive part. Mikita was more elite as a scorer.

I've not seen anything to suggest Beliveau was great defensively.

I've read in books and articles that Beliveau took care of his own end.

I've read even more about Mikita though, most of it chatter on these boards.

 

[Preisst*]

Mikita.

 

[Moridin]

If its 1 game, I pick Forsberg in his prime.

However, I have to go with Mikita here.