Posts
It is funny how history is recorded sometimes.Take the careers of Eric Lindros and Peter Forsberg. The two were similar players and their fates were forever intertwined even before either player made it to the NHL.
While Lindros will go down in the minds of many as a great disappointment highlighted by enduring controversies and unfulfilled expectations, Forsberg will go down as one of hockey's greatest warriors.
That's quite a difference in legacy considering the two had remarkably similar careers.
Here's the tale of the tape:
| Forsberg | Lindros | |
| GP | 697 | 760 |
| G | 248 | 372 |
| A | 623 | 493 |
| Pts | 871 | 865 |
| PIM | 678 | 1398 |
| Hart Trophy | 1 | 1 |
| Pearson Trophy | 0 | 1 |
| Art Ross Trophy | 1 | 1 |
| All Star | 3 | 2 |
| Stanley Cup | 2 | 0 |
| Olympic Gold | 2 | 1 |
There really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two. There was just six points difference between them. Both missed a ton of time due to their immense physical style of play which resulted deteriorating bodies betraying each of them.
And, most importantly, both flirted with being the game's most dominant player for periods of time.
The comparisons were inevitable of course. Lindros, the NHL's favorite villain, refused to report to the Quebec Nordiques and forced a trade. A trade with Philadelphia was eventually completed, headlining Forsberg, who was drafted 6 spots behind Lindros in 1991, as part of a huge package going to Quebec. From that moment on, the two men were inexorably linked.
The biggest differing point between the two is Stanley Cup championships. Forsberg and transplanted Nordiques won three while in Colorado. Lindros never did win a title, despite all of his efforts.
I think the Stanley Cup argument is a bit overblown. Yes, Forsberg was one of the greatest players in Stanley Cup history. But his three championships were aided by Joe Sakic, who some say is better than Forsberg. And then there was Patrick Roy, hailed as the greatest playoff goalie of all time. Lindros never had the supporting cast that Forsberg had.
When it comes right down to it, I say there is little to choose between Eric Lindros and Peter Forsberg. Lindros was always easy to dislike, which helps to stain his legacy. Forsberg's legacy is, in my opinion, a bit overrated if only due to the great supporting cast he enjoyed.
In reality, they had pretty equal careers, though history will suggest otherwise.
But I guess when it comes right down to it, if I were coaching and I had to choose only one of these two players to win game 7 with, I'd choose Forsberg because of his status as a playoff hero.
15 comments:
Forsberg and Colorado won 2 Stanley Cups
Joe - there is a sizable difference between the two and it's called Stanley Cups - all that really matters.
Sorry, my friend - this is as cut and dried as Pronger versus Daigle!
I agree.... Lindros vs Forseberg is way closer than most people will admit.
Stanley Cups are won by the best team, not necessarily the best players. Lindros didn't have a Sakic or a Roy.
If you're comparing strictly personal statistics, then I say the two are a wash. If anything I give the edge to Lindros because of his double amount of penalty minutes and the over 100 more career goals.
Will you be updating Forsberg's stats after the games he played in 2008?
GP: 706
G: 249
A: 636
PTS: 885
PIM: 686
I still contest that Lindros was the better player, while Forsberg enjoyed the better career. The difference between the two isn't much, however.
Lindros' pure goal scoring ability meant that he needed no one to be effective. Forsberg was also a quality goal scorer, but his unselfish play coupled with his natural playmaking ability made him somewhat predictable. This point became extremely apparent in Forsberg's second season with the Flyers.
Another advantage Lindros had on Forsberg was his faceoff ability. Both drew the best faceoff-men the opposing team could offer, but it was Lindros who could win well over 50% of his faceoffs with frightening regularity. Forsberg, I don't think, won more than 50% of his faceoffs during a single season until he was coached by Ken Hitchcock. This deficiency is probably what prevented Forsberg from having a bigger role on Colorado's PK.
The one significant edge Lindros had on Forsberg was his ability to fight. Beukeboom, Odelein, Stevens, Boughner, McSorely, Simon, to be able to hold your own against any one of those players is an accomplish in itself.
So there you have it... yeah.
This is not a close call. 1st, 2 Stanley Cups -- kind of a big deal (not to mention Olympic Golds -- in fact one of 3 in hockey history to have 2 of each & 2 WCs).
Lindros was a very good player but Forsberg was simply dominant -- during the regular season. In the playoffs, Olympics (with the pros), or whenever the pace of play picked up to a world-class level, the difference was stark. Forsberg simply could not be contained, no matter whom you put on him.
Sakic was a great player -- but Forsberg always drew the other team's best D-men (see, Bowman, Scotty, Hitchcock, Ken, etc.). He's a great scorer, but what has Sakic won without Peter? Coaches don't lie in terms of whom they put on the ice when the game is on the line, not the successful ones, anyway.
Or, ask the most-respected players, intelligent, honest guys who all competed with and/or against both (Keith Jones, Ron Francis, Ray Ferraro)--to a man they maintain Peter the Great was THE dominant player of their era--who are we, as spectators, to argue?
Clutch games, big-time players, and big-time coaches -- it's very clear who their choice is, and not just against Eric Lindros. And it's pretty unanimous, too. At his best, there was, quite simply, none better.
lindros was the better player. just because he never won a cup. superstars need other players to win. compare the avalanche verse the flyers team that went to the cup and there is no comparision. the avalanche had the better team not the better player. roy vs hextall? please! sakic, bourque and countless other superstars. put lindros on the avalanche and forsberg on the flyers and the flyers still would be waiting for a cup not the avalanche.
Re: put lindros on the avalanche and forsberg on the flyers and the flyers still would be waiting for a cup not the avalanche.
Funny enough, Lindros had that exact chance, and he chose not to pursue it.
Are you kidding??? You're comparing the greatest two way player that has ever played to a guy that doesn't know how to keep his head up when playing??? Numbers don't mean anything my friend... Peter never had a season in the minuses, made players like Hejduk win the Maurice Richard trophey... I could probably score 40 goals playing alongside Forsberg!
I guess you can compare numbers and it seems fun cause they were involved in a trade but the comparison stops there... Hey Mike, you need some Hockey teachings... ability to fight??? Is that how you compare players??? What a joke!
Exactly, Anonymous - is this a joke?! Whether you ask the most successful coaches or the most intelligent players of their era [Bowman, Hitchcock, Sutter, etc. or Ron Francis, Keith Jones, Ray Ferraro] - it's not even a close call, Peter Forsberg was THE dominant player of his era, and perhaps the best two-way player ever!
Well, we could ask the players and coaches - or listen to blog posters, who I'm sure know much more about hockey...
I don't see very much of an argument. Forsberg wins by far. Lindros had seven unbelievable years with the flyers, and then his career slowly declined. Forsberg could be considered the best player from lockout to lockout, starting with a calder trophy and getting the hart and art ross on the second to last year before the lockout. The biggest difference is that Forsberg's numbers didn't drop off as fast as lindy's did. Peter has more points in less games then lindros. Forberg is also a member of the Triple Gold Club which means he has a stanley cup, an olympic gold medal, and a world championship. Actually, he is one of three people to be a member of the triple gold club twice. And did lindy score the game winning penalty shootout goal in the 1994 olympics for the gold against Canada? And svergie got on a postage stamp for that. In lindros’ highest scoring year he got 115 points, and how many did foppa have? A convenient 116. However, lindy could light people up, never should drop the gloves with him unless you want to have a 6’4’’monster pounding your face in. And Lindy’s performance from 1992-1999 was probably one of the highest scoring personal performances ever. The biggest difference between the two is respect for the game of hockey. Lindy held out since he did not want to play for a subpar team, and even said he would never play for them. He was the only decision maker for himself, a very “me first” guy. Forsberg on the other hand was one of the most humble players to play and always wanted to help others reach the spotlight. When he left the aves after the lockout he joined up with simon gagne and mike knuble. Those two had decent years, but they would get their statistically best years with Forsberg at the helm. Forsberg’s points-per-game is a 1.254 (8th all-time), Lindros is a 1.138 (16th all-time), and Sakic has a 1.191 (12th all-time), though sakic played in almost more games than both of the other two combined. And some say Forsberg was a byproduct of sakic. Well lindy got his Olympic gold as a byproduct of mvp joe sakic, and Forsberg earned two without sakic and roy. Sakic had his two highest scoring season while Forsberg was with him. Although realistically, Sakic was better than both Lindros and Forsberg(, and the majority of all nhlers for that matter). Forsberg is currently playing for MoDo hockey, his hometown club team that got him his start, and he’s doing it for free! Could anyone imagine lindy doing something like that? Now, Eric Lindros was one of the best to play the game, I can definitely say that, but Peter Forsberg’s pure talent and his ability to rise to the occasion trump anything lindy can bring to the table.
PS-Lindros doesn’t remember how to play hockey after scott stevens blew his brains out. Don’t piss off scott stevens, a word to the wise.
Are you kidding? Peter Forsberg is one of the greatest to ever play the game. He won titles. He was unstoppable during Playoffs. He had eyes in the back of his neck. He could do f*g anything with the puck!
This post is a joke and the ones who say Lindros was better don't know what they're talking about.
Lindros was a great player with a big ego. Forsberg was fierce, rock hard and a team player who made his team mates look good.
You should actually remove this post and be ashamed for ever bringing it up.
I'm with Lindros on this one. He was much more physically imposing than Forsberg (ask Ulf Samuellsson), scored more goals, and never had anything like the supporting cast that Forsberg did.
Add in that Lindros could and would fight even the heaviest of heavyweights and you have to give Lindros the edge.
I think Lindros was very unlucky to not have won a stanley cup in his career as i think he was in teams with players that weren't able to live up to his standards.
My opinion may not matter, but Forsberg's skill was in feeding the puck to other players. I've played hockey for 20 years and have been a fan for much longer. I coach and pour over video often.
Forsberg is the best passer I've ever seen. Bar none. Stats back that up. He's ranked fourth in NHL history in "assists per game" behind Gretzky, Lemuix and Orr. That's it. None better.
The fact that he's top 20 in goal scoring as well as top 10 in playoff scoring, as well as top 10 in playoff overtime scoring, as well as top 10 in playoff game winning goals...
Sheesh. Did someone say that Forsberg wasn't physically imposing? He seldom dropped the gloves (hence the lower PIM numbers), but please go let the 1998 Red Wings or the 1996 Panthers know that Forsberg isn't physically imposing. I think they're still looking for those missing teeth.
Post a Comment