NHL: Is Peter Forsberg one of the best ever?

[Guest wayzing]

Obviously Peter Forsberg has had a remarkable career and he's been one of the best players in the world for ages now.

 

Some Swedish writers are beginning to write about him as one of the best players ever. Recently he was compared to Wayne Gretzky and the conclusion was that Forsberg could very well be the best ever.

 

I don't follow NHL close enough to make my own call here but I was wondering how he's regarded in USA and Canada.

[the max 0]

He's great. WHEN HE'S HEALTHY. His health certainly leaves a lot to be desired with me, but when he's healthy, he's one of the most dominant players of this generation.

[treble 0]

Yeah, he's way too injury prone. He's in the Hall of Fame for sure, but I wouldn't put him in the top 10 best players in NHL history, let alone call him the best ever.

[Lightning Flik 0]

If he wasn't so injury prone, then yes, he probably would be classified as one of the top 10.

 

I would consider him top 30 at very most.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Not to sound like a broken record, but he's lost way too many games lost due to injuries to be considered anywhere near the all-time greats. When he's healthy, he's amazing, but he's just been far too injury prone to be considered among the all time greats. And if people are going to say "what about ignoring his health problems, and only viewing it as when he was healthy" I'd ask them where they put Lindros on the list. If a player misses too much of the prime of his career, it severely hurts his standing. Even look at Orr or Lemieux, how much higher would they be on the all-time greats pantheon if injuries hadn't effected their career?

 

All-time, easily top 50 and potentiall top 25, but not even top 10 in my opinion.

 

(And it's not a coincidence that it's been SWEDISH writers that have comparing him to Gretzky.)

[Guest wayzing]

(And it's not a coincidence that it's been SWEDISH writers that have comparing him to Gretzky.)

I know. That's why I asked for some unbiased (or at least non-swedish) opinions.

 

So his injuries are basically an essential part of his reputation, then?

[Lightning Flik 0]

Your health definitely is a major factor of being even put into the "greats". It is another part of being one of the greats. If you aren't healthy all the time, then you are just gifted. Nothing more.

[treble 0]

Or, if you have injury problems, you need to be amazing when you're healthy, like Lemieux and Orr. Forsberg is a very good, sometimes great player when healthy, but not head and shoulders above everyone else, like Lemieux and Orr could be.

[CanadianChris 0]

My top 25:

 

Wayne Gretzky

Mario Lemieux

Bobby Orr

Gordie Howe

Maurice Richard

Doug Harvey

Terry Sawchuk

Jean Beliveau

Bobby Hull

Eddie Shore

Jacques Plante

Guy Lafleur

Glenn Hall

Phil Esposito

Stan Mikita

Ray Bourque

Mark Messier

Marcel Dionne

Patrick Roy

Mike Bossy

Paul Coffey

Brett Hull

Steve Yzerman

Joe Sakic

Jaromir Jagr

 

I wouldn't put Forsberg anywhere in this list. I can't think of one person here he's clearly been better than.

[Youth N Asia 0]

No Dino Ciccarelli, or Ron Francis?

 

I'd take Nicklas Lidstrom over Forsberg. The back-to-back-to-back Norris Trophy winner

[Brush with Greatness 0]

I love how everyone has jumped on the Peter Forsberg bandwagon these past few seasons. I've been praising the guy as the best all round player since around late 95/early 96 (hell, I thought the guy was great against the Canadians in 1994); even going so far as to draft him with my first overall pick in a playoff draft the year he sat out the regular season. Of course I was mocked plenty at the time for it but it was during those playoffs that Forsberg proved to everybody what I already knew, that he was far and away the best player in the NHL. So yeah, I deserve a medal for that or something.

 

Granted, Forsberg has had injury problems the past few seasons. Some however, are hard to blame on him. Ruptured spleen, anybody?

 

A lot of Forsberg's injuries derive from the way he plays the game. Keying in on Forsberg, it is apparent that he takes as much physical abuse as anyone in the game. On top of this, he prides himself in the defensive zone and will dish it out physically.

 

Now, not to knock Gretzky, but Gretzky played in a different era where players of his calibre weren't faced with the same physical punishment that Forsberg takes. On top of this, Gretzky didn't play a physical game. He was actually somewhat strong defensivly (apart from what many people believe), but he was no Forsberg in his own zone.

 

So having said all this, is Forsberg the best player ever? Of course not. However, it could be argued that he is one of the most talented ever. In fact, I will go as far to say that Peter Forsberg is the best all around centre in the history of the NHL.

 

On top of this, if I was building a team in today's game, with the way the game is played today, and I could build my team around Lemieux, Gretzky, or Forsberg in their prime, I would most likely choose Forsberg.

[Guest Redhawk]

I'm not a hockey guy by any stretch, but is it fair to put goalies and "position players" on the same list as far as all-time greats? I know whenever they do similar lists for baseball, they usually separate pitchers from everyone else.

[Red Baron 0]

And if people are going to say "what about ignoring his health problems, and only viewing it as when he was healthy" I'd ask them where they put Lindros on the list. If a player misses too much of the prime of his career, it severely hurts his standing. Even look at Orr or Lemieux, how much higher would they be on the all-time greats pantheon if injuries hadn't effected their career?

What about those who stick around the league five+ years longer than what they should have (Greztky, Howe, Messier, Lemieux, Francis). Why should the be greats, when they did jack all at the end of their career.

 

 

 

I'd put Forsberg probably one of the best players in the game to date, and is everywhere on the ice always out there 110% on every shift.

[Guest Redhawk]

Despite his injury-shortened career, Gale Sayers is still considered one of the best NFL running backs ever. I'd think that if you were healthy enough to have, like, 5 full seasons as a star, your all-time status can be valid.

[nl5xsk1 0]

And if people are going to say "what about ignoring his health problems, and only viewing it as when he was healthy" I'd ask them where they put Lindros on the list.  If a player misses too much of the prime of his career, it severely hurts his standing.  Even look at Orr or Lemieux, how much higher would they be on the all-time greats pantheon if injuries hadn't effected their career? 

What about those who stick around the league five+ years longer than what they should have (Greztky, Howe, Messier, Lemieux, Francis). Why should the be greats, when they did jack all at the end of their career.

 

 

 

I'd put Forsberg probably one of the best players in the game to date, and is everywhere on the ice always out there 110% on every shift.

Other than Messier, I really have to disagree with your assessment that Gretzky, Lemiuex, Howe or Francis "did jack" at the end of their careers:

 

Gretzky led the league in assists two of the last 3 years of his career, and averaged more than a point a game until his last year. Lemiuex has averaged about a point a game since he's been back. And Howe and Francis both averaged about 70 points a year in the last 5 years of their career (assuming Francis hangs up the skates this year.) If that's doing jack, I'd love to have the Bruins pick up some other players doing so little.

 

And BwG, I agree that Gretzky and Forsberg play two different styles of play, and thus PF is more likely to get banged up. But what about when you compare Forsberg with other power forwards of this generation? Neither Tkachuk nor Shanahan have missed a lot of playing time, and they play the same style of play that you described. And the other power forwards that have missed a lot of time (say, Neely and Leclair) have had their place on the all-time greats list effected by missing a lot of playing time.

[the max 0]

Despite his injury-shortened career, Gale Sayers is still considered one of the best NFL running backs ever. I'd think that if you were healthy enough to have, like, 5 full seasons as a star, your all-time status can be valid.

He's played 1 full season in his career.

[Brush with Greatness 0]

And BwG, I agree that Gretzky and Forsberg play two different styles of play, and thus PF is more likely to get banged up. But what about when you compare Forsberg with other power forwards of this generation? Neither Tkachuk nor Shanahan have missed a lot of playing time, and they play the same style of play that you described. And the other power forwards that have missed a lot of time (say, Neely and Leclair) have had their place on the all-time greats list effected by missing a lot of playing time.

 

Well, addressing the all time greats factor, you are a Bruins fan right? So tell me, if longevity and ability to avoid injury is so important, who was greater, Ray Borque or Bobby Orr and why?

 

Forsberg's health record is on par with Orr's and Orr is generally considered the greatest defenceman of all time [although admittedly Orr did way more in his 8 full seasons (or 9 depending on what consitutes a full season) than Forsberg has done in his 7].

 

As for the whole power forward thing, the difference between Tkachuk or Shanny or Neely or Leclair and Forsberg is that Forsberg is not a power forward. Forsberg plays physical and takes as much abuse, if not more, than any of those guys but regardless he is not a power forward.

 

Forsberg's stature pales in comparison to the guys you were mentioning. No one bigger, let alone his size, endures more physical punishment than he does. Looking at the size of the guys you mentioned, Leclair is 6'3, 225 pounds, Shanny is 6'3, 220 pounds, Tkachuk is 6'2, 231 pounds while Forsberg is 6'1, 205 pounds. Do you really expect a guy that much smaller to be able to endure the kind of punishment he takes? Oh yeah, and rethink that statement about Tkachuk not missing much time.

 

When it comes to Peter Forsberg's greatness, he is in a no-win position. The reason Forsberg is considered great is a combination of reasons. On top of his incredible skill level, he is very dedicated defensively and doesn't back down from any situations. However, because of the amount of abuse he takes for playing a style that he doesn't need to be playing, he misses games and is not considered great because of it.

 

Peter Forsberg could probably be a perimeter player. Forsberg could probably play a hell of a lot less defence. Both of these changes could result in less physical abuse and a lot more points.

 

But to me, Peter Forsberg is not great for his scoring abilities. He is great because of his give it all attitude and dedication to both ends of the rink. Forsberg is the complete package like nobody before him (apart from Bobby). That alone should warrant mention amongst the greatest players to ever play the game.

 

Look at it this way. If a guy only plays 8 seasons (all healthy) and then retires (just because), but those 8 seasons were phenomenal, could he be considered one of the best ever? Then what is the difference between that and a guy that gets injured but when he plays is phenomenal.

 

Look at Jim Brown in the NFL. How long did he play? But he is considered one of the best ever.

[nl5xsk1 0]

Good post, BwG - you definitely made a few good points.

 

Who's greater, Bobby or Raymond? Orr, without a doubt. I think it's a misconception that he missed a lot of games, in his first 9 years in the season he only played less than 60 games once. The problem with Orr was that his last three years were junk, with something like 50 games played (total) in the three of them. And when he was healthy, Orr basically re-defined the defensive position. Is good as Forsberg is, I wouldn't say that he's re-defined anything.

 

Yes, Orr's missed time is very comparable to Forsberg's. But it's also a factor when people talk about the all-time greats. Gretkzy and Howe are universally named as the best two, and there are people (even some non-biased, non-Boston writers) that say that Orr would be up there if he'd played longer & healthier. And I agree with that assessment, but also think it holds true for Forsberg: his standing in the history of the game should be effected by the time missed for injuries. Same with a guy that stays healthy his entire short career but retires early: he'll be less likely to be considered an all-time great, unless he really dominates the league or re-writes the record book in that short career. (like Jim Brown did)

 

I do disagree with your opinion that Forsberg isn't a power forward, because even the way you describe his play (taking punishment on offensive, deliver punishment in the defensive end) is how I define a power forward. He's probably more comparable to Thornton, in that he doesn't park in front of the net (a la a standard power forward) the way he plays (and is played against) is at the level of most power forwards.

 

But to me, Peter Forsberg is not great for his scoring abilities. He is great because of his give it all attitude and dedication to both ends of the rink.

 

By that definition, 90% of the NHLers are great. I can think of very few players that last in this league if they're not dedicated on both ends of the ice. Maybe Kovalchuk, but he's still a kid. Even Federov learned to play more defense, and was lauded and rewarded for it.

[Guest thetrendsetter]

Then there are the underrated guys that are better than forsberg that are never mentioned.. Like Mike Gartner, like the man or not, at least respect his longevity, and his ability to score goals season in and season out, I think he's top 5 in all time goals too...

 

Also, I noticed no one mentioned Ken Dryden. He led the Canadiens to 4 Stanley Cups, and even though he retired young, he was still dominant as any other goal tender in the 70's.