ESPN the mag: Foppa = Greatest Ever ?

was in barnes and noble today checkin out the new ESPN magazine...and they said in the article that he might be considered one of the greatest forwards to ever play the game...he has a combo of all the tools of the greatest players in history.


it isn't worth the buy...but go to your local store and check out the article, its a decent read. There is another one on Naslund in there too.

Yep, I saw it today. Forsberg gets the entire cover for himself :bow:

They also had 2 page pictures of Sweden's stars (Naslund, Alfredsson, Norstrom, Sundin).

And yep, Forsberg is called one of the greatest players. Said while most Europeans teach puckhandling, Forsberg's dad, who also teached Naslund and the Sedins, emphasized skating....which I think you'll notice very often with Foppa :yo:

I might get it so I can put up Forsberg pictures on the wall! I forgot, but didn't the pictures look like they were taken in Sweden?

was in barnes and noble today checkin out the new ESPN magazine...and they said in the article that he might be considered one of the greatest forwards to ever play the game...he has a combo of all the tools of the greatest players in history.


it isn't worth the buy...but go to your local store and check out the article, its a decent read. There is another one on Naslund in there too.

Yeah, I "borrowed" a neighbor's copy for a little while to read it. Some nice pictures though...

I'm going to frame the cover :)

What hurts him is that he only played in the NHL during the most defensive era. If he had played during the 80s/early 90s he would have put up much better PPG etc and people would automatically think he was better.

Forsberg will always be considered one of the greatest talents to ever play the game.

This whole premise coming from ESPN is laughable. Then again, just about everything related to hockey coming from ESPN is generally retarded anyway. Greatest ever? That is good stuff. I needed a good laugh combined with a headshake.

He may be one of the greatest talents ever, but he isn't the greatest player ever. One scoring title and one hart trophy doesn't equal greatest ever, not with Orr, Howe, Gretzky and Lemieux in the mix. Talent-wise and make-up maybe, But he isn't the best ever.

Oh boy.

He might be ONE of the greatest PLAYMAKERS ever, but greatest forward ever he is not. He's good defensively, out of this world as a passer a playmaker, great under pressure situations but lacks in the goal scoring department. That might be his own fault because he doesn't shoot enough but it is what it is. His assist numbers in the era he plays certainly qualify him as one of the greatest playmaking forwards in the history of the game but the rest simply puts him out of the race by quite a distance.

Yea, I think the article said ONE of the...if they really did the greatest ever....then....

I think you guys need to look more carefully. It says ONE of the greatest players ever. He is fourth all time in assists per game right behind Gretzky, Lemieux, and Orr with a .902, which is pretty damm good considering the era he played in. How much higher do you think he would be if he had played in Gretzky's era? A lot. He probably still wouldn't be as high as Gretz(1.320) or Lemieux(1.149), but I bet you he would have challenged Bobby Orr's .982, and that's a pretty impressive playmaker to challenge. By the way Adam Oates who also played in a more wide open era is fifth with .832, which is pretty far behind.

Forsberg... greatest ever?

I've said this multiple times: He's not even the BEST PLAYER ON HIS OWN DAMN TEAM!

Sakic owns him in terms of career achievements (Career numbers, Team Captain, and pretty sure has a comparable amount of hardware), and if Forsy packs it in after this season... the longevity factor.

Wow. The homerism in thread is unbelievable.

I agree with ICW. He is not even the best player on his own team. Yet somehow he is the best player in recent history?

He's never even scored 30 goals. He is a great player, but not even close to one of the greatest.

Oh boy.

He might be ONE of the greatest PLAYMAKERS ever, but greatest forward ever he is not. He's good defensively, out of this world as a passer a playmaker, great under pressure situations but lacks in the goal scoring department. That might be his own fault because he doesn't shoot enough but it is what it is. His assist numbers in the era he plays certainly qualify him as one of the greatest playmaking forwards in the history of the game but the rest simply puts him out of the race by quite a distance.
This just about sums up my feelings on the surface of the situation.

However, I decyphered this all as a really big marketing push by ESPN ... one that I am pleased to see. With the start of the season closing in, ESPN is riding the hot horse from last season to push new viewers who read their magazine toward the ever so cold sport of ice hockey. Just think about it, you might tune into a game if you think that you might be able to watch the greatest ever--that is, if you don't know hockey already. I'd be willing to bet that a good 20% of ESPN's readers and/or subscribers don't know who Forsberg is, let alone who anyone is outside of Gretz and Mario.

Of course ESPN's own self interests are quite apparent as well. They hold the biggest share (them being Disney) of hockey games telivised nationally. So if more people get into watching hockey (especially those who don't already follow the sport--quite possibly in markets only available to national telecasts) then ESPN gets more viewers.

It's genius advertising.

(how do you like that spin there ... anti-ESPN boy (Lappy)) ;)

i think he's one of the best packages to ever grace the NHL ice... it's that simple.. i think for his talent alone (not points or accomplishments or injuries etc..).. just him as a hockey player package, is...

Wow. The homerism in thread is unbelievable.

I agree with ICW. He is not even the best player on his own team. Yet somehow he is the best player in recent history?

He's never even scored 30 goals. He is a great player, but not even close to one of the greatest.

i guess you missed the part where it said one of the best ever....and he very well could be considred one of the greats.

Wow. The homerism in thread is unbelievable.

I agree with ICW. He is not even the best player on his own team. Yet somehow he is the best player in recent history?

He's never even scored 30 goals. He is a great player, but not even close to one of the greatest.
I'll ignore your homerism reply.

How does the fact that Forsberg did not 30 goals diminish him as a player? Anyways, how many players do you know that has won the Art Ross trophy WITHOUT scoring 30 goals? Either way you slice it, not an easy feat to accomplish.

Wow. The homerism in thread is unbelievable.

I agree with ICW. He is not even the best player on his own team. Yet somehow he is the best player in recent history?

He's never even scored 30 goals. He is a great player, but not even close to one of the greatest.

You must have been asleep during the 95-96, and 98-99 seasons, because Forsberg scored 30 goals in both of those seasons. How can you argue with that assists per game number, combined with what he has shown during his career, including the tear he went on in the playoffs after not playing one game in the regular season, which gave him the point lead and a few votes for the Conn Smythe, even though he didn't play in the finals. He is clearly ONE of the best players ever.

However, I decyphered this all as a really big marketing push by ESPN ... one that I am pleased to see. With the start of the season closing in, ESPN is riding the hot horse from last season to push new viewers who read their magazine toward the ever so cold sport of ice hockey. Just think about it, you might tune into a game if you think that you might be able to watch the greatest ever--that is, if you don't know hockey already. I'd be willing to bet that a good 20% of ESPN's readers and/or subscribers don't know who Forsberg is, let alone who anyone is outside of Gretz and Mario.

Of course ESPN's own self interests are quite apparent as well. They hold the biggest share (them being Disney) of hockey games telivised nationally. So if more people get into watching hockey (especially those who don't already follow the sport--quite possibly in markets only available to national telecasts) then ESPN gets more viewers.

It's genius advertising.

(how do you like that spin there ... anti-ESPN boy (Lappy)) ;)

Good luck with that. Allying yourself with the ESPN luminaries isn't going to get you very far (just ask the sport itself about that).

One, ESPN doesn't market the game anymore; they were showing too much of it anyway. Two, it can't be called genius advertising unless that advertising directly leads to increased ratings. And three, I think that plenty of people that read ESPN the Magazine (poor bastiches that they are) are already aware of hockey, but just aren't interested in learning the sport's intricacies. Besides, hockey is played at such a fast pace, without a bunch of commercial breaks and abundant timeouts, that most of the short-attention span folk can't get into it anyway.

It's the second sign of the apocalypse when someone mentions genius, hockey, and ESPN all in one post. The first is Shantz scoring a goal using his stick. Thanks for breaking the second seal, Ensane and pushing us closer to our dooms.

"Oh man, that's just ugly." - Dr. Gonzo : "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=thnpoll4


Heres some player comments about who is the best player.

Not even trying to troll. I'm just happy to see a hockey player get an entire cover of a major (major?) sports magazine before the season's even started. Maybe this means that ESPN will actually hire some people who know something about hockey.

Hey, it's better than what SI does. *****, they don't even have a page about the NHL.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/news/story?page=thnpoll4


Heres some player comments about who is the best player.

Great link, I enjoyed reading what all the players thought. One question though. If all those players think Peter Forsberg is the best in the NHL. How does he lose in the voting for the Lester Pearson Award in his second best regular season. What a scam.

How can you argue with that assists per game number, combined with what he has shown during his career, including the tear he went on in the playoffs after not playing one game in the regular season, which gave him the point lead and a few votes for the Conn Smythe, even though he didn't play in the finals.

You know when he was home in Sweden watching TV, who led the Avs to the playoffs that year?

Oh right, that other guy that plays center on the Avs.

You know when he was home in Sweden watching TV, who led the Avs to the playoffs that year?

Oh right, that other guy that plays center on the Avs.
And where was that same guy most of the season while Forsberg got the Avs into the playoffs this year?

Your argument might have held more water last year, but how the F can you question Forsberg's commitment after he pulled a sub-8th seed team up from the dead and brought them a division title? You might also remember that half of hte time that Forsberg was ont he sidelines that year, he was nursing ankle surgery ... oh wait, I forgot, you're too busy jumping to conclusions and playing into a blatant BC homerism.

Who has the better career? Definitely Joe Sakic, but everytime you say that Sakic is clearly better than Forsberg (in the present sense) you make yourself look sillier and sillier by the MOMENT.

Isn't there a phony trade rumor thread getting out of control that you need to attend to?

You know when he was home in Sweden watching TV, who led the Avs to the playoffs that year?

Oh right, that other guy that plays center on the Avs.

And that has anything to do with Forsberg being one of the best players how? What did he do when he got in the playoffs? Oh yea, he had 27 points in 20 games to leed the league in points, without even playing in the finals. Forsberg was out that year with numerous injuries, so I guess that makes Joe Sakic better. That makes a lot of sense. Who led the Avs to the playoffs last year when Joe was out so many games?

So if Gaborik doesn't play any games this year because he holds out, and either Wes Walz or Andrew Brunette leads Minnesota into the playoffs, that means they are better players in your eyes right? What a poor argument.

Who has the better career? Definitely Joe Sakic, but everytime you say that Sakic is clearly better than Forsberg (in the present sense) you make yourself look sillier and sillier by the MOMENT.

Isn't there a phony trade rumor thread getting out of control that you need to attend to?

1. Ok. We'll see who's better this year, if neither gets injured. We'll see.

2. Na, we've banned most of those guys :joker:

Uh, Forsberg one of the best ?

He's damned good, but he's not part of the elite's like Gretzky, if you've ever watched Gretzky play in the 80's you'll know what I'm talking about. Wayne was so damned fast and make that puck do whatever he wanted.

I doubt Forsberg is even better than Messier in his prime.

Forsberg could possibly be eclipsed by Bertuzzi or Thornton anyway.

[QUOTE=Ensane]And where was that same guy most of the season while Forsberg got the Avs into the playoffs this year?
QUOTE]

As well as Forsberg played last season, it would have been for nothing if it wasn't for Roy's play between the pipes. Milan was almost as important as Peter, but I thought it was pretty clear that it was Patrick that dragged the team to the top of the conference. He was on a mission, pure and simple. The Avs got their 9th title, and possibly at the cost of moving past the first round... cause Roy didn't look like the playoff tender he usually is last season. IMO.

Also, when talking assists, I think looking at team mates is pretty valuable as well. Forsberg (as well as most of the other top guys), has pretty much always played with quality players. I wonder sometimes how big an impact this can have overall on a players eventual stats. I bring this question up, because other people keep mentioning different era's as being better for scoring. Well, if you start on that slope, then isn't it kind of like saying, if he played with so and so, then he would have been the best!

The best players make those around them better, but good players also can become great when they have exceptionally skilled teamates

He's definitely not the greatest ever, but I would put him in the top ten if he played out the rest of his career. He is a playmaker, he is a leader, he is the best player in the league right now.

but I thought it was pretty clear that it was Patrick that dragged the team to the top of the conference.
No, it was NOT pretty clear. If you want to believe that Patrick was the reason, then good for you, but don't come around acting like he was head and shoulders above the rest of the team.

Personally, I think Forsberg was the main ingredient, and I did watch nearly all of the Avs games last season. The way I saw it, Forsberg started going a bit before Roy got his head on straight.

Also, when talking assists, I think looking at team mates is pretty valuable as well. Forsberg (as well as most of the other top guys), has pretty much always played with quality players.


how much have those players done after leaving the Avs?

Kamensky?
Drury?

No, it was NOT pretty clear. If you want to believe that Patrick was the reason, then good for you, but don't come around acting like he was head and shoulders above the rest of the team.

Personally, I think Forsberg was the main ingredient, and I did watch nearly all of the Avs games last season. The way I saw it, Forsberg started going a bit before Roy got his head on straight.

Boy Ensane you seem pretty excitable. What an slur against the Avs from me.

Personally I didn't see every Avs game last year, but periodically read what was here on the Avs board... that's where I got the sense the consensus was that Roy was the motivation behind the team... especially at the begining. Plus from watching maybe 10 or so games.

How fine it is to be wrong about such an important issue! I'll be extra careful to not step on your extra sensitive toes the next time I "come around here".

how much have those players done after leaving the Avs?

Kamensky?
Drury?

So, let me get this straight... you mean that most of Forsbergs teamates are crappy? I realize that's not what you mean, but I think you may be missunderstanding what I was saying. Forsberg has made players around him better, but also has benifited from playing on a deep organization and with star players. This is hardly a novel thing to say.

As for Drury, don't you think he had a bad year after being traded from a contender like the Avs to well... the Flames? He was totally miserable in calgary from what I heard.

Heh... Kamensky... cough..

So, let me get this straight... you mean that most of Forsbergs teamates are crappy? I realize that's not what you mean, but I think you may be missunderstanding what I was saying. Forsberg has made players around him better, but also has benifited from playing on a deep organization and with star players. This is hardly a novel thing to say.

As for Drury, don't you think he had a bad year after being traded from a contender like the Avs to well... the Flames? He was totally miserable in calgary from what I heard.

Heh... Kamensky... cough..


Heh I was more thinking along the lines that they were complementary players...
Those that can't produce without playing with the likes of Forsberg... well... 'a good playmaker'... there aren't any players like Forsberg...:rolly:


He indeed has benefited from star players on his team... but that's mostly the defense and Roy...


What I was really trying to say, is that those stars weren't usually playing on his wing...



As for Drury... I hope that he'll flourish in Buffalo... but... I doubt it... :-/

So, let me get this straight... you mean that most of Forsbergs teamates are crappy? I realize that's not what you mean, but I think you may be missunderstanding what I was saying. Forsberg has made players around him better, but also has benifited from playing on a deep organization and with star players. This is hardly a novel thing to say.

As for Drury, don't you think he had a bad year after being traded from a contender like the Avs to well... the Flames? He was totally miserable in calgary from what I heard.

Heh... Kamensky... cough..

1. Drury had an OK season. I believe he had at least 20 goals and 45 points. Not bad.
2. Kamensky went to the RANGERS, therefore he should be exempt from this conversation.
3. Wasn't he injured, therefore never the same again?

1. Drury had an OK season. I believe he had at least 20 goals and 45 points. Not bad.
2. Kamensky went to the RANGERS, therefore he should be exempt from this conversation.
3. Wasn't he injured, therefore never the same again?

Drury had 51 pts I believe, same totals as Reinprecht.

how much have those players done after leaving the Avs?

Kamensky?
Drury?

Claude Lemuix.....

Claude Lemuix.....

Old Lemuix.... :p