Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Markus Näslund vs Daniel Sedin


Mountain Dew

Näslund in his prime vs Daniel in his prime  

181 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

I think Danial Sedin is a great hockey player. I also think he is so talented because of the great chemistry that he shares with Henrik on the ice. I think Naslund would be a stronger asset because he could play with more line combinations. I think if the Sedins were seperated they would do well, but not as well as they do together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously they are both excellent players, but Daniel Sedin has two big pluses.

1. He is a better "defensive" player. I put "defensive" in quotes because Daniel does not provide great defense by great checking in his own end. What he does is play a control (cycle) game in the other team's end -- which is a great way of stopping the other team from scoring. As a result Daniel has much better +/- numbers than Naslund. Don't get me wrong -- Naslund was good, but his Canuck career +/- was +2. Daniel is at +160 and counting. And both players played through good years and lean years for the Canucks. Not really a contest on this dimension.

2. Daniel actually won the Art Ross trophy.

3. The big issue is that Daniel benefits from the presence of Henrik, but Naslund played with good players as well (although not as good as Henrik.) Still, after adjusting for everything, Daniel wins from my point of view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been lucky to be around to see these 2 great stars play at their prime, but I pick Nazzy to be the "better" player on virtue of individual talent and skill. There has been numerous times where Nazzy can carry the entire team by himself and make a game-breaking play.

His snap/wrist shot is legendary --> more of a pure sniper than Danny (don't get me wrong, Danny's one of my more favourite players).

Even though Nazzy only won the Lester B. Pearson award (now called the Ted Lindsay award), he was a Hart Memorial trophy finalist, was only 2 points behind Forsberg for the Art Ross, and only 2 goals behind Hejduk for the Maurice "Rocket" Richard trophy; this was in 2003.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone who watched the WCE play should have a easy answer. Nazzy wins, and by a longshot for 1 reason. He was never predicable. The Sedins are great, the 2 of them are among the best players in the world, but Nazzy was a great talent. He could use his shot, speed, dangles, he had it all.

The Sedins are predicable because they always rely on each other for help, if you shut down 1, you practically got a single player who can't do as much on his own because he doesn't have the speed, or the amazing shot.

Nazzy also didnt have a supporting cast. His line was the only line on the canucks doing things night in and night out. The 2nd line amassed about 35 points when Nazzy played, and now you have Kesler hitting 60+ for the Sedins. Naslund also played in the dead puck era, the lowest scoring era in NHL history, and yet he still managed to score more goals and had more assists than Daniel ever has had.Should have won the hart in 03 IMO.

Love both lines, and we were lucky to have them, but I have to say if we had the WCE, we could have won the cup 2 seasons ago. The speed, size and skill of that line would have ripped the Bruins apart..

Nazzy wins. Best player in the world from 2000-2005. Great footspeed, one of the best wristshot's in NHL history, and amazing dangles. This man could do it all. Just imagine if the Steve Moore incident didn't occur.

I miss seeing 19 on the ice, wish he could lace up the skates for us again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest gumballthechewy

I wish the Sedins were in there prime when Naslund was too...

Imagine the Sedins now, with a 2003 Naslund, on the same line

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In their prime?

Clearly Markus. Speed added an entirely different dynamic making Naslund the more dangerous sniper (which was the question)! Bertuzzi and Naslund, pre Steve Moore, were easily amongst the most dominant pairs of the last 10 or 15 years for the 2 & 1/2 years they ruled the league. Between the two, they also offered speed AND size which meant match ups could not be formulated to stop them. This could not be said for Daniel and Henrik.

But its not a big gap, as Daniel also offered an element of puck control that helps control games. And Daniel is already enjoying a longer window as a prime player, now approaching 5 years, even though it took longer to get going. It also appears he will not fade as fast and will be the better overall player through his entire career.

In their prime, which one of these two snipers is the better player?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...