darnucks Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 H. SEDIN > Morrison Berttuzi> Burrows Naslund> D.Sedin. Sedin is much better passer than morrison, Berttuzi is only a little bit better than Burrows, Naslund is a much better skater than D.Sedin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 H. SEDIN > Morrison Berttuzi> Burrows Naslund> D.Sedin. Sedin is much better passer than morrison, Berttuzi is only a little bit better than Burrows, Naslund is a much better skater than D.Sedin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langdon Algur Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 back to back art ross trophy's got to go with the Sedins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The WCE was a much faster line, that's for sure. Though Hank and Dank have both won scoring titles, the WCE was actually more prolific in the dead puck era. Also keeping in mind that when Henrik won it, Ovechkin had missed a solid chunk of games, and when Daniel won it, Crosby missed half the season. They're elite, upper echelon players for sure, but they haven't been as highly regarded as Nazzy and Bert were at times. Still, hardware talks. Granted, I do think the Sedins and Burrows are better without the puck, but we're talking about a scoring line here and the WCE were better scorers, IMO. But, the defensive deficiencies of the WCE can't be denied either. The WCE wasn't a line to be pushed around as much however, with the best power forward in the league on it. A lot more game breaking value in the WCE, I think. When you have a pure sniper, a solid two-way playmaking centre, and a supremely gifted power forward, it adds a lot of versatility to the offensive game. Yeah, the Sedin line has been deeper in the playoffs but that was on a much, much better team. The WCE had close to half of the team's goals...the twins and Burrows have had Kesler and several great depth players backing them up, and better offence from the blue line with Ehrhoff and Edler. The defence has gotten a lot more stable since then too, and the disparity in goaltending is huge (Luongo and Schneider VS Cloutier and Skudra!? No contest). I don't think that factors in as much. Overall, I think the twins and Burrows are a much better line in all 3 zones, and they possess better leadership qualities. They're undeniably the smartest players in the league, and have altered the way it's played. The WCE was more adept at scoring on a worse team in a more defensive-era, and they were a glimmer of excitement in a deathly boring time in the NHL. I was going to give the edge to the WCE, but I actually have to consider it a tie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Sedin line is better. Both Sedins, when on their game, are better than Nazzy and Bert. Burr and Bmo are fairly even. BUT, that said, I would say that the WCE was more exciting because both Naslund and Bertuzzi could both score like crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tofitian Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 speed: Naz and BMO were def faster than the Sedins but the Sedins are faster than Bert and Burr is pretty quick too. I say Tied size: Bert makes this a hands down for the WCE possession: daniel to henrik back to dank over to hank scores grit:Bmo's smile wins this round Iron man:With all due respect to BMO's streak and the grittier style of play the Sedin's are titanium plated. Playoffs WCE always choked in the playoffs but so has the Sedin line. So I say tied. Looks like a tie here folks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogbyte Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Easily the Sedin line for me. At least they have one player that can play defence. The Sedins are terrible at it but at leat they're puck possesion and knowledge of the game means they rarely get burnt. The WCE played more for themselves and not as much for the team. I also think it's up to the Captain and the first line to carry the team. The WCE carried us nowhere, in part due to their poor defence and also lack of other quality players but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowtownCanuck Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 WCE in its prime, Sedins over the long haul. The WCE was great until two things happened -Bertuzzi got cracked down on with his "Pushing off" -Naslund got hammered into the boards by the worm Moore and never got his shot back due to the injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 bertuzzi's no look drop passes when they actually worked were a thing of beauty! i would like to see a full season or 2 of healthy AMEX line, that to me would be a better comparison to the WCE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn antoski Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 put it this way puck possession vs run and gun depends on what style of play you prefer. I like run and gun better but i think the sedins are better players their passing plays are out of this world no one in todays nhl comes close to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obsideon Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 The WCE was a blip in the reality of the NHL. Sorry but two seasons of big numbers doesn't cut it. Defensively they were a disaster. As a result how can you measure what that cost the Canucks in lost opportunity in playoffs. It obviously didn't pay as they never got their team past the 2nd round. The Sedin story hasn't been completed in Van yet. Their Art Ross trophies measure them against the whole NHL. They haven't won the CUP and might never do so but they have always been team leaders. On a simple basis of comparing numbers you could easily ask where the Sedin stats would be if the franchise had got them a Burrows years earlier. Also consider how they changed the game with their cycling out of the corners. NHL defences have had to adjust against them and all those who have copied them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramone1984 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 It's a tough call for sure. If you look at the 3 best years of the WCE, and the 3 best years of the twins, it gives you the following data: WCE: 2001: 99 goals, 143 assists, 242 points 2002: 119 goals, 153 assists, 272 points 2003: 74 goals, 130 assists, 204 points Sedins + Burrows: 2008: 81 goals, 134 assists, 215 points 2009: 93 goals, 171 assists, 264 points 2010: 86 goals, 160 assists, 246 points So while the WCE has the best overall numbers in one season, Sedins appear to have more consistency. I didn't factor in injuries or anything either. I don't know if we'll see two players on the same line scoring 48 and 46 goals any time soon, that was pretty exciting! But I don't know if we'll ever see back to back art ross trophy winners either! I would have to say that given the lack of supporting cast during the WCE era, those numbers are amazing. The power play unit back then didn't have Kesler on it who was a huge factor to its success. The Sedins certainly appear poised to crush any offensive records on the Canucks, but for now, I'll have to give the nod to the WCE of 2002/2003. Cheers, Ramone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 To all the people talking about how bad the Sedins or Näslund were/are defensively I've just got to say: offense is the best defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossram Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 I'd be inclined to say the WCE, but if you look at the accomplishments, the Sedins line has been more dominant. Two Art Ross winners, a Hart trophy, a Lindsay trophy and a trip to the Finals trump everything else. Sedins had a better team with them, but I'll go with them. They have the ability to pick teams apart and there is nothing anyone can do about it. The WCE also played mostly off the rush, while the Sedins employ a cycle game. They're different, so I guess it really is hard to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uber_pwnzor Posted March 21, 2012 Author Share Posted March 21, 2012 What do you define distaster? BMo had a great 2-way game and Bertuzzi's defense was not too shabby either. If you meant defense as a whole, we have arguably the deepest 6-man defensive core in the history of the Canucks, if not the deepest in the NHL right now.Yes it's true they never got the team past the 2nd round, but also to note that the WCE did not have the supporting cast that the Sedin's do now. (or even last year)Dare to compare a Selke winner Kesler, Higgins, Booth with Sanderson, Matt Cooke, Brad May?I could only imagine how scary our team would be right now if we had the WCE line rolling with the AMEX line right behind them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkpoet Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 This is too easy. WCE Bertuzzi in his prime was an absolute BEAST. That line had it all. Nazzy was the pure sniper, Mo was the defensive backup, and Bert was the FORCE. I think the single greatest reason why they were so good was their level of creativity. They were simply unpredictable. Just imagine if we had a "Bertuzzi" playing with the twins. It would be game freaken over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 put it this way puck possession vs run and gun depends on what style of play you prefer. I like run and gun better but i think the sedins are better players their passing plays are out of this world no one in todays nhl comes close to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 What do you define distaster? BMo had a great 2-way game and Bertuzzi's defense was not too shabby either. If you meant defense as a whole, we have arguably the deepest 6-man defensive core in the history of the Canucks, if not the deepest in the NHL right now.Yes it's true they never got the team past the 2nd round, but also to note that the WCE did not have the supporting cast that the Sedin's do now. (or even last year)Dare to compare a Selke winner Kesler, Higgins, Booth with Sanderson, Matt Cooke, Brad May?I could only imagine how scary our team would be right now if we had the WCE line rolling with the AMEX line right behind them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schlaBAM Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 You obviously haven't seen the WCE play. Henrik is a much better passer than Morrison, but that is about it. Morrison had speed and a great 2 way game. Henrik is only a little bit better than BMo. Bertuzzi was the best powerforward in the league in his prime, hands down, Burrows doesn't come close, and Burrows is probably my favourite player on the canucks right now. Nazzy had everything Daniel had, but was better at it and faster too. Only thing Daniel had over Nazzy is passing, but not by too much. This isn't even an argument if you've seen both play. The WCE had 2 players score 45+ goals for years, while playing in the dead puck era, and they put up the same amount of points as the Sedin line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Bissonnette Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 Well, Daniel Sedin>Markus Naslund, Henrik Sedin>>>>Morrison, Prime Bertuzzi>>>>Burrows. The Sedins line might be more talented, but WCE was one of the most exciting lines i've ever seen, I don't know, I say WCE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.