TheJoker19 Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 So you're hoping Canada doesn't make it to the finals? What kind of Canadian are you? hes not from Canada hes from Austria.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Yeah no kidding a real leader would hide away from all the media crying while letting the Sedins do all the talking. Yep best captain in the NHL right there! Edit: It amazes me how much people turn a blind eye to Luongo because he's Canadian yet has never shown anything that he is a good leader or even shown a true commitment to the team while bash Naslund because he's European yet he would face the media regardless how ruthless they were and always stated how commited he was. I don't turn a blind eye to Luongo but you can't dismiss how many games he has stolen for the Canucks by himself and it has nothing to do with his nationality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Rodin is going to be a beast for us. Ah yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 I'm sorry but the first part of your statement is flawed. The rest I agree with though. One player cannot lead a team deep into the playoffs alone. I'm sorry but hockey's a team game and no one player can win you the cup. Ovechkin leads the playoffs in points and yet he cant get his team deep either... You need more than 1 man. And for those who love using the excuse "Linden was amazing, he led us to the finals" thats BS. Linden had Bure and Mclean among others. Naslund had Cloutier... Naslund became a perimeter player in the playoffs and people will always remember that one play he made to Matt Cooke to try and justify him as a playoff performer but the truth is, that was the exception to the rule. I agree with you that he didn't have a great supporting cast but he didn't do his own part either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 how did he disappear in the playoffs? He had a mediocre series against Detroit that is true, but he was the leading scorer in the playoffs in 02/03 at the time of our elimination, he had 9 points in 7 games in 03/04 and led our team in goals in the 2006/2007 series. We never went any where in the 01/02 and 02/03 series because our goaltending sucked and we lost in game 7 OT in 03/04 with our back-up in net. How were any of those series' Naslund's fault? He became a perimeter player. He avoided physical play at all costs. Honestly, those stats are good stats for perimeter player but if he had gone to the dirty areas, do you know how much more points he could have had? He had a great wrist shot at that time and was still an excellent playmaker. Truth be told, you can blame the defence and goaltending in 2003 and rightfully so but you could also blame Bertuzzi for running his mouth about how they had the series in the bag after being up 3 games to 1. Then again, maybe if Naslund stepped up his game and went to the dirty areas, the Canucks could have been able to outscore their problems. Not buying the argument for 2004. If Cloutier was that bad, shouldn't have Auld gave the Canucks a better shot at winning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Let me guess, you absolutely love the Sedions and Luongo and Mitchell adn Kesler and Burrows. They haven't gotten even as far as Naslund took us in the playoffs. Game 7 of the second round is the furthest we have since 94 and Naslund took us there. That we choked comment to me is one of the exampls of how Naslund was a good leader to the fans and the team. He was willing to admit when they messed up, willing to takew blame. That is a good leader, not trying to pass it on or deflect blame, acceptiong the blame onto himself. That is something a real leader would say(let me guess you loved Luongo saying how he messed up in the playoffs too, here's a hint-that is the same as what Naslund did). Why would it be a bad thing to have an guy turn out to be the same as a guy considered the best player in the world for several years? Even was sai8d by Gretzky to be the best in the world. Hell even Naslund's last years here are unfairly bashed. He was still a top 6 winger putting up close to sixty points a year. People ahve said they are happy with Kesler getting that and he is entering his prime and they weren't fine with a guy nearing the end of his career doing that on their second line? That is jsut unbelievably stupid to me when I see people posting how great Kesler's numbers are for a second liner but bash Nazzy's numbers in a similar role for his last copuple years here(he even had less ice-time than Kesler). I don't absolutely love any player but I have a good sense of who you can win with and who you can't. You can win with any of those players but with the exception of Luongo, they aren't go-to guys. Even then, Luongo will have to swallow his pride and take a big pay cut for him to have a good enough team in front of him. No, a real leader wouldn't say that. A real leader would say where they did well and where they need to improve. Comparing Naslund to Kesler in unbelievably stupid. Okay...Kesler will never be as dynamic as Naslund was for those 2 or 3 years but he brings more to the table. Kesler is built a lot better for the playoffs. He goes to the dirty areas. He is a warrior IMO. Also, yeah who the hell has the right to complain about Naslund putting up 60 points for 6 million a year. Highway robbery! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arshonagon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 He became a perimeter player. He avoided physical play at all costs. Honestly, those stats are good stats for perimeter player but if he had gone to the dirty areas, do you know how much more points he could have had? He had a great wrist shot at that time and was still an excellent playmaker. Truth be told, you can blame the defence and goaltending in 2003 and rightfully so but you could also blame Bertuzzi for running his mouth about how they had the series in the bag after being up 3 games to 1. Then again, maybe if Naslund stepped up his game and went to the dirty areas, the Canucks could have been able to outscore their problems. Not buying the argument for 2004. If Cloutier was that bad, shouldn't have Auld gave the Canucks a better shot at winning? Naslund was always a perimeter p[layer. he never really went into the dirty areas as much but bertuzzi and Morrison did that for them(why they were such an efective line). You want to find the guy that disappeared in the playoffs, look at Bertuzzi. Those two played off each other and when one disappeared the other was less effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hafizzle Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Naslund became a perimeter player in the playoffs and people will always remember that one play he made to Matt Cooke to try and justify him as a playoff performer but the truth is, that was the exception to the rule. I agree with you that he didn't have a great supporting cast but he didn't do his own part either. As someone stated just above, Nazzy was always a perimeter player. He didn't just turn into one in the playoffs yet he still got his points. I dont think its fair to say he completely dissapeared in the playoffs. All I'm trying to say is that one player alone cannot bring you deep into the playoffs or win the cup therefore the argument of Naslund sucking in the playoffs and not leading us deep is stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilikecanucks Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Anton who? Markus Rödin? Keep these dump arguments somewhere else on the board. Prospects forum is for logical discussions, and sharing information between prospect enthusiasts, not debating playoff series' from 5 years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ilya Mikheyev Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Agreeing with ilikecanucks. Rodin to Naslund isn't even a very good comparison... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) Naslund was always a perimeter p[layer. he never really went into the dirty areas as much but bertuzzi and Morrison did that for them(why they were such an efective line). You want to find the guy that disappeared in the playoffs, look at Bertuzzi. Those two played off each other and when one disappeared the other was less effective. I disagree. Between October and January, he did tend to go to the dirty areas but when the games got tougher, he shied away from it and he scored most of his goals in that time frame. What a coincidence. You won't get me to disagree with you on Bertuzzi but if Naslund was truly an elite player, he would make the players around him better, like the true elite players do. Edited July 23, 2009 by Citizen Erased Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
250Integra Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I disagree. Between October and January, he did tend to go to the dirty areas but when the games got tougher, he shied away from it and he scored most of his goals in that time frame. What a coincidence. You won't get me to disagree with you on Bertuzzi but if Naslund was truly an elite player, he would make the players around him better, like the true elite players do. So who does Ovechkin make around him better? No one because he's a puck hog. He is an elite player though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brahma Bull Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So who does Ovechkin make around him better? No one because he's a puck hog. He is an elite player though. He boosts their stats because he scores when they pass to him. I think that is considered making players around him better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Citizen Erased Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 He boosts their stats because he scores when they pass to him. I think that is considered making players around him better. I don't think facts are welcome here at CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vv2 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 is he a playmaker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BladesOfSteel Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 He boosts their stats because he scores when they pass to him. I think that is considered making players around him better. You mean like Naslund used to do when people passed to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McMillan Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I don't turn a blind eye to Luongo but you can't dismiss how many games he has stolen for the Canucks by himself and it has nothing to do with his nationality. What about the games Naslund stole on his own? At one time he was the best player in the league, any time he was on the ice he was a threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RO8!! Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 So who does Ovechkin make around him better? No one because he's a puck hog. He is an elite player though. His willingness to hang on to the puck and go to the dirty areas to score opens up ice for his linemates allowing to be more effective and gives him more options at his disposal if for whatevener reason he gets the rare urge to pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy_the_scot Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 What about the games Naslund stole on his own? At one time he was the best player in the league, any time he was on the ice he was a threat. As much as I don't want to be drawn into a stupid argument on a thread that's supposed to be about Rodin: I used to love when our offence was set up with Bertuzzi planting that massive arse in front of the goalies face and Naslund had the puck on his stick and was drifting around the sideboards. Always felt like a goal was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnickers87 Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 (edited) He became a perimeter player. He avoided physical play at all costs. Honestly, those stats are good stats for perimeter player but if he had gone to the dirty areas, do you know how much more points he could have had? He had a great wrist shot at that time and was still an excellent playmaker. Truth be told, you can blame the defence and goaltending in 2003 and rightfully so but you could also blame Bertuzzi for running his mouth about how they had the series in the bag after being up 3 games to 1. Then again, maybe if Naslund stepped up his game and went to the dirty areas, the Canucks could have been able to outscore their problems. Not buying the argument for 2004. If Cloutier was that bad, shouldn't have Auld gave the Canucks a better shot at winning? In 03/04 Cloutier played well and had a 2.17GAA and a .922% before someone fell on his knee and took him out of the playoffs. Auld came in and couldn't keep his save percentage over .900. Edited July 23, 2009 by Gnickers87 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now