Player Discussion Linden vs Naslund

[Canucks1096]

I feel like Naslund he is getting underrated and a lot of generalization like he is horrible defensively, soft and didn't have the killer instinct, wasn't clutch.

Naslund was never great defensively but he wasn't a liability. 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund had a stretch of 23 P in 21 playoff games. 10 of those points was in 7 elimination games. Canucks down 3-1 vs Blues. Naslund scored in game 5 6 and 7. Naslund end to end rush that led to Cooke tying goal vs Flames. This stretch that he had over ppg in the playoffs and it was during the lowest scoring era in nhl history and played against some of the best defensive teams. During the 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund was in almost 50% of his team goals ( 46% to be exact ). 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund was 3rd in scoring despite only playing 21 playoff games. If you include the 2002 playoffs Naslund is just under a ppg.

Naslund had to carry the team a lot more on his back than Linden. Naslund didn't have a 60 goal scorer to help him out. Naslund didn't have McLean goaltending. Naslund didn't have players like Courtnall and Ronning that stepped up in the playoffs like they did. 1991 to 1995 playoffs Linden was never ever the best player or second best player on those playoffs. 3rd to 5th best players in all those playoffs. If Naslund had that help, we will be having a different conversation right now. Linden in his prime never won a playoff round without Bure.

Also people use Linden hitting, defensively, scoring as an argument. But this argument is a little unfair because he never had all those ability at once. Linden first go around with the team there was pretty much two different Linden's.

Up to 1995 Linden was that 30 G 70 P that was physical at times but just ok defensively. He didn't play the tough mins against the top lines that much. He played mainly on the life line with Ronning and Courtnall. Ronning didn't play against top centers.

1994 playoffs Linden started to play center. Late 1995 season and a lot of 1996 seasons he played center as well and 1996/1997 started to play center full time. Once Linden played center full time, he got better defensively and wasn't that physical and lot of his offence was gone.

Either Linden was the 30 G 70 Point player that was physical at times and was okay defensively vs the Linden that was great defensively, not physical and not a lot of offence. Using all those skillet as an argument is not fair argument. It's like saying Yzerman the 150 P scorer was better than this 170 Point scorer because he was Selke trophy winner but Yzerman never was elite defensively and 150 Point scorer as a the same time.

My vote goes to Naslund, led the team in scoring for 7 straight years. Playoffs in scoring in 2003 and 2004. When Bure Mogilny Messier left. Carry the team on his back. Led the team back to the playoffs after 4 years of no playoffs. Gm place was sold out again. Three first team all stars. Led the league in scoring for a stretch of 4 seasons from 2001 to 2004, Pearson trophy.

I can see an argument for Linden, I have no issues if people put Linden ahead Naslund, but Naslund playing level is so much higher than Linden. I put Naslund ahead of Linden.

 

[Canucks1096]

Glorified grinder? Linden had several seasons near PPG in the dead puck era and was a Calder finalist (came in 2nd to Leetch). Makes sense that you didn't follow the team until WCE. Linden's best seasons were behind him by then, at least in terms of offensive numbers.

That said, Naslund definitely had the better peak. He had the best shot in the league for a couple of seasons.

The dead puck era started around 1997/1998. No, Linden didn't have any almost ppg in the dead puck era. I would say he had one almost ppg season and that was in 1995/1996. I guess you can say 1992 as well. It really depend on your definition of near ppg is.

 

[Canucks1096]

Was Nazzy the original Loui Eriksson?

Ridiculous post. You should delete that.

 

[DL44]

I feel like Naslund he is getting underrated and a lot of generalization like he is horrible defensively, soft and didn't have the killer instinct, wasn't clutch.

Naslund was never great defensively but he wasn't a liability. 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund had a stretch of 23 P in 21 playoff games. 10 of those points was in 7 elimination games. Canucks down 3-1 vs Blues. Naslund scored in game 5 6 and 7. Naslund end to end rush that led to Cooke tying goal vs Flames. This stretch that he had over ppg in the playoffs and it was during the lowest scoring era in nhl history and played against some of the best defensive teams. During the 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund was in almost 50% of his team goals ( 46% to be exact ). 2003 and 2004 playoffs Naslund was 3rd in scoring despite only playing 21 playoff games. If you include the 2002 playoffs Naslund is just a ppg.

Naslund had to carry the team a lot more on his back than Linden. Naslund didn't have a 60 goal scorer to help him out. Naslund didn't have McLean goaltending. Naslund didn't have players like Courtnall and Ronning that stepped up in the playoffs like they did. 1991 to 1995 playoffs Linden was never ever the best player or second best player on those playoffs. 3rd to 5th best players in all those playoffs. If Naslund had that help, we will be having a different conversation right now. Linden in his prime never won a playoff round without Bure.

Also people use Linden hitting, defensively, scoring as an argument. But this argument is a little unfair because he never had all those ability at once. Linden first go around with the team there was pretty much two different Linden's.

Up to 1995 Linden was that 30 G 70 P that was physical at times but just ok defensively. He didn't play the tough mins against the top lines that much. He played mainly on the life line with Ronning and Courtnall. Ronning didn't play against top centers.

1994 playoffs Linden started to play center. Late 1995 season and a lot of 1996 seasons he played center as well and 1996/1997 started to play center full time. Once Linden played center full time, he got better defensively and wasn't that physical and lot of his offence was gone.

Either Linden was the 30 G 70 Point player that was physical at times and was okay defensively vs the Linden that was great defensively, not physical and not a lot of offence. Using all those skillet as an argument is not fair argument. It's like saying Yzerman the 150 P scorer was better than this 170 Point scorer because he was Selke trophy winner but Yzerman never was elite defensively and 150 Point scorer as a the same time.

My vote goes to Naslund, led the team in scoring for 7 straight years. Playoffs in scoring in 2003 and 2004. When Bure Mogilny Messier left. Carry the team on his back. Led the team back to the playoffs after 4 years of no playoffs. Gm place was sold out again. Three first team all stars. Led the league in scoring for a stretch of 4 seasons from 2001 to 2004, Pearson trophy.

I can see an argument for Linden, I have no issues if people put Linden ahead Naslund, but Naslund playing level is so much higher than Linden. I put Naslund ahead of Linden.

Awesome post.

Both are great players .

I emotionally connect and appreciate Linden due to how much he seemingly raised his game in the playoffs vs regular season...

Also... Bertuzzi was my favorite player through the WCE... And I've said many times that any any Naslund highlight video duplicates as an insane highlight of Big Bert's hands...
Naslund didn't have a Bure to play with... But he had a player that was Art Ross worthy if he didn't jump over the bench to protect a teammate and get suspended for ten games...

 

[Jyrki21]

A lot of Linden's beloved status – and I'm saying this as someone who still loved him as a player – was because the Canucks were frankly not that good through the earliest part of his career and had so rarely had star players to rally around. (Although even for the era they played in, the strong offensive totals put up over the years by guys like Tanti, Sundström and Skriko go kind of forgotten too). If Linden had joined a stronger squad it seems doubtful he would have the same kind of profile he earned in Vancouver, rightly or wrongly.

I just feel like Näslund continues to be underrated by Canuck fans to this day, probably because many still refuse to appreciate the randomness of playoffs and how much luck plays into it, instead needing to come up with post hoc explanations for (the overwhelmingly likely result) of losing early in knockout competitions. Even without delving into what those teams could do with a stronger goalie than Cloutier in net. A lot of credit also gets siphoned off to Bertuzzi for the peak of the WCE years, but Näslund's star was rising already as the bright light in some dark times back when Bertuzzi was still a question mark. And much like Linden, Näslund was nothing if not all class.

I have regularly maintained that Näslund's jersey retirement isn't that big an aberration (if one at all), and less unusual than Bure's. As the team's all-time leading scorer and long-time captain at the time of his retirement, his is the type of retirement you'd see for a lot of franchises that don't have lots of Cups from playing in an era with few teams.

 

[Hit the post]

Can you link that up? I remember nothing of the sort.

- Moore ruined Nazzys elbow and took away his wrister (go see his shooting% before and after, very similar to Daniel post Keith elbow)
- Bertuzzi ruined Bertuzzi's head
- The ghost of the incident never left the Canucks


Also... People forget, or dont know, he was the most productive player in the league from 2000-2003

View attachment 375119

Linden’s peak: Kirk McLean
Naslund’s peak: Dan Cloutier

 

[bandwagonesque]

At his peak, which lasted a couple of seasons, Markus Naslund was one of the best 2-3 forwards in the NHL. He carried the team nearly every night. He could score off the rush with almost no space or maintain possession in the offensive zone, he was a great passer, and he had enough speed and energy to create separation when he needed it. He did tail off later, mostly due to injury, but I'm surprised by the arguments people are using to discredit him here.

 

[F A N]

Naslund in the better player.

Obviously Naslund is younger, but I also feel that a prime Naslund can star in today's NHL just fine. A prime Linden I'm not so sure. I don't think he can score too many goals skating down the wing slapping a shot on net. But as we saw in his later days he could be a net front presence on the PP. Overall, I just don't think Linden would be as effective in today's era as he was in his prime.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

belated comments on the radio debate

brough point: linden scored 95 playoff points (34 goals) in 118 games, naslund scored 33 points (13 goals) in 45 games

the better way to say this is prime linden, from 1989 to 1996 scored 79 games, where he scored 80 points (30 goals). 16th among all players in that span — NHL Stats

30 goals/80 in the playoffs in that long of a sample is excellent production. no matter how much we blame cloutier or bertuzzi or crawford or anybody else, 13 goals in 45 games is really really bad.

drance point: linden never even scored a point a game

see above. prime playoff sample of 79 games, 80 points, a higher scoring rate than any regular season of his career because, as they say, the bigger the moment the better he played

drance point: markus naslund was the best winger in the NHL in the first half of the 2000s.

zero people outside of vancouver considered naslund better than iginla during that time, no matter what the stats said. he basically scores at the rate of jagr, also a winger, while jagr was not even trying.

drance point: naslund led the league in scoring by a good margin in a cherry-picked three year sample of 2002 to 2004, and slightly over jagr if you extend it from 2001 to 2004.

when forsberg and sakic missed significant time, thornton hadn't peaked yet in one of those years, jagr not even trying in washington, kariya and selanne were broken down, lindros couldn't look at bright lights, and bure was hobbling into retirement. thornton doesn't start to peak until 2003, MSL doesn't peak until 2004, i mean basically you're saying he outscores iginla, patrik elias, alfredsson, hossa, and... sundin?

don't get me wrong, naslund was an excellent scorer in those years. for my money, 2001 to 2003 was the best three year naslund sample, not 2002 to 2004, but whatever. still, if a player is going to lead the league in scoring for a 3-4 year stretch, i can't think of a weaker one than naslund did. i compare it to jamie benn's two year blip, only if you injure crosby in 2014 or kane in 2016.

conversely, in a cherry-picked sample of 1992 to 1994, linden is 4th in playoff scoring, behind gilmour, mario, and bure — NHL Stats

in a sample of 1992 to 1995, linden is 6th, ahead of bure.

in a sample of 1991 to 1994, linden is 8th.

1991 to 1995, linden is 10th. wee, fun with cherry picked samples.

 

[sandwichbird2023]

Linden’s peak: Kirk McLean
Naslund’s peak: Dan Cloutier

Yea I always wonder why Naslund is balmed for disappearing in the playoff, when Cloutier was universally viewed as one of the weakest starting goalie, and Bert is the one who's playoff stats nosedive the most. When the only other legit offensive weapon is unable to score, and your goalie "can't stop a beach all", what's Naslund supposed to do? All he can do is score and he does that to an acceptable level, not sure what people expect from him?
There was a time when the Canucks were losing money, with a foreign owner and was on relocation watch. Naslund's emergence along with the moderate team success that came with it brought the fans back, and kind of saved hockey in Vancouver. That might be the biggest contribution to hockey in Vancouver any one player made in team history.

 

[bandwagonesque]

zero people outside of vancouver considered naslund better than iginla during that time, no matter what the stats said.

He won the Ted Lindsay award in 2003, which means the players believed him to be the best player in the league.

 

[iceburg]

Having watched the Canucks for the better part of 5 decades I can say that the answer to this question is heavily influenced by the emotional highs and lows experienced by fans during the peak years of a particular player's career. And the age of the fan during those peak years. Statistics aside, it comes down to how the fan felt during that time. Did the player reach "hero status" for them? And, if ever there was an example to prove this point, it was that discussion in the OP.

 

[bandwagonesque]

when forsberg and sakic missed significant time, thornton hadn't peaked yet in one of those years, jagr not even trying in washington, kariya and selanne were broken down, lindros couldn't look at bright lights, and bure was hobbling into retirement. thornton doesn't start to peak until 2003, MSL doesn't peak until 2004, i mean basically you're saying he outscores iginla, patrik elias, alfredsson, hossa, and... sundin?

The argument that a player's accomplishments don't count if other players who could theoretically have been better than them happened to be aging or not peaking yet makes absolutely no sense. You're starting with a conclusion you want to be true and then selecting evidence to support it and very little of it is actually useful.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

He won the Ted Lindsay award in 2003, which means the players believed him to be the best player in the league.

i mean over the totality of 2002-2004, or 2001-2004, or whatever window you choose.

i totally agree that at various point naslund was the best winger in the league, just like how from january to april 2002, bertuzzi was the best player in the league too.

 

[ziploc]

Naslund was obviously more offensively skilled, and I loved him as a player, and as a person. Linden is my favourite Canuck though, largely because of the 94 playoff run, an accomplishment Naslund couldn't match. Naslund arguably had the better team around him, barring (and this is a huge barring) Cloutier. If we had even a decent goalie during Naslund's run, I am confident they would have made the finals, they were a great team at that time.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There's not that much difference IMO between greatest Canucks and best player when both players had their peak and prime with this team. Otherwise, Messier and Sundin are in our "best" players lists. Otherwise guys like Rick Rypien and Gino Odjick are in our "greatest" players lists.

i think when people make that distinction, they're trying to say that linden meant more to the franchise/fanbase/city, whereas naslund was the better absolute player at their peaks.

naslund was a fantastic citizen of this city, let this never not be said. as a captain, he fulfilled all of his off-ice duties tremendously. but he wasn't trevor linden, partially because trevor linden came first, partially because trevor linden had pat quinn, who was a visionary in terms of creating an infrastructure for the team's community service. naslund couldn't build canuck place because linden already built it.

and also partially because even when naslund was doing all the great stuff, linden was right next to him also doing it.

as a sidenote, this maybe should make us appreciate the sedins all the more because they went so far out of their way to give back that even in linden's shadow they still managed to finish as GOAT humanitarians right alongside him.

on the other stuff that "greatest canuck" can mean, linden and naslund both brought the franchise up from the dead. i don't think there's a lot to choose from in terms of opportunity there, just that linden brought his team up higher, not just that they were the more successful team, to make a fairly large understatement, but more importantly that in the long run that early '90s quinn core was more beloved than the early 2000s burke core.

and the last part that is playoffs, which obviously is connected to the above. what you mean to the franchise/fanbase/city is also the memories. as the youngest player in the league, linden led the canucks to game seven OT against literally the best team in the league regular season and playoffs, this team with six 50 goal scorers, five hall of famers (and counting), three conn smythe winners, and which a lot like our 2011 team won the presidents trophy and was second in goals, second in goals against, second in PP, first in PK. and linden literally led the team in scoring in the series and also personally scored two of their three goals in that game seven to get it to OT, where otto kicked it in. he captained six playoff series wins, vs naslund's two. from 1989 to 1996, linden scored four goals and eight points in five game sevens.

whereas some people consider regular season scoring an objective measure of player value, and obviously naslund blows linden away there, so that makes naslund "better" but not "greater."

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The argument that a player's accomplishments don't count if other players who could theoretically have been better than them happened to be aging or not peaking yet makes absolutely no sense. You're starting with a conclusion you want to be true and then selecting evidence to support it and very little of it is actually useful.

i didn't say they don't count, i just compared it to every other player who has ever accomplished that feat. find me another 3-4 window with that little competition for top scorer.

don't get me wrong, naslund was an excellent scorer in those years. for my money, 2001 to 2003 was the best three year naslund sample, not 2002 to 2004, but whatever. still, if a player is going to lead the league in scoring for a 3-4 year stretch, i can't think of a weaker one than naslund did. i compare it to jamie benn's two year blip, only if you injure crosby in 2014 or kane in 2016.

 

[bandwagonesque]

i didn't say they don't count, i just compared it to every other player who has ever accomplished that feat. find me another 3-4 window with that little competition for top scorer.

If you're gauging the relative stature of guys who were considered the best or among the best players in the league for a couple of seasons or more, then I'm not really sure what we're talking about anymore. Even the worst of those players were typically superstars, and Naslund was.

 

[Scorvat]

I only got to watch the tail end of Naslund's prime when Linden was nothing more then a defensive specialist leader type so obviously I can't really say much about watching and evaluating them, but it seems to me that Linden's playoff stats are probably a little skewed by

A: different scoring era compared to Naslund

B: Quality of competition. I believe the playoff format was based largely on the division which could result in some very stupid playoff matchups and looking at some of those Canucks matchups back then their are some hard ones with the late 80's/90s Flames, but also alot of matchups that look really mediocre like the Jets and post dynasty Oilers.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I only got to watch the tail end of Naslund's prime when Linden was nothing more then a defensive specialist leader type so obviously I can't really say much about watching and evaluating them, but it seems to me that Linden's playoff stats are probably a little skewed by

A: different scoring era compared to Naslund

B: Quality of competition. I believe the playoff format was based largely on the division which could result in some very stupid playoff matchups and looking at some of those Canucks matchups back then their are some hard ones with the late 80's/90s Flames, but also alot of matchups that look really mediocre like the Jets and post dynasty Oilers.

(a) see my post above about linden's scoring relative to the rest of the league during his playoff prime. his scoring peers were almost all hall of famers.

(b) you could just take linden's series against legit top teams and he still kills it. seven games against the presidents trophy winning/cup champ flames: 7 points. six games in a 1 vs 4 seed matchup against arguably gretzky's best kings team (which finished third in the league): 7 points. seven more games against the 1 seed flames (sixth in the league): 7 points. five games agains the back to back conference finals pat burns/gilmour leaves (fifth in the league): 7 points. seven games against the presidents trophy winning/cup champ rangers: 5 points.

total: 32 games, 33 points.

there's a reason that pat quinn turned down a linden for sakic trade in 1994. i mean, obviously it was absolutely positively the wrong decision, but you can see why he did it.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Linden>Naslund. Greater Canuck and probably a better overall player too. Markus was certainly more skilled but was a bit of a soft perimeter player, whereas Trevor would battle extremely hard in the trenches and had the intangibles, so much heart and grit, remember him broken down from injuries still leading and carrying the team in the 94 finals, awesome teammate and captain.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Honestly, I think that the Moore incident and everything that came out of it really broke Naslund as a player. After that he just looked tired and defeated.

Agreed. Moore incident effected Bertuzzi, he was never the same after that, Nazzy fed off Bert, they both suffered as a result. Canucks lost in game 7 OT to the Flames who lost in game 7 of the SCF, had that incident never happened Bertuzzi would’ve been in the lineup and that was their best chance at the Cup.

 

[Fatass]

Really liked Naslund, and even planted (and named) a shrub in his honour. But did Naslund help the team win if he wasn’t scoring? Linden helped the team win in so many more ways, including scoring. I see the greatest Canuck forwards like this:
Bure
Linden
Hank
Danny
Naslund

 

[Canadian Canuck]

Naslund was my favourite Canuck of all time. Linden was my dads, so it's always been a debate for me lol. Linden is not as good of a player but probably the better Canucks tbh

 

[supercanuck]

Linden for me is Mr. Canuck. Heart and soul as a player, but also heart off the ice as well.

Naslund is the better hockey player, but Linden was no slouch especially in the playoffs.