Player Discussion Linden vs Naslund

[supercanuck]

Looking purely at stats will tell you one story, for sure. But have a peek at Linden’s playoff stats while you are at it - specifically for the years up to 1996, when he was in his prime. His game consistently elevated in the post season, and his points per game was consistently higher in the playoffs versus his regular season contributions. Part of the reason Linden gets so much admiration amongst Canucks fans is because he was a “big game player” who always managed to find that extra gear when games counted the most. Heck, even if you want to shoot forward to his final playoff appearance in 2007, he lead the team in scoring in the post season that year while scoring or setting up four of the team’s five game winning goals that year. In his career he played in 9 Game 7s and he had 6 goals and 6 assists for 12 points in those series deciding games. He also had arguably the game of his career in Game 7 vs the Rangers in 1994, scoring both goals in the team’s 3-2 loss - that spring, he was the only Canuck apart from Hall of Famer Pavel Bure to finish the post season at a higher than a point per game clip.

His game was considered good enough to merit multiple invitations to the NHL All Star game, as well as being named to Team Canada’s rosters for the World Cup and the Olympics. So even though his stats may not leap out at you, his game was strong enough to earn him a lot of respect around the league and the hockey world.

But looking beyond just the stats is an important one here, too. Naslund was a sublimely skilled offensive player, but that is really all he was - an offensive player. Linden was a fixture not only on the power play, but on the penalty kill. He drew all the team’s tough matchups. He was the guy out defending leads in the dying minutes of games. He was your all situations player in a way that Naslund, for all his offensive accolades, simply wasn’t. Whether it was in his prime in his first go round with the team, or on his second tour of duty where he played a much more defensive role, Linden was the more versatile player.

Further to that - and this may be the biggest reason he’s so adored to this day - were his contributions off the ice. IMO, only the Sedins have matched Linden for giving back to the community in Vancouver and BC as a whole. Linden was the first Canuck to rent out a suite for under privileged kids to attend games on his dime, and he would always visit the suite after games to sign autographs, take pictures and give out swag. He was the first Canuck to win the King Clancy award for community contributions, something only Henrik and Daniel have managed since.

At the end of the day; if you want to compare Linden and Naslund as players, you should really watch some footage of both of them playing. Naslund was a top tier offensive force for us for a while, and I think he is certainly the more talented player - but I think Linden’s impact on the franchise was more significant.

My thoughts exactly, Mr. Canucklehead. Said it better than I could think it, LOL

On the 1998 Olympics team, he scored the team's only goal on Hasek in the last minute to force overtime. He was just a big game player, IMO. People question whether Gretzky should have taken a penalty shot (yes he should have). I always thought that Linden should have had a chance as well considering he just beat Hasek.

 

[F A N]

I'm not as big of a Linden fan as others are. I feel he benefited from being drafted with a #2 pick and was a good player on some bad teams. As a player, he was a bit of an underachiever and didn't have the passion to get better the way the Sedins and Petey have shown. With that said, when it came to the big playoff games, Linden played with heart and soul.

 

[Snatcher Demko]

Pre-2004 he made an effort and wasn't that bad for a top skill player.

2005-2008 Naslund was a black hole. I'm probably harsher to him than I should be because those 3 years left such a terrible taste in my mouth.

Yeah a lot of fans turned on poor Nazzy but he was just not that kind of player - he was always kind of a one-dimensional winger who tried to be more and do more (and he did). Maybe it was the rivalry with Forsberg (unfair).

He was a good leader though - brutally honest. Remember the "we choked" after the LA shutout? I was at that game.

The leadership gap between Linden and Naslund was likely smaller than it appears - Linden (as we know now) certainly has the ego but maybe that just comes with territory.

It's tough being the captain in Vancouver, with the weight of so much losing on your shoulders. Both players admirably took on that burden.

 

[strattonius]

That West Coast Express line was something else - Naslund was an insane sniper. As far as ability goes its not even close; However, Linden will forever be remembered by that 94 cup run and the character and leadership that went with it. Not sure there will be a greater Canuck player given the circumstance and role he played for this franchise.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

My thoughts exactly, Mr. Canucklehead. Said it better than I could think it, LOL

On the 1998 Olympics team, he scored the team's only goal on Hasek in the last minute to force overtime. He was just a big game player, IMO. People question whether Gretzky should have taken a penalty shot (yes he should have). I always thought that Linden should have had a chance as well considering he just beat Hasek.

Given the shootout prowess that Linden displayed in the latter part of his career, it probably would have been a solid idea.

No Gretzky in the shootout still baffles the mind, though.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Also, I'm not really getting the narrative that Linden was "a good player on bad teams". Those early-to-mid 90s Canucks teams were, at the time, the best the franchise had ever iced. The offense ran prett deep lead by Pavel Bure, but we had Ronning, Courtnall, Adams and Linden along with a small revolving door of other productive forwards in that timeframe, too. McLean was nominated for the Vezina twice. Our defense performed pretty solidly anchored by Lumme and Babych and a few other stalwarts rotating through. They bowed out in the second round of the playoffs in 92 and 93, which was considered an underwhelming disappointment, before going to the Finals in 94. They got to the second round again in 1995 before being eliminated in the first round in 1996.

The only other era that we saw that kind of sustained post-season success was the Sedin-led incarnation from 2009 through 2011.

 

[Jyrki21]

Also, I'm not really getting the narrative that Linden was "a good player on bad teams". Those early-to-mid 90s Canucks teams were, at the time, the best the franchise had ever iced. The offense ran prett deep lead by Pavel Bure, but we had Ronning, Courtnall, Adams and Linden along with a small revolving door of other productive forwards in that timeframe, too. McLean was nominated for the Vezina twice. Our defense performed pretty solidly anchored by Lumme and Babych and a few other stalwarts rotating through. They bowed out in the second round of the playoffs in 92 and 93, which was considered an underwhelming disappointment, before going to the Finals in 94. They got to the second round again in 1995 before being eliminated in the first round in 1996.

While I agree with this, and subscribe generally to the belief that fans utterly ignore this point in the team’s history thinking it was all one playoff run... Linden still had already become the Golden Boy from his rookie year and was well-cemented as the local hero even before the 1994 run. I suspect if the Internet were around in 1989 or 1990, annoying Oiler fans would give us a hard time for how telling it was how he was hyped up despite not being one of the league’s top stars (cf. Wendel Clark). There was definitely a big-fish-in-a-small-pond aspect to it (a bit like Boeser’s rookie year), and it even led to some division in the fanbase when Bure came along and we actually had one of those star players we thought we weren’t entitled to.

Not to mention it was, above all, the addition of Courtnall and Ronning – and McLean’s fantastic 1991-92 season – that was the main difference between the 1990-91 turtle derby Canucks, and the 1991-92 division champs.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

My thoughts exactly, Mr. Canucklehead. Said it better than I could think it, LOL

On the 1998 Olympics team, he scored the team's only goal on Hasek in the last minute to force overtime. He was just a big game player, IMO. People question whether Gretzky should have taken a penalty shot (yes he should have). I always thought that Linden should have had a chance as well considering he just beat Hasek.

nobody knew it yet then, but linden would later be awesome in shootouts, ironically for marc crawford.

 

[Hit the post]

I’m going by memory but didn’t the Habs get a 1st round pick for Linden as well late in his career as well? Guy’s value really held up.

 

[Canucks1096]

Linden played 1140 regular season games with the Canucks. 118 playoffs games. Total 1258 games, a lot of people are just using one main argument 80 points in 79 playoffs games from 1989 to 1996.

So 79 games ÷ 1258 games = 6%. People are looking at 6% of Linden games and using a very tiny sample size to determine he is ahead of Naslund. That is so ridiculous. We need to look at the the entire Canucks career and not just cherry pick. Some of you guys are ignoring 94% of Linden career with the Canucks.

Any top 100 lists of all the players in nhl history. Do we ever see Claude Lemieux name on it? Answer is No. The reason is regular season matters as well since most games are played in the regular season.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I’m going by memory but didn’t the Habs get a 1st round pick for Linden as well late in his career as well? Guy’s value really held up.

like wendel clark that way. he never wasn’t valuable.

trade 1: the boat

linden for mccabe (a sedin) and bertuzzi (luongo) and the ruutu pick

clark, sylvain lefebvre, and junk for sundin, gart butcher, and junk

trade 2: still valuable

linden for a top ten pick

clark for claude lemieux coming off a conn smythe for steve thomas in a three way

trade 3: lots of stuff

linden, dainius zubrus, and a second rounder for richard zednik, bulis, and a first rounder

clark, mathieu schneider, and junk for kenny jonsson, a top five pick (luongo), darby hendrickson, and junk

trade 4: still got something

linden and a second rounder for a first and third

ckark and junk for a second rounder and junk

 

[Garbageyuk]

The playoffs is where it counts - like it or not. Unless you think revenue is the primary motivator for the players.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

The playoffs is where it counts - like it or not. Unless you think revenue is the primary motivator for the players.

i know right? it’s like, why are they even playing hockey?

 

[supercanuck]

Obviously a fluff piece for his retirement but this article kind of touches at why Linden is still my favorite Canuck player to this day. He gets it, like how the Sedins get it.

Linden's career one of service to others

"Like my brother Dean said to me a long time ago, he said, you have an amazing gift. He said he can't walk into a room and make a difference and you can so take advantage of it," Linden said.

The native of Medicine Hat, Alberta, certainly took his brother's challenge to heart. In 1995, he established the Trevor Linden Foundation to help terminally ill children. He worked tirelessly with British Columbia Children's Hospital and Canuck Place, a hospice for children battling cancer, Camp Goodtimes, Ronald McDonald House of B.C., the Canadian Cancer Society, B.C. Cancer Foundation, Kids Help Phone and the Michael Cuccione Foundation, as well as many other causes. All told, he has helped raise more than $25 million.

......

"It's been a very special journey. I think the minute you visit or interact with a child you instantly realize how fortunate you are to have been healthy," Linden said. "And playing hockey and talking to kids is a pretty natural connection. Plus, the kids are so strong and so fearless, it's inspiring. I want to thank those children for allowing me into their lives."

Amazingly, Linden said the hardest part of the job isn't the children, it's the parents.

"It's normally the parents I spend more time with, because the kids are so upbeat and ready to go, but it seems to be most difficult for the parents."

 

[Phenomenaut]

I took a look at some of Naslund's stats to try and quantify the effect 2004 had on him.

His career S% was something like ~15% up through his injury, but after his injury he shot 7.2% for the rest of the season. Small sample size, but from there on out his S% dropped from that 15% mark down to the mid-11's. He was shooting 14% before the injury, close to his career average.

If his shooting had remained consistent he'd have had 41-42 goals that year, enough to tie or outright win the Richard. But it's clear that that injury took something out of his wrist shot, because in the following years he shot 12.1, 10.9, 10.6, and 11.2. Bring that number back to what he was shooting before the injury, and he scores about 36 more goals over his last few years.

Furthermore, in 06, his splits are really weird. He's on pace for 45/50/95 through 2005, in 38 games. Then in January, his ice time drops by two minutes a game, and he goes ice cold and falls off, never to recover. 45/50/95 is top ten in the league for goals and points, and seems to fit with a pretty reasonable aging curve. What happened in 06? Did he reaggravate his wrist or something? I didn't watch that year at all because I was salty about the lockout. Daniel Sedin and Anson Carter's ice time didn't change, so he must've been conceding time to the likes of rookie Alex Burrows, Matt Cooke, Jarko Ruutu?

 

[Canucks1096]

I took a look at some of Naslund's stats to try and quantify the effect 2004 had on him.

His career S% was something like ~15% up through his injury, but after his injury he shot 7.2% for the rest of the season. Small sample size, but from there on out his S% dropped from that 15% mark down to the mid-11's. He was shooting 14% before the injury, close to his career average.

If his shooting had remained consistent he'd have had 41-42 goals that year, enough to tie or outright win the Richard. But it's clear that that injury took something out of his wrist shot, because in the following years he shot 12.1, 10.9, 10.6, and 11.2. Bring that number back to what he was shooting before the injury, and he scores about 36 more goals over his last few years.

Furthermore, in 06, his splits are really weird. He's on pace for 45/50/95 through 2005, in 38 games. Then in January, his ice time drops by two minutes a game, and he goes ice cold and falls off, never to recover. 45/50/95 is top ten in the league for goals and points, and seems to fit with a pretty reasonable aging curve. What happened in 06? Did he reaggravate his wrist or something? I didn't watch that year at all because I was salty about the lockout. Daniel Sedin and Anson Carter's ice time didn't change, so he must've been conceding time to the likes of rookie Alex Burrows, Matt Cooke, Jarko Ruutu?

Second half of 2006. He was playing with a groin injury. He decided to skip the Olympics to heal his groin.

That is a sign of a good leader. You sacrifice a chance to win gold for your country so you will be more healthy down the stretch for your nhl team.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

so i made this thread because i listened to a team 1040 spot where drance was yelling and brough was coming back with painful zingers, a couple of which made me laugh out loud. it was one of those conversations where both guys are arguing from emotion, but one guy knows it and leans into it because what's the point in having this conversation without its emotional subtext while the other guy is totally unironically convinced he's being rational and objective.

anyway that conversation spilled out of a discussion about the top five canucks of all time.

my list would be

1. henrik — first canuck to win the scoring title, first canuck to win the MVP

2. linden — first canuck to almost win anything (the '89 calder)

3. bure — first canuck to win anything (the '92 calder), first canuck superstar, first canuck to score 50 goals, first canuck to score 100 points, first canuck to lead the league in anything (goals), first canuck to finish top five in points

4. daniel — leading scorer of the first canuck team to blow away the league and be THE favourite

5. luongo — first canuck superstar goalie, first canuck to get more than a handful of first place MVP votes

if you go in chronological order, each guy kind of builds on the previous guy's new high. i think it's fair that naslund belongs there, as the first canuck to almost win the scoring race, first to finish runner up for the MVP, before luongo tops him, and then henrik tops luongo. but he's still my number six out of that group.

i think the four who aren't linden speak for themselves. all are hall of famers. you could write a novel about what it felt like to have bure come in in the fall of 1991, or watching him score basically a goal every single game at the end of the '92 season and first half of '93, or the '94 playoffs. you could also write for miles about how luongo in 2007 was something we had never ever felt before, ditto the sedins in 2010 and that whole 2011 team. (and it's a sidenote, but i feel like quinn hughes is the next one. the only thing left that we haven't had yet, other than the cup of course, is an ice-tilting franchise d.)

but let me tell you about linden. now i'm not even a linden guy. in the early 90s, linden vs bure was a culture war among kids in vancouver and i was team bure 1,000%. zero part of me wanted to cheer for the good ol' all-canadian golden boy. i was like a lot of people in this thread. in 1989 when linden was a rookie, and that was my first year watching hockey, i was like, okay come on, he's pretty good but you're all acting like he's bryan trottier. he's not bryan trottier. and then when bure came in i was like, see, this is what a superstar looks like. but just like how the nashville series made me finally like kesler, you couldn't watch the '94 playoffs as a canucks fan and come away not going, okay that dude, he is my dude.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

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.

What a biased attempt to discredit Naslund.

You can say that when Nazzy was arguably considered the top winger in the game over a 3 year stretch that it was a fairly weak era, fine. But airlift Trevor Linden on his best day into that three year stretch and he isn't in the conversation for top 25 player in the game. Case closed.

 

[MarkusNaslund19]

People blame Naslund for the fact that our team was built around wingers. Those teams never succeed.
Our two best players, by far, were Naslund and Bertuzzi.

Remember how well Toronto did when they airlifted Kessel onto the team? Me too.

Naslund never played with a number one D, he never played with a number 1 C, and he only played with a proper goaltender once he was way past his prime.

 

[F A N]

But looking beyond just the stats is an important one here, too. Naslund was a sublimely skilled offensive player, but that is really all he was - an offensive player. Linden was a fixture not only on the power play, but on the penalty kill. He drew all the team’s tough matchups. He was the guy out defending leads in the dying minutes of games. He was your all situations player in a way that Naslund, for all his offensive accolades, simply wasn’t. Whether it was in his prime in his first go round with the team, or on his second tour of duty where he played a much more defensive role, Linden was the more versatile player.

Further to that - and this may be the biggest reason he’s so adored to this day - were his contributions off the ice. IMO, only the Sedins have matched Linden for giving back to the community in Vancouver and BC as a whole. Linden was the first Canuck to rent out a suite for under privileged kids to attend games on his dime, and he would always visit the suite after games to sign autographs, take pictures and give out swag. He was the first Canuck to win the King Clancy award for community contributions, something only Henrik and Daniel have managed since.

At the end of the day; if you want to compare Linden and Naslund as players, you should really watch some footage of both of them playing. Naslund was a top tier offensive force for us for a while, and I think he is certainly the more talented player - but I think Linden’s impact on the franchise was more significant.

I think you're downplaying Naslund here. Naslund was a sublimely skilled offensive player and also one of the best offensive wingers in the game in his prime. He finished 2nd in the league in scoring twice. Clearly when it came to goal and point production he ranked among the elite. If not for the Moore hit, Naslund was on his way to 4 straight 40+ goal seasons. It's not like Naslund was a defensive liability either. I don't think possession stats were tracked back then but I'm pretty sure the stats would show that Naslund was a possession monster who spent most of the time in the offensive zone. Linden on the other hand liked to be used as a C but he really wasn't the same offensive player as a C. Linden in his prime was basically a 1st line goal scoring winger or 2nd line C. Rarely do you choose that over an elite offensive winger.

As for community service, I'm not really sure it's fair to compare. I think it's fair to say that Linden embodies more of the North American style captain than Naslund. Naslund appears more introverted and I don't think community service comes naturally to him. If you compare Naslund with Henrik and Linden, Naslund clearly isn't as comfortable as the two in answering questions. Linden seems very comfortable walking around and speaking to people.

The reality is that Linden and Henrik captained his team to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. Naslund didn't. For those who were around back then, a lot of Canucks fans didn't like Naslund and Henrik's lead by example leadership. Most preferred the perception of Iginla rally the room type. In reality that's what North American fans prefer in a captain and leader. Naslund probably did a lot of things that we didn't know. Certainly the Sedins give a lot of credit to Naslund for his mentorship.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I think you're downplaying Naslund here. Naslund was a sublimely skilled offensive player and also one of the best offensive wingers in the game in his prime. He finished 2nd in the league in scoring twice. Clearly when it came to goal and point production he ranked among the elite. If not for the Moore hit, Naslund was on his way to 4 straight 40+ goal seasons. It's not like Naslund was a defensive liability either. I don't think possession stats were tracked back then but I'm pretty sure the stats would show that Naslund was a possession monster who spent most of the time in the offensive zone. Linden on the other hand liked to be used as a C but he really wasn't the same offensive player as a C. Linden in his prime was basically a 1st line goal scoring winger or 2nd line C. Rarely do you choose that over an elite offensive winger.

As for community service, I'm not really sure it's fair to compare. I think it's fair to say that Linden embodies more of the North American style captain than Naslund. Naslund appears more introverted and I don't think community service comes naturally to him. If you compare Naslund with Henrik and Linden, Naslund clearly isn't as comfortable as the two in answering questions. Linden seems very comfortable walking around and speaking to people.

The reality is that Linden and Henrik captained his team to Game 7 of the Stanley Cup finals. Naslund didn't. For those who were around back then, a lot of Canucks fans didn't like Naslund and Henrik's lead by example leadership. Most preferred the perception of Iginla rally the room type. In reality that's what North American fans prefer in a captain and leader. Naslund probably did a lot of things that we didn't know. Certainly the Sedins give a lot of credit to Naslund for his mentorship.

I'm not trying to downplay Naslund at all, really - I was more just trying to explain why you need to look at a lot more than Linden's regular season stats when determining what he meant to his team and the franchise as a whole. I also wholly disagree that Linden being North American and Naslund being Swedish have anything to do with their community service - Naslund was a rock solid community contributor in his time here. What I noted about Linden is that he was more of a pioneer in that category, creating the suite for kids (which Canuck captains continue with to this day), and availing himself to the community in such a way that all subsequent captains, Messier excepting, have continued to do.

To the question of Naslund's defensive ability - it was simply not a variable in his game. He was not good at defending in his own zone, or defending in general. He was a terrific offensive forward who probably would have driven a lot of good possession results because of it, but again, he never played the PK and was never going to be the guy out defending a lead late in the game.

I do think you make an accurate point about playoff success playing a role in how Naslund is perceived here. Tony Tanti is another good example of this phenomenon. He was probably the best offensive forward the team had ever had until Pavel Bure came along, but he played on such historically awful Canucks squads that he is largely forgotten in the annals of Canucks history. Go ahead and try and find some video footage of him scoring 40+ goals a season for the Canucks in the 80s - it's nearly impossible. Those early 2000s era Canucks squads are unfortunately remembered for failing to deliver when it counts in the post-season. That isn't all Naslund's fault by a long shot - if the team had received even passable goaltending, they would have made at least the Conference Finals in 2003 - but that's what sticks in the minds of fans.

Anyway - long ramble short; my answer to this poll was that Naslund is the better player, but Linden meant more to the franchise as a whole and was therefore a greater Canuck.

 

[F A N]

I'm not trying to downplay Naslund at all, really - I was more just trying to explain why you need to look at a lot more than Linden's regular season stats when determining what he meant to his team and the franchise as a whole. I also wholly disagree that Linden being North American and Naslund being Swedish have anything to do with their community service - Naslund was a rock solid community contributor in his time here. What I noted about Linden is that he was more of a pioneer in that category, creating the suite for kids (which Canuck captains continue with to this day), and availing himself to the community in such a way that all subsequent captains, Messier excepting, have continued to do.

I didn't say it was because Linden was North American and Naslund was Swedish. What I said was that Naslund is, I think, naturally introverted. Linden walks into a room and it would be natural for him to walk around and talk to everyone. That doesn't come naturally to Naslund. My point also is that it also reflects in their different leadership style.

To the question of Naslund's defensive ability - it was simply not a variable in his game. He was not good at defending in his own zone, or defending in general. He was a terrific offensive forward who probably would have driven a lot of good possession results because of it, but again, he never played the PK and was never going to be the guy out defending a lead late in the game.

If he played in Linden's era Naslund may very well have played on the PK. There's no question that Linden was better defensively. Being 6'4" 220+ lbs who skates well for his size also helps defend the bigger forwards from the dead puck era and time before that. Naslund was one of the forwards who can transition the puck up ice and enter the offensive zone with control. When Naslund was at his best, his defensive game was not an issue at all.

I do think you make an accurate point about playoff success playing a role in how Naslund is perceived here. Tony Tanti is another good example of this phenomenon. He was probably the best offensive forward the team had ever had until Pavel Bure came along, but he played on such historically awful Canucks squads that he is largely forgotten in the annals of Canucks history. Go ahead and try and find some video footage of him scoring 40+ goals a season for the Canucks in the 80s - it's nearly impossible. Those early 2000s era Canucks squads are unfortunately remembered for failing to deliver when it counts in the post-season. That isn't all Naslund's fault by a long shot - if the team had received even passable goaltending, they would have made at least the Conference Finals in 2003 - but that's what sticks in the minds of fans.

Anyway - long ramble short; my answer to this poll was that Naslund is the better player, but Linden meant more to the franchise as a whole and was therefore a greater Canuck.

I voted the same way. But I wonder how much of it has to do with the way we perceived sports. Many older Canucks fans talk about Linden and McLean more fondly than they do the Sedins and Luongo when the latter accomplished the same things in the playoffs and were notably better players.

 

[supercanuck]

I'm not trying to downplay Naslund at all, really - I was more just trying to explain why you need to look at a lot more than Linden's regular season stats when determining what he meant to his team and the franchise as a whole. I also wholly disagree that Linden being North American and Naslund being Swedish have anything to do with their community service - Naslund was a rock solid community contributor in his time here. What I noted about Linden is that he was more of a pioneer in that category, creating the suite for kids (which Canuck captains continue with to this day), and availing himself to the community in such a way that all subsequent captains, Messier excepting, have continued to do.

Yes 100%. I think Linden/Quinn created the current version of "being a Canuck", whether it is on the ice or off of it.

Naslund was also a great Canuck and player...but through little fault of his own the memories of his time as a Canuck are not that great. Bertuzzi/Moore, Clouter/Lidstrom, "we choked", Cooke's SH goal to tie only to lose in OT anyways, etc

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I voted the same way. But I wonder how much of it has to do with the way we perceived sports. Many older Canucks fans talk about Linden and McLean more fondly than they do the Sedins and Luongo when the latter accomplished the same things in the playoffs and were notably better players.

There is definitely a romantic attachment to that 1994 team in particular amongst fans. That team was so deeply tied to the community, and many members of that squad still make Vancouver their home, and are active in the Canuck Alumni. McLean, Babych, Lumme, Ronning, Odjick, Courtnall, Adams, etc...it's a big crew. And again, that period was the first real period of sustained success this franchise had ever had, so I think all of that plays into why that team is so beloved by the Canuck fandom.

The Sedins and Luongo are definitely notably better players. But I think how 2011 ended still sits sour with a lot of fans which perhaps taints the overall accomplishments the team made. But I certainly think the Sedin Twins get their due from the fandom and the league as a whole. Their send off was tremendous.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

There is definitely a romantic attachment to that 1994 team in particular amongst fans. That team was so deeply tied to the community, and many members of that squad still make Vancouver their home, and are active in the Canuck Alumni. McLean, Babych, Lumme, Ronning, Odjick, Courtnall, Adams, etc...it's a big crew. And again, that period was the first real period of sustained success this franchise had ever had, so I think all of that plays into why that team is so beloved by the Canuck fandom.

The Sedins and Luongo are definitely notably better players. But I think how 2011 ended still sits sour with a lot of fans which perhaps taints the overall accomplishments the team made. But I certainly think the Sedin Twins get their due from the fandom and the league as a whole. Their send off was tremendous.

i have henrik above linden, and luongo above mclean. but i also know in my heart of hearts that if it's game seven for all the marbles, i'm lining up trevor at center ice to start the game and captain kirk in net.

i think partially all of this is also a function of expectations vs results though. i was never not pleasantly surprised by mclean and linden in the early 90s. i expected a little more from the sedins and especially luongo.