Player Discussion Linden vs Naslund

[UnleashRasmus]

So I will say that Trevor Linden is one of my all time favorite Canucks, however Naslund is my all time favorite player. I prefer Naslund based on his peak performance and when I loved his teams as much. I have as much respect for Linden as I do anyone who has ever laced up the skates and his impact on the culture and franchise, are immeasurable.

 

[mathonwy]

 

[David Bruce Banner]

Put the best elements of them together and you have prime Messier (minus the cheap shots)
Put their worst elements together and you have current Loui Eriksson (minus the defensive game)

In their primes... if I was putting together a team, well, I'd probably take Linden, but I'd give Naslund a loooong look.
After their primes, I'd take Linden and not give Naslund a second glance.

 

[Canucks1096]

Trevor Linden had much more heart than Naslund.

Naslund I believe was better offensively who also lead on the ice well, while Linden was a better presence and leader on the team.

If I was another team I take Naslund. But if I was the Vancouver Canucks I take Linden 10/10 times. Best thing that's ever happened to the Canucks.

Messier is one of the Canucks I want removed from the franchises history along with Brandon Prust and Brendan Leipsic, there are probably a couple more names I'm missing. Would rather be going on about how Messier almost signed with the Canucks rather than him coming on the Canucks. Sometimes I'm glad Gretzky never came here because he didn't make much of an impact on the Rangers.

If you're picking Linden 10/10 times, if the team doesn't have a high end scorer like Naslund, Bure, Sedins, Petey. Chances are that team is not a good team and good chance they won't make the playoffs or won't get out of the 1st round. Canucks made out of the 1st round 10 times and had 8 100 points seasons. Every single time except 1982, they had one of Naslund, Bure, Sedins, Petey as the go to guy offensively.

In almost all cases you pick the high end scorer ahead of a player like Linden, the scorer is more valuable. There is a reason why Bure made twice as much money as Linden because gm feel high end scorer are more valuable. There is a reason why potential high end scorer are drafted higher as well.

It seem like this debate is a popularity contest instead of who is the better player/Canuck.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

I know this is an unpopular opinion but .... who cares?

 

[sting101]

Playoff hockey Linden was a superior player. Not even really close. Reg Season for 3 seasons Naslund was a superior player. But for 2 of them he went to levels that Trevor could only dream about.

It's closer than you think. Trevor had 80pts in 79 playoff games before he was ran out of town by Keenan. It's not something you can dismiss. It was almost unheard of for a top line player to elevate his scoring levels in the post season. He was a coaches dream he would take key faceoffs, score clutch goals, play against the other teams top lines, created all sorts of turnovers, won so many puck battles and was a physical force. He was a bit of a laborious skater especially after a serious knee injury but pre injury Trevor was an absolute force.

Naslund was a tremendous talent and as pure a scorer as there was but he wasn't much for battling. It's not a coincidence his elite years were with Todd Bertuzzi playing at elite power forward levels on his wing. No doubt he was more talented and an elite scorer but Naslund never gave you the idea that you were gonna win anything special or he was gonna carry the team.

In a re draft i would take Trevor but by the slimmest of margins. Using the best 8 seasons consecutive.
Linden .82ppg regular season .99 playoffs
Naslund .97 regular season .76 playoffs

 

[Canucks1096]

Playoff hockey Linden was a superior player. Not even really close. Reg Season for 3 seasons Naslund was a superior player. But for 2 of them he went to levels that Trevor could only dream about.

It's closer than you think. Trevor had 80pts in 79 playoff games before he was ran out of town by Keenan. It's not something you can dismiss. It was almost unheard of for a top line player to elevate his scoring levels in the post season. He was a coaches dream he would take key faceoffs, score clutch goals, play against the other teams top lines, created all sorts of turnovers, won so many puck battles and was a physical force. He was a bit of a laborious skater especially after a serious knee injury but pre injury Trevor was an absolute force.

Naslund was a tremendous talent and as pure a scorer as there was but he wasn't much for battling. It's not a coincidence his elite years were with Todd Bertuzzi playing at elite power forward levels on his wing. No doubt he was more talented and an elite scorer but Naslund never gave you the idea that you were gonna win anything special or he was gonna carry the team.

In a re draft i would take Trevor but by the slimmest of margins. Using the best 8 seasons consecutive.
Linden .82ppg regular season .99 playoffs
Naslund .97 regular season .76 playoffs

6 out of Naslund 8 best seasons was in the dead puck era, none of Linden 8 best seasons were, not really fair argument you're using. It we go by adjusted point totals. Naslund Regular seasons difference would of been a lot larger. Going by adjusted totals in those 8 seasons Linden average 60 points and Naslund 85 points. Best 4 seasons, Naslund average 100 points and Linden 68. Linden adjusted points only had one season of over 70 points. The difference in points is to big of a difference to pick Linden over Naslund.

True what you said about Bertuzzi but Naslund 75 P in 71 games in 2001 Bertuzzi wasn't Elite yet. Naslund 84 P in 78 games, Bertuzzi wasn't playing like an elite power forward anymore.

Naslund as a 1st line player only played in 3 playoffs from 2002 to 2004. 25 P in 27 games. Going by adjusted points total 29 P in 27 games. Over a ppg, it is definitely close in the playoffs base on ppg when both were top players. Naslund doesn't have a larger sample because Naslund didn't have McLean goaltending or a Bure that carry Linden on his back. Also no playoff performer like Courtnall and Ronning. Courtnall 61 P in 65 playoff games.

The player you're describing Linden existed like 5% of his career. Up to 1994 Regular season, Linden didn't play against top lines and take key faceoffs, he mainly played on life line with Ronning and Courtnall, Quinn definitely didn't use Ronning against top centers. After 1996 Linden offence was gone.

You're exaggerating about Linden being a physical force. Linden was never ever that physical, he was capable of playing that way but that wasn't his game, he doesn't play like 6-4. Most of Linden scouting reports in 90s was that he wasn't that physical and didn't use size to his advantage and he doesn't play like 6-4.

Most GM will pick the scorer, especially when someone peak is 25 to 30 points higher. 25 P to 30 P difference is the same as people picking Toews over Malkin.

 

[sting101]

6 out of Naslund 8 best seasons was in the dead puck era, none of Linden 8 best seasons were, not really fair argument you're using. It we go by adjusted point totals. Naslund Regular seasons difference would of been a lot larger. Going by adjusted totals in those 8 seasons Linden average 60 points and Naslund 85 points. Best 4 seasons, Naslund average 100 points and Linden 68. Linden adjusted points only had one season of over 70 points. The difference in points is to big of a difference to pick Linden over Naslund.

True what you said about Bertuzzi but Naslund 75 P in 71 games in 2001 Bertuzzi wasn't Elite yet. Naslund 84 P in 78 games, Bertuzzi wasn't playing like an elite power forward anymore.

Naslund as a 1st line player only played in 3 playoffs from 2002 to 2004. 25 P in 27 games. Going by adjusted points total 29 P in 27 games. Over a ppg, it is definitely close in the playoffs base on ppg when both were top players. Naslund doesn't have a larger sample because Naslund didn't have McLean goaltending or a Bure that carry Linden on his back. Also no playoff performer like Courtnall and Ronning. Courtnall 61 P in 65 playoff games.

The player you're describing Linden existed like 5% of his career. Up to 1994 Regular season, Linden didn't play against top lines and take key faceoffs, he mainly played on life line with Ronning and Courtnall, Quinn definitely didn't use Ronning against top centers. After 1996 Linden offence was gone.

You're exaggerating about Linden being a physical force. Linden was never ever that physical, he was capable of playing that way but that wasn't his game, he doesn't play like 6-4. Most of Linden scouting reports in 90s was that he wasn't that physical and didn't use size to his advantage and he doesn't play like 6-4.

Most GM will pick the scorer, especially when someone peak is 25 to 30 points higher. 25 P to 30 P difference is the same as people picking Toews over Malkin.

Linden 611gp 508pts 179pp pts 35%....329 non pp = .54ppg without pp 36% OZ starts
Naslund 638gp 623pts 268pp pts 43% 355 non pp = .55ppg without pp 60% OZ starts

It's hard to say how much effect the era had on either players scoring. It's not fair to just add or subtract pts based on expansion a talent drain as well as the profound use of trapping. The Canucks were certainly not playing that way but your point does have merits and it certainly was a ghastly era.
Canucks (Linden) 275g per year 3.35p game 88-96
Canucks (Naslund) 236 g per year 2.87g per game 98-06.

Ultimately were not gonna agree. A lot of variables come into play. It's a very close argument and your opinion is fine as Naslund in todays game would certainly be a much more sought after talent. But you have to take account for the game as it was and how much the 2 meant to the teams they played on. Trevor was an incredible big game and playoff player. He would pay the ultimate price and do anything and everything. He had to fight through the same interference and muggings unfathomable for today's NHL just as Naslund did. Naslund was more skilled and talented and had he had a few more seasons like his few peak seasons then he would have put enough of a gap for me to give him the nod but he didn't.

It's extremely close but i would still take Linden for those peak years and what he could provide overall given the era.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

one thing that's interesting here is by the time naslund becomes a good player, linden's entire prime is almost already over.

now if we frankensteined a career out of

linden years one through eight (1989 through 1996)

naslund years draft+8 through draft+13 ('99 through '04)

linden years 14 through 19

that's a hall of famer career right there.

611 games - 231 goals - 277 assists - 508 points

79 games - 30 goals - 50 assists - 80 points (playoffs)

475 games - 227 goals - 257 assists - 484 points

27 games - 8 goals - 17 assists - 25 points (playoffs)

454 games - 72 goals - 95 assists - 167 points

39 games - 4 goals - 11 assists - 15 points (playoffs)

totals: 1,540 games - 530 goals - 629 assists - 1,159 points

145 games - 42 goals - 78 assists - 120 points

it's truly weird how naslund's good years were in linden's hell on earth years, and naslund gets steve moored right when linden comes back to vancouver and plays out the rest of his career as a wise old "the little things" guy.

and we would also add 1 goal and 2 assists in 3 game sevens to linden's totals, which i think would vault him over justin williams for #1

 

[Steamer]

Naslund was soft, he could put it up in the season but never enough to get over the top. He was adequate in the playoffs. Linden put up decent numbers his first few seasons but the move to centre hindered his stats. He was a playoff performer whatever his position. Naslund should never have had his number retired. Yes, he goes down as one the best wingers for the Canucks ever had in the regular season but he aways seem to finish just outside where he should be. Had Linden played his career as a right winger with a good centre he would be thought of as greater than he is now, he would have been the consummate power forward, he didn't have Bertuzzi's hands, but he was smarter and had a way better temperament .

 

[F A N]

Naslund was soft, he could put it up in the season but never enough to get over the top. He was adequate in the playoffs. Linden put up decent numbers his first few seasons but the move to centre hindered his stats. He was a playoff performer whatever his position. Naslund should never have had his number retired. Yes, he goes down as one the best wingers for the Canucks ever had in the regular season but he aways seem to finish just outside where he should be. Had Linden played his career as a right winger with a good centre he would be thought of as greater than he is now, he would have been the consummate power forward, he didn't have Bertuzzi's hands, but he was smarter and had a way better temperament .

I think people underestimated the impact the dead puck / clutch and grab era had on offensive production.

I think Trevor's move to C did affect his production but his offensive decline also coincided with the beginning of the dead puck era. He also played on some bad teams after leaving Vancouver.

Naslund was 5'11" under 200 lbs and he spend most of his prime in the dead puck / clutch and grab era. I do not remember Naslund shying away from contact or not putting in the effort in the playoffs. He just wasn't capable of playing his game when the refs swallowed their whistles.

Henrik and Daniel became 70+ point players following in lockout and rule changes. Was it just natural development?

I think the topic of Canucks jersey retirement has been controversial. Some thing that only the true greats should have their jersey retired. If the yardstick is the Steamer, the bar has been set low.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Reg Season for 3 seasons Naslund was a superior player.

Sorry to hammer on this.

But he was THE most productive player in the league over that 3 season stretch.

I just feel like somehow this gets lost in Canuck lore.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I think people underestimated the impact the dead puck / clutch and grab era had on offensive production.

I think Trevor's move to C did affect his production but his offensive decline also coincided with the beginning of the dead puck era. He also played on some bad teams after leaving Vancouver.

Naslund was 5'11" under 200 lbs and he spend most of his prime in the dead puck / clutch and grab era. I do not remember Naslund shying away from contact or not putting in the effort in the playoffs. He just wasn't capable of playing his game when the refs swallowed their whistles.

Henrik and Daniel became 70+ point players following in lockout and rule changes. Was it just natural development?

I think the topic of Canucks jersey retirement has been controversial. Some thing that only the true greats should have their jersey retired. If the yardstick is the Steamer, the bar has been set low.

Even after leaving Vancouver and playing a more defensively focussed role, his production for the time - a third line C / defensive specialist in the dead puck era - was still pretty solid. He just ran into injury troubles. If you extrapolate his production over a full 82-game schedule, here’s how how time away from Vancouver would have looked - not including the season he was traded from Vancouver, back to Vancouver, or his first season in Long Island as he largely played those seasons;

1998/1999 - 82GP, 18G, 29A, 47Pts
1999/2000 - 82GP, 21G, 28A, 49Pts
2000/2001 - 82GP, 18G, 26A, 44Pts

In 2002/2003, he had 19 goals and 41 points in 71 games - good for 22 goals and 25 assists (47 points) over the full 82.

His production certainly wasn’t as good as his prime, but he was a solid offensive contributor playing in his primarily defensive role.

 

[bandwagonesque]

Sorry to hammer on this.

But he was THE most productive player in the league over that 3 season stretch.

I just feel like somehow this gets lost in Canuck lore.

Not only that, but he was just clearly a dominant offensive player to anyone who watched him. Linden was a great player, but you could have built an excellent team around Naslund in his prime. He was a legitimate superstar who led a decent-but-not-great supporting cast to multiple 100 point seasons. I'm really surprised by the number of people here suggesting his flaws even came close to counterbalancing this. Maybe it's the fact he's being compared with a popular player miscast as a franchise icon that's prompting it.

 

[Canucks1096]

Even after leaving Vancouver and playing a more defensively focussed role, his production for the time - a third line C / defensive specialist in the dead puck era - was still pretty solid. He just ran into injury troubles. If you extrapolate his production over a full 82-game schedule, here’s how how time away from Vancouver would have looked - not including the season he was traded from Vancouver, back to Vancouver, or his first season in Long Island as he largely played those seasons;

1998/1999 - 82GP, 18G, 29A, 47Pts
1999/2000 - 82GP, 21G, 28A, 49Pts
2000/2001 - 82GP, 18G, 26A, 44Pts

In 2002/2003, he had 19 goals and 41 points in 71 games - good for 22 goals and 25 assists (47 points) over the full 82.

His production certainly wasn’t as good as his prime, but he was a solid offensive contributor playing in his primarily defensive role.

What you're saying about Linden primarily playing in a defensive role is not true. Also he wasn't playing on the third line.

Linden linemates for the most part with the Nyi was Smolinski and Czerkawski. That was considered the 2nd line. He also played on the 1st pp unit as well.

In Mon, Linden player mainly with Rucinsky and Savage/Zubrus. That was considered the 2nd line, Koivu missed a lot of times so that was a considered the 1st line on many nights. Linden was also on the 1st pp unit.

2001/2002 when he got back to Van he played in the 2nd line with Cassels. Still got 2nd pp unit time.

2002/2003 half of the season was with the Sedins and other half was mainly with Cooke/Chuborov.

Linden didn't mainly played a defensive role until 2003/2004.

On this thread, there so much misinformation and that is one the reasons why so many of you think so highly of Linden. I am not sure if you guys just forgot, just didn't know or are just generalizing, maybe some of you are fans of Linden and feel like you need to exaggerate to pump up Linden.

I think the main factor why Linden production decline was because the dead puck era happened and wasn't skill enough to adapt to it and that is why he went from 70 points to 40 to 50 points. Moving center might have some factor into his decline but that is not that strong of argument. 1989 to 1996 90% of time Linden played RW. The time that he did play center for long stretches in 1994 playoffs and 1996. Both times Linden had his best playoff and regular season. If Linden career high is at center saying Linden decline because he moved to center is not that strong of an argument.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

What you're saying about Linden primarily playing in a defensive role is not true. Also he wasn't playing on the third line.

Linden linemates for the most part with the Nyi was Smolinski and Czerkawski. That was considered the 2nd line. He also played on the 1st pp unit as well.

In Mon, Linden player mainly with Rucinsky and Savage/Zubrus. That was considered the 2nd line, Koivu missed a lot of times so that was a considered the 1st line on many nights. Linden was also on the 1st pp unit.

2001/2002 when he got back to Van he played in the 2nd line with Cassels. Still got 2nd pp unit time.

2002/2003 half of the season was with the Sedins and other half was mainly with Cooke/Chuborov.

Linden didn't mainly played a defensive role until 2003/2004.

On this thread, there so much misinformation and that is one the reasons why so many of you think so highly of Linden. I am not sure if you guys just forgot, just didn't know or are just generalizing, maybe some of you are fans of Linden and feel like you need to exaggerate to pump up Linden.

I think the main factor why Linden production decline was because the dead puck era happened and wasn't skill enough to adapt to it and that is why he went from 70 points to 40 to 50 points. Moving center might have some factor into his decline but that is not that strong of argument. 1989 to 1996 90% of time Linden played RW. The time that he did play center for long stretches in 1994 playoffs and 1996. Both times Linden had his best playoff and regular season. If Linden career high is at center saying Linden decline because he moved to center is not that strong of an argument.

I think I’ve articulated all my reasons for why I feel the way I do, and I’ve managed to do so without attempting in any way to denigrate your opinion on the matter, or dismiss you as being biased or nostalgic.
I think at this point, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Canucks1096]

I think I’ve articulated all my reasons for why I feel the way I do, and I’ve managed to do so without attempting in any way to denigrate your opinion on the matter, or dismiss you as being biased or nostalgic.
I think at this point, we will just have to agree to disagree.

I respect your opinion but there is a difference between facts and opinion. What you said about Linden being used primarily as a defensive role is not an opinion. There is a 100% right or wrong answer for that . Both Mon and NYI used him on the 1st pp unit and Used him as a top 6 forward and he played with top 6 forwards. Played 1st Line minutes. Mon gave up a top 10 pick and NYI gave two solid young players. Mon and NYI had no intention in Just using Linden primarily defensive forward.

What you said about Linden 100% not true. There is a right or wrong answer for that. If some said something is not true, I need to correct that.

Very hard to confirmed that I am biased. Since day 1 on this thread all I used is facts and correct facts to support my argument.

 

[iFan]

Both players were great for us, I don’t get the reason for debating who was the best, they both did their part for the team and debating who was better is pointless. They each have a case but their both retired now and didn’t win a cup so...

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I respect your opinion but there is a difference between facts and opinion. What you said about Linden being used primarily as a defensive role is not an opinion. There is a 100% right or wrong answer for that . Both Mon and NYI used him on the 1st pp unit and Used him as a top 6 forward and he played with top 6 forwards. Played 1st Line minutes. Mon gave up a top 10 pick and NYI gave two solid young players. Mon and NYI had no intention in Just using Linden primarily defensive forward.

So what’s your source on this? I won’t disagree that in Linden’s seasons in NYI that he was intended to be a top line player. But I was speaking more specifically of Montreal. In his first season, he was 6th among forwards in ATOI. In his second season, granted, he was second behind Koivu in forwards among ATOI. As far as facts go - I only seem able to find cumulative ATOI totals rather than anything that would indicate his PP or PK usage or whom the line mates he was frequently deployed with were. Would you care to share your source?

What you said about Linden 100% not true. There is a right or wrong answer for that. If some said something is not true, I need to correct that.

I don’t believe that stating he was...

His production certainly wasn’t as good as his prime, but he was a solid offensive contributor playing in his primarily defensive role.

...or...

Even after leaving Vancouver and playing a more defensively focussed role, his production for the time - a third line C / defensive specialist in the dead puck era - was still pretty solid.

Are wildly off base. I still assert that during his time in Montreal, his principle focus was the defensive side of the game - killing penalties and defending leads. Did he get PP unit time? Certainly, even though I can’t find a source for PP time deployment. Did he get the same sort of PP deployment he got in his prime in Vancouver? I would again say certainly, although I would hedge that I am not able to find the stats to back that up, making it an opinion rather than a fact.

Very hard to confirmed that I am biased. Since day 1 on this thread all I used is facts and correct facts to support my argument.

We’ve gotten pretty far off track from the original topic. I presented what I felt was an interesting sidebar about Linden’s production, but at the end of the day, it’s irrelevant to the way I answered this question; which is that Naslund is the superior player, but Linden was the better Canuck.

 

[Canucks1096]

So what’s your source on this? I won’t disagree that in Linden’s seasons in NYI that he was intended to be a top line player. But I was speaking more specifically of Montreal. In his first season, he was 6th among forwards in ATOI. In his second season, granted, he was second behind Koivu in forwards among ATOI. As far as facts go - I only seem able to find cumulative ATOI totals rather than anything that would indicate his PP or PK usage or whom the line mates he was frequently deployed with were. Would you care to share your source?



I don’t believe that stating he was...



...or...



Are wildly off base. I still assert that during his time in Montreal, his principle focus was the defensive side of the game - killing penalties and defending leads. Did he get PP unit time? Certainly, even though I can’t find a source for PP time deployment. Did he get the same sort of PP deployment he got in his prime in Vancouver? I would again say certainly, although I would hedge that I am not able to find the stats to back that up, making it an opinion rather than a fact.



We’ve gotten pretty far off track from the original topic. I presented what I felt was an interesting sidebar about Linden’s production, but at the end of the day, it’s irrelevant to the way I answered this question; which is that Naslund is the superior player, but Linden was the better Canuck.

You're kind of changing your story. You wrote when he left Van he mainly played a defensive role so now it's just Mon.

The linemate is base on memory. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.246319

Here is an article show that he was playing with Savage and Rucinsky. Back then they don't keep linemate icetime. You can check hockey reference under scoring log. Most of the points Linden got was with top 6 players. That does indicate he playing with top 6 players. Yes Linden was 6th in ice time in Montreal in his first season but it is only few second apart from the player that has the 4th most ice time. Linden in his second year having the 2nd most ice time proves already that he wasn't just a third line center.

Nhl.com you can find the pp time and shorthanded time. He was a big part of pp and the pk. Pk 4th and 3rd in ice time in the 2 years. Pp 8th and 4th.

Lknden does play PK and yes he out there protecting lead so are a lot of other players.

So overall Linden does get top 6 ice time, does play with top 6 players and also gets pp time so to say he a third line primarily defensive player is not accurate at all. My main issue is when you say it makes his points look impressive but since that is not true. The reality of that is his points is not that impressive.

Yes we did get off topic.

 

[Didalee Hed]

You're kind of changing your story. You wrote when he left Van he mainly played a defensive role so now it's just Mon.

The linemate is base on memory. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.246319

Here is an article show that he was playing with Savage and Rucinsky. Back then they don't keep linemate icetime. You can check hockey reference under scoring log. Most of the points Linden got was with top 6 players. That does indicate he playing with top 6 players. Yes Linden was 6th in ice time in Montreal in his first season but it is only few second apart from the player that has the 4th most ice time. Linden in his second year having the 2nd most ice time proves already that he wasn't just a third line center.

Nhl.com you can find the pp time and shorthanded time. He was a big part of pp and the pk. Pk 4th and 3rd in ice time in the 2 years. Pp 8th and 4th.

Lknden does play PK and yes he out there protecting lead so are a lot of other players.

So overall Linden does get top 6 ice time, does play with top 6 players and also gets pp time so to say he a third line primarily defensive player is not accurate at all. My main issue is when you say it makes his points look impressive but since that is not true. The reality of that is his points is not that impressive.

Yes we did get off topic.

mmmmmmmmm wellllllllllll,

canucks 1096 is bringing it

Yet

nobody here would question the Internet morals of mister canucklehead

I think you both are arguing in good faith

I think Canucks 1096 is putting in more work

he’s got the eye of the tiger on this one

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

i mean, i guess one could act like regular season scoring is objective fact and everything else that happens in hockey is some combination of sentimentality, nostalgia, and small sample sizes.

or, without even getting into all the good counter-arguments to that position that have been made in this thread, you could alternately wonder why we would even care about hockey if not for the emotional aspects of it.

i'll say personally that i remember naslund for low moments. i remember bure, linden, the sedins, even luongo for high moments.

i remember refreshing the browser over and over again during that regular season game against the kings, waiting for naslund to score and when LA got the empty netter going, ayfkm? that feeling of losing the rocket, art ross, first place in the division all in one game was so disappointing.

i remember games 5-7 of the minnesota series when we had a clear shot to the finals with detroit, colorado, and dallas all being upset and then naslund scoring zero goals as we lost a series we were up 3-1 in.

and the thing is, each time, i expected him to do something. it's not like i was like, man that naslund's a loser, watch him he's totally going to lose. for the first time ever we had a guy who could legitimately win a scoring championship. it was exciting. he was the first guy we had that came close to an MVP. you were waiting for him to do what bure did, because regular season scoring told you that (relative to his peers) he was better than bure was. you expected him to do what joe sakic would have done and say, enough, i'm taking over everybody on my back. you expected him to put on a show like the sedins did on the last day of the 2010 season, or at least like they did in that first game six against chicago going goal for goal against toews and kane while luongo was earning his new nickname.

and so in 2004, after all the craziness, i expected him to come through in that game seven. i was totally prepared for him and morrison and cooke to finally do something in the playoffs and show that the problem was bertuzzi all along. and they almost did. morrison had a whale of a series and in game six after choking away a 4-0 lead basically willed the puck into the net against calgary's big mean d in triple OT. cooke looked like, well alex burrows. and naslund was having his best series ever by far.

so end of game seven, auld is on the bench, iginla has the empty net, someone throws a jersey on the ice—and after all that had happened in the last two years wouldn't you?—iginla hits the side of the net, ohlund collects the puck and brings it up the ice, drops it to naslund at center ice, naslund goes super wide, turns on the jets, outmuscles leopold, tries to jam it five hole on kiprusoff, matt cooke crashes the net and bangs it home.



and then like a minute into OT gelinas scores.

and then we wouldn't see the canucks again for eighteen months.

there's just so much overwhelming negativity with him. it's like pierre turgeon in a way; the guy scored bonkers points in the regular season but the first image most people have of his playing career is him getting cheap shotted.

 

[Johnny Canucker]

Anyone that’s choosing heart over skill would make a terrible GM. Derek Dorset had more heart that Elias Peterson. What does that do for you?

All this nonsense about Linden turned pucks over and played more defence .... yah, because he had too. Naslund had the puck on his stick twice as much as Linden, so he shouldn’t be faulted for that. It’s the same logic as “Sedins don’t hit”.... yah, because they had the puck all game.


moot argument. Neither was good enough to win a cup.

Playoff hockey Linden was a superior player. Not even really close. Reg Season for 3 seasons Naslund was a superior player. But for 2 of them he went to levels that Trevor could only dream about.

It's closer than you think. Trevor had 80pts in 79 playoff games before he was ran out of town by Keenan. It's not something you can dismiss. It was almost unheard of for a top line player to elevate his scoring levels in the post season. He was a coaches dream he would take key faceoffs, score clutch goals, play against the other teams top lines, created all sorts of turnovers, won so many puck battles and was a physical force. He was a bit of a laborious skater especially after a serious knee injury but pre injury Trevor was an absolute force.

Naslund was a tremendous talent and as pure a scorer as there was but he wasn't much for battling. It's not a coincidence his elite years were with Todd Bertuzzi playing at elite power forward levels on his wing. No doubt he was more talented and an elite scorer but Naslund never gave you the idea that you were gonna win anything special or he was gonna carry the team.

In a re draft i would take Trevor but by the slimmest of margins. Using the best 8 seasons consecutive.
Linden .82ppg regular season .99 playoffs
Naslund .97 regular season .76 playoffs

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Derek Dorset had more heart that Elias Peterson.

i know it was just a throwaway to your larger point but that is a surprising take

whereas if you're going to say burrows had more heart than bertuzzi, i'd say yup and i'd take burrows to be naslund's RW over bert five million times out of five million.

 

[Hit the post]

i know it was just a throwaway to your larger point but that is a surprising take

whereas if you're going to say burrows had more heart than bertuzzi, i'd say yup and i'd take burrows to be naslund's RW over bert five million times out of five million.

Bert has the problem faced by many players.....too much skill to the point he often coasted JUST relying on those skills. Burr didn’t have that luxury.