Markus Naslund vs Daniel Sedin as individual players

[Ben White]

Who was the better player disregarding big bro Hank?

Click to read more...

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Daniel Sedin was just as great as Henrik but was also an elite finisher (Hank usually gets ranked ahead of Danny because he played Centre). Daniel Sedin’s vision, playmaking, puck control, board work, hockey IQ, passing and finish were Elite.

Naslund was a good player and had an amazing wrist shot, but his overall game lacks in comparison to Daniel’s. Naslund wasn’t much of a line driver, he relied on others to do the grunt work. Nazzy was also a soft perimeter player who couldn’t elevate his game in the playoffs (peak Bertuzzi was better than peak Naslund IMO). Easy answer here is Daniel Sedin.

 

[Hit the post]

Tough to compare as Daniel had Hank (another HHOFer), I don’t think you can really disregard that fact. Nazzy had Bert, who when motivated was even more dominant. (Which he did for a few seasons). Problem was, Bert had a tendency to float.

 

[PuckMunchkin]

Scoring was way down when Nazzy did his damage. Different era so I go with Näslund.

 

[strattonius]

Naslund had that Sakic-like release on his wrist shot and for one season was probably the league's best goal scorer.

The magic of D.Sedin was his chenistry and board work with his twin.

It's a very hard comparison but if I have to take one, its Naslund. Mr. Modest.

 

[Intangibos]

Daniel is probably slightly better than Henrik FWIW

Naslund was a great player but the Sedins were special. It's hard to compare playmakers to scorers. Daniel playing with literally anyone other than Henrik Sedin would have been the playmaker rather than a finisher. A line with Daniel and Malkin. Naslund was a better scorer but Daniel was no slouch, he was also a better playmaker and dominated possession.

Honestly Daniel Sedin is underrated not just around the league but by Canuck fans as well. He was Henrik + (goals - position).

 

[The Flow]

Naslund has the better shot. Sedin has the better playmaking and chemistry.

Both are Swedish. Its a wash...but I'll vote Nazzy

 

[MS]

Arguing about small differences in offensive ability is pointless because in terms of defensive/all around play prime Daniel Sedin absolutely blows prime Naslund out of the water.

 

[hellstick]

I'm a huge fan of Naslund, but Danny won an Art Ross and Ted Lindsay trophy. Of course, Naslund lost the Art Ross on the final day of the season to Forsberg and was a couple of goals behind Hejduk that year for the Rocket Richard trophy as well. Both guys are all time Canuck legends, but you have to give the edge to Daniel Sedin.

 

[Horse McHindu]

I think I’ll have to guy with prime Nazzy on this one. Just an absolute beast of a shot.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Naslund’s peak three offensive seasons were probably the highlight between the two, but in terms of overall play and consistency throughout their careers, I’d take Daniel.

 

[Hit the post]

Arguing about small differences in offensive ability is pointless because in terms of defensive/all around play prime Daniel Sedin absolutely blows prime Naslund out of the water.

Didn’t hurt that Daniel had one of the best defensive wingers in the league on his line for a number of years.

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

Didn’t hurt that Daniel had one of the best defensive wingers in the league on his line for a number of years.

Nazzy had a defensive minded centre who’s severely underrated. Nazzy’s line while putting up a lot of goals allowed just as many. The Sedin line absolutely dominated the competition; their +\- and possession numbers are outstanding.

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

Daniel is probably slightly better than Henrik FWIW

Naslund was a great player but the Sedins were special. It's hard to compare playmakers to scorers. Daniel playing with literally anyone other than Henrik Sedin would have been the playmaker rather than a finisher. A line with Daniel and Malkin. Naslund was a better scorer but Daniel was no slouch, he was also a better playmaker and dominated possession.

Honestly Daniel Sedin is underrated not just around the league but by Canuck fans as well. He was Henrik + (goals - position).

i think this underestimates naslund's playmaking abilities, which bordered on elite. in his prime, naslund finished 4th, 8th, and 9th in assists. he wasn't as good as daniel in this regard, but he wasn't that far behind either.

 

[Hit the post]

Nazzy had a defensive minded centre who’s severely underrated. Nazzy’s line while putting up a lot of goals allowed just as many. The Sedin line absolutely dominated the competition; their +\- and possession numbers are outstanding.

Didn't mean to imply Mo was a liability on the line (he got stuck doing the unglamorous stuff like defending). Burrows at his peak wasn't far off being elite defensive IMHO

 

[MS]

Didn't mean to imply Mo was a liability on the line (he got stuck doing the unglamorous stuff like defending). Burrows at his peak wasn't far off being elite defensive IMHO

Burrows was the best defensive winger in the NHL and should have won a Selke at some point.

But taking linemates out of the equation, Daniel was still a far better defensive player than Naslund.

 

[vancityluongo]

One way to look at it is that Daniel will be a HHOFer and Naslund won't, but that doesn't consider the Henrik effect.

Daniel was the better all around player, but Naslund was more of a "superstar" for a short period of time. Agreed with Mr. C - peak might be Naslund, but prime and overall, Daniel.

 

[Fire Benning]

I'm too young to remember Naslund's best years but I feel like Daniel wins this quite easily.

 

[Shareefruck]

Naslund had more dynamic one-way potential that was never quite fulfilled and was mired by other issues in his game/mentality, whereas Daniel was as consistent, well-rounded, and optimal as he could possibly physically/mentally be.

For a single game at their most dominant, it's easily Naslund, but big picture, it's easily Daniel.

 

[Kryten]

Between 00/01 - 03/04 Naslund was the leagues leading goal scorer and points getter. Thats 4 years of league wide superstardom during the DPE and dynasty teams

 

[mathonwy]

The C is a very heavy burden and one that Dank never needed to bear.

If not for that C, it would have been Nazzy.

 

[wetcoast]

Nazzy had a defensive minded centre who’s severely underrated. Nazzy’s line while putting up a lot of goals allowed just as many. The Sedin line absolutely dominated the competition; their +\- and possession numbers are outstanding.

Except in the playoffs.

 

[Intangibos]

i think this underestimates naslund's playmaking abilities, which bordered on elite. in his prime, naslund finished 4th, 8th, and 9th in assists. he wasn't as good as daniel in this regard, but he wasn't that far behind either.

I wrote a whole reply to this and accidentally closed the window.

Naslund elite, Daniel elite, Naslund underrated playmaker, Daniel underrated scorer, did win NHL shooting competition, and despite being a Sedin underrated playmaker because since 2010 he's been seen as Henrik's assistant.

More or less the gist.

It's not that I'm underrating Naslund's game, I actually think he's been underrated by Canucks fans for years. I found it bizarre that some fans didn't think he should have his number retired when we have Smyl and Linden up there. I just also think since the year Daniel had the leg injury he's been seen as Henrik-lite when I think that if anything the opposite is true. Excellent shot with Henrik-tier passing and playmaking abilities along with the trademark Sedin possession/work along the boards.

Ask yourself this: If the poll were Naslund / Henrik would it be as close?

 

[F A N]

I voted for Naslund. Naslund was simply the more dynamic player with the better shot and he spent his prime playing in an era where clutching and grabbing were allowed. I honestly think that Daniel and Henrik wouldn't be effective in the clutch and grab era. Their development into 1st line players coincided with the lockout and rule changes. Besides, Daniel + Henrik was always going to be a situation where 1+ 1 > 2. I don't think Daniel would have a chance at going to the HOF if he didn't play with Henrik and probably vice versa.

The poster who said that Naslund didn't drive possession is wrong. Naslund generated a ton of shots and was one of the league's better goal scorers with an aging Messier, Cassels, and Morrison as his Cs. Of course, playing with a prime Bertuzzi did help Naslund's numbers. In today's game, I would take Naslund over Daniel no question. A prime Naslund with his combination of skating, skills, hockey IQ, playmaking ability, and shot would be very effective in today's NHL. Naslund was never the same after the Steve Moore hit.

 

[Kryten]

I voted for Naslund. Naslund was simply the more dynamic player with the better shot and he spent his prime playing in an era where clutching and grabbing were allowed. I honestly think that Daniel and Henrik wouldn't be effective in the clutch and grab era. Their development into 1st line players coincided with the lockout and rule changes. Besides, Daniel + Henrik was always going to be a situation where 1+ 1 > 2. I don't think Daniel would have a chance at going to the HOF if he didn't play with Henrik and probably vice versa.

The poster who said that Naslund didn't drive possession is wrong. Naslund generated a ton of shots and was one of the league's better goal scorers with an aging Messier, Cassels, and Morrison as his Cs. Of course, playing with a prime Bertuzzi did help Naslund's numbers. In today's game, I would take Naslund over Daniel no question. A prime Naslund with his combination of skating, skills, hockey IQ, playmaking ability, and shot would be very effective in today's NHL. Naslund was never the same after the Steve Moore hit.

Tbf Daniel never seemed the same after the Keith elbow either. I agree with every you typed other than the Sedins effectiveness post lockout. They were trending upwards before the lockout, Im not sure theyd be as effective without the rule changes but still believe they wouldve had long and effective careers regardless