Markus Naslund vs Daniel Sedin as individual players

Who was the better player disregarding big bro Hank?


  • Total voters
    91

DL44

Status quo
Sep 26, 2006
17,897
3,811
Location: Location:
Daniel.

I was a big Bert fan, and any Naslund highlight video you can find doubles as a Bertuzzi one... just like Daniel and Henrik.

Longevity of Daniel, plus being a more dynamic player as a playmaker.... Daniel.

I'm one of the rare people that consider Daniel the better twin with only his injuries and Keith concussion holding him back.
He was better early, took a step back during Henrik's Hart trophy season, then took time to recover after the concussion.. thought he was better down the stretch of the careers as we was early in their careers.
 

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
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.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me but I don't think anyone has said that. The Sedins were clear top 3 possession players along with Crosby for several years. The Sedins and Crosby were statistically the 3 most dominant players in the NHL at even strength IIRC
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,401
2,980
Daniel Sedin:
GP: 1306 G: 393 A: 648 P: 1041 +/-: +147 GWG: 86 Corsi Rel: 7.2 PDO: 100.7
Best Season
GP: 82 G: 41 A: 63 P: 104 +30

Markus Naslund:
GP: 1117 G: 395 A: 474 P: 869 +\-: +6 GWG: 53 Corsi Rel: 3.6 PDO: 97.9
Best Season
GP: 82 G: 48 A: 56 P: 104 +6

(naslund’s analytics available for his last few seasons, unavailable before then)
 
Last edited:

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,401
2,980
Daniel.

I was a big Bert fan, and any Naslund highlight video you can find doubles as a Bertuzzi one... just like Daniel and Henrik.

Longevity of Daniel, plus being a more dynamic player as a playmaker.... Daniel.

I'm one of the rare people that consider Daniel the better twin with only his injuries and Keith concussion holding him back.
He was better early, took a step back during Henrik's Hart trophy season, then took time to recover after the concussion.. thought he was better down the stretch of the careers as we was early in their careers.

I also believe Daniel was better than Hank. Both were elite passers, great playmakers that had incredible vision, but Daniel was slightly faster, more dynamic, and obviously a much better finisher.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Literally

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,679
5,921
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

Ya, I think Daniel's game did diminish a bit after Keith's elbow. I remember the Sedins had trouble staying on their feet at the beginning of their careers. Partly that was due to a lack of strength, but partly it was because they could be manhandled. In my mind, they would have never been able to have those long shifts of possession under the old rules.

I'm not sure if you're referring to me but I don't think anyone has said that. The Sedins were clear top 3 possession players along with Crosby for several years. The Sedins and Crosby were statistically the 3 most dominant players in the NHL at even strength IIRC

No I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to another poster who said that Naslund wasn't a line driver, which I disagree with. I agree that the Sedins were amazing in possession.
 

PuckMunchkin

Very Nice, Very Evil!
Dec 13, 2006
12,310
9,982
Lapland
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

Just look at Daniels shooting% before and after that hit :(
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,781
14,128
Vancouver
Naslund was the better individual talent at his best. He was the better goalscorer and nearly as good of a playmaker. You can call Daniel the better defensive player, but he wasn't anything special in that regard. The Sedins as a duo were great possession players which led to low GA numbers, and Sedin-Sedin-Burrows was better than the WCE because of that, but I'm not sure Daniel would have been able to work the cycle to the same degree without Hank. I also don't see him carrying a team offensively like Naslund did in '01.

Daniel was good for longer though, and would get the nod for career. But "better player" to me is more about ability in their handful of prime years, and that's Naslund for me.
 

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
No I wasn't referring to you. I was referring to another poster who said that Naslund wasn't a line driver, which I disagree with. I agree that the Sedins were amazing in possession.

Ah ok I missed the post, my bad

Also, Daniel's playmaking was not that close to Henrik's as some are suggesting

Why? He wasn't relied upon to do so because he could finish better than Henrik. A lot of those goals were Henrik to Daniel to Burrows because Daniel was very capable of both getting open and quickly moving it through traffic to someone else.
 

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,679
5,921
Also, Daniel's playmaking was not that close to Henrik's as some are suggesting

Ah ok I missed the post, my bad
Why? He wasn't relied upon to do so because he could finish better than Henrik. A lot of those goals were Henrik to Daniel to Burrows because Daniel was very capable of both getting open and quickly moving it through traffic to someone else.

It's also easier to make plays from C than on the wing. But with the Sedins, they are effective because they work in tandem and outside of Henrik not shooting, they play like they are interchangeable roving pieces.
 

Shareefruck

Registered User
Apr 2, 2005
28,915
3,606
Vancouver, BC
Despite what the numbers suggest and/or what the consensus appears to be here, Daniel Sedin was (probably) not better overall than Henrik Sedin, nor was he a better pure playmaker/passer than Naslund, IMO. In terms of pure offensive skill, Naslund > Daniel > Henrik, but in terms of actual consistent on-ice performance over their career, Henrik > Daniel > Naslund, IMO.

Being a better goalscorer makes Daniel more versatile, not better. There's also a misconception that people think Daniel is nearly as good of a playmaker as Henrik for some reason. I don't think he's that close (closer than Henrik is a goalscorer, sure).

And the numbers only suggest that Daniel was a better playmaker than Naslund due to the line's overall play-style and because Naslund isn't nearly as strong of a possession or defensive player (or competitor in general, probably). The ice was tilted in the offensive end with the Sedins in a way that it wasn't for Naslund (granted, that's because the Sedins were better/more consistent overall than Naslund/Bertuzzi), and they were both trying to play like a playmaker more than Naslund was. When he showed it, Naslund's pure playmaking skill was pretty insane/elite-- I would argue somewhere in between Daniel/Henrik's skill level.

In terms of pure playmaking/passing ability, Henrik > Naslund > Daniel, IMO. In terms of pure possession/defensive ability, Henrik/Daniel >>>> Naslund (and that's where most of the pure skill gap between them is closed).
 
Last edited:

F A N

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
18,679
5,921
I think one has to give the edge to Henrik in terms of playmaking ability. Henrik ranks 26th all time in assists and 20th among forwards. I think Henrik was top 3 in terms of playmaking among forwards of his generation alongside Thornton and Crosby.
 

Regal

Registered User
Mar 12, 2010
24,781
14,128
Vancouver
Ah ok I missed the post, my bad



Why? He wasn't relied upon to do so because he could finish better than Henrik. A lot of those goals were Henrik to Daniel to Burrows because Daniel was very capable of both getting open and quickly moving it through traffic to someone else.

Yes, but the second pass was the simpler one to make. There's a reason Henrik was setup on the half boards on the PP, and was usually the one who initiated the tic tac toe plays. When Daniel lost his shot after the Keith hit, it was very apparent that without it, Henrik was the better player, and since they were both pass-happy there were several games Daniel was moved down to try to spark a second line, but it was clear he couldn't create for others in the same way.
 

garbageteam

Registered User
Jan 7, 2010
1,409
659
Naslund - as someone else has said, he was recognized individually as a superstar in the league and at his peak was legitimately considered to be possibly the best player in the league. Daniel alone never was in that conversation even if he had won the Art Ross.

Still a firm believer that peak Naslund + Bertuzzi was a more lethal offensive duo than the Sedins at their best, the supporting cast was just lacking in the POs in the Burke era. Still, there is no question anywhere that the Sedins had a far better career AINEC, and have better accomplishments to show for it.
 

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,738
16,127
Yes, but the second pass was the simpler one to make. There's a reason Henrik was setup on the half boards on the PP, and was usually the one who initiated the tic tac toe plays. When Daniel lost his shot after the Keith hit, it was very apparent that without it, Henrik was the better player, and since they were both pass-happy there were several games Daniel was moved down to try to spark a second line, but it was clear he couldn't create for others in the same way.

realistically, given the cycle game, especially on those insane sedinery shifts, we're talking about the difference between passes number 1, 3, 6, 8, 12, 15, 17, 19 and number 2, 4, 10, 13, 16, 20.

tbh, i think all of those passes have a pretty equal degree of difficulty. but i also will observe that henrik was clearly better at making them, though daniel was also excellent of course. and i think that's your real point: henrik's passes tended to be more structural; though it wasn't necessarily the literal first pass of a play, it often was the one that set up the eventual shot/scoring chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Canucks5551

vadim sharifijanov

Registered User
Oct 10, 2007
28,738
16,127
Naslund - as someone else has said, he was recognized individually as a superstar in the league and at his peak was legitimately considered to be possibly the best player in the league. Daniel alone never was in that conversation even if he had won the Art Ross.

Still a firm believer that peak Naslund + Bertuzzi was a more lethal offensive duo than the Sedins at their best, the supporting cast was just lacking in the POs in the Burke era. Still, there is no question anywhere that the Sedins had a far better career AINEC, and have better accomplishments to show for it.

i made a mega post about this once.

[...] we are agreeing that the best WCE stretch is the second half of the '02 season and the best SSB stretch is the second half of the '10 season right?

it's interesting that both '02 and '10 were olympic years. both units had incredible stretches interrupted, and both units' lulls were around the olympic break.

the WCE has this insane stretch starting at the beginning of january and up to the olympic break. naslund has 24 points in 18 games, bertuzzi has 23 points. that's the best stretch of either guy's career up to that point.

after the olympic break, the canucks are 1-3-1-1, as naslund puts up six points (all assists) and bert puts up three goals and three assists. not bad, but a ways off their 1.5 points/game average from the new year until the olympic break.

then on march 12, naslund doesn't play because his child is being born. something beastly awakened in bertuzzi that game,* and he puts up two goals and two assists in a 5-0 rout against nashville. that kicked off a 13-2-1 run to finish off the season. in those last 16 games, naslund scored 13 goals and 10 assists for 23 points. including his four point game with naslund at the hospital, bertuzzi finished the year with 14 goals and 17 assists for a monstrous 31 points in 17 games. the canucks squeaked into the 8th seed in the west, leapfrogging edmonton and dallas. in the first round they went up 2-0 on the wings, then... well we all know what happened next.

meanwhile, the 2010 canucks had a pre-olympic lull, going an uncharacteristic 3-4 going into the break. that doesn't seem that bad but the team went 37-18-5 from daniel's return from his injury at the end of november to the end of the season. during that 3-4 lull, henrik put up two assists and daniel had three (no goals for either).

in the 32 games between daniel coming back and the pre-olympic lull, henrik scored 12 goals and added 42 assists for 54 points. daniel was slightly behind with 16 goals and 31 assists for 47 points.

after the olympic break, henrik put up 4 goals and 28 assists for 34 points in 21 games, while daniel was close behind with 13 goals and 18 assists for 31 points in 20 games. henrik, of course, caught and passed ovechkin for the art ross on the last day of the season. (by contrast, after the WCE's incredible january stretch, where naslund caught iginla for the league lead in points, iginla pulled ahead for good during naslund's post-olympic lull. both guys finished the season very strong and iginla ultimately won it with 96 point to naslund's 90. not nearly as heartwrenching as what happened at the end of '03, of course.)

a sidenote: in 2010, kesler was on the second PP unit, which was the last time the canucks had a good second unit. that unit, which actually was as productive as the first unit, was generally kesler, raymond, samuelsson, edler, and ehrhoff. 2011 is when they loaded up the top unit with the sedins, kesler, edler, and ehrhoff, leading to kesler's outlier 40 goal season.

no question, the WCE was incredible in the second half of the '02 season. but the WCE never had a stretch where either guy came close to scoring 50 points over two months like henrik did in december/january and daniel almost did (in a 20-6-2 run for the team, which admittedly was a much deeper and more talented than the '02 team). if we're just talking about best peak stretch, i still have to give it to the sedins and burrows (the latter had 19 goals and 14 assists for 33 points in those 28 games, including a mind-boggling 15 goals and 7 assists for 22 points in 13 january games).

this is probably more detail than anyone needs or ever will need about the '02 or '10 canucks.


* the game began with a ceremony honoring cliff ronning for playing his 1,000th game. that probably wasn't what reawakened peak bertuzzi but isn't it pretty for this canucks fan to think so?
 

Intangibos

High-End Intangibos
Apr 5, 2010
7,806
3,370
Burnaby
Yes, but the second pass was the simpler one to make.

Why? A lot of the first passes were simpler to make handing it off to Daniel who made a perfect pass as well.

There's a reason Henrik was setup on the half boards on the PP.

Because Daniel is better in a shooting position than Henrik


, and was usually the one who initiated the tic tac toe plays.

Because Daniel was one of the finishers, Henrik was not



When Daniel lost his shot after the Keith hit, it was very apparent that without it, Henrik was the better player, and since they were both pass-happy there were several games Daniel was moved down to try to spark a second line, but it was clear he couldn't create for others in the same way.

The year he moved down was a year where pretty much every single player on the roster had a career low year including the Sedins. Both of them. Henrik was 11-39-50 in 70 games, Daniel was 16-31-47. Hardly Henrik tearing it up while Daniel just couldn't play at the same level.

The following year Henrik was 18-55-73, Daniel was 20-56-76. Daniel actually outproduced Henrik by a very fine margin.

Also Daniel had far more "edge" to his game, though still a Sedin. Daniel was at times a little bit nasty, though it was rare.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tyhee

moog35

Registered User
Jul 25, 2007
2,364
874
Both were great players but I think peak Naslund was slightly better than peak Daniel.

Naslund also had way more of a backbone than Daniel and didn’t get pushed around as much
 

Bertuzzzi44

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
3,401
2,980
NHL Overtime Goals All Time
  1. Ovechkin 22
  2. Jagr 19
  3. D. Sedin 16
  4. P. Elias 16
  5. Fedorov 15
  6. Sundin 15
  7. Kovalchuck 15
  8. Hossa 15
Daniel 3rd All Time
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad