Ben White
Registered User
- Dec 28, 2015
- 4,606
- 1,621
Didn’t hurt that Daniel had one of the best defensive wingers in the league on his line for a number of years.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.
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).
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 IMHONazzy 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
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.
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.
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 regardlessI 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.