Starting Six: Vancouver Canucks All-Time Lineup
- Thread starter LastWordArmy
- Start date
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
At least we had more one legitimate ELITE player at their position (good argument that they were pretty much the best in the league at their position for at least a season) - ie., Left Wing.
For those who peddle the patently false idea that the Canucks have been a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad franchise throughout their entire history (basically just because they twice didn't win Game 7 of the Finals, since they have been an objectively respectable, within-the-standard-distribution team for just over half their team history at this point)... I invite you to consider who made up the Canucks "all-time team" for their 20th anniversary, when they legitimately had been awful but for a select couple of seasons:
Richard Brodeur
Dennis Kearns
Harold Snepsts
Don Lever
Thomas Gradin
Stan Smyl
Richard Brodeur
Dennis Kearns
Harold Snepsts
Don Lever
Thomas Gradin
Stan Smyl
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
93/94 version of McLean over Luongo. McLean consistently elevated his game when it mattered most. Consistently being the key word.
Naslund's goal totals during his prime = 36, 27, 41, 40, 48, 35, 32 = 259 = 37 goals on average per season.
Naslund's point totals during his prime = 66, 65, 75, 90, 104, 84, 79 = 563 = 80.4 point average per season.
Daniel goal totals during his prime = 36, 29, 31, 29, 41, 30 = 196 = 32.6 goals on average per season.
Daniel point totals during his prime = 71, 84, 74, 82, 85, 104, = 500 = 83 point average per season.
Naslund was the more prolific goal scorer while Daniel got more points. However - Daniel had Henrik as his center. Naslund had Morrison. With a center of equal ability, Naslund would most likely have out produced Daniel.
No way Naslund over Sedin or Mclean over Luongo. Luongo statistically is better in virtually every category and he had a longer period of success (or was here for the franchise most successful period). Plus you're basically comparing a HoF candidate (who spent his prime here) vs a good goalie but never considered for HoF or any list not 'nucks list.
Naslund vs Sedin... big difference there is longevity. They both have similar peaks but Sedins have maintained it longer. Plus if you have H. Sedin as the center, it makes almost no sense to take away his brother since they ALWAYS play together.
If you want Naslund there, you might as well put BMo there to be his center then reunite the west coast express... The only change i would make to the article is probably put Salo in place of Ohlund. Although Ohlund has played RD, a healthy Salo was probably our best nature RHD. Problem of course was Salo was rarely healthy...
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
93/94 McLean's SVP ranked 25th among goalies with 30 or more games played. His GAA was 17th. But hey, let's just pass off on a HOF goalie because you blame him for not scoring in the 2011 playoffs.
So inconsistent. So with goalies you want to look at one season, but when that doesn't fit your argument elsewhere you look at regular season production...and even with your own flawed attempt at a statistical comparison you show that Daniel comes out ahead in points. You penalize Daniel for having Henrik on his line, yet you ignore that Naslund has chemistry with another star forward in Bertuzzi. Interesting.
no offense to jovo and ohlund, there are great players, but its sad in more than 40 years of club history they are the best defensemen we had
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
93/94 McLean's SVP ranked 25th among goalies with 30 or more games played. His GAA was 17th. But hey, let's just pass off on a HOF goalie because you blame him for not scoring in the 2011 playoffs.
Here's my thing with McLean: Even if Luongo was better in almost every way imaginable (and trust me, he was), what it ultimately boiled down to was who played consistently better when it mattered most.
In my opinion, it was McLean. Yes - McLean's SVP in 93/94 was 25th among goalies, but we all saw what he did in the playoffs that year. Stuff of legends. Luongo was like that as well in 2007 against Dallas, but then Chicago completely broke him mentally in 2009. Unfortunately - Lou was wildly up and down ever since that time. Tremendous heroics one day, followed by complete and utter chaos the next (i.e. 2011 Stanley Cup -Game 5/Game 6 mysterious night and day).
I don't place the entire blame on Lou for 2011, but he was just as much as part of the problem as everyone else.
Fair enough argument. Fine Naslund's best season was 2002-2003. 48 goals and 104 points. Daniel's best season was 2010-2011. 41 goals and 104 points. Same point total / tiebreaker goes to the dude who had more goals with an inferior center. Naslund. As far as playoff heroics go, I'd argue that both Naslund and Daniel were similar (i.e. semi-decent, and somehow padded their stats, but generally left you feeling that they didn't really take the "bull by the horns," a la Pavel Bure a la Ryan Kesler).
And yes - Naslund had Bertuzzi, but even prime Bertuzzi doesn't compare to prime Henrik. And so one can still make the argument that Naslund, in his prime, out performed Daniel, in his prime, with inferior linemates.
Last edited:
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
Luongo was statistically better in every category, YES..........but when it mattered most, McLean was the one who consistently delivered. Hence, 1994 playoffs.
Nope. Naslund and Daniel primes were both pretty much 6-7 years. The only one outlier was the 2015 season where Daniel had a big bounce back.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
Luongo's two 1-0 shutouts in the SCF is now considered not playing well when it mattered most, apparently. 
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Ohlund was a legit premier shutdown/physical defenseman in his prime. A type of player we sorely missed in the 2011 post-season.
Ace of Hades
#Demko4Vezina
I liked Naslund and Mclean better than D.Sedin and Luongo, but the latter two are simply more deserving to be on the list.
Ohlund would've been an elite number one defenceman if it weren't for his injuries. He'd only be below Lidstrom/Sahlming for Swedish Defencemen imo, if he didn't have that eye injury in preaseason. Despite his loss in vision, he was a capable all around defenceman that can be put in any situation. Kinda like how a modern Hedman is. I'm not sad at all that Ohlund is on the list.
On the other hand, I agree with Jovo.
Ohlund would've been an elite number one defenceman if it weren't for his injuries. He'd only be below Lidstrom/Sahlming for Swedish Defencemen imo, if he didn't have that eye injury in preaseason. Despite his loss in vision, he was a capable all around defenceman that can be put in any situation. Kinda like how a modern Hedman is. I'm not sad at all that Ohlund is on the list.
On the other hand, I agree with Jovo.
me2
Go ahead foot
Luongo's two 1-0 shutouts in the SCF is now considered not playing well when it mattered most, apparently.
Generally it's the 20 goals in the other games.
me2
Go ahead foot
I'd contest that. Prime Bertuzzi was great. It was just a very short prime.
Horse McHindu
They call me Horse.....
Luongo's two 1-0 shutouts in the SCF is now considered not playing well when it mattered most, apparently.
You didn't read what I said.
I said, consistently.
Yes - Luongo played brilliantly in both of those games, and also had many brilliant games throughout that entire run.
However - even the biggest Luongo apologists have to admit that he also had multiple inexplicable stinkers during that run. He was very up and down a lot of times. While even the truly great goalies can have multiple stinkers in a playoff run, they are usually there when you need them most. Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, etc., are examples of this.
Luongo is and was a tremendous goalie, but he had a terrible habit of allowing certain teams and players to get into his head. This was his downfall in my opinion. As great as Luongo was, I believe he'll be remembered as this generation's version of Curtis Joseph as opposed to being mentioned in the same sentence as Martin Brodeur, etc.
petrishriekandgo
Why not us?
David Bruce Banner
Nude Cabdriver Ban
Don't listen to the naysayers, this is our best lineup... at their peak, anyway.
Don't agree. Both teams lost in game 7. Luongo had better numbers than MacLean up until the finals. Luongo has better all-time playoffs numbers. Luongo is a two-time Olympic gold-medalist but MacLean would never have even been considered for the team. One is a superstar and the other one is essentially Jaroslav Halak through rose-colored glasses.
y2kcanucks
Le Sex God
But but but Luongo didn't score any goals.
What's funny is Luongo and McLean both gave up the same amount of goals in the SCF (20 each). Luongo had 8 goals of offensive support in that series and took the Canucks to game 7. McLean had 19 goals of offensive support. Give Luongo 11 more goals of support and the Canucks in the 2011 Stanley Cup.
But hey, let's ignore their entire careers and judge them (wrongly) based on one series.
Last edited:
ginner classic
Dammit Jim!
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
Years that European players would have won NHL accolades
- Latest: Run the Gauntlet
-
Upcoming events
-
-
-
HC Dynamo Pardubice @ Ocelari Trinec - Pardubice leads series 3-2Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated: