Who had the better peak?

[canucks4ever]

Naslund or Bure?

Both men were mega-stars during thier peaks, usually finishing between 2-5 in scoring. It's just so sad that both were short-lived. I guess being a superstar in a hotbed like Vancouver puts more pressure on you.

Click to read more...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Bure by far...

 

[Chainsaw]

Neither won the cup. The Ultimate peak.......

 

[canucks4ever]

Neither won the cup. The Ultimate peak.......

Yeah but winning the cup isn't the end all to be all. Bure scored 31 points in the 1994 playoffs. Only a handful of people have scored 30 or more points in the playoffs and Gilmour is like the only other one to do it while not playing on a dynasty team.

 

[blamebettman*]

Pat.

 

[kmad]

Bure, easily. He's the reason I started watching hockey.

 

[saskganesh]

Pavel Bure.

Naslund was very very very good, but his peak was as part of a three man unit, the WCE, which got derailed from the fallout of a single tragic circumstance.

 

[canucks4ever]

Pavel Bure.

Naslund was very very very good, but his peak was as part of a three man unit, the WCE, which got derailed from the fallout of a single tragic circumstance.

Naslund was never the best, but over a 3 year period he was. I mean who would we say was the best forward from 2002-2004? Iginla sucked in 2003, Forsberg didnt even play in 2002. To score the most points over a 3 year period is huge.

I can also make the argument that once Naslund starts playing with good teammates, he'll go back to his old ways.

 

[nik jr]

Yeah but winning the cup isn't the end all to be all. Bure scored 31 points in the 1994 playoffs. Only a handful of people have scored 30 or more points in the playoffs and Gilmour is like the only other one to do it while not playing on a dynasty team.

rick middleton and barry pederson both scored 30+p in '83 playoffs without reaching the finals.

gretzky scored 40 for the '93 kings.
al macinnis scored 31 for the '89 flames.
brian leetch scored 34 for the '94 NYR.
sakic scored 34 for the '96 avalanche.

 

[canucks4ever]

rick middleton and barry pederson both scored 30+p in '83 playoffs without reaching the finals.

gretzky scored 40 for the '93 kings.
al macinnis scored 31 for the '89 flames.
brian leetch scored 34 for the '94 NYR.
sakic scored 34 for the '96 avalanche.

You named like 6 guys and 3 of them did it in a very high scoring era, the 1994 season was a normal scoring season with 6.4 goals per gamer compared to 7.7 goals per game.

 

[daveskirtun]

Gravel Bure

 

[Dark Shadows]

Bure by quite a bit.

Naslund himself is not even close to a defensive stalwart, so Bure doesn't lose his usual points there + he was just plain better.


For the record, Naslund in not going back to his old ways, regardless of teammates. He played with the Sedins for a while and his numbers visibly declined and they are no slouches. Naslund's peak was a combination of him overachieving and having a great chemistry with Bertuzzi and Morrison. Chemistry like that is hard to find.

 

[Pensfan86]

Bure by a long shot; the guy could absolutely score at will...

 

[Passchendaele]

Naslund was arguably the best player in the league in his peak.

Bure wasn't.

 

[tony d]

Bure.

 

[Dark Shadows]

Naslund was arguably the best player in the league in his peak.

Bure wasn't.

When?

In 2001-2002, Iginla was better than Naslund and it is not debatable. Not only was he a far better goalscorer and defensive player, but he did it with Craig Conroy and Dean McCammond. He had more goals than McCammond had points, and Conroy has never been anything above a second liner on any other team.

In 2002-2003, Forsberg was better than Naslund, and its barely debatable. Forsberg offensively was slightly better, Defensively was miles ahead, and was dominant every shift in a way Naslund could not ever hope to attain.

Those are the only two years that stick out to any degree, and he was not arguably better either year.

Ill agree, Bure was never top of the league either. But his peak was better and longer. Bure was just as close to Jagr for best player in the league in 99-00 as Naslund was to Forsberg in 02-03.

 

[Wisent]

Neither won the cup. The Ultimate peak.......

I am sure that is sarcasm.

 

[canucks4ever]

Naslund was arguably the best player in the league in his peak.

Bure wasn't.

You could argue Bure was better than feds in 1994, I mean where was fedorov in the playoffs, losing to the sharks? Bure crushed the dallas stars and scored clutch goals against the highly favoured Flames.

 

[Dark Shadows]

You could argue Bure was better than feds in 1994, I mean where was fedorov in the playoffs, losing to the sharks? Bure crushed the dallas stars and scored clutch goals against the highly favoured Flames.

No, you couldn't. Fedorov's season was far too brilliant, winning the Selke, Hart and coming in second for the scoring title. The Red wings as a whole played badly, and Fedorov was their leading scorer and best player up front with Yzerman sidelined.

In either case, Bure was only 12th in line for the Hart, and his two way play had a lot to do with that. A bit of defense here and there might have helped the goal scoring leader up the ladder.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

I can also make the argument that once Naslund starts playing with good teammates, he'll go back to his old ways.

If he needs good teammates to succeed, wouldn't that just make him a leech, ushy?

People seem to think the answer is Bure without question, but I think it's debatable. Naslund was a far better playmaker, a therefore a lot more valuable as a linemate. He helped Bertuzzi and Morrison to be better/more effective players, something Bure probably wouldn't have been able to do by virtue of hogging the puck.

 

[The Big Swede*]

Is this a serious question?....

Bure by far,Naslund never had the talent level that Pavel had

 

[canucks4ever]

No, you couldn't. Fedorov's season was far too brilliant, winning the Selke, Hart and coming in second for the scoring title. The Red wings as a whole played badly, and Fedorov was their leading scorer and best player up front with Yzerman sidelined.

In either case, Bure was only 12th in line for the Hart, and his two way play had a lot to do with that. A bit of defense here and there might have helped the goal scoring leader up the ladder.

He was still the best forward during the playoffs, so there was a 3 month period where he was the best.

 

[canucks4ever]

If he needs good teammates to succeed, wouldn't that just make him a leech, ushy?

People seem to think the answer is Bure without question, but I think it's debatable. Naslund was a far better playmaker, a therefore a lot more valuable as a linemate. He helped Bertuzzi and Morrison to be better/more effective players, something Bure probably wouldn't have been able to do by virtue of hogging the puck.

It would make him a leetch if he all of a sudden tunrs into John leclair and Kevin Stevens, 2 people that completely fall off the map without good teammates.

Naslund on the other hand, led canucks in scoring 3 times in a row before he entered that 3 year megastardom.

He followed that up with a solid season in 2006.

What Happened to leclair and stevens after Lindros, Lemieux and Jagr were gone, both turned back into being complete nobodies within a heartbeat.

 

[Dark Shadows]

He was still the best forward during the playoffs, so there was a 3 month period where he was the best.

Mark Messier was the best forward in the playoffs that year, and Leetch was the best skater period. The only aspect Bure was better at was goal scoring, and just barely. Defensively, Messier buried him. Leadership/intangibles, Messier Buried him. Playmaking, Messier had an edge.

 

[canucks4ever]

Its funny that these guys had peaks where they came up short to so many major awards.

The Art Ross and Hart Trophy in 2003 was pretty much decided on the last day. The Rocket Richard trophy in 2004 was decided on the last day. Imagine if Naslund picked up 2 of those 3 awards, he would have 1500 HHOF monitor points.

For Pavel Bure, it's even worse. The 1994 Conn Smyth trophy was basically decided on the last day of the series. If Canucks won, it would go to either Kirk Mclean or Bure. However, if Bure is the one that scores the clutch goal, I dont think they would have denied him the conn smyth trophy. The 1998 Goal Scoring title was decided on the last day of the season, in 2000 The Art Ross trophy was decided on the last day of the season. On top of that, he selfishly sat out the 1999 season, so he missed the potential of a top 5-10 scoring season and a potential rocket richard trophy. Bure could have earned 2000 hhof monitor points in an 11 year career.