| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| admin |
Posted - 09/08/2008 : 10:30:54
If the Daniel and Henrik Sedin were TRADED away to different teams would they find success without each other? |
| 12 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Guest6196 |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 10:22:24
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
MSC - you are dead wrong.
At the beginning of the season, you could say Crosby was on the first line, Malkin on the 2nd. After Crosby got injured, Malkin was on the 1st line. After Crosby came back, the minutes each played in important situations and throughout the game reflected the fact that Crosby and Malkin's lines were 1a and 1b - not a and b in order of importance, but merely to say that Pittsburgh had two 1st lines.
There are other teams that have had this dynamic before, but it doesn't happen too often (or for too long in this market).
To get back on topic - I'd say the Sedin twins (when together) are 1st liners on an average offensive team, 2nd liners on a good offensive team. They are on a terrible team in regards to offense, so they were "superstars". Apart, I would say each of them are easily only second liners, potentially third liners on a good team.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
To stay on topic Bang on regarding the Sedin bros. Well said. |
| MSC |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 10:10:16
Slozo-
You're being ridiculous. When Crosby is healthy and in the line up HIS LINE IS THE NUMBER ONE LINE. Go to the website and look at their depth chart.
I don't see:
Dupuis/Fedotenko-Crosby/Malkin-Satan/Sykora
what I see is Dupuis-Crosby-Sykora
If you're just going by minutes played that's fairly irrelevant becasue Pitts PP and PK lines are alot different then their regular lines so you can't even consider that.
At the end of the day a team can only have ONE number ONE line.
On the plus side your Sedin insight is fairly bang on....1 for 2 today.... |
| n/a |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 09:21:05
MSC - you are dead wrong.
At the beginning of the season, you could say Crosby was on the first line, Malkin on the 2nd. After Crosby got injured, Malkin was on the 1st line. After Crosby came back, the minutes each played in important situations and throughout the game reflected the fact that Crosby and Malkin's lines were 1a and 1b - not a and b in order of importance, but merely to say that Pittsburgh had two 1st lines.
There are other teams that have had this dynamic before, but it doesn't happen too often (or for too long in this market).
To get back on topic - I'd say the Sedin twins (when together) are 1st liners on an average offensive team, 2nd liners on a good offensive team. They are on a terrible team in regards to offense, so they were "superstars". Apart, I would say each of them are easily only second liners, potentially third liners on a good team.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
| MSC |
Posted - 09/25/2008 : 09:07:54
This is black and white, cut and dry....you can argue which was the better line all you want and that's fine...BUT...you cannot argue about what the 1st and 2nd lines were. There's no discussion to be had, there's no if's ands or but's.... |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 15:18:02
I think Malkin-Skyora-Malone was much more of a first line than crosby-armstrong-christianson
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| MSC |
Posted - 09/24/2008 : 10:21:39
Malkin could have played 45 minutes a game but it still won't change the fact that he's on the second line.
|
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 17:06:53
Malkin averaged over 21 minutes a game a minute more then Crosby. How can you think Malkin was 2nd line Crosby was injured for 20 games, not mentioning the ones he played hurt and Malkin was on the pp even with Crosby playing.
and I clearly said there WERE NOT very many 2nd liners on that list.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| MSC |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 14:46:55
No, but the number 2 overall was. |
| Canucks Man |
Posted - 09/23/2008 : 14:37:36
I will never understand why people call the twins 2nd line players. They were both in the top 30 in scoring last year and if you look at the list there are not very many 2nd liners o that list.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
| leigh |
Posted - 09/11/2008 : 11:45:51
I find it highly unlikely that they would do better. They might fluke out and find someone and have a good connection, but they have been playing together their whole lives, you can't beat that chemistry. With each other they may reach a 90 point peak if lucky. Without each other they'll reach 65 tops. Good players, but not great. Good second line if they're together, not so much if separated.
That's why the Canucks can't pin their future on these guys. They're a good part of the recipe but not the key ingredient |
| 99pickles |
Posted - 09/09/2008 : 00:02:21
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
I think they would be decent without eachother but definitely not near as good as they are together.
Chicago Blackhawks GM
I feel exactly the same as this. But it would certainly be a gut check for both. I hope it will eventually happen before they retire. Wouldn't it be something if it turned out that one had always been holding the other back? |
| Axey |
Posted - 09/08/2008 : 10:46:54
I think they would be decent without eachother but definitely not near as good as they are together.
Chicago Blackhawks GM |
