• Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

Sign in to follow this  
kickazz

Who is better Nyquist or Tatar?

Rate this topic

  

95 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

Actually Tatar had a terrible start playing with Sheahan and was up playing with Dats by November after our first slump. Nyquist lead our team in goals for the first part of the season

Datsyuk wasn't even in the lineup for much of November. He missed games on November 7th, 9th, 18th, 20th, 22nd, and 24th. Tatar had 7 goals and 4 assists in November alone. 4 goals and 2 assists came in games Datsyuk didn't play in. In the entire month of November Datsyuk only assisted on 1 of Tatar's goals. So your attempts to make it seem like Datsyuk was "gifting" him points is a bit overstated, regardless of when they started playing together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, like some others, that Nyquist has more raw talent while Tatar is the more hard working and determined, though one could say that Nyquist's talent and smoothness belies some of his hard work. They are completely different players, so in terms of "better" it seems to be a matter of taste in the observer's eyes. I would be curious to see what the advanced stats say. Personally, I like them both and think the Wings are doing well to keep them both.

Edited by TheXym

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. You're arguing that its harder to score on the power play? Cute.

Its cool though, think what you want. I like the guy who played his way on to the top line and led the team in goals and was among the league leaders in puck possession. You like the guy who is a whiz on the power play and lost his spot in the top six to Erik Cole (until his injury).

Straw man much? I don't see where I mentioned "it's harder to score on the powerplay"

The previous poster suggested that Nyquist is the better sniper because he tends to beat goalies clean. You make an excuse (as usual since yer a Tatar fan) that "it's not hard to beat a goalie plain on the powerplay" to which I countered with a statement. If it really is easy then I don't see why the others couldn't score as many goals on the powerplay as him on the roster.

Give credit where it's deserved, Nyquist is in fact a good sniper/asset to the powerplay and is superior on it than most of the squad including Tatar.

Nearly 50% of Ovechkin's (who is arguably is a top 5 sniper in NHL history) goals came on the powerplay last year. But it's easy to beat a goalie clean on the power play isn't it Ovechkin. So I guess Ovie isn't a superior sniper right. Ah well. Top 50 maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Straw man much? I don't see where I mentioned "it's harder to score on the powerplay"

The previous poster suggested that Nyquist is the better sniper because he tends to beat goalies clean. You make an excuse (as usual since yer a Tatar fan) that "it's not hard to beat a goalie plain on the powerplay" to which I countered with a statement. If it really is easy then I don't see why the others couldn't score as many goals on the powerplay as him on the roster.

Give credit where it's deserved, Nyquist is in fact a good sniper/asset to the powerplay and is superior on it than most of the squad including Tatar.

Nearly 50% of Ovechkin's (who is arguably is a top 5 sniper in NHL history) goals came on the powerplay last year. But it's easy to beat a goalie clean on the power play isn't it Ovechkin. So I guess Ovie isn't a superior sniper right. Ah well. Top 50 maybe.

I said it's not AS hard to beat a goalie clean on a powerplay, which is empirically true. Nice try.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I said it's not AS hard to beat a goalie clean on a powerplay, which is empirically true. Nice try.

And I countered with "apparently it is AS hard for others to"

Statistically.

Still don't get where I suggested it's harder to score on the PP. Empirically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odds of beating goalies clean, for ALL players, is higher on the powerplay than it is at even strength. Because there are fewer defenders and better shooting lanes. You stated that it's harder for other people to beat a goalie clean than Nyquist because he has more PP goals. Which is faulty evidence. All that proves is that he's a better powerplay scorer. But all players, including Nyquist, have a higher probably of scoring a clean goal on the PP than they do at even strength.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nyquist benefited more from Zetterberg than Tatar benefited from Datsyuk. Tatar makes more happen by himself than Nyquist does.

Also, Tatar has a better smile.

That's because he has Tatar control.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odds of beating goalies clean, for ALL players, is higher on the powerplay than it is at even strength. Because there are fewer defenders and better shooting lanes. You stated that it's harder for other people to beat a goalie clean than Nyquist because he has more PP goals. Which is faulty evidence. All that proves is that he's a better powerplay scorer. But all players, including Nyquist, have a higher probably of scoring a clean goal on the PP than they do at even strength.

I'd disagree. There may be one less defenseman but that doesn't equate to better shooting lanes. On PP defenders tend to sink in and this is where a lot of block shots come into play. Especially in todays NHL. Sure I guess if the situation on PP is set up right and you fool the defender and set up a one timer, it's obviously easier to beat the goalie.

But having a breakaway or an oddman rush is still much higher of an advantage than a PP imo. But that's beside the current point.

It isn't necessarily faulty evidence. Some players thrive on the powerplay while others don't. Some are slightly better at it while others aren't. It's not like the powerplay is a free for all for every player. I'd like to say that Tatar thrives more on a speed game while Nyquist is better in more of a set up situation.

Tatar's advantage comes from the fact that he plays big and this tends to throw off defenders. This goes hand in hand with a lot of what people are saying here about his "tenacity". At least this is how it seems to have played out in his first two years.

Nyquist benefited more from Zetterberg than Tatar benefited from Datsyuk. Tatar makes more happen by himself than Nyquist does.

Also, Tatar has a better smile.

Maybe, but I would rather be g** for the guy on the right, looks wise. ;)

https://instagram.com/p/tAYg1FH1QZ/

Edited by kickazz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's almost impossible to choose between them right now but Nyquist seems to have more talent and hockey IQ while Tatar lives more on his tenacity and energy. In the long run I think Nyquist's skillset will win out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Tatar could get better in the playoffs and is stronger on the puck. I like them both but I think Tatar has a better playoff style and that's what counts in my book. Then again, my book sucks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tough choice, but If you made me I'd choose Nyquist. They are both great players and Tatar brings something that this team was lacking for a couple of years : The raw will score. But as others have pointed out Nyquist is the better all round player with a little more upside than Tatar, so my vote goes to him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this