Samuel Påhlsson & The Third Line

[oldnews]

I'm hoping that Gillis acquired Pahlsson intending to re-sign him - I like his game - he makes life a lot easier on his blueliners and line-mates - and with quality line-mates, as we saw here, he is capable of chipping in the odd point as well.

I find it hilarious that people are still going on about Hodgson as if he would have made a difference.. imagine Hodgson matched up against Kopitar/Brown/Williams or Richards/Carter/etc or Stoll/Penner... That would have been an ugly sight plain and simple. Sure, scoring an odd goal is nice, but getting one scoring chance while giving up three is a losing equation. His success here was tailored - if you think the blueline had a hard time with LA's large forwards, add in 20 minutes of slow, small, Hodgson and his lack of grit at center... the Canucks were much better off with Pahlsson, who gives you the chance of a saw-off against the other team's top line. Were it not for the team taking bad penalties, giving up two crucial short-handed goals and generally losing the special teams battle, people would be raving about Pahlsson right now... The Canucks won the five on five battle while Kesler was wounded, Daniel was absent for three games, and a couple of our top-four d-men struggled. Give some credit where credit is due. Pahlsson did his job, as did Hansen, Henrik, Malhotra... a handful of guys stepped up.

Just a note - Pahlsson was a slightly higher cap hit than Raymond and Malhotra.

[Ẉolverine]

I'm hoping that Gillis acquired Pahlsson intending to re-sign him - I like his game - he makes life a lot easier on his blueliners and line-mates - and with quality line-mates, as we saw here, he is capable of chipping in the odd point as well.

I find it hilarious that people are still going on about Hodgson as if he would have made a difference.. imagine Hodgson matched up against Kopitar/Brown/Williams or Richards/Carter/etc or Stoll/Penner... That would have been an ugly sight plain and simple. Sure, scoring an odd goal is nice, but getting one scoring chance while giving up three is a losing equation. His success here was tailored - if you think the blueline had a hard time with LA's large forwards, add in 20 minutes of slow, small, Hodgson and his lack of grit at center... the Canucks were much better off with Pahlsson, who gives you the chance of a saw-off against the other team's top line. Were it not for the team taking bad penalties, giving up two crucial short-handed goals and generally losing the special teams battle, people would be raving about Pahlsson right now... The Canucks won the five on five battle while Kesler was wounded, Daniel was absent for three games, and a couple of our top-four d-men struggled. Give some credit where credit is due. Pahlsson did his job, as did Hansen, Henrik, Malhotra... a handful of guys stepped up.

Just a note - Pahlsson was a slightly higher cap hit than Raymond and Malhotra.

[Cunuck]

bump bump

[Canuck Surfer]

Pahlsson might just be getting some frustration from fans who are disappointed in our season ending so quick. He replaced a popular player, even if he was not traded for him?

But, we spent most of the year, including when we were top of the league in January with our shut down line operating from the 4th line. And we had a successful 3rd line that seemed to systematically dismantle bottom match ups from other teams & score. We ran 4 deep and won even when key performers Kesler & the Twins were off their games. When Pahlsson arrived to re-establish last years strategy of running a shut down from the third, we almost reinvented our team & it did not work. The third was effective as a shutdown line, but the 4th lost its identity and became ineffective. Even if Pahlsson personally played fine, he is bearing the brunt of an unfulfilled vision!

***Disclaimer: Semi-long post - press the red "X" located at the top right corner of your screen if you don't possess a sufficient number of brain cells.

I must have been watching different games than most of you people.

I don't know what Pahlsson did to make everyone dislike him so much, but I thought he was a great player. Underrated passer, great on the boards both offensively and defensively, can handle other top centers, not "soft" whatsoever and a smart player in general.

But I guess it's hard for people to notice the pros and cons of a player if it doesn't appear on the stat sheet or in the frame of a goal for / against.

I was forced to make this thread after seeing this ignorant comment:

Let's break down the playoff goals against, shall we?

Game 1, Goal Against #1 - Richards:

5-on-3 goal where Richards just fools Luongo 5-hole.

Game 1, Goal Against #2 - Mitchell:

Edler let's the guy stand in front and screen Luongo and the shot gets through.

Game 1, Goal Against #3 - Penner:

Edler gives it away and Bieksa rushes Richards near the blue-line (only God knows why).

Game 1, Goal Against #4 - Brown:

Burrows loses the puck off the draw, empty net.

---

Game 2, Goal Against #1 - Brown:

Edler drop pass give away, Booth flies by, Raymond tries to take off Kopitar's head instead of taking the puck (only God knows why).

Game 2, Goal Against #2 - Brown:

Hamhuis misses the puck at the offensive blue-line on the PP.

Game 2, Goal Against #3 - Stoll:

Jam short-side.

Game 2, Goal Against #4 - Lewis:

Malhotra gives it away and then Ballard, Malhotra, Bieksa and Luongo all fall over each other.

*Hansen and Pahlsson both score

---

Game 3, Goal Against #1 - Brown:

Pahlsson hits down Brown then skates into center position but Edler decides he'd rather stand still than look around for the open guy.

---

Game 4, Goal Against #1 - Kopitar:

Just going to copy/paste the last part of Game 2, GA #1: "Raymond tries to take off Kopitar's head instead of taking the puck (only God knows why)."

---

Game 5, Goal Against #1 - Richardson:

Edler, Booth and Henrik all decide to watch the play in the crease.

Game 5, Goal Against #2 - Stoll:

You can argue that Pahlsson made a bad change, but I don't think anyone expected Hamhuis to try out his Bobby Orr impression at that point.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't know how "the Kopitar line made the Pahlsson line their b!tch". I seem to remember the third line generally doing a pretty good job containing that LA 1st line, with the few goals against with our 3rd line on the ice resulting from ridiculously awful plays by our D-men.

Now I'm not suggesting Pahlsson's line was perfect, but obviously you're going to see some chances against: Kopitar and Brown are top players and Williams is solid, as well. Even Lidstrom, Chara, Weber, etc. give up chances and goals against first lines; you can't completely shut down top players all game, every game.

I thought Hansen was one of most consistent players all series and Pahlsson was right there with him. Higgins didn't have a good series, but nobody really wants him gone (and they shouldn't; it was just one bad series). Hansen and Pahlsson both scored (albeit Pahlsson's was more or less meaningless, but a goal is a goal), as well, and that's more than you can say for Kesler, Booth, Raymond and Malhotra, all forwards who make more money... not to mention three of those four had regular power-play time.

Obviously it seems like I'm in the minority here but I'd absolutely love it if the third line came back intact next year. Hansen's cap is 1.35, Higgins' is 1.9, so if Pahlsson would sign for 2 or 2.25, we would have a third line that:

- plays against the other team's best players in both the regular season and the playoffs

- is the hardest working line on the team

- can chip in about ~40 goals

- will grind, hit, check and kill penalties

All for 5.5M on the cap...

Gillis needs to fix the second line and goaltending situation instead of wasting time/resources on things that aren't even close to being broken.

[ZeusBro]

Pahlssson is a proven athlete in this league that came from a terrible team.

Hes good and he does his job.

Beast third line.

[DownUndaCanuck]

Higgins is a 20-goal, 50 point player (and was on pace for these numbers, despite playing poorly after a delibitating injury). He does not belong on the 3rd line, no matter how good he makes Pahlsson and Hansen.

We need Higgins playing well with Booth and Kesler to be successful. Hansen and Pahlsson work well together, and we need a very skilled player to complement these physical grinders or Kassian/Bitz to make it an all-out energy line.

Pahlsson is fine. He may not produce as much offence as possible but he is IMO one of the strongest guys in the league and very underated. If you notice this guy is rarely knocked off the puck and his hits are explosive - he doesn't have much of a run-up or use his arms, but his body is so solid.