Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* - - - - 5 votes

Hodgson - Only 5 Or 6 Defensive Zone Faceoffs? Really? ... Not


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
107 replies to this topic

#1 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:01 AM

Here's an article out of the Edmonton Journal that we all should read before we start hating Hodgson.

http://blogs.edmonto...curious-claims/

This past season while with the Canucks, Hodgson had the following face offs:

157 - defensive zone
212 - neutral zone
171 - offensive zone

Why did Gillis dump on Hodgson yesterday? I wonder ...

#2 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:12 AM

So Cody had over 400 neutral and offensive zone faceoffs and only 150 defensive zone faceoffs. So Gillis was telling the truth, they were limiting his defensive responsibilities. The 5-6 was an obvious exaggeration. I'm glad MG got rid of that cry baby, drama at the age of 21. As a rookie he was not in a position to make any demands.

#3 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:13 AM

So Cody had over 400 neutral and offensive zone faceoffs and only 150 defensive zone faceoffs. So Gillis was telling the truth, they were limiting his defensive responsibilities. The 5-6 was an obvious exaggeration. I'm glad MG got rid of that cry baby, drama at the age of 21. As a rookie he was not in a position to make any demands.



Sorry double post

Edited by sampy, 25 April 2012 - 07:13 AM.


#4 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:33 AM

So Cody had over 400 neutral and offensive zone faceoffs and only 150 defensive zone faceoffs. So Gillis was telling the truth, they were limiting his defensive responsibilities. The 5-6 was an obvious exaggeration. I'm glad MG got rid of that cry baby, drama at the age of 21. As a rookie he was not in a position to make any demands.



Sorry double post

Have you seen the stats for Sedin or Burrows? All this means is that Hodgson was on the ice for all situations ... not just offensive.

#5 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:36 AM

:picard:

5 or 6 per game



the stupidity knows no bounds
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#6 Jimmy.crack.corn

Jimmy.crack.corn

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,132 posts
  • Joined: 01-January 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:36 AM

Do you have the stats on that the last week or two before he got traded? Because that's the time I feel like Gillis was referring to.
woooo no sig!!!

#7 Brad Marchand

Brad Marchand

    Sphincter

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,671 posts
  • Joined: 14-October 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:40 AM

Hodgson took 157 defensive zone faceoffs in 63 games played with Vancouver.

That's an average of 2.49 defensive zone draws per game. Not even close to 5 or 6 per game.
Luc Bourdon & Rick Rypien: Forever Canucks

#8 Neversummer

Neversummer

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,140 posts
  • Joined: 30-March 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:41 AM

If Gillis and AV can hatch a plan to Hodgson into a 2nd line center numbers kind of guy, then come up with a plan to make Kesler into one.

Will GM's ever trust doing deals with Gillis now that everyone knows he used a 'pump and dump' on one of his assets. It's like would you trade with someone who artificially inflated stock value so he can sell it to you?

I think MG should have kept his mouth shut instead of trying to vindicate himself in the Hodgson trade.

Edited by Neversummer, 25 April 2012 - 07:45 AM.


#9 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:51 AM

They never used him because they needed an excuse to keep Malholtra and the excuse was he was the faceoff king in the defencive zone thats the real reason he never had many period.

No duh, he dealt with Hodgson more because they were working on getting him healthy from his back injury.What a load of BS. Every since they traded Cody the team chemistry went downhill and the team went downhill evethough they squeaked out wins.
So instead of being hounded for trading him lets make up stuff. Everyone would of liked more icetime but who wouldn't atleast ask.This will have proved to be a big mistake remember this kid led WJC team to gold playing in all the cruicial moments. The only thing fans can hope for is Kassian doesn't turn out to be a dud and he reaches his potentials as well.

Edited by cc_devil, 25 April 2012 - 07:54 AM.


#10 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:52 AM

:picard:

5 or 6 per game



the stupidity knows no bounds


Really ... that's isn't what Gillis said. If its 5 or 6 per game ... he should have said so. If in fact that's what Gillis was saying ... then Kesler wasn't even on the ice for 5 or 6 defensive faceoffs this year. Even Edler was on the ice for less than 4 defensive faceoffs per game. Anyways ... you should read the article before responsing ... stupidity DOES have no bounds ... it seems:

Here are the stats for the other notable players on the team:

Kesler 274 (D) 296 (N) 257 (O)
Burrows 131 (D) 311 (N) 402 (O)
D Sedin 108 (D) 340 (N) 429 (O)
Edler 314 (D) 418 (N) 428 (O)

#11 etsen3

etsen3

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,693 posts
  • Joined: 02-July 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 07:53 AM

Did he say 5 or 6 over the whole season? I think he meant 5 or 6 per game.

Edited by etsen3, 25 April 2012 - 07:54 AM.


#12 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:00 AM

Really ... that's isn't what Gillis said. If its 5 or 6 per game ... he should have said so. If in fact that's what Gillis was saying ... then Kesler wasn't even on the ice for 5 or 6 defensive faceoffs this year. Even Edler was on the ice for less than 4 defensive faceoffs per game. Anyways ... you should read the article before responsing ... stupidity DOES have no bounds ... it seems:

Here are the stats for the other notable players on the team:

Kesler 274 (D) 296 (N) 257 (O)
Burrows 131 (D) 311 (N) 402 (O)
D Sedin 108 (D) 340 (N) 429 (O)
Edler 314 (D) 418 (N) 428 (O)


Gillis thought he was speaking to intelligent people so the 'per game' was implied.

If you are stupid enough to think he meant 5 or 6 total for the whole season you are too stupid to follow hockey



.......but will fit in fine here.
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#13 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:04 AM

Gillis thought he was speaking to intelligent people so the 'per game' was implied.

If you are stupid enough to think he meant 5 or 6 total for the whole season you are too stupid to follow hockey



.......but will fit in fine here.

Exactly, 5-6 for the entire season is rediculous, common sense people.
"pump and dump" is genius by MG as crybaby Cody was worthless 2 years ago after his back injury.

#14 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:05 AM

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players. With Canucks mismanagement of Hodgson's injury and the amount of ice he was getting ... you wonder why he was demanding. If you were Hodgson ... you probably wanted more opportunities to contribute too. Hodgson was on the ice for more defensive faceoffs in 60 games than Burrows or D Sedin this season. Kinda makes Gillis look dumb for making that statement yesterday.

Hodgson's Kesler Burrows D Sedin Edler
Defensive Zone 157 274 131 108 314
Neutral Zone 212 296 311 340 418
Offensive Zone 171 257 402 429 428

#15 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:07 AM

Gillis thought he was speaking to intelligent people so the 'per game' was implied.

If you are stupid enough to think he meant 5 or 6 total for the whole season you are too stupid to follow hockey



.......but will fit in fine here.


So ... how do you explain Edler being on the ice for less than 4 defensive faceoffs per game? Who's the stupid one again?

#16 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:10 AM

So ... how do you explain Edler being on the ice for less than 4 defensive faceoffs per game? Who's the stupid one again?


Comparing Edler to Hodgson when discussing faceoffs? :blink:
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#17 sampy

sampy

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,071 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 07

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:12 AM

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players. With Canucks mismanagement of Hodgson's injury and the amount of ice he was getting ... you wonder why he was demanding. If you were Hodgson ... you probably wanted more opportunities to contribute too. Hodgson was on the ice for more defensive faceoffs in 60 games than Burrows or D Sedin this season. Kinda makes Gillis look dumb for making that statement yesterday.

Hodgson's Kesler Burrows D Sedin Edler
Defensive Zone 157 274 131 108 314
Neutral Zone 212 296 311 340 418
Offensive Zone 171 257 402 429 428

The Sedins and Burr are an offensive line so you can't compare line 1 as they're put on the ice for offensive situations. Cody's line usually changed on the fly as he wasn't that great on the faceoffs. Cody also got to play against the other teams 3rd defensive pairing. He didn't do much playing on Buffalo's 2nd line aside from a couple games and was a defensive liability.

#18 canucks_dynasty

canucks_dynasty

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,069 posts
  • Joined: 20-July 05

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:12 AM

A better stat to know is what was Cody Hodgson faceoff %. Anybody know what that is?

The top guys in the league average around 50%+ on the faceoff dot. If Cody % was a measly 30%...it would be a no brainer for AV to limit his defensive draws.

#19 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:14 AM

Comparing Edler to Hodgson when discussing faceoffs? :blink:


I guess reading is not a prerequisite either. We aren't talking about who's "taking" the faceoffs ... the stat refers to who's "on the ice" during the faceoffs. I guess reading classes are also in order.

#20 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:16 AM

I guess reading is not a prerequisite either. We aren't talking about who's "taking" the faceoffs ... the stat refers to who's "on the ice" during the faceoffs. I guess reading classes are also in order.


:picard:

The criteria for who is on the ice is different between d-men and centres so you can't compare the two.
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#21 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:21 AM

They never used him because they needed an excuse to keep Malholtra and the excuse was he was the faceoff king in the defencive zone thats the real reason he never had many period.

No duh, he dealt with Hodgson more because they were working on getting him healthy from his back injury.What a load of BS. Every since they traded Cody the team chemistry went downhill and the team went downhill evethough they squeaked out wins.
So instead of being hounded for trading him lets make up stuff. Everyone would of liked more icetime but who wouldn't atleast ask.This will have proved to be a big mistake remember this kid led WJC team to gold playing in all the cruicial moments. The only thing fans can hope for is Kassian doesn't turn out to be a dud and he reaches his potentials as well.

Agreed. The stats don't lie. Hodgon wasn't pumped up ... he played both offensive side and defensive side of the game. All the "pumping" was done on the Sedin line ... they hardly had any defensive zone faceoffs.

#22 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,239 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 03

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:22 AM

:picard:

The criteria for who is on the ice is different between d-men and centres so you can't compare the two.


Exactly.

Sabbatical from Stupidity Sentral in order again? One hopes eternal yet those hopes are dashed repeatedly. See ya on the Enlightened Side of Nuckland....... ;)

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#23 WL Canuck Fan

WL Canuck Fan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:23 AM

A better stat to know is what was Cody Hodgson faceoff %. Anybody know what that is?

The top guys in the league average around 50%+ on the faceoff dot. If Cody % was a measly 30%...it would be a no brainer for AV to limit his defensive draws.

46.3% Regular season.
No playoff stats, Buffalo didn't cut the mustard.
Sig too big.

#24 jyip

jyip

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts
  • Joined: 03-May 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:25 AM

:picard:

The criteria for who is on the ice is different between d-men and centres so you can't compare the two.


Go ahead ... please enlighten me with your logic ... without having to contridict yourself.

Buddy ... I think you're going to find it is very very hard to argue against facts. Try as you might.

#25 WL Canuck Fan

WL Canuck Fan

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,705 posts
  • Joined: 21-June 09

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:28 AM

Here is an interesting stat, 2 teams, 83 games played, 710 face offs in total, but only 17 shorthanded. 6 wins, 11 losses.

Tells me both teams did not trust him to kill penalties, illustrating his defensive weakness.

Edited by WL Canuck Fan, 25 April 2012 - 08:28 AM.

Sig too big.

#26 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,452 posts
  • Joined: 11-August 06

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:28 AM

please enlighten me with your logic


You have already demonstrated such efforts would be futile.

Edited by Shift-4, 25 April 2012 - 08:33 AM.

Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#27 Guest_PUNJABI CANUCK_*

Guest_PUNJABI CANUCK_*
  • Guests
  • Joined: --

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:34 AM

Gillis shouldn't have talked about the Hodgson situation.
- Ruining his rep.

- This comment was so stupid , wasn't needed.

#28 DIBdaQUIB

DIBdaQUIB

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,060 posts
  • Joined: 21-November 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:53 AM

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players. With Canucks mismanagement of Hodgson's injury and the amount of ice he was getting ... you wonder why he was demanding. If you were Hodgson ... you probably wanted more opportunities to contribute too. Hodgson was on the ice for more defensive faceoffs in 60 games than Burrows or D Sedin this season. Kinda makes Gillis look dumb for making that statement yesterday.

Hodgson's Kesler Burrows D Sedin Edler
Defensive Zone 157 274 131 108 314
Neutral Zone 212 296 311 340 418
Offensive Zone 171 257 402 429 428


THe problem is, CH was a 3rd line center who's role should be to take more defensive zone faceoffs than the top 2 line centermen would. AV likes to start his top lines in the offensive or neutral zones so their starts will be inflated there. That woudl normally result in the 3rd and to a lesser degree 4th line being the defensive zone starter most times.

Obviously, if Cody's starts are tilted towards offensive and neutral zone starts, he was not trusted to be responsible inhis own zone and do the job a 3rd line centerman is expected to do. THis also explains the acquisition of Pahlsson.

MG was obviously exaggerating with the 4 or 5. I doubt he looked at the actual numbers but was simply trying to explain the strategy as to how Cody was "managed" to look as good as possible.

Edited by DIBdaQUIB, 25 April 2012 - 08:57 AM.


#29 Babaganoush

Babaganoush

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined: 05-March 10

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:54 AM

For the sake of everyone. Please read the article before responding so you don't have to contridict yourself later. Below are some stats on a few notable players.


It's your article Codyboy, The author changed his tune and rewrote it based on not doing his homework. Exactly as Gillis stated, pump and dump. And I quote...

http://blogs.edmonto...curious-claims/
EDIT Wed morning: Apparently I didn’t limit my search enough, because Hodgson’s Zone Starts evolved significantly within the season. Thomas Drance — who seems to be the Jonathan Willis of the Canuck-o-sphere, which is about as nice a compliment as I can pay him — documented Hodgson’s month-by-month performance through January in his other other blog, Pass It To Bulis. This revealed a sea change in Vigneault’s deployment of the young sniper in the new year, as his Zone Starts surged from just 33% in December to a Sedin-esque 83% in January. This was subsequently moderated to 59% (24 D / 35 O) from February 1 through the trade, suggesting that while Gillis clearly exaggerated his “5 or 6 defensive zone faceoffs” there was at least a kernel of truth underlying that remark, in that Vancouver clearly did limit the youngster’s defensive zone use in his final two months with the team.
See also in that last link the extreme Zone Starts Vigneault gave to Manny Malhotra (#27) and Max Lapierre (#40) during that segment of the season, as the Canucks’ head man loaded them up with extraordinarily heavy defensive responsibilities. While other coaches like Joel Quenneville have relied heavily on Zone Starts as a tactic, Alain Vigneault seems to be pushing the envelope. Hard to argue with the results … at least, in the regular season.
* * *

Edited by Babaganoush, 25 April 2012 - 08:56 AM.


#30 TheFastOne21

TheFastOne21

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 894 posts
  • Joined: 24-October 11

Posted 25 April 2012 - 08:56 AM

Everyone knows that Hodgson is an offense first center. He is not and will never be a defensive center or a 2-way center. He is an offensive center. His faceoff percentage is ok but not good. He was not trusted in VAN in the defensive end and was not either in Buffalo. What is the point of this argument? Gillis is not a moron. He did not mean 5-6 all season, there isnt a player in the world that is that limited in a specific zone faceoff. Hodgson is not the cry baby imo. I think it is his whiny agent and father that did all the complaining for him. Gillis dumped on him because he was sick and tired of the Hodgson camp creating drama about play time and his role constantly. I would get sick of his agent and dad knocking on my door every week also.




Canucks.com is the official Web site of The Vancouver Canucks. The Vancouver Canucks and Canucks.com are trademarks of The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership.  NHL and the word mark and image of the Stanley Cup are registered trademarks and the NHL Shield and NHL Conference logos are trademarks of the National Hockey League. All NHL logos and marks and NHL team logos and marks as well as all other proprietary materials depicted herein are the property of the NHL and the respective NHL teams and may not be reproduced without the prior written consent of NHL Enterprises, L.P.  Copyright © 2009 The Vancouver Canucks Limited Partnership and the National Hockey League.  All Rights Reserved.