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This topic has been archived.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

#91 TOMapleLaughs

TOMapleLaughs

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 32,942 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 05

Posted 26 April 2012 - 08:57 AM

The difference between a blogger and a writer is highlighted here. Cheers.


TOML
Posted Image

#92 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 11:58 AM

To me ,it was the missed opportunity to help Kesler ease his load and help fill a void.
Cody could have been the second line center with a recovering Kes on the wing with a shoulder injury relevation on top of the hip.
Kes could have mentored Cody and taken faceoffs in the defensive zone.



Yeah ... MG & AV already knew Kesler had shoulder problems in Feb, when in Feb I'm not sure. According to Kesler, he said he sustained the shoulder injury sometime in Feb, I'm guessing its before the Hodgson traded on Feb 27th even though Canucks did play on the 28th.

Anyhow ... regardless of when Kesler sustained his shoulder injury; we saw throughout the season that Kesler really wasn't coming back close to his playoff form from 2011. I agree with you, Hodgson centering Kesler & Booth would have been great! Kills 3 birds with one stone. Kesler gets the rest, Hodgson gets more ice time ... and Booth gets a pass now and then. Why not try it ... it sure beats what we had for Feb/Mar/Apr ... and now golfing.



The post to which I was initially responding suggested Kesler be moved to the third line. I asked about line combinations with Kesler as 3C. You guys are addressing a completely different issue, that being that Kesler be moved to 2nd line wing. :)

So, assuming Kesler did move to the wing on the second line, how would Hodgson playing 2C make Kesler's life any easier? Kesler was still very capable at taking face-offs and checking. What was being affected was his ability to shoot, so what would it have mattered if he was receiving passes from Hodgson if he couldn't do anything with them?

And what would have happened to the 3C position and the third line in general? People are still so hyped that the third line had to provide secondary scoring. Since this would have happened prior to the trade deadline, how would putting two of the team's more offensively talented centers on the same line (albeit that one of them was injured) have helped matters? Putting Hodgson to the 2C would have weakened overall team scoring potential.

Which leads me back to my initial question: if Hodgson were to play the 2C, and Kesler were moved to the 3C, who would be the wingers on those lines? I'm assuming Booth would stay on the 2nd, and Hansen would stay on the 3rd. So who would get Higgins and who would get Raymond?

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#93 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 12:02 PM

Gillis exaggerating a little is nothing relative to all the Hodgsonites ...


I've alwyas found "Hodgsonites" to be a bit too much of a mouthful. I normally use "Codyists", or perhaps "Hodites". :P

regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#94 sQuish

sQuish

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,314 posts
  • Joined: 01-February 04

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:23 PM

:picard:

How often does a d-man take a faceoff?


(for the record I have seen it happen once)


LOL do you even understand what stat that site was tracking which the article refers to? Hellooo?? Anybody home???

The stat tracks who is on the ice for all faceoffs in each zone, not who's TAKING the face-off. If Hamhuis and Bieksa are ON THE ICE for the faceoff, they get a +1, along with the RW, the C, the LW, and even the Goalie too. Has zilch to do with which player is in the faceoff dot.

Understand now?

#95 darkpoet

darkpoet

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,451 posts
  • Joined: 08-September 05

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:47 PM

Sabbatical from Stupidity Sentral in order again?



How's that foot taste? :picard: :P

#96 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:51 PM

LOL do you even understand what stat that site was tracking which the article refers to? Hellooo?? Anybody home???

The stat tracks who is on the ice for all faceoffs in each zone, not who's TAKING the face-off. If Hamhuis and Bieksa are ON THE ICE for the faceoff, they get a +1, along with the RW, the C, the LW, and even the Goalie too. Has zilch to do with which player is in the faceoff dot.

Understand now?



I am talking about when the coach makes the decision of who to put out on the ice the criteria is different for centres than d-men.

I know what the stat measures :rolleyes:

Edited by Shift-4, 26 April 2012 - 02:57 PM.

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

#97 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:53 PM

How's that foot taste? :picard: :P


You don't think that was deliberate?
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#98 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:54 PM

How's that foot taste? :picard: :P


It was deliberate, oh Over-Your-Head-One .........you know, for the continuation of the sibilant 'S's........


How's that foot taste? :picard: :P

Edited by Bertuzzi Babe, 26 April 2012 - 02:58 PM.

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#99 Shift-4

Shift-4

    Canucks All-Star

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

Posted 26 April 2012 - 02:58 PM

You know what I should just do this


Posted Image



I could post this all over the place here
Hockey is the only sport, the rest are just games.

#100 Bertuzzi Babe

Bertuzzi Babe

    Canucks Star

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

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:00 PM

You know what I should just do this


Posted Image



I could post this all over the place here


Amen to that, Shift and I echo.......


Posted Image

"Sursumredditio" non usquam in hac mea loquantur!



Ense petit placidam sub libertate quietem.....



#101 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:41 PM

Which leads me back to my initial question: if Hodgson were to play the 2C, and Kesler were moved to the 3C, who would be the wingers on those lines? I'm assuming Booth would stay on the 2nd, and Hansen would stay on the 3rd. So who would get Higgins and who would get Raymond?

regards,
G.


It is your proposed scenario for Kes to go to the third.

Shoulder injury and recovering hip surgery meant his minutes and position should have been managed a whole lot better than they were.

Kes is always seen with a big smile for Higgy.Not so much with Raymond.

#102 Canuck Surfer

Canuck Surfer

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,522 posts
  • Joined: 27-December 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:46 PM

The reasonable logic is that Hodgson was neither sheltered from defensive responsibilities; nor given plumb shifts all the time which the stats clearly say are given Edler, the Sedins & Burrows.

Hodgson had roughly equal defensive & offensive face off starts.

It also showed he had not completely earned the coaches trust; He is not really being relied on when he has substantially more neutral zone face offs to either specific defensive or offensive draw responsibilities. Lets not be stupid, and so called enlightened people are being stupid if this is called proof that Hodgson was a defensive liability. We all know Kesler & Malhotra are our defensive stoppers, the Sedins our offensive juggernaut. This simply indicates the coach was bringing him on carefully without relying on him. A completely neutral position, smart with a rookie.

Did they really pump up his value, by giving him extra offensive shifts in January? Well if they did, he led them in scoring for the month, we had a winning record at the time and won big games based on key goals by Hodgson. Every team makes conscious decisions to test how guys respond to situations. Looks like he responded when they did.

Reports like this by MG simply stink of the GM trying to justify an unpopular decision. It would not take any kind of advanced metrics to make a case for the fact that Kassian did remarkably little for us this year.

Taking reasonable assets and trading them for prospects is something that teams like Calgary should be engaged in.

:picard:

Said before, and said again; maybe Cody was not happy! We still deserved a trade that better reflected a chance to win. We were sold the trade on the basis that Kassian reflected help to correct missing balance in physical match ups > so we could make a play off run. That turned out to be a false hope. In a bit of an embarrassing way, people are covering their backsides amidst criticisms.

It would be more respectable if someone just said the obvious, that the trade did not work out as planned & hopefully Kassians upside will still help us in the future.

B)



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 Canuck Surfer, 26 April 2012 - 04:18 PM.


#103 VMR

VMR

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 03:49 PM

Still talking about this? He is gone right or wrong.
They are my team!
Go Canucks Go!

Posted Image
Thank you VC!!!!!

#104 VMR

VMR

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 992 posts
  • Joined: 09-May 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:25 PM

Canucks fans don't talk about Neely or Bure any more , either. Please.

Once a Canuck,always a Canuck,unless your name is Messier.


When people talk about Neely and Bure, they talk about the what if's or how great they were. They way people are talking about Hodgson, its almost like they expect him to come back or a do over is coming. He is not coming back and neither did they!

See now you got me talking about it! Crap! :picard:

Edited by VMR, 26 April 2012 - 04:26 PM.

They are my team!
Go Canucks Go!

Posted Image
Thank you VC!!!!!

#105 Pouria

Pouria

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,933 posts
  • Joined: 25-October 08

Posted 26 April 2012 - 04:34 PM

The whole Hodgson fiasco shows clearly that Gillis was incompetent to be a GM when he came here, and that he still is. I can't believe this would have happened with any other gm at the helm. (And it just goes to show, once again, what a great liar MG is.) He caused all the problems but he wants to give H. all the blame.


Yeah, MG caused all of this. AV is to blame for the team being bad and for the early exit. Aqualini is to blame for the busy parking lots at Rogers Arena. It is the janitors fault that Hodgson wanted a trade. Blame everyone except the player, it all the other people's fault. I also blame my school when I get a bad grade. The fans here are so spoiled that it isn't funny. Maybe if we had Burke you would be happier, right? Poor Hodgson, maybe we should've hired chauffeurs for him to drive him to games, and AV should've gave him H. Sedin's ice time. Raise the ticket prices to give Hodgson special treatment. The mayor of Vancouver should've also gave him the key to the city for being the best. Yeah, poor Hodgson, It is all MG's fault.

Posted Image


#106 prana16

prana16

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined: 11-July 07

Posted 26 April 2012 - 05:56 PM

Still talking about this? He is gone right or wrong.


The GM that made the stupid trade is still here, as is the moronic coach that has pushed out our offensive prospects over the last three years (not to mention naslund and linden before that) . So the issue remains.

#107 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,965 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 06:11 PM

It is your proposed scenario for Kes to go to the third.


No, it wasn't...

That would make sense if the team didn't have the top two way center, Ryan Kesler the Selke winner on it. Nobody we had or brought in, pahlsson or anyone else, would be a better choice for handling the tough assignments like that. He won a Selke for a reason. Choosing to use someone that isn't as good isn't a positive.

As for ice time, it could have been handled FAR better. Look at Pittsburgh. 3 strong centers that had 21, 20, and 18.5 minutes per game averages. we'd have been far better served if we'd used Hodgson as the #2 offensive center, with Kesler as a shutdown guy. All 3 getting PP time, and Kesler also getting his PK time.



regards,
G.
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#108 nuck nit

nuck nit

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,526 posts
  • Joined: 27-June 10

Posted 26 April 2012 - 07:36 PM

When people talk about Neely and Bure, they talk about the what if's or how great they were. They way people are talking about Hodgson, its almost like they expect him to come back or a do over is coming. He is not coming back and neither did they!


Canucks hockey fans talk about all sorts of Canucks players,Bure and Neely amongst them.

Hodgson will be talked about for a long ,long time,given the circustances and the many years he has to play in the league.




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.