I think the extent to which Hodgson is relevant in discussion is ONLY in relation to how a rookie was able to make a meaningful contribution to the team, which we haven't had in a while.
I agree Hodgson was a good player, but maybe not the best fit with the team. Hodgson is such a polarizing figure among the Canucks fanbase - let's not get distracted from the discussion at hand: Jordan Schroeder.
He has great pedigree, always playing a level higher than his age. He may have left University too soon in hindsight, but he progressed a lot in other areas of the game to make him a more of a complete player.
Pros: Excellent speed, great hands, great vision, good defensively.
Cons: Size. Questions about his strength (also related to size I guess).
I've only watched a little bit of Schroeder but I think he is going to have a Hodgson-like effect, in that he will be a meaningful contribution for a rookie. It's not like we "relied" on Hodgson to carry the team. We don't need a savior rookie. I think with so many people having low expectations with Schroeder, he may be a pleasant surprise.
Booth - Schroeder - Kassian? Good Power Forwards with skill and speed?
Booth - Schroeder - Raymond? Speedy two-way guys.
Sedin - Sedin - Burrows
Booth - Schroeder - Kassian
Higgins - Lapierre - Hansen
Raymond - Malhotra - Volpatti
I'm optimistic about these lines. Good balance of speed, size and skill.
The past posts have somewhat an indirect involvement on Schroeder..the point Im trying to hammer out is that regardless of what kind of production he gets, that idiot of a coach we have will have the final say oh whether he gets his chance. Schroeder can easliy put up a hat trick one game and be benched the next in favour of Ebbett, it has happened before. No matter how good Schroeder plays, one mistake, hes riding the pine pony. No matter how bad Mason Raymond plays, and how many mistakes he makes, he'll get his 15-20 minute, top 6 ice time.