Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo

Cody Hodgson, Unforgotten Canuck

Discussion

  • Please log in to reply
239 replies to this topic

#211 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:23 AM

Bold type. Big difference between JAnuary and the SCF.

I'll ask again,

Do you think Cody would have lasted five minutes in the Bruins series without having his damn head taken off ? Remember the Ottawa game?


Wow, so he got hit against Ottawa, what's your point? Kesler got KO'd by Ladd, and he moved on just fine. Daniel got KO'd by Keith, he looked fine in the playoffs. I'm sure that wasn't the first time that someone caught Cody Hodgson with his head down, in all of his years of hockey.

Yes, he would've been just fine against Boston. It actually must've been hurting him to watch the team struggle to score so bad, so obviously, while guys like Tanner Glass and Victor Oreskovich are still actually dressing for games.
  • 0

#212 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:34 AM

Cody had one goal

Wow, so he got hit against Ottawa, what's your point? Kesler got KO'd by Ladd, and he moved on just fine. Daniel got KO'd by Keith, he looked fine in the playoffs. I'm sure that wasn't the first time that someone caught Cody Hodgson with his head down, in all of his years of hockey.

Yes, he would've been just fine against Boston. It actually must've been hurting him to watch the team struggle to score so bad, so obviously, while guys like Tanner Glass and Victor Oreskovich are still actually dressing for games.


The point is, he's a very un-physical player. The only roles open for him, a rookie, were fourth line duties. He wasn't scoring like he was this past season in the 2010-11. You'd put him on the third or fourth line against Boston? Hah

You seriously aren't grasping the argument. Tanner Glass and Victor Oreskovich are fourth line grinders.

Cody had one point in 12 games played and a -4 in the 2011 playoffs, and you're saying he should have been playing in the SCF? You think he should have played against boston? And where? Fourth line center?

Please, lets stay on this line of thought. Don't jump over to something else in an attempt to run away from the truth.

Edited by Navyblue, 01 September 2012 - 11:36 AM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#213 awalk

awalk

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,097 posts
  • Joined: 08-January 06

Posted 01 September 2012 - 11:44 AM

Who?
  • 0

#214 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 12:10 PM

Cody had one point in 12 games played and a -4 in the 2011 playoffs, and you're saying he should have been playing in the SCF? You think he should have played against boston? And where? Fourth line center?

Please, lets stay on this line of thought. Don't jump over to something else in an attempt to run away from the truth.


He averaged 6:45 of ice-time in those 12 games! And Oreskovich, BTW, had played in 19 games, was a -6, and didn't have a single point. Oh, but he's such an intimidator, right? Dream on.

And yes, sure, it would've been more value-adding to have Cody Hodgson in the lineup versus a guy like Victor Oreskovich. One guy has natural offensive gifts, one guy doesn't. We needed offense a heck of a lot more than we needed another pseudo-tough guy scrub. As for where, give him the odd shift on the 4th line, and play him on the PP. Especially knowing how good he went on to play for us the next season, and hindsight being 20/20, you're saying that it was a good idea having Victor Oreskovich in the lineup as opposed to Cody Hodgson?
  • 0

#215 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:31 PM

He averaged 6:45 of ice-time in those 12 games! And Oreskovich, BTW, had played in 19 games, was a -6, and didn't have a single point. Oh, but he's such an intimidator, right? Dream on.

And yes, sure, it would've been more value-adding to have Cody Hodgson in the lineup versus a guy like Victor Oreskovich. One guy has natural offensive gifts, one guy doesn't. We needed offense a heck of a lot more than we needed another pseudo-tough guy scrub. As for where, give him the odd shift on the 4th line, and play him on the PP. Especially knowing how good he went on to play for us the next season, and hindsight being 20/20, you're saying that it was a good idea having Victor Oreskovich in the lineup as opposed to Cody Hodgson?


The only line that had any room for him was the fourth, and that line wasn't a line put out there to score goals.


I see you've made up your mind and refuse to listen to logic, common sense, or any of the many forum members that have tried to get you to see why things went down the way they did. For you to say that a -4 one dimensional rookie who had done nothing through three series, even after starting on the third line in an offensive role, is completely ridiculous. Bash glass and oreskovich all you want but at least they did what they were put out there to do, hit.

I'm sorry he was traded. He was one of my favorites too...but life goes on. Buy the center ice package and watch the sabres games this or next year. There are ways for you to cope with the loss.




Bottom line in the big picture, if Cody wanted to accept what was given to him and work with that, he would still be on the team. He wanted out, and got his wish.

Get over it.
  • 0
Posted Image

#216 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,183 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 06:54 PM

Oh, so you don't buy the theory that Hodgson only scored goals because of ice-time manipulation by Gillis & Vigneault? Why not? :rolleyes:

Deep down, I think everyone here wishes that we still had Cody. He's got "STAR" written all over him. He's only going to get better, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him have 55 - 60 points this season. Kassian is an intriguing talent, but he's a total question mark. We've effectively traded a guy with a very, very high probability of being a top-six mainstay for the next 10 years, for a guy who maxes out at that level, and who could well be the next Bernier or the next Pyatt; two other "power forwards" sold to us by the Sabres.


Depending on the role the Sabres give him, ice time, etc, it certainly isn't unrealistic to think that. He finished top five in rookie scoring while averaging at least three minutes less than every other player ahead of him.
  • 0
Posted Image

#217 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,183 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:08 PM

The only line that had any room for him was the fourth, and that line wasn't a line put out there to score goals.


I see you've made up your mind and refuse to listen to logic, common sense, or any of the many forum members that have tried to get you to see why things went down the way they did. For you to say that a -4 one dimensional rookie who had done nothing through three series, even after starting on the third line in an offensive role, is completely ridiculous. Bash glass and oreskovich all you want but at least they did what they were put out there to do, hit.

I'm sorry he was traded. He was one of my favorites too...but life goes on. Buy the center ice package and watch the sabres games this or next year. There are ways for you to cope with the loss.




Bottom line in the big picture, if Cody wanted to accept what was given to him and work with that, he would still be on the team. He wanted out, and got his wish.

Get over it.


I seriously hope you aren't content with their performance in the playoffs. You break Cody's balls for being one dimensional and these guys provided zero offence whatsoever. On top of that, they were also defensive liabilities which is fairly sad considering they played less than 8 minutes a game. You need a lot more from your fourth line than that. And we all know Victor isn't a tough guy. Well, he certainly doesn't show it very often. A perfect example of this is when Marchand clotheslined Ehrhoff then submarined Daniel and when McQuaid when after Ehrhoff to pound his face in, Oreskovich grabbed Kelly who is 30lbs less than him and declared a hugging war.

Our fourth line sucked. I believe Lappy played there at times and he was the only one that played up to par.
  • 0
Posted Image

#218 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 01 September 2012 - 07:13 PM

I see you've made up your mind and refuse to listen to logic, common sense, or any of the many forum members that have tried to get you to see why things went down the way they did. For you to say that a -4 one dimensional rookie who had done nothing through three series, even after starting on the third line in an offensive role, is completely ridiculous. Bash glass and oreskovich all you want but at least they did what they were put out there to do, hit.


Funny how the "logic" and "common sense" cards get thrown to the guy who's NOT in favor of us trading the proven for the unproven. And I don't see the failed logic in suggesting to put a highly-touted rookie with offensive gifts on the ice in the place of a guy with "size" that could barely keep his spot in the AHL this year, Oreskovich.

"One-dimensional rookie", that is gold, I love it.
  • 0

#219 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:19 PM

I seriously hope you aren't content with their performance in the playoffs. You break Cody's balls for being one dimensional and these guys provided zero offence whatsoever. On top of that, they were also defensive liabilities which is fairly sad considering they played less than 8 minutes a game. You need a lot more from your fourth line than that. And we all know Victor isn't a tough guy. Well, he certainly doesn't show it very often. A perfect example of this is when Marchand clotheslined Ehrhoff then submarined Daniel and when McQuaid when after Ehrhoff to pound his face in, Oreskovich grabbed Kelly who is 30lbs less than him and declared a hugging war.

Our fourth line sucked. I believe Lappy played there at times and he was the only one that played up to par.


Wasn't it obvious that the players has been told not to retaliate? Should I post the picture of Daniel taking the several punches to the face?

I've said recently in this thread that Cody was and is one of my favorite players. If he had stuck with the team and worked his way up instead of conducting himself the way he did, he WOULD have been our captain one day.

Glass and Oreskovich HIT, in their fourth line roles. They did what they were told. Defensively though, they were better than Cody. Need I post the goal in game 2 where he screened his own goalie?

I'm not breaking balls I'm defending what MG did with the trade and what AV did by not playing Cody in the SCF. Hodgson would have been in way over his head and hey, maybe it would have been him with the fractured vertebrae and not Raymond. How bout that?

Cody was the least physical player on the entire team at that point and to put him in a fourth line role would have been the worst idea thinkable....which is why, as you know, he wasn't put in that position.

Edited by Navyblue, 01 September 2012 - 09:23 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#220 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 01 September 2012 - 09:21 PM

Funny how the "logic" and "common sense" cards get thrown to the guy who's NOT in favor of us trading the proven for the unproven. And I don't see the failed logic in suggesting to put a highly-touted rookie with offensive gifts on the ice in the place of a guy with "size" that could barely keep his spot in the AHL this year, Oreskovich.

"One-dimensional rookie", that is gold, I love it.


What part of Cody wanted to play close to his family, with top line minutes, can't you piece together?

You keep trying to argue with failed logic and then you jump over to another point that is then proven to be a fallacy, then you jump to another, which is proven so on and so forth.

Get over it. He didn't want to play here. frack...

At the time, he WAS a one dimensional rookie...he was -4 with one point in three series...what the hell do you think he was at that point? You do remember what we were talking about right? The decision not to play him in the SCF??? Seriously, the attention span of the average CDC member is laughable.

Edited by Navyblue, 01 September 2012 - 09:29 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#221 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 12:18 AM

Funny you should mention it.

Didn't Cody score some sort of highlight reel, clutch goal against the Bruins in January?


Yup, and he got an assist as well. He had a very good game, points-wise, in a 4 - 3 Canuck win. He had the winning goal as well.

Hodgson also finished at "even" on his +/- for the night. True, +/- can be misleading, but I include it merely for discussion's sake.


Sedin's defensive play aren't very good, they have zero physical game, average at face-offs, average skating ability. Same could be said about a lot of other guys, too. Pat Kane. Steve Stamkos. Jeff Skinner.

It's very easy to nit-pick anybody's game, and find holes in it. Guys like Eric Lindros don't come along very often.


It's good that you are finally acknowledging that Hodgson has deficiencies in his game.

It is true that the Sedin's strong point is offense, however, their respective defensive games are still far better than Hodgson's.

True, they are not very physical players compared some others on the team, however they have put some pretty good hits on guys in their time. They know when and where and how, something which comes with experience, something which Hodgson does not have a lot of, yet.

Henrik finished last season at 50.1% on face-offs. Hodgson finished with 46.3%. The things that I would suggest here are: 1.) almost 4% is still a pretty big gap in the land of statistics; 2.) of the two of them, who would routinely draw the best face-off guy from the other team? Hopefully Hodgson has been working on his face-offs as next season he will likely be tested more than he has in previous seasons.

If you recall, I mentioned I thought Hodgson was on the low side of average with regard to his skating, let's say it's a C-/C. I believe the Sedins are to the higher side of average, say C/C+. A lot of this has to do with experience in the NHL and their time playing on the same line. They are often able to find open ice. Perhaps Hodgson will learn, adjust, train and eventually improve in some aspects of his skating.

Sure it's easy to nit-pick any one player's game. That's what we're doing here, right? We are analysing Hodgson's game in light of the Kassian trade. And you are right, guys like Lindros don't come along very often, and as far as talent and size, he was not re-born in Cody Hodgson. This being said, I find it ironic that you mention Lindros, a guy with a reputation of being a whiner, in a thread about Hodgson.


Even though he was 3rd on our team in goals, he should've been in the AHL. OK.

Oh, I almost forgot that those goals were due to Mike Gillis manipulating his situational play. Carry-on.


Once again, you are misreading or misunderstanding and then creating an entirely different point that you are trying to argue against. I said his performance in the month prior to the trade was worthy of him being in the AHL, not the NHL. What I said, and what you seem to think I said are two different things. OK?

Anyhoo, it's nice to see that you are starting to accept that Hodgson was playing sheltered minutes.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 02 September 2012 - 01:06 AM.

  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#222 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:00 AM

Wow, so he got hit against Ottawa, what's your point? Kesler got KO'd by Ladd, and he moved on just fine. Daniel got KO'd by Keith, he looked fine in the playoffs. I'm sure that wasn't the first time that someone caught Cody Hodgson with his head down, in all of his years of hockey.

Yes, he would've been just fine against Boston. It actually must've been hurting him to watch the team struggle to score so bad, so obviously, while guys like Tanner Glass and Victor Oreskovich are still actually dressing for games.


Aside from the risk of taking a big hit, the more significant aspect of playing against the larger Boston players would be the continued pounding from all of the lesser hits. It would likely wear him down (as would be expected), and probably result in him rushing his passes which would often result in turn-overs.


Our fourth line sucked. I believe Lappy played there at times and he was the only one that played up to par.


And I don't see the failed logic in suggesting to put a highly-touted rookie with offensive gifts on the ice in the place of a guy with "size" that could barely keep his spot in the AHL this year, Oreskovich.


True enough, the 4th line sucked. Their level of play was insufficient for what was needed, and they're gone, except for Lapierre.

What I don't see is how Hodgson was going to improve the 4th line's ability to fulfill their role as a physical, energy unit. We all understand that you don't like Oreskovich (or Glass) and you'd rather have seen Hodgson on the ice, Can you give us some specifics as to just how you believe he was going to turn it all around?

Something more than, "Well, he couldn't do any worse!" would be appreciated. :)

regards,
G.
  • 1
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#223 sdnucksfan

sdnucksfan

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 460 posts
  • Joined: 07-November 11

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:03 AM

I still call B.S. on the whole Hodgson is a whiner, baby, etc. This guy was praised for his leadership and class throughout his entire life from all of his junior hockey coaches and teammates and he suddenly gains an ego? If anything, it was the fault of both sides that caused this trade.


you explained it yourself really...he was praised and had his head filled with so much hot air it couldn't fit in the locker room with the others. it wasn't necessarily all him, it was said his dad was a bigger pain in the ass as well.

he obviously got so much praise for being so great in the minors that when he wasn't the center of attention in an NHL locker room he wasn't happy and in shock, expecting to come in and take 2nd line duty as a rookie.
  • 1

#224 Tortorella's Rant

Tortorella's Rant

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,183 posts
  • Joined: 11-April 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:41 AM

Wasn't it obvious that the players has been told not to retaliate? Should I post the picture of Daniel taking the several punches to the face?

I've said recently in this thread that Cody was and is one of my favorite players. If he had stuck with the team and worked his way up instead of conducting himself the way he did, he WOULD have been our captain one day.

Glass and Oreskovich HIT, in their fourth line roles. They did what they were told. Defensively though, they were better than Cody. Need I post the goal in game 2 where he screened his own goalie?

I'm not breaking balls I'm defending what MG did with the trade and what AV did by not playing Cody in the SCF. Hodgson would have been in way over his head and hey, maybe it would have been him with the fractured vertebrae and not Raymond. How bout that?

Cody was the least physical player on the entire team at that point and to put him in a fourth line role would have been the worst idea thinkable....which is why, as you know, he wasn't put in that position.


No, it wasn't obvious. And if not retaliating was their plan, it was obviously a big mistake. You make it sound like those two were laying out the body left and right; they didn't even average two hits a game. So, aside from that 1.5 hits, approximately, per game and between 6-8 minutes of ice time, the fourth line did a whole lot of floating, scaring the crap of out Vancouver fans and nothing else. Not being able to contribute offensively is unacceptable. Whether or not they were better than Cody defensively is debatable and really can't be proven one way or another at this point unless we're going to dig up all the tape and evaluate defensive breakdowns, etc. But one thing is a fact and that is Cody isn't a give away machine. Why the hell are we even talking about Oreo and Glass? We all know they flat out sucked and their performances weren't nearly good enough. And when have the twins ever retaliated? Or Daniel for that matter? Henrik did once, that I can recall. And that's only because Brown almost killed him to begin with. In all fairness about physicality, Hodgson was on pace for more hits than the twins, so he wasn't the least physical -- and that was with a pathetic 6 minutes of ice time vs first line minutes.

Cody may have been a factor, maybe not, but the fact of the matter is they never gave him the chance to succeed anyway. 6 minutes of ice time is a joke. Then people go.. well, geez, that kid is a useless tit. Which is unfair to him, of course.
  • 0
Posted Image

#225 Sugar baby watermelon

Sugar baby watermelon

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,368 posts
  • Joined: 15-September 11

Posted 02 September 2012 - 03:28 AM

I really miss him, with a video tribute...........
Bahahahahahahahahahaha
  • 0

#226 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:41 AM

What part of Cody wanted to play close to his family, with top line minutes, can't you piece together?

You keep trying to argue with failed logic and then you jump over to another point that is then proven to be a fallacy, then you jump to another, which is proven so on and so forth.

Get over it. He didn't want to play here. frack...

At the time, he WAS a one dimensional rookie...he was -4 with one point in three series...what the hell do you think he was at that point? You do remember what we were talking about right? The decision not to play him in the SCF??? Seriously, the attention span of the average CDC member is laughable.


OK, fine.

Speaking of decisions, and with the knowledge that you are having GREAT DIFFICULTY generating any sort of offense against the Bruins (specifically, beating Tim Thomas), don't you think that the risk:reward equation of playing Cody Hodgson is favorable when compared to Victor Oreskovich? One guy has offensive gifts, one guy does not. One guy could be useful especially on the PP, one guy could not. The upside of playing Cody Hodgson, at that point, and actually trying to use his talents, rather than sending him out for a shift or two on the 4th line each period, would've been far greater than the "loss" of Victor Oreskovich's physical play. We're not beating Boston in a contest of physical play, anyway, so why not try to beat them in skill, where we'd have a slight edge?
  • 0

#227 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:50 AM

What I don't see is how Hodgson was going to improve the 4th line's ability to fulfill their role as a physical, energy unit. We all understand that you don't like Oreskovich (or Glass) and you'd rather have seen Hodgson on the ice, Can you give us some specifics as to just how you believe he was going to turn it all around?

Something more than, "Well, he couldn't do any worse!" would be appreciated. :)


It's not about him being on the 4th line. On the 4th line, he probably wouldn't have done anything, playing with a couple of neanderthals and only 5 minutes per game. Much like anybody else on our team put in that position.

Point is that he can provide offense. Raymond was out, Samuelsson was injured. Play him with Kesler. Play him on the PP. Whatever. The point is that he's a lot more versatile (thus, robust) than Oreskovich or Glass are, and there's really no point in trying to act tough against Boston, anyway, as they had the clear edge in that department. The team needed offense. They didn't need a couple of pseudo-tough guys running around and adding no value.
  • 0

#228 RIPRYP

RIPRYP

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 246 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 07:57 AM

He's gone, suck it up princess. Beating a dead horse, I see.
  • 0

RIP to the BEST pound for pound fighter the NHL has ever seen. Will be missed.


#229 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:48 AM

Daniel retaliated the playoffs before, in 2010, when we lost in the second round to Chicago for the second time...Which garnered himself and Dave a penalty. The following year, clearly they were told to turn the other cheek...even if it was the result of a punch to the face....


I state again, the attention span of CDC......

Edited by Navyblue, 02 September 2012 - 09:52 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#230 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 09:50 AM

OK, fine.

Speaking of decisions, and with the knowledge that you are having GREAT DIFFICULTY generating any sort of offense against the Bruins (specifically, beating Tim Thomas), don't you think that the risk:reward equation of playing Cody Hodgson is favorable when compared to Victor Oreskovich? One guy has offensive gifts, one guy does not. One guy could be useful especially on the PP, one guy could not. The upside of playing Cody Hodgson, at that point, and actually trying to use his talents, rather than sending him out for a shift or two on the 4th line each period, would've been far greater than the "loss" of Victor Oreskovich's physical play. We're not beating Boston in a contest of physical play, anyway, so why not try to beat them in skill, where we'd have a slight edge?


We've already been through the offensive upside of Cody, at that point. He started the 2010-2011 playoffs on the third line in an OFFENSIVE ROLE, and FAILED. He had one point through three playoff series.

You're going to put me in the loony bin if you don't start actually remembering the things we are debating. Is it on purpose or are you just forgetful? You can tell me.

Edited by Navyblue, 02 September 2012 - 09:58 AM.

  • 3
Posted Image

#231 riffraff

riffraff

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,051 posts
  • Joined: 10-April 07

Posted 02 September 2012 - 10:51 AM

I bet Cody was actually glad he wasn't getting played cough pummeled in the Boston series.
  • 0
Posted Image


CanucksSayEh, on 12 March 2013 - 10:12 PM, said:
When the playoffs come around, nobody is scared of getting in a fight, but every night, they get their mom to check under the bed for Raffi Torres.

#232 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:59 PM

We've already been through the offensive upside of Cody, at that point. He started the 2010-2011 playoffs on the third line in an OFFENSIVE ROLE, and FAILED. He had one point through three playoff series.

You're going to put me in the loony bin if you don't start actually remembering the things we are debating. Is it on purpose or are you just forgetful? You can tell me.


That's interesting. How many other starting 3rd line C's do you know of that play 6 minutes per game?
  • 0

#233 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:18 PM

That's interesting. How many other starting 3rd line C's do you know of that play 6 minutes per game?


Game 2: http://www.nhl.com/s...11/TH030152.HTM 10 minutes and 33 seconds

Game 3: http://www.nhl.com/s...11/TH030155.HTM 11 minutes and 45 seconds

With that line proving to be ineffective and a liability, Cody was then moved to the fourth line where he got fourth line minutes, leading to being benched in the SCF.

It's becoming clearer with every post, that you have no idea what you're talking about. Cody's dad? Agent? Gary Roberts? Is that you?

Edited by Navyblue, 02 September 2012 - 02:20 PM.

  • 2
Posted Image

#234 Erik Karlsson

Erik Karlsson

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,725 posts
  • Joined: 24-March 09

Posted 02 September 2012 - 02:55 PM

I still call B.S. on the whole Hodgson is a whiner, baby, etc. This guy was praised for his leadership and class throughout his entire life from all of his junior hockey coaches and teammates and he suddenly gains an ego? If anything, it was the fault of both sides that caused this trade.


This, if AV wasn't coach, there would be no problems with Cody and he would still be here, people are too in love with Gillis an AV around here.
  • 0

Posted Image

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#235 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 04:12 PM

Game 2: http://www.nhl.com/s...11/TH030152.HTM 10 minutes and 33 seconds

Game 3: http://www.nhl.com/s...11/TH030155.HTM 11 minutes and 45 seconds

With that line proving to be ineffective and a liability, Cody was then moved to the fourth line where he got fourth line minutes, leading to being benched in the SCF.

It's becoming clearer with every post, that you have no idea what you're talking about. Cody's dad? Agent? Gary Roberts? Is that you?


You've offered a 2-game sample, and over those 22 total minutes, 1 was spent on the PP. I think it's premature for production at those type of minutes to be called "ineffective and a liability". Don't you? Does 2 games and 11 minutes of TOI, without PP time, sound like a fair shot to give an offense-first rookie? Can you really draw lasting conclusions from this type of data?

I have no idea what I'm talking about, huh? Who are you? Gillis' son? Nephew? To think that we've somehow won this trade requires a serious level of homerism (and delusion).
  • 0

#236 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 05:58 PM

You've offered a 2-game sample, and over those 22 total minutes, 1 was spent on the PP. I think it's premature for production at those type of minutes to be called "ineffective and a liability". Don't you? Does 2 games and 11 minutes of TOI, without PP time, sound like a fair shot to give an offense-first rookie? Can you really draw lasting conclusions from this type of data?

I have no idea what I'm talking about, huh? Who are you? Gillis' son? Nephew? To think that we've somehow won this trade requires a serious level of homerism (and delusion).


A fair shot? He was a rookie in the stanley cup playoffs. Even if I completely left out the issue of seniority, you know, earning your place on the team, do you actually want me to believe AV should have left him out there hoping that line would work, even though it wasn't? Two games is pushing it.I think you should watch game five where he screened his own goalie...but no, aw shucks, leave him out there...only worked all season to get here. He started the playoffs on the third line in an offensive role, and was put on the fourth line with less minutes because the line wasn't working. He wasn't ready for that role, yet.

Where did I draw a lasting conclusion? You claimed that his ineffective play was due to only playing 6 minutes a game, so I provided you with the information.

It's not about winning or losing a trade. Gillis had to move him and got what he could. You're calling me delusional? Read the thread bud, everyone has been trying to get you to see the reality but obviously you never will even if it hit you upside the head.

If you are some how related to Cody, your loyalty is admirable......

Edited by Navyblue, 02 September 2012 - 06:04 PM.

  • 1
Posted Image

#237 King of the ES

King of the ES

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,272 posts
  • Joined: 27-May 12

Posted 02 September 2012 - 06:08 PM

A fair shot? He was a rookie in the stanley cup playoffs. You think his development was more important than the success of the team? He started the playoffs on the third line in an offensive role, and was put on the fourth line with less minutes because the line wasn't working. He wasn't ready for that role, yet.

Where did I draw a lasting conclusion? You claimed that his ineffective play was due to only playing 6 minutes a game, so I provided you with the information.


OK, so you're now saying that he wasn't ready. That is VERY different than saying that he was "ineffective". "Ineffective" assumes that he was ready and simply didn't produce.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that he wasn't ready, but I still a lot more potential upside, in a situation where we're in need of offense, to playing Hodgson versus playing Oreskovich.
  • 0

#238 Navyblue

Navyblue

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,199 posts
  • Joined: 31-December 10

Posted 02 September 2012 - 08:08 PM

Lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#239 Gollumpus

Gollumpus

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,736 posts
  • Joined: 01-July 10

Posted 03 September 2012 - 12:49 AM

OK, so you're now saying that he wasn't ready. That is VERY different than saying that he was "ineffective". "Ineffective" assumes that he was ready and simply didn't produce.

I don't necessarily disagree with you that he wasn't ready, but I still a lot more potential upside, in a situation where we're in need of offense, to playing Hodgson versus playing Oreskovich.



Hodgson was ineffective. If you wish to blame Hodgson's ineffectiveness on him being a rookie and therefore he wasn't "ready", then fine. It does not remove the fact that he was ineffective.


As we are discussing Hodgson, why are you trying to muddy the waters by bringing Oreskovich into the discussion? Oreskovich was on the team as a 4th liner, to play a physical role, something at which he was not as effective as was hoped, and certainly in a role in which Hodgson had no hope of competing.

Aside from him being ineffective in his physical play, Hodgson had not demonstrated any great capability at being a scoring or playmaking winger (certainly not at an NHL level). Had that been the case, I do believe he would have seen time in the finals on the 2nd or 3rd line, or even on the power play. One reason Hodgson didn't see any time on the wing was because of his poor defensive play. He was just too unreliable.

If you want to draw up a better comparison for discussion, of a guy in a similar role on the team you should look somewhere else. The bottom-6 centers on the team (other than Hodgson) were Lapierre, Malhotra and Bolduc. Argue that Hodgson should have played in place of those guys (even Bolduc played about a couple of minutes in game one of the finals). Point out that Hodgson's offensive potential should have earned him some ice time, regardless of his poor face-off results. Note that Hodgson had a greater chance to provide offense, even though he wasn't particularly fast, and that he was a defensive liability, and had no physicality in his game.

If you can't come up with a good reason that Hodgson should have played ahead of the other centers on the team, then you should find a better choice of winger that should have been dropped from the team in order to give Hodgson some playing time. Oreskovich and Glass were each (usually) only getting around 5 minutes a game and were not there to score. Sedin and Burrows were there to score, and did have a better history of point production, but if you want to argue that Hodgson should have played ahead of them, please do. The guys you should target for discussion are Higgins, Torres, Hansen, and Tambellini. They are the wingers whose ice time you would be taking away by putting Hodgson into the line up. Go to it.

regards,
G.

Edited by Gollumpus, 03 September 2012 - 12:58 AM.

  • 0
Following the Canucks since before Don Cherry played here.

#240 ilduce39

ilduce39

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,251 posts
  • Joined: 28-February 08

Posted 03 September 2012 - 02:35 AM

Can we stop whining about trading away an (at best) average 2nd line Center yet? Please?

...At least before we release Kassian?
  • 1
T-Bone said:
remind them all of Tbone, remeber me for how I lived, not how I was banned
*sig too big





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

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.