Sharpshooter Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hamhuis playing with anyone, the other guy looks good. Bieksa playing with anyone else other than Hamhuis, Bieksa looks horrendous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thehamburglar Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 I'd choose six Hamhuis' over six Bieksas, but they're both great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Aerosex Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa's got more offensive skill, is grittier, and can be more of a game-changing player. But his defence isn't on par with Hammer's and he isn't nearly as consistent. If I could only pick one, I'd take the defensive stalwart Dan Hamhuis, just because he's so consistent and defensively sound. But I think people give Bieksa way more crap than he deserves. When he's off, boy is he off. But for the most part, he's an all-around great defenceman, and when he plays with passion and poise he is a force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c00kies Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 yes blame the whole series lost on Hammer. can't blame a whole series lost on one play and one player. Judging by how the rest of the playoffs went I'd say it wouldn't have mattered either way... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dancin'Droid Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 It really depends on who else is part of the defense. If the defense is more defensive mind I would pick Bieksa and vis versa for Hammer on a offensive team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griff Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hamhuis is by far the better of the two. They both have a few bad moments once in awhile but Danny is far more consistant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NP-4815162342 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa is better offensively and hamhuis is better defensively Bieksa needs hamhuis and hamhuis needs bieksa to be better players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NP-4815162342 Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa is better offensively and hamhuis is better defensively Bieksa needs hamhuis and hamhuis needs bieksa to be better players Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hammer defensively, Bieksa offensively. But Hammer is better offensively than Bieksa is defensively, so Hammer's the better one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaku Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 They both need each other to play their own game Bieksa is better offensively than Hamhuis, and Hamhuis is better defensively than Bieksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tragoedia Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hamhuis is the rock on our blueline, Bieksa is the hammer. Together they form a good pairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peaches Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa-Hamhuis = Bieksa-Edler = Bieksa-Ballard = Juice needs hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caboose Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa-Hamhuis = Bieksa-Edler = Bieksa-Ballard = Juice needs hammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nuck nit Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hamhuis can play for weeks without a breakdown or miscalculation that costs the Canucks. Do I need to go on...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UFCanuck Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Bieksa is tougher and a better fighter. Hamhuis is smooth and is our #1 defenseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hamhuis is on my short list of the best bang for your buck among NHL defensemen. There are bigger names, bigger hitters, bigger shots, bigger egos, with bigger contracts, but they aren't any better than Hammer. He is smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shazzam Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 there is no contest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bodee Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 KB3 has the FIRE! and at the end of the day folks, as anyone who has played a team game at a decent level will tell you, that is often what makes the difference. Anyway I don't buy this Hamhuis is a better defender no more than Bieksa is a better offensive player. They are both there to do what they do best and to fit their game to what the team requires. I have no doubt that if Bieksa was asked to concentrate mainly on D he would match Hamhuis and vice versa. As I say the only difference I see is that one is more equipped to light up the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brodeur Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Which one is better? Let's see.. #2 or #3 Well.. #3 is better than #2 since it's a larger quantity while #2 is just toilet s**t. Wait, if #3 has more quantity than #2, that's even worse. I'll take #2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted September 15, 2012 Share Posted September 15, 2012 Hammer is clearly the more important of the two... Edler vs Bieksa is a touch harder; probably Edler but how do we replace thatnarly toughness? But I'm measuring more important, not better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.