oldnews Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Not sure if Hamhuis will crack the top 6 of Team Canada but he has definitely played like a #1 defenceman during his time with the Canucks. probably locks: Weber, Keith, Doughty, Pietrangelo, Letang Hamhuis, Seabrook, Subban, Burns, Boyle, Girardi, Myers (depending on his progress) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I agree that Weber, Pietrangelo are probably Letang are locks - after that, I think Hamhius has as good a chance as anyone. Last year he put up 37 points and a second consecutive +29. Doughty had 36 points and -2. Keith had 40 and +15 (45 and -1 the year before). Seabrook - 34 points, +21. Subban 36 points, +9. Burns, Boyle, Girardi all comparable to these guys, but imo, the Hammer measures up favourably, especially considering his shut down role and that his scoring is largely unassisted by pp time nor being used in an offensive role. I think he could possibly even make the top 4, but has a really good shot at the top 6. Yes, I'm a homer - I think Hammer is still under-rated. The guy is smoooooooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I agree that Weber, Pietrangelo are probably Letang are locks - after that, I think Hamhius has as good a chance as anyone. Last year he put up 37 points and a second consecutive +29. Doughty had 36 points and -2. Keith had 40 and +15 (45 and -1 the year before). Seabrook - 34 points, +21. Subban 36 points, +9. Burns, Boyle, Girardi all comparable to these guys, but imo, the Hammer measures up favourably, especially considering his shut down role and that his scoring is largely unassisted by pp time nor being used in an offensive role. I think he could possibly even make the top 4, but has a really good shot at the top 6. Yes, I'm a homer - I think Hammer is still under-rated. The guy is smoooooooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The bolded and underlined words represent the most accurate statement that you've said on this site. There is simply no way that 32 year-old Dan Hamhuis will be on Canada's 2014 team. Doughty, Keith, and Seabrook are all younger, were all part of the gold medal winning team in 2010, and have all won Stanley Cups. Hamhuis does not match up. If 2010 is any indication, they'll also want to bring along some younger guys, so you've gotta think that besides the guys you've mentioned, Tyler Myers might get picked, MDZ, Marc Staal, maybe even Fowler. Heck, maybe even Justin Schultz... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Fowler is american, and Hamhuis > Schultz (Aswell as Hamhuis > Phaneuf) You can see why they would highly consider, Hamhuis is reliable in every situation, can be counted on in the biggest moments, makes the right plays all the time, and those things are the most important things to have as a defensemen because as you see with players like Phaneuf they have all the skill but lack those things and it makes them underachieve. (Then aswell Hammer also has the physical skills to back those things up and maximize those skills to the highest level) I think they would choose Myers over him and some other guys but if they need a rock back there who they can count on to be solid (Much like the WJ team did with the Wotherspoon pick) Hamhuis would be that guy. And that's something they would take under heavy consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sampy Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Hamhuis is a good defenceman, he's not Team Canada material at the Olympic level. You could make the argument that he's anywhere between the 1 - 3 defenceman on the Vancouver Canucks. "Reliable in every situation" makes you a well-rounded player - Aaron Rome was also reliable in every situation - it does not make you an Olympian. He's not better than Dion Phaneuf. Look at their careers. Dion Phaneuf is also the captain of the Toronto Maple Leafs. Laugh at that all you want, it means something. Oldnews - the self-professed "homer" - is kidding himself if he thinks Phaneuf would actually be Vancouver's 5th defenceman, an utterly ridiculous notion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King of the ES Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Phaneuf is not as good as Hamhuis as a player or character. Also, why would Sutter give him up for a bag of pucks if he is so good. The reason is because he isn't a team player and makes big defensive blunders. Anything you have to say about Sutter he can't hear you with his Cup ring plugging his ear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The bolded and underlined words represent the most accurate statement that you've said on this site. There is simply no way that 32 year-old Dan Hamhuis will be on Canada's 2014 team. Doughty, Keith, and Seabrook are all younger, were all part of the gold medal winning team in 2010, and have all won Stanley Cups. Hamhuis does not match up. If 2010 is any indication, they'll also want to bring along some younger guys, so you've gotta think that besides the guys you've mentioned, Tyler Myers might get picked, MDZ, Marc Staal, maybe even Fowler. Heck, maybe even Justin Schultz... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Would rather not get into a huge debate about this again. I'll just suggest that if you want a more representative answer of who the better player is, go ask fans of Edmonton who they'd rather have on their team, if they could sign either guy for identical money and term today. Go ask Ranger fans. Habs fans. Blackhawk fans. Whatever. I would be shocked if anybody but the Canuck fan chose Hamhuis. He's just not as good. Look at their career history. One guy has accomplished far more than the other, at a younger age. And out of curiosity, do you think Manny Malhotra is also better than Joe Thornton? Thornton was traded to San Jose for a bag of pucks, which couldn't be due to a management error, could it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
70seven Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I agree with the King on this one. Phanuef is much more of an impact player, whether its a big hit or a big goal, he is a momentum changer. Hamhuis is a stabelizer. A steady player who maintains and evens out, but will not necessarily change the coarse of a game. Instead, he helps that game changer become more effective. Both players are effective, but Phaneuf is a rarer commodity, and I dont think there would be many GMs in the league to take Hamhuis over Phaneuf, as Hamhius' role would be easier to replace. Would you rather have Marc Stall or PK Subban? Gary Suter or Shea Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Combined, the Luongo trade threads are now 322 pages; 322 pages of pure passion from fans about the best goaltender to play for the Canucks. I'd say he's staying and fans, media and the organization will work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I agree with the King on this one. Phanuef is much more of an impact player, whether its a big hit or a big goal, he is a momentum changer. Hamhuis is a stabelizer. A steady player who maintains and evens out, but will not necessarily change the coarse of a game. Instead, he helps that game changer become more effective. Both players are effective, but Phaneuf is a rarer commodity, and I dont think there would be many GMs in the league to take Hamhuis over Phaneuf, as Hamhius' role would be easier to replace. Would you rather have Marc Stall or PK Subban? Gary Suter or Shea Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riviera82 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 You don't build a team based on one year stats. Like the stock market, one studies a particular company for its 10 year record. Again and again, I think I understand what you're saying since that's all you're saying: last year's stats are sub par. Yes. I understand. Last year's stats are sub par. Sub par, are last year's stats. I do understand this. Thanks to you Smurf47, who keeps mentioning it every three post you post. There is no guarantee in Schneider whereas there is a guarantee with Luongo; the Canucks make the playoffs. Despite your forty years experience in the technicality of goaltending, you seem to have forgotten the revolving door of the 80's, 90's and early 00's regarding goaltending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Also agre with King. Once fans take out their homer glasses, they'll agree with you too. Very well said: Phaneuf is an impact player while Hamhuis is a stabilizer. This is why I believe Hamhuis is not a 1D but a 2D; 1Ds change the game on a dime. None of the Canucks defensemen do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smurf47 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007. There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 What is your theory regarding Luongo's playoff stats? Those have been mediocre every year after 2007. There is also no guarantee with Luongo. We didn't make the playoffs in 2008 and we weren't even that close. Why was he not able to put the Panthers on his back even just one time and bring them to the playoffs in all the years he was there? No guarantees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Theres a big difference between wishing and thinking. 101 does a lot of wishing and not near enough thinking to be taken seriously about Luongo. He has never responded to the slam on Lou during the playoffs ! Disregards both the facts and the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashian Kassian Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 I agree with the King on this one. Phanuef is much more of an impact player, whether its a big hit or a big goal, he is a momentum changer. Hamhuis is a stabelizer. A steady player who maintains and evens out, but will not necessarily change the coarse of a game. Instead, he helps that game changer become more effective. Both players are effective, but Phaneuf is a rarer commodity, and I dont think there would be many GMs in the league to take Hamhuis over Phaneuf, as Hamhius' role would be easier to replace. Would you rather have Marc Stall or PK Subban? Gary Suter or Shea Weber? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canucks_Hockey_101 Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 The problem with Phaneuf is he creates as much negative momentum as he does positive momentum. And also you don't rely on your #1 defensemen to be a momentum changer, that can be left to the bottom 6 forwards or ever top 6 forwards, you rely on your #1 defensemen to play in everysituation, play well and make the right plays. Someone you can count on to do the right thing when the game matters the most. And that means Hamhuis > Phaneuf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pears Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Combined, the Luongo trade threads are now 322 pages; 322 pages of pure passion from fans about the best goaltender to play for the Canucks. I'd say he's staying and fans, media and the organization will work it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.