Speaking of Old News who has bought all that propaganda? I enjoyed watching Hodgson and wish people would stop bad mouthing him. If we were propping him up, it just seemed a good coaching move to be putting an offensive player in offensive situations when the Twins and Kesler were struggling. And when he was playing well in january, we also had our best win streak of the year. Ah, never mind...
Ok there, ye who exclaims:
"Hodgson, you look so very pretty!"
You can call the stats "propaganda" if you want. It's funny how some people here love to complain about Vigneault and Gillis, endlessly, yet object so strongly to bringing up Hodgson's corsi stats, his plus/minus, the contexts in which he was successful... So you are in love with Cody Hodgson, and therefore that analysis is 'propaganda' to you... what I referenced were facts like Hodgson, while getting more offensive than defensive zone starts, had a -6.8 relative corsi - while his linemates - Hansen had 40.4% off zone and yet a better rel corsi nevertheless, and Higgins had 46.6% and a positive rel corsi. It makes perfect sense to use a player in situations that serve and take advantage of their strengths. For all the criticisim, in the end AV had been using Hodgson in a very appropriate way, and in as many situations as possible given his strengths. All the whining that he wasn't getting enough ice-time however, were very short sighted.
I also pointed out that Pahlsson, while an obvious shutdown guy, had 6 points in 19 games and a +4 against quality competition, while Hodgson had 8 points in 20 games and a -7 after the trade. People here maintain endlessly what a disaster these deals were, how terrible that decision was going into the playoffs, and yet the reality doesn't reflect anything resembing that. Where is the 'propaganda' exactly? I can see why people who can't let go, can't accept that Hodgson was traded, are so resistant to hockey analysis - it gets in the way of their sentimental fantasies about how important the young player was to the Canucks. He was a rookie - he is not yet a player who can handle the NHL game in his own end of the ice - he has great offensive skills with the puck on his stick - but he is and was not ready to be the force that some people were expecting. It's remarkable how much saviour status was put on his shoulder - he wasn't going to make a difference in last year's playoffs. It was much more likely that, as he did in Buffalo, he'd struggle significantly facing the type of matchups he would have in a series like the Canucks faced against the Kings. I think the real reason people respond so emotionally and defensively to these discussions of Hodgson's actual game is because they had put all their wholesale eggs in this faith that he was The Answer. Give it up folks - you can still love Hodgson all you want, but it's a done deal, and the reasoning behind it, even if there had been no additional controversies, made perfect sense.
Edited by oldnews, 20 November 2012 - 03:26 PM.