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.
That there was an element of truth in it still does not excuse it from being propoganda.
It was only when Gillis was getting roasted in the media and in public opinion (a time no politician ever engages in anything resembling media manipulation?) it was put out there that Hodgson's numbers were pumped up to increase his trade value. As he then got slaughtered he further threw CoHo under the bus saying (paraphrasing) that Hodgson was more trouble over three years than all the other players put together. No question Gillis was covering himself and he did not look good doing it.
It's not cool speaking down to people, even though your opinions are educated and have some substance behind them; your arguments still paint that anyone who writes on Hodgson is blind and perhaps a blithering idiot??? Oh you tree huggers, oh you CoHo lovers. Me, I said I enjoyed his play and thought he was helping us. And how many posts do you see buying wholesale as fact that Hodgson's numbers having been completely pumped up? Propoganda works...
I painted that he was being used in a role he could add offense, was helping the team and that it was perhaps good coaching. Something you appear to be softening to below. And I believe that is an excellent assesment. No he was not ready to replace Hank, nor Kesler (even injured) and needed the right grooming to round out parts of his game which were weak. But I've also seen him painted a liability and a poor player. Regardless of being a lover or hater, that he still needs work on the rest of his game to increase his role is a bottom line fair statement!
I'm a business manager. I also don't buy Gillis had to cave to a rookie's whining. Hodgson had a contract and still gets paid to do a job. "Shut up and play the best minutes we can give you and work on your defense" when push comes to shove! I'm in the camp that believes the trade was a mistake if we also wanted to win last year.
So that still does not resolve the question of timing. Pahlsson and a partially hobbled Kesler sharing defensive minutes with CoHo given mop up minutes would have been fine with me. He had a habit of breaking games in our favour. That might have been a better thing against L.A. than what we iced???
All those Corsi stats mean little in comparison to a game breaking talent. Hodgson, while not as effective as Hansen or others defensively was also not couphing up the puck or blowing games for us. Quite the opposite. You do not trade him just cause he's whining.
But forward to post 1384 again;
You were responding to If Kesler was really injured to the point we knew he would not be that effective... , if even CoHo knew it, then so did MG and AV. Your point was "show what a team guy he is by respecting the veterans and thriving in his role, and take advantage of the particular situation!" That is a perfect and fair sentiment.
But if Kess were injured? Well, maybe that would be real logic for a mini re-build (such as trading CoHo) because really our odd's of winning without Kesler at his best were not great. And it may have been dangerous to rebuild around a whiner. Unfortunately, you cannot tell the public that you have given up on the season? I, FTR, was never a guy who said Pahlsson was a failure or played poorly. I personally think it's possible he was brought in to make the public believe we were actually doing everything possible to win. Pahlsson was a propoganda statement to mask a mini re-build?
And I still think Gillis had no business throwing all that junk out there. Nor are you completely on base calling Hodgson a wash out based on Corsi when he had a knack for getting teamates going (at times Kesler could not) & a slapshot that can be blown past some of the world's best goalies!
As I said earlier; lets just hope Kassian now add's the physical elements we need to pay off Gillis's move!
Hey, for fun; how far back does Corsi go? Not that Coho would ever get that good, but I doubt a guy like Brett Hull would have had a good Corsi, particularly when he was young?
I agree with you - and in reality, the Canucks simply were not going to go on a run to the Stanley Cup with Daniel injured and Kesler hobbling - wishful thinking.
I also thought and still think Hodgson was and is a great young player - star at the WJC - and he has some serious upside - but as a rookie at his stage of development, he was essentially a role player - and all the over-rating and accolades were premature. AV was actually nailing it in terms of optimizing how he was used. That is not simply a "pump and dump" thing - it is what good coaches do, in the interests of the team and that player. He was very good in the 13 minutes he was getting, in appropriate situations - but he wasn't ready to take on a larger role, he doesn't have the two-way game to stand on it's own, and all the Gallagherian whining (and Hodgson's agent's whisper campaign) about his underutilization was pretty annoying.
Edited by Canuck Surfer, 22 November 2012 - 03:31 PM.