Jump to content

Welcome to canucks.com Vancouver Canucks homepage

Photo
* * - - - 7 votes

Lets talk about Dan Hamhuis


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#1 Bertuzzipunch

Bertuzzipunch

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 956 posts
  • Joined: 09-November 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:43 AM

I like Dan and have liked him since signing here but lets be honest, his play this year has been downright horrible.

A lot of you are talking about Garrisons play so far but its Hamhuis who has been with us for years is who we should be asking wtf is going on.

Never been a PP guy really in his career so why was he on the PP for so long(thank god ryan is back). Sick of seeing his floater shot from the point which 95% of the time gets blocked and never ever gets through to the net. His defensive coverage has been awful as well. His worst season as a pro and i for one is pretty sick of it.

Lets hope for a better rest of the season because we need him to play better now and in the playoffs.

Edited by Bertuzzipunch, 18 February 2013 - 02:44 AM.

  • 2

Posted Image


#2 Mr.DirtyDangles

Mr.DirtyDangles

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,877 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:46 AM

Suuuuuure o.O
  • 0

bmw-e30-m3-drift-o.gif

On weekends, to let off steam, I participate in full-contact origami :ph34r:


#3 Pineapples

Pineapples

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,695 posts
  • Joined: 15-June 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:50 AM

Almost all of our D has been disappointing.

Ballard and Tanev for top pairing anyone?
  • 2

Pineapple_jumps.gifPineapple_jumps.gif

 


#4 Baggins

Baggins

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,948 posts
  • Joined: 30-July 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:53 AM

I like Dan and have liked him since signing here but lets be honest, his play this year has been downright horrible.

A lot of you are talking about Garrisons play so far but its Hamhuis who has been with us for years is who we should be asking wtf is going on.

Never been a PP guy really in his career so why was he on the PP for so long(thank god ryan is back). Sick of seeing his floater shot from the point which 95% of the time gets blocked and never ever gets through to the net. His defensive coverage has been awful as well. His worst season as a pro and i for one is pretty sick of it.

Lets hope for a better rest of the season because we need him to play better now and in the playoffs.


Haven't you read the other thread? All the Canucks defensive problems are Garrison/Bieksa.

Hamhuis hasn't been as good this season, but then neither has Edler. They individually have as many (or more) points than any other two d-men combined and yet they are both the only d-men in the minus category. What does that say? Well according that other thread, it says Garrison and Bieksa suck. lol
  • 0
Posted Image

#5 SamiSalo

SamiSalo

    K-Wing Regular

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 49 posts
  • Joined: 03-September 08

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:04 AM

He's a great defenceman and we are lucky to have him. End of discussion.
  • 0

#6 Smashian Kassian

Smashian Kassian

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,166 posts
  • Joined: 10-June 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:08 AM

*
POPULAR

He's not in his groove. But I'm not too worried, he hasn't made glaring mistakes like the others have.

Although Garrison gets alot of unwarranted hate, his play has really been coming around the last few games. I thought he played really well tonight.
  • 5

zackass.png


#7 n00bxQb

n00bxQb

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,917 posts
  • Joined: 05-July 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:12 AM

8-3-3 while missing 2/6 of our Top 6 forwards for the first 12 games and coming off a 9-month break ... and we still have fans complaining that guys aren't playing well enough ...

He's rusty and playing with a new D partner.
  • 0

#8 cIutch

cIutch

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,285 posts
  • Joined: 13-April 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:29 AM

i watched the highlights and im pretty sure tanev and ballard were on the ice for two goals against

so expect the top 4 with more minutes vs chicago

Edited by cIutch, 18 February 2013 - 03:30 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image

#9 pwnstar

pwnstar

    Canucks Second-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,311 posts
  • Joined: 20-January 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 04:04 AM

Better 8-3-3 than 3-11-0
  • 0

Posted Image


#10 Rounoush

Rounoush

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,104 posts
  • Joined: 19-October 10

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:45 AM

Are we watching the same games at all?! Hamhuis has been fine, and I for really like him the offensive zone and think he is tremendously underrated there. Get your head checked, son.
  • 1
Posted Image
Thanks a bunch to khalifawiz501 for the signature.

#11 cc_devil

cc_devil

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 813 posts
  • Joined: 26-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:10 AM

Better 8-3-3 than 3-11-0


If it weren't for a weak Northwest division their record would be closer to 3-11-0.
  • 3

#12 Clinch16

Clinch16

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 448 posts
  • Joined: 22-April 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 07:47 AM

If I wait a bit, the list of players who haven't been shredded in a thread today will be clearer and then I can pick one for myself.
  • 0
Posted Image

#13 Peaches

Peaches

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,436 posts
  • Joined: 03-February 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 08:52 AM

Hamhuis was bad when the season started.

Since then he has greatly improved.
  • 0

2qn360i.jpg

Feminism will be outlawed. Mostly because it's a backwards idiotic viewpoint that doesn't serve any real progressive purpose.

Credit to -Vintage Canuck-


#14 higgyfan

higgyfan

    Canucks Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,552 posts
  • Joined: 15-July 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:44 AM

Canuck fans need to be more patient. The team is making adjustments, adding new players and shaking off a long off season. They just need to be in the top 8 at the end of regs. Remember how bad the Kings were last year? The focus is on getting the team ready for the playoffs. I would rather see them playing their best games towards the end of the season and into the playoffs.
  • 0

#15 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:54 AM

i watched the highlights and im pretty sure tanev and ballard were on the ice for two goals against

so expect the top 4 with more minutes vs chicago

They were on for the first goal (by Oshie) but it was Hamhuis and Edler on for the last two. [link]

Ballard and Tanev get easier opposition, and a little less minutes as a result. They wouldn't look as good if they faced the higher quality of competition that the other pairings do.

But just as I said in the Edler thread, are we going to make one of these for everyone? They've all made mistakes that need to get corrected and we need them to be more consistent before we get into playoff mode.
  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#16 D-Money

D-Money

    Canucks Franchise Player

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,791 posts
  • Joined: 14-February 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 09:58 AM

Dan the Ham has been shaking off the rust. Overall, he's probably been our most solid defenseman in the last half-dozen games.

That "tripping" penalty on Stewart last night was simply one of the worst calls I've ever seen. Hammer didn't even bend over a little. Absolute GARBAGE.
  • 0
Posted Image

#17 wallstreetamigo

wallstreetamigo

    Canucks Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,456 posts
  • Joined: 01-April 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:05 AM

Ballard and Tanev get easier opposition, and a little less minutes as a result. They wouldn't look as good if they faced the higher quality of competition that the other pairings do.


Wouldn't this also mean the other pairings would look better against this supposed lesser competition too then? How do we know that Ballard and Tanev would look worse with more minutes against better competition? Have the coaches actually tried that to find out? No.

This type of elitist sense of entitlement for Bieksa, hamhuis, and Edler even when they play like crap is why this team will win nothing in the playoffs.........sometimes you have to trust that guys have earned a bigger chance like Ballard and Tanev had rather than somehow suggest they are ONLy taking advantage of weak competition.
  • 1

#18 Bananas

Bananas

    Canucks First-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,025 posts
  • Joined: 27-August 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:10 AM

Hamhuis's defensive play has been solid, but unfortunately for him, he doesn't get to play with Ballard or Tanev.

If there is a slight regression in Hamhuis's play, it's completely unnoticeable in contrast to Edler, Bieksa, and Garrison.
  • 0
Hey CDC! Remember this!?

http://forum.canucks...in-this-change/

#19 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,401 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:11 AM

If it weren't for a weak Northwest division their record would be closer to 3-11-0.

This is not correct. Somebody did a big thing up last year showing how many points division leaders had gotten from their division. Percentage wise it was pretty close throughout the 6 divisions.

The idea that Vancouver is only good because of a weak division is a weak argument. Certainly they get points out of the NW but it's not as if they wouldn't make the playoffs because of it.Bottom line is they pulled points out of every other division as well.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 18 February 2013 - 10:40 AM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#20 WonderTwinPowers

WonderTwinPowers

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 760 posts
  • Joined: 24-June 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 10:15 AM

I miss the days when we used to just support our players that sacrifice for us fans, instead of ripping on them after 10 or so bad games...

Oh wait I live in Vancouver and its never been like that... Nvm
  • 0

#21 RFK

RFK

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 137 posts
  • Joined: 25-April 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:17 PM

This is not correct. Somebody did a big thing up last year showing how many points division leaders had gotten from their division. Percentage wise it was pretty close throughout the 6 divisions.

The idea that Vancouver is only good because of a weak division is a weak argument. Certainly they get points out of the NW but it's not as if they wouldn't make the playoffs because of it.Bottom line is they pulled points out of every other division as well.


Good memory, I recall that post. That's exactly right. If anything, the Canucks generally have some difficulty eking out points against divisional rivals (no matter how much they are struggling in the standings).
  • 0
"This is, without a doubt, the most inconvenient war in history!"

-Charles Emerson Winchester III

#22 elvis15

elvis15

    Canucks Hall-of-Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,516 posts
  • Joined: 27-February 07

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:38 PM

Wouldn't this also mean the other pairings would look better against this supposed lesser competition too then? How do we know that Ballard and Tanev would look worse with more minutes against better competition? Have the coaches actually tried that to find out? No.

This type of elitist sense of entitlement for Bieksa, hamhuis, and Edler even when they play like crap is why this team will win nothing in the playoffs.........sometimes you have to trust that guys have earned a bigger chance like Ballard and Tanev had rather than somehow suggest they are ONLy taking advantage of weak competition.

Yes, it would, but they don't face the lesser competition as often, Ballard and Tanev do. It's not by accident, there's a reason for that.

As far as how do we know Ballard and Tanev would look worse against better competition, it's not fully provable unless they are tried that way, and we can only reference times when they have been. And that's just it, they have been, since they do see better players occasionally since you can't always control the match ups on the ice at all times (icing, away games, etc.). It's hard to filter out the stats against those match ups though since they aren't tracked at such a granular level. We can rely somewhat on what has been happening with their playing time and who they face based on if that's changed over time:

Feb 2nd QoC
Ballard -0.3
Tanev -0.6

Today's QoC
Ballard -0.5
Tanev -0.5
I've rounded to one decimal point in both cases as I don't have the exact figures from Feb 2

If the coaches felt they were more capable and really playing better than the other pairings, they'd get played more often against all types of players regardless of how good they are, or their time would be more specifically against better players. Their quality of competition wouldn't stay roughly the same or decrease if they were being used as more reliable defenders. Tanev's has improved but Ballard's has actually gone down so overall that pairing has faced similar to lesser competition in the past two weeks.

EDIT: I actually don't remember if I used Corsi Rel QoC for the Feb 2 data or regular Corsi QoC, but I used the Corsi Rel QoC for today's stats. If I had used the regular QoC originally, it would look way worse as a comparison so I think I'd used the relative stats.

Also, since this is a Hamhuis thread, I should have included his results:

Feb 2: +1.0
Today: +0.6

So he's faced tougher competition than Ballard and Tanev (as you'd expect being a shutdown guy) but that's gotten a little easier in the past two weeks. In fact everyone's QoC has gotten easier as some of the teams we've been facing have been easier overall and we've worked hard to limit chances that factor into Corsi.

Edited by elvis15, 18 February 2013 - 01:46 PM.

  • 0

c3c9e9.pnganimalhousesig.jpg

Tanev is going to EDM. I can put my life savings down on it

 


#23 RyanKeslord17

RyanKeslord17

    Canucks First-Line

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,895 posts
  • Joined: 22-January 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:39 PM

Normally I would agree but honestly, why are we even here discussing the bad of our players? WHAT'S THE POINT? It's not like they'll play better or something.

Just sit back, relax, and cheer for your team.
You win some, you lose some.
  • 0
Posted Image

#24 derr12

derr12

    Comets Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 225 posts
  • Joined: 02-October 11

Posted 18 February 2013 - 01:49 PM

I like that he was the only one with the balls to run over that a-hole (whos name evades me atm) who was ???? with may-ray last night at the faceoff. Hansen shoulda gone to the other side and had a little conversation. Thought they probably should have turned the other cheek on the penalty tho. Hey if you cant even manage the game in the faceoff dot, don't bother when its only barely interferance.

anywho, right, hammer... He hasnt been spectaular, but his image of perfection has been tarnished since he lost us the LA series last year with a zone clear fumble. All in all I like his play.
  • 0

#25 meh_wassup

meh_wassup

    Comets Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 564 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 02:26 PM

He has not played well at all this season but he hasn't been our worst D-man either. On the powerplay I'll take him over Edler any day of the week and twice on Sunday. At least he actually shoots and tries to get the goalie to make a save. Edler tries to QB the pp thinking he's the next Bobby Orr. He has one of the hardest shots on the team yet he still goes for the Sedin-like passes. The dude's playing on the 1st unit with the Sedins he needs to leave the setting to them and take a damn shot every once in a while for pete's sake. And that drop pass continues to drive me insane. I just wanna get at him and jump him whenever I see it on my TV. I don't know if it's him or Newell Brown who never learns but either way somebody should get a talking to. Anyways, that's me airing out my anger towards Edler.

EDIT: In hindsight, this probably should've went in the Edler thread lol

Edited by meh_wassup, 18 February 2013 - 02:27 PM.

  • 0

Charlotte-McKinney-21-155x160.jpg


#26 fwybwed

fwybwed

    Canucks Rookie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,945 posts
  • Joined: 13-January 03

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:53 PM

I have been hating on "The Hammer" for a while now. I don't like the fact he avoids taking hits even if it means giving the puck away on some lame azz chip ahead {Erhoff}... He just wont take a hit. He is not very big..and is easily pushed around. He is usually on the ice when scored against. Not always but most of the time.

I have been on this guy since he gave up the puck in the POs last year because he failed at our blue line..he is just not worth the money he gets...
  • 0

#27 NP-4815162342

NP-4815162342

    Comets Regular

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • Joined: 20-April 12

Posted 18 February 2013 - 03:59 PM

Edler has been the worst in my opinion
  • 0

#28 Barry_Wilkins

Barry_Wilkins

    Canucks Prospect

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,471 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

This is not correct. Somebody did a big thing up last year showing how many points division leaders had gotten from their division. Percentage wise it was pretty close throughout the 6 divisions.

The idea that Vancouver is only good because of a weak division is a weak argument. Certainly they get points out of the NW but it's not as if they wouldn't make the playoffs because of it.Bottom line is they pulled points out of every other division as well.


That might have been me.

It's a totally ridiculous, knee-jerk argument about being in a weaker division. Point improvement over an 82 game season would equal about 6 or 8. Factor in Vancouver's league-leading travel miles (this year) and I'd say that the point differential evens out, at best.

As to Hamhuis, he's been been steadily getting better every game. Some players need more time than others after a 9 month break. No big deal. I'm not worried about him at all, never have been.
  • 0

#29 EmployeeoftheMonth

EmployeeoftheMonth

    Canucks All-Star

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,401 posts
  • Joined: 04-September 06

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:26 PM

That might have been me.

It's a totally ridiculous, knee-jerk argument about being in a weaker division. Point improvement over an 82 game season would equal about 6 or 8. Factor in Vancouver's league-leading travel miles (this year) and I'd say that the point differential evens out, at best.

As to Hamhuis, he's been been steadily getting better every game. Some players need more time than others after a 9 month break. No big deal. I'm not worried about him at all, never have been.


I believe it was you actually. I just remember standings being posted taking out all division games and vancouver was still top 3 in the nhll iirc.

It was an excellent post and shut up most of the people whining about vancouvers success.

Edited by EmployeeoftheMonth, 18 February 2013 - 06:27 PM.

  • 0
Posted Image
Posted Image

#30 MikeyBoy44

MikeyBoy44

    Canucks Third-Line

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,006 posts
  • Joined: 02-March 09

Posted 18 February 2013 - 06:28 PM

Almost all of our D has been disappointing.

Ballard and Tanev for top pairing anyone?

If you'd have asked me a year ago if this would be plausible I'd say you're out of your tree. Who knew.
  • 0
Posted Image




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.