stanlee canuck 2011 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Would you, if you could .........? Keep Vancouvers ,, much more versatile, balanced team this year..and take the chance we get to next round? or Put C. Erhoff and Cody Hodgeson in sundays line up and the hell with Versatilaty.... I am curious to see ,who of you thinks we had a good thing and should have left well enough alone?? ty... nippertuzzi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Well enough alone? Erhoff left for a better contract offer. It happens. Cody (reportedly) wanted out. I'll take the team we've got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js604 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The so-called "versatility" put us in a 1-3 hole this year. I would go with the scoring team, like the one last year, which brought us to game 7 SCF. If AV wasn't so blind, Kesler should be moved to the wing, and Hodgson would be replacing him as 2nd line center to get some productivity going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teen Icarus Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The so-called "versatility" put us in a 1-3 hole this year. I would go with the scoring team, like the one last year, which brought us to game 7 SCF. If AV wasn't so blind, Kesler should be moved to the wing, and Hodgson would be replacing him as 2nd line center to get some productivity going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nino Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The so-called "versatility" put us in a 1-3 hole this year. I would go with the scoring team, like the one last year, which brought us to game 7 SCF. If AV wasn't so blind, Kesler should be moved to the wing, and Hodgson would be replacing him as 2nd line center to get some productivity going. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hank's Secret Sauce Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 The versatility has proven to work in the past, and it is debatable whether the third line with Hodgson would have even scored as much as our current third line thus far. It is the top-6 that is not scoring the way they can/should so far and IMO it is mostly on them (partially excusable because of Daniel's absence) and some defensemen who haven't performed at their level so that doesn't come down to the trade and, partially from the trade we are allowing less goals this year. I don't recall last year's bottom-6 scoring too much either so I don't think it's changed much, but is better defensively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 Rather have erhoff and Hodgson. Sacrificed Hodgson because we have Kesler. Has Kesler even done anything all year? We are on the verge of first round elimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
js604 Posted April 20, 2012 Share Posted April 20, 2012 To be fair, Daniel was hurt, so with our 'actual' versatile lineup, we are 1-0 in the playoffs. Imagine how LA would be doing without Brown or Kopitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DownUndaCanuck Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 I would rather see this: Sedin - Sedin - Burrows Booth - Kesler - Higgins Hansen - Hodgson - Raymond Lapierre - Malhotra - Bitz Edler - Ehrhoff Bieksa - Hamhuis Salo - Ballard Than this: Sedin - Sedin - Booth Burrows - Kesler - Higgins Hansen - Pahlsson - Lapierre Bitz - Malhotra - Raymond Edler - Salo Bieksa - Hamhuis Tanev - Ballard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter.S-Kerouac Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 couldn't afford the hoff and CoHo was invisible last playoffs why would he be the answer this year. In my opinion J schro had a better camp than CoHo did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Kassian MAY prove the needed toughness for the playoffs... in the future (he's surely not showing it now) but offensive punch is what it is; I'd like Cody's chances with that shot against Quick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Cow Disease Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 couldn't afford the hoff and CoHo was invisible last playoffs why would he be the answer this year. In my opinion J schro had a better camp than CoHo did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tragoedia Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 We can debate it to our faces are blue, but people who say that Hodgson was a sure bet for the playoffs and Kassian is a gamble are mistaken. I'll give you Kassian, as a prospect has potential risk of not paying off. But at the same time Hodgson had not proven to be playoff effective yet either. So there was still the risk of him not producing in the playoffs. This is combined with the fact that he was a defensive liability. Meaning, in tight scoring series, he would be high risk, not ideal for the 3rd line. On Buffalo, it was noted that in the final games, he made multiple bad decisions that led to goals against, costing the team. Now Sami Pahlsson, his REAL replacement, is a proven NHL top shutdown centreman who has won it all before, and has shown consistency for our team even this early. He can put it in the net at times, but not often. But his real plus is he's great in our end, and great as a forechecker. And I know the purpose of this post wasn't to discuss whether MG screwed up, but I have to point out anyways that we could not sign Erhoff for his asking price. It's sad but true. If we did we would have to have shed 1-2 of our players like Hansen, Lapierre, Higgins, or Edler. Sure, we have seen the effects of his loss. But I wouldn't want to see our team without one of those 4 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldnews Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Ehrhoff had a dismal SCFinal last year, Hodgson is a slow, small, not particularly gritty third line center who goes hot and cold - I like the chances better without them, and they aren't the kind of team guys the Canucks want to move forward with anyhow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Poor choice of words; Booth, Higgins, Raymond all were more versatile, because they had the option of playing with Hodgson to get their scoring touch back instead of playing with Kesler? Would you, if you could .........? Keep Vancouvers ,, much more versatile, balanced team this year..and take the chance we get to next round? or Put C. Erhoff and Cody Hodgeson in sundays line up and the hell with Versatilaty.... I am curious to see ,who of you thinks we had a good thing and should have left well enough alone?? ty... nippertuzzi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Hard not to like Burrows with the Twins. But lets face it; Booth on the top line equalizes a lot of size match up problems and adds a guy who drives the net. Plus Burrows puts a decent passer on the 2knd line. This is something we should be prepared to use more often? Danny/Hank/Booth Burrows/Kess/Higgins I would rather see this: Sedin - Sedin - Burrows Booth - Kesler - Higgins Hansen - Hodgson - Raymond Lapierre - Malhotra - Bitz Edler - Ehrhoff Bieksa - Hamhuis Salo - Ballard Than this: Sedin - Sedin - Booth Burrows - Kesler - Higgins Hansen - Pahlsson - Lapierre Bitz - Malhotra - Raymond Edler - Salo Bieksa - Hamhuis Tanev - Ballard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Hard not to like Burrows with the Twins. But lets face it; Booth on the top line equalizes a lot of size match up problems and adds a guy who drives the net. And Burrows puts a decent passer on the 2knd line. This is something we should be prepared to use more often? Danny/Hank/Booth Burrows/Kess/Higgins And if we could still take back THE trade? Even before the season I authored a Post suggesting; Danny/Hank/Kesler > This would have been (and will still be) a smashing line! Burrows/CoHo/Samuelsson In todays world; Danny/Hank/Kess Honestly, net presence, a bigger guy for match ups, speed > suddenly a two way line that get 20 extra goals! Burrows/CoHo/Booth Higgins/Pahlsson/Hansen Malhotra/Lapierre/Bitz 3rd and 4th line both dynamite stopper lines to take defensive and neutral draws! Seriously; whats missing with that line up????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuck Surfer Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Pahlsson replaced Malhotra not Hodgson. Why not Pahlsson/Manny/Bitz as a stopper 4th line? Boston beat us like that. Prior to the deadline we were as high as 3rd in GAA in the league with Malhotra taking defensive match ups from the 4th line. We had two scoring lines & two defensive lines. Now we have still have two defensive lines, one struggling offensive line & one with no identity which gets no ice time! How can anyone possibly argue the Hodgson trade has been good for us? We can debate it to our faces are blue, but people who say that Hodgson was a sure bet for the playoffs and Kassian is a gamble are mistaken. I'll give you Kassian, as a prospect has potential risk of not paying off. But at the same time Hodgson had not proven to be playoff effective yet either. So there was still the risk of him not producing in the playoffs. This is combined with the fact that he was a defensive liability. Meaning, in tight scoring series, he would be high risk, not ideal for the 3rd line. On Buffalo, it was noted that in the final games, he made multiple bad decisions that led to goals against, costing the team. Now Sami Pahlsson, his REAL replacement, is a proven NHL top shutdown centreman who has won it all before, and has shown consistency for our team even this early. He can put it in the net at times, but not often. But his real plus is he's great in our end, and great as a forechecker. And I know the purpose of this post wasn't to discuss whether MG screwed up, but I have to point out anyways that we could not sign Erhoff for his asking price. It's sad but true. If we did we would have to have shed 1-2 of our players like Hansen, Lapierre, Higgins, or Edler. Sure, we have seen the effects of his loss. But I wouldn't want to see our team without one of those 4 players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ice orca Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 How do think Hodgson would fare at center or on the wing on the 2nd line against the Blues or Preds? Fantasy dont work against those 2 teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigbadbob Posted April 21, 2012 Share Posted April 21, 2012 Pahlsson replaced Malhotra not Hodgson. Why not Pahlsson/Manny/Bitz as a stopper 4th line? Boston beat us like that. Prior to the deadline we were as high as 3rd in GAA in the league with Malhotra taking defensive match ups from the 4th line. We had two scoring lines & two defensive lines. Now we have still have two defensive lines, one struggling offensive line & one with no identity which gets no ice time! How can anyone possibly argue the Hodgson trade has been good for us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.