Gary Roberts Calls Mike Gillis A 'moron' For Comments About Hodgson

[oldnews]

Roberts didn't really engage in any of the context... (like Hodgson himself...postures all the 'high ground' he wants, he has entirely avoided the context and the issues...)....and from Roberts, a mere 'are you kidding? you're a moron'... not a comment that gains him any credibility, not really a comment worth engaging with... conveniently lacking context. Adds nothing of substance.

[tiredatwork]

I share your concerns in this matter. Regarding the trade, did it help the Canucks now? Nope. Will it help in the future? I think it will.

From what I was seeing of the team at the time, I don't see that keeping Hodgson was going to help the team win this year.

Might Hodgson have scored a couple of goals, and set up a couple more? Probably.

Would it have been enough to turn the tide? Nope. Maybe the series ends in six rather than five. As you noted, it takes a bunch of players playing well, together. If the team was playing well, it was individually. If they were all on the same page, then they were on different paragraphs.

regards,

G.

[Gollumpus]

but if the series goes to 6, we might still be playing. I believe MG's responsibility is to put the best players in place to give us a chance to succeed. Obviously we'll never know if he would have been enough, but would we have been a better, more dynamic team with CoHo? Absolutely. You can't discount a mistake by saying we wouldn't have won anyway.

Thinking long term with our current roster was a poor decision. bottom line.

[Canuck Surfer]

Your a pretty fair poster; but I do disagree (with you and Gillis) on whether we put the best players on the ice. Yes, you bet they made a conscious decision to return to a third line as a shutdown line. It may have been intended to be 2-2, but wasn't.

And if you asked Hodgson to be the physical defensive center it would have been a disaster.

But what we should have done is employed the 4th line as one defensive line just as we did all year.

Burrows/Hank/Lapierre

Booth/Kesler/Raymond

Higgins/Hodgson/Hansen

Manny/Pahlsson/Bitz or Weise

All year we had the 4th line playing good minutes, with Manny taking all the primary defensive draws and Kesler the secondary. That was your two defensive lines, it worked and we were top 4 in goals against. It would not have bothered me if the 4th played just as much as the triple H 3rd line.

Once Hodgson was traded it became 1-2 & none. The plan, for all its good intentions, did not work.

Also Regards

In my opinion, for the type of hockey they wanted to play, Gillis did put the best players in place, and Hodgson was not one of them. There was a desire to return to the 2 - 2 system which AV prefers, and with the addition of Pahlsson it was deemed as being the better option.

I believe Hodgson would have been knocked off the puck, and out-skated by the LA forwards. He would not have made enough of a difference to keep the Canucks in the playoffs. If he had Jordan Staal kind of size then it would have been a different story. And if he was played ahead of Kesler, then we would have seen how vulnerable Hodgson's game is as the LA checking would have moved from Kesler to him. So, the Canucks would then have had limited scoring potential from Kesler (due to injury), and no scoring potential from Hodgson (due to increased checking attention).

Since Hodgson was not going to make a difference, I don't see it being a problem that Kassian saw limited ice time or was in the pressbox.

regards,

G.

[js604]

In my opinion, for the type of hockey they wanted to play, Gillis did put the best players in place, and Hodgson was not one of them. There was a desire to return to the 2 - 2 system which AV prefers, and with the addition of Pahlsson it was deemed as being the better option.

I believe Hodgson would have been knocked off the puck, and out-skated by the LA forwards. He would not have made enough of a difference to keep the Canucks in the playoffs. If he had Jordan Staal kind of size then it would have been a different story. And if he was played ahead of Kesler, then we would have seen how vulnerable Hodgson's game is as the LA checking would have moved from Kesler to him. So, the Canucks would then have had limited scoring potential from Kesler (due to injury), and no scoring potential from Hodgson (due to increased checking attention).

Since Hodgson was not going to make a difference, I don't see it being a problem that Kassian saw limited ice time or was in the pressbox.

regards,

G.

[MoneypuckOverlord]

Cody Hodgson wouldn't have made a difference for the Vancouver Canucks against the Kings. I am going by the fact, Quick was playing good enough, that it was really difficult for any of out players to score on him.

Also they way Cody was performing with Buffalo as a 2nd line player. Yes he got what he dreamed of, what he wanted the most! The ice time he thought he deserved, Lindy Ruff gave him those ice time, and he failed miserably to be productive player for the buffalo sables. Not only was he not producing as a top 6 player, he was also a liability to the team, as he an awful -7 though 20 games.

http://canucks.nhl.com/club/player.htm?id=8474570&season=20112012&view=gamelog

You guys see what I see! Holy crap! Look at his ice time in comparison to his ice time in Vancouver ! Hell he had more ice time then guys like David Booth and Higgins. Buffalo was better off with their previous 2nd line centerman, it's hilarious, I'm gonna conclude by saying, Buffalo was better off not even trading for Hodgson cause he might have costed them a playoff spot. Unbelievable.

[js604]

Cody Hodgson wouldn't have made a difference for the Vancouver Canucks against the Kings. I am going by the fact, Quick was playing good enough, that it was really difficult for any of out players to score on him.

[ice orca]

For fcuk's sake, you and others keep making Hodgson look like a little 80lb midget. The guy is 6'0 and can stay on the puck 10x better than Raymond. He doesn't weigh as much as Kassian because he is known to have a lean diet. He is probably pure muscle, not like flabby Kassian. Besides, didn't he score against all the big tough teams like Boston, Detroit, and Chicago in the regular season? Your argument that he can't score against big tough teams is absolutely ridiculous.

I'm not directing my comment to you only, but all other idiots who are making similar arguments.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

Hodgson had the highest goal/shots percentage (15.4%) in the entire Canucks roster this season. He was the only one who could shoot the puck worth a damn. Everyone else had to rely on trashy goals and rebounds on empty nets. Unfortunately as you saw, Quick doesn't give up rebounds. Honestly, I don't know where Gillis got the balls to trade away the only guy in the team this season who could actually aim.

If Gillis wasn't so arrogant and stupid, he should have traded for MORE guys like Hodgson to stack up the centers, and develop Bitz and Weise to take on the toughness role. Kesler should have moved to the wing since January.

With the new changes to the NHL divisions, I doubt the Canucks will win the President's trophy again. Not as long as Gillis runs this team. We had two lucky breaks being in a very weak Northwest division but this will end next season.

[MikeyBoy44]

Mike Gillis.......the April 30/2012 CDC Whipping Boy...........

So when we're finished working our way through the team roster right down to the stick boys WBL (whipping boy list)......do we just start at the top and work our way down again or work from the bottom back up?

[lateralus]

Good call. I too am getting dizzy from reading in circles.

Maybe we just have someone pull names out of a hat to change it up a bit. Tomorrow we harp on the rink attendant for crappy ice surfaces.

[yes we can nucks]

Good call. I too am getting dizzy from reading in circles.

Maybe we just have someone pull names out of a hat to change it up a bit. Tomorrow we harp on the rink attendant for crappy ice surfaces.

[Canuck Surfer]

How do you figure?

We can break even or win the trade two years from now & it was still a loss. Contending teams trade for proven veterans who still need a ring. They dont trade for unproven rookies to fill key roles.

Whats worse was Bitz was playing better than Kassian did. We effectively removed two useful players, Hodgson & Bitz, from the lineup. We were sold out for any chance to win this year, and MG should have known Kassian was not ready. Whatever was going on with CoHo, MG lost his composure and it sold out our year.

I applaud fans who back anything and everything with blinders on. But pressure from educated fans will hopefully make a difference to discourage such poor moves.

I'm surprised this thread is still going. It's an unwinnable argument on either side... at least for a couple of years.

How about we concentrate on trading some of our 'fans' here?

[js604]

This last bolded part here though I wanted to address because I'm pretty sure I saw somewhere that somebody had figured out the standings if all divisional games were taken out. IIRC Vancouver was still top 5. I'll try to find it so I can post it. I remember being surprised because I thought much like you did that their record was way overblown. The biggest difference was the amount of games lost in overtime.

[EmployeeoftheMonth]

I take it that being "top 5" means not being #1. Therefore, Vancouver would not have won the President's trophy if divisional games were taken out.

[Bertuzzipunch]

oh gary roberts did? hmm ok

he played hockey and now is a personal trainer, got it.

yeah, still dont care.