William_Clarkson Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Which pairing is better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Hamhuis-Tanev pairing is 'better' but Hamhuis-Bieksa makes more sense. With Tanev it'll be 'better' b/c it's a rock solid pairing however leaves the rest of the D discombobulated. Put Hamhuis-Juice and you can count on Dan to keep Bieksa at bay and then have the luxury to put Tanev with Garrison or Edler to keep either of them stable too. Hamhuis-Tanev is a solid pairing but they are both smart, safe players so it'd make sense to spread the love and split them apart. With that, even though Tanev pairing with Hamhuis is 'better', I'll vote Bieksa with Dan because it makes most sense for the team. Just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Time Lord Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Hamhuis - Bieksa is better overall, but Hamhuis - Tanev is a good shutdown pair. Putting them together allows the third pairing to be better as well. Hamhuis - Tanev and Stanton - Bieksa or Hamhuis - Bieksa and Stanton - Tanev I think the 1st one is more balanced. But it isn't really much of an issue. The real problem is the 2nd pair with Edler and Garrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeremyCuddles Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Makes more sense to "spread the love" defensively. I don't trust Jason "Can't hit the net" Garrison with Alex "Which net is mine" Edler on the same pairing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckFanForever1123 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Hamhuis-Tanev wont give up a lot of goals, but Hamhuis-Bieksa is a more common sense line. Hamhuis is a stay at home shut down kind of guy. Bieksa occasionally likes to pinch up and throw down some offense, so giving him a guy like Hamhuis is better for his game, whereas Tanev can make it with any player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GUS_ADAMS Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 OP, great thread! Where did you find the time to write this up? You've done some great research here, and your opionions are thought-provoking, and, at times, controversial, but well backed. You definitely know your stuff! But after that fantastic read, I feel that whatever I could contribute to this thread pales in comparison. Humbled by your greatness, I defer to respond... Keep up the great work! Just be warned! Alot of people here on CDC are quite illiterate, and can't complete the long reads. You may want to edit your post here, before all the, "Stopped at "which..."" posts start appearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheRussianRocket. Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Nevermind, ignore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toni Zamboni Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 HamJuice has the nicest ring to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Ham and juice pairing was the reason why 2011 was so special. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
babych Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 OP, great thread! Where did you find the time to write this up? You've done some great research here, and your opionions are thought-provoking, and, at times, controversial, but well backed. You definitely know your stuff! But after that fantastic read, I feel that whatever I could contribute to this thread pales in comparison. Humbled by your greatness, I defer to respond... Keep up the great work! Just be warned! Alot of people here on CDC are quite illiterate, and can't complete the long reads. You may want to edit your post here, before all the, "Stopped at "which..."" posts start appearing. Was this really necessary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrChill Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I want hammer Bieksa, Because Edler and Bieksa was bad, and Garrison and Bieksa wasn't great either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henrik Kesler Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Bieksa is a skating hobo when he isn't paired with Hamhuis and therefore me must be paired with Hamhuis.One thing I will not miss about Torts is seeing the tire-fire of Edler-Bieksa trotted out every. damn. game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canucks155 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Hamhuis - Bieksa Tanev - Stanton/Corrado Edler - Garrison 2 reliable defensive pairings. Hopefully Garrison and Edler start to find some chemistry, if they don't. play them as little as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken kaniff Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 The Hamhuis-Bieksa pairing was great when we went to the finals. Juice providing offense and grit while ham was rock solid. The Hamhuis-Tanev pair is too one dimensional. Great stay at home shutdown type, but not much else.Hamhuis-BieksaEdler-TanevGarrison-Stanton/Corrado/Y.Weber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyllenhaal Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Hamhuis - Bieksa Edler - Tanev Stanton - Garrison trade one of Edler or Garrison and make the 3rd pairing: Stanton-Corrado Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobGVee Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 IMO Hamhuis and Tanev fill the same role. Would only make sense to split them up. I also think Edler should be the one to be traded vs Garrison. I think the the return would also be greater with Alex over Jason. I like Garrison, especially paired with Hamhuis or Tanev. A well rounded pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aqua59 Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 I think these are the three defenseman you surely keep. I can see Edler and Garrison being moved and the younger defenseman being developed. Your poll is the reason I'd keep these three. I think they play well with each other and they spell stability for the the back end. I like Garrison but he's more of the same and a shot that had several years to get on net on a regular basis. There's just not enough grit there on the back end. His value could bring more sand paper in return without dropping in talent. I think Edler is self explanatory but the debate in my head still wonders if his play was Tortarella' influence or just a real bad nose dive in play. I think the Canucks are lucky to have Hamhuis, Tanev and Bieksa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knucklehd Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 OP, great thread! Where did you find the time to write this up? You've done some great research here, and your opionions are thought-provoking, and, at times, controversial, but well backed. You definitely know your stuff! But after that fantastic read, I feel that whatever I could contribute to this thread pales in comparison. Humbled by your greatness, I defer to respond... Keep up the great work! Just be warned! Alot of people here on CDC are quite illiterate, and can't complete the long reads. You may want to edit your post here, before all the, "Stopped at "which..."" posts start appearing. Who pissed in your cornflakes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Bieksa Tanev. any pairing with hamhuis is a bad pairing ... I hope he bounces back but he's been awful the past 2 seasons. Still baffled by how he made team Canada. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanuckRow Posted May 25, 2014 Share Posted May 25, 2014 Do you people not remember what this this has played like defensively the past few years? Hamhuis-Bieksa tandem has been awful the past two seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.