Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Hypothetical: Moving Hank to the Wing?


JibberishJones

Recommended Posts

Hear me out before giving me a good ol' CDC ripping....

 

As Henrik ages, we have seen his playing style undoubtedly changed over the last handful of seasons. For what it's worth, Daniel's stats have changed a bit, but his overall playing style hasn't evolved at the rate that Henrik's has. 

 

In Henrik's 'prime' we saw him scoring on breakaways, dragging pucks to the net with defenders on him, skating hard on the backcheck, and doing things an athletic, elite hockey player does when playing down the middle. However, we no longer see Henrik doing any of these things, sure, he hasn't been healthy all year, and he is noticeably older than he used to be -- but this is my point. 

 

I believe that centers in the NHL tend to wear and tear faster than their counterparts on the wing - especially middle-aged centers. Every night, Henrik is matched up against a big-bodied, athletic, top-tier NHL player - the behind the net battles, defensive obligations of a C-man, up-and-down play, and matchups against top centers MUST begin to take a toll as he gets older. 

 

I want to hear what people think of the concept of possibly moving Henrik to play wing in a season or two - I SAID IN A SEASON OR TWO for those not listening. The idea of having Henrik and Daniel on opposing wings (almost how they play now) with a defensively liable C-man who can score is very tantalizing. I have said it for years, once these two gems become our second line, we will be poised for another run - and not before then. 

 

I worry that the C position is too hard on Hank and we be wearing him down against some of the nasty C's the Canucks see all year.

 

My plan for one, maybe two seasons down the road: Move Hank to the wing, move the Sedins to the second line, win the cup, cheer, rinse & repeat. #ItsSoEasy

 

Again, THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL IDEA FOR THE SAKE OF CONVERSATION, DON'T RUIN IT.

 

 

Thoughts on Henrik finishing his career on the wing?

 

 

Thanks!

Jib

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think that by playing them together their whole careers we  wiped out any chance of our club have 2 top lines.

We also made them less valuable as it is hard to trade 2 guys that insist on playing on the same line.

 

I think this was poor managment by our club.

 

I would have split them up over line 1 and line 2  but used them together on PP 1. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kingofsurrey said:

I tend to think that by playing them together their whole careers we  wiped out any chance of our club have 2 top lines.

We also made them less valuable as it is hard to trade 2 guys that insist on playing on the same line.

 

I think this was poor managment by our club.

 

I would have split them up over line 1 and line 2  but used them together on PP 1. 

Actually a really interesting idea, but they were just such a phenomenon it would have been hard for anyone to make that call at the right time -- hindsight + woulda coulda shoulda etc etc etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't part of the twins' problem though that they need a RW that's willing to go to the boards and battle for the puck? That's why they didn't like Vrby. If Henrik isn't already that guy I can't imagine him becoming that player now: old dog, new tricks, etc. I could see him maybe as a 2RW. Keep Danny as 1LW. Seems tantalizing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThrustyPrusty89 said:

Isn't part of the twins' problem though that they need a RW that's willing to go to the boards and battle for the puck? That's why they didn't like Vrby. If Henrik isn't already that guy I can't imagine him becoming that player now: old dog, new tricks, etc. I could see him maybe as a 2RW. Keep Danny as 1LW. Seems tantalizing. 

Nice point, I agree. Curious if you had a super hard-nosed yet offensive C, if they could play that role and allow the Sedins to more comfortably stay on the perimeter like they do so well now

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JibberishJones said:

Nice point, I agree. Curious if you had a super hard-nosed yet offensive C, if they could play that role and allow the Sedins to more comfortably stay on the perimeter like they do so well now

Dank-Sutter-Hank? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I tend to think that by playing them together their whole careers we  wiped out any chance of our club have 2 top lines.

We also made them less valuable as it is hard to trade 2 guys that insist on playing on the same line.

 

I think this was poor managment by our club.

 

I would have split them up over line 1 and line 2  but used them together on PP 1. 

Been saying this for THREE(or 4?) F***ing yrs!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Blue Jay 22 said:

Who's the 1st line C then? Because Horvat is not ready yet to take all of that responsibility. This only works if 1 of 2 near impossible scenarios happens:

 

1. Draft Matthews

or

2. Sign Stamkos

Henrik needs to be replaced ASAP, I am not picky how they do it, just please do it right. That is a good condition that I should have included though, need a replacement first (thought that would be assumed)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, JibberishJones said:

Something like that, let Sutter take the hard spots in the middle and let them stay outside - I am assuming this has been happening when he plays with them already.

 

Dank-Bo-Hank would be fun to watch...

Having Bo on the Sedin line would be great for his development. I wonder if they'd have chemistry... he does love charging the net. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is this jibberish, Jones?

 

As others have said, if you move Henrik to the wing, who becomes our 1st line center? And again as others have said, if we get a Stamkos-level player or high end prospect center that has 1st line offence capabilities (or we've graduated a whole new first line - wouldn't that be nice?), then that could work if they're stronger on faceoffs than Henrik.

 

Otherwise it just doesn't make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said:

I tend to think that by playing them together their whole careers we  wiped out any chance of our club have 2 top lines.

We also made them less valuable as it is hard to trade 2 guys that insist on playing on the same line.

 

I think this was poor managment by our club.

 

I would have split them up over line 1 and line 2  but used them together on PP 1. 

Yeah, well, you would have been wrong.

 

Also, it's not that they've been insisting to play on the same line, but rather that they wouldn't accept a trade which would mean having them play for different teams that makes it hard to trade them (not to mention they want to stay here and the Canucks are happy to keep them, but there have been many, many threads on that). The fact is they have played on separately, largely for injuries but also at times when both were in the line up.

 

Besides, if we had moved Daniel with Kesler (as a for instance) because we didn't have a good enough winger for his line, then what makes you think we would have had a winger good enough for Henrik's line to replace Daniel? A lack of top 6 wingers is still a lack of top six wingers no matter how you move players around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kevin Biestra said:

The thing is, if you put someone else at center, you now have Henrik as a winger who only wants to make passes and never shoot.  And Daniel's almost as bad.  So you would basically need a sniping centre if you even wanted to try this.

Horvat plays Virtanen's bull in a china shop style at center and has the IQ to make it work. It'd be an idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issue splitting the sedins, have been saying it for a while.  They're both great players, splitting them gives you more scoring depth..IMHO.

 

PS...you can always re-unite mid game for a few shifts to screw with the other teams matching game too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main concern with having players change positions so late in their careers is that they've grown very accustomed to their roles and switching after 20 or so years at the same position can be very difficult. I can't see it working particularly well, just because Hank would have to unlearn all his centre-based habits and positioning and learn new winger-based habits and positioning. At his age, it seems unreasonable to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...