-DLC- Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Not quite sure if his number is right or not. Pics show him in 27, TSN lists him as 24? Will update. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post HKSR Posted January 13, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted January 13, 2021 To think he is basically #5 on our depth chart tells us the team has come a long ways. 2 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Western Red Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Welcome to the club Hamonic! Imagine if he plays 22mins w/ Huggy and is comparable to Tanev of last year? Yes please. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) I thought he was #24 with Calgary last year? Edited January 13, 2021 by Phil_314 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TNucks1 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 14 minutes ago, Phil_314 said: I thought he was #24 with Calgary last year? dont know anything about the flames roster numbers, but maybe some one had 26. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nux4lyfe Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Definitely did not see this coming. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil_314 Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 18 minutes ago, TNucks1 said: dont know anything about the flames roster numbers, but maybe some one had 26. HamonicMichael Stone (26, former Coyotes D) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kesler_sedins Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 Hamonic's number has to be #27 since that was what he wore during practice. It doesn't make sense to wear a number during the first day of practice, then immediately switch the next day 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildcam Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, debluvscanucks said: Not quite sure if his number is right or not. Pics show him in 27, TSN lists him as 24? Will update. Hamonic #27 ?? I don't think Hamonic is wearing #24? Yesterdays sweater was #27 and helmet #27.. We are so so lucky to have this solid #3 D man, gritty, tough and solid stay at home style..Will look great beside Hughes, he will not let anyone take cheap shots on Hughes... I guess fans think he would wear 24 but its clear #27 is his new number... Edited January 13, 2021 by wildcam 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 1 hour ago, HKSR said: To think he is basically #5 on our depth chart tells us the team has come a long ways. I could see him being our #4 depending on how Myers does. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted January 13, 2021 Author Share Posted January 13, 2021 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shekky Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 (edited) Hamonic = Tanev and Nate Schmidt = Stecher I would say the defence is definately upgrade. I liked Stecher and Tanev but adding someone who can move the puck out of the zone I think will help prevent the goalies taking 30-60 shots and getting tired out standing on there heads to steal games. Just my thoughts anyways. Edited January 13, 2021 by Shekky 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-AJ- Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 41 minutes ago, Shekky said: Hamonic = Tanev and Nate Schmidt = Stecher I would say the defence is definately upgrade. I liked Stecher and Tanev but adding someone who can move the puck out of the zone I think will help prevent the goalies taking 30-60 shots and getting tired out standing on there heads to steal games. Just my thoughts anyways. I would say Schmidt is more equivalent to Tanev, but with a bit more offense, so an upgrade. Hamonic plays more like Tanev than Schmidt, but is closer to Stecher's level than Tanev's. Both are upgrades over those respective players though. The only area that might be a downgrade is at the #7 spot, depending on how good Juolevi can play. I'm betting Juolevi will be good enough though not to make that a concern. I think he'll earn the #6 spot and Benn will hold the #7, much like much of last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shekky Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 1 minute ago, -AJ- said: I would say Schmidt is more equivalent to Tanev, but with a bit more offense, so an upgrade. Hamonic plays more like Tanev than Schmidt, but is closer to Stecher's level than Tanev's. Both are upgrades over those respective players though. The only area that might be a downgrade is at the #7 spot, depending on how good Juolevi can play. I'm betting Juolevi will be good enough though not to make that a concern. I think he'll earn the #6 spot and Benn will hold the #7, much like much of last year. I see a lot of analysts compare Tanev and Hamonic and although Tanev is a slightly better defender its not by much at least from what they say. I do agree though but I don't really see much comparison between Schmidt and Tanev as they are different types of defenders I see the puck being moved out of the zone more with Schmidt which means the Goalies are taking less shots and Vegas lit up the goalies to exhaustion in there series together during the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Heffy Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 5 hours ago, Shekky said: I see a lot of analysts compare Tanev and Hamonic and although Tanev is a slightly better defender its not by much at least from what they say. I do agree though but I don't really see much comparison between Schmidt and Tanev as they are different types of defenders I see the puck being moved out of the zone more with Schmidt which means the Goalies are taking less shots and Vegas lit up the goalies to exhaustion in there series together during the playoffs. Hamonic is a better fit than Tanev thanks to the physical element he brings. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 11 hours ago, Shekky said: I see a lot of analysts compare Tanev and Hamonic and although Tanev is a slightly better defender its not by much at least from what they say. Tanev's a bit better skater and better in transition. Hamonic is more physical/better along the boards/in the crease and largely gets similar defensive results though. Schmidt's an even better skater than Tanev though and far better in transition and offense. So I don't think we'll miss the slight 'downgrade' there from Hamonic anyway (and will likely enjoy the added grit). Plus with Myers and Juolevi on the 'third' pair, we should have improved transition there as well. I'm expecting a LOT less play in our own end this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Kneel Posted January 13, 2021 Share Posted January 13, 2021 We needed more grit with negligible drop off in skill on our back end. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 I thought that Hamonic played a pretty decent game for a guy who basically had no training camp and hasn't played in months. Once he gets up to speed and familiar with the Canucks systems, he will prove to be a great addition at a very reasonable price. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Junkyard Dog Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 One thing I have noticed so far is that he is not as good of a rush defender as Tanev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kootenay Gold Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 10 hours ago, Junkyard Dog said: One thing I have noticed so far is that he is not as good of a rush defender as Tanev. Hard to judge from just a two game sample but if true; he still brings other attributes that Tanev lacked. Overall, I like this move and others by JB as it freed up cap space to go after the likes of Nate Schmidt. Don't get me wrong, Tanev was a warrior on the Canucks team and I liked his compete but hockey is a business and sometimes the business end has to make some tough decisions and unfortunately he was a casualty of those decisions as was Stetcher, Toffoli and Markstrom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now