Why is everybody giving up on Hoglander?

[kanucks25]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:11 PM, DrJockitch said:

‘Kind of feel Garland and Hoglander are a bit redundant. I got room for a spark plug player like either of them but am not sure room for two. 

On 7/15/2022 at 5:49 PM, McBackup said:

The problem is, I think having Garland on the team makes him redundant, as Garland is essentially peaked Hoglander.

 

This makes no sense.

Edited July 22, 2022 by kanucks25

[kanucks25]

On 7/15/2022 at 4:13 PM, TheCammer said:

Every year the "fans" of this team seem to pick a new whipping boy. Years ago it was Raymond (EP falls about 8 times more often than Raymond ever did) and Ballard, two years and into last year it was Boeser, now its' Hoglander. It's just noise to drown out.

EP also has 8x the skill and IQ as Raymond, so we let it go.

[The Lock]

It seems like people forget that there's such a thing called the sophomore slump. Some fans here... if it's not shiny and new it's "obsolete".

 

Also, anyone saying we don't need 2 spark players just baffles me. How do these people expect us to get anywhere in the playoffs with only have 1 of each type of player? It's stupid if I'm being honest.

[kanucks25]

On 7/17/2022 at 12:52 PM, Baggins said:

So you're saying when a player doesn't produce, puts in an inconsistant effort, and isn't very good defensively, that the coach should ignore it and pat him on the head.

No, but if you're going to do it to Hoglander, you do it to every other player who deserves it, and the bolded above applied to most of our forwards.

[McBackup]

50 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

This makes no sense.

Consider me rebutted 

[kanucks25]

2 minutes ago, McBackup said:

Consider me rebutted 

If only the rest of the forum would concede to being wrong as gentlemanly as this.

[DrJockitch]

55 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

This makes no sense.

How many 5’6-5’8 players that play the same way do you think is reasonable in one forward group? Does it matter that even without them we lack size and toughness up front and are easily pushed around?

We aren’t exactly the Blues or Kings of old. The players we have with size are mostly not very physical. 
‘I have all sorts of room for small skilled players and think both Garland and Hogz are good ones. I just think given the size and makeup of our group we have too many small forwards. I also think you have to give them an environment to thrive in and that is an otherwise big physical team that creates room for the smaller water bug type players.  

[kanucks25]

5 minutes ago, DrJockitch said:

How many 5’6-5’8 players that play the same way do you think is reasonable in one forward group? Does it matter that even without them we lack size and toughness up front and are easily pushed around?

We aren’t exactly the Blues or Kings of old. The players we have with size are mostly not very physical. 
‘I have all sorts of room for small skilled players and think both Garland and Hogz are good ones. I just think given the size and makeup of our group we have too many small forwards. I also think you have to give them an environment to thrive in and that is an otherwise big physical team that creates room for the smaller water bug type players.  

Size is just one input, it doesn't magically predict production, impact or effectiveness. 

 

People get wrapped up in "size and speed" when it's very possible for a player to have both but still suck.

 

Good small players are effective despite their size, they have the skill and tenacity to push through. I believe Hoglander and Garland both fall under that category, nothing I've seen from either suggests their lack of size will be a hindrance in their ability to be good hockey players.

 

Maybe there is a line where too many small players is too many no matter how good they are individually, but I don't think that limit is just 2.

[Nucklefuts]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

 

This makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. 

 

Hockey, a team game, works best with complimentary players not 20 of the same guy. 

 

I'm gonna go on a whim and guess you're short lol!

Edited July 22, 2022 by Nucklefuts

[D-Money]

14 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Size is just one input, it doesn't magically predict production, impact or effectiveness. 

 

People get wrapped up in "size and speed" when it's very possible for a player to have both but still suck.

 

Good small players are effective despite their size, they have the skill and tenacity to push through. I believe Hoglander and Garland both fall under that category, nothing I've seen from either suggests their lack of size will be a hindrance in their ability to be good hockey players.

 

Maybe there is a line where too many small players is too many no matter how good they are individually, but I don't think that limit is just 2.

Tampa won 2 cups with a relatively small forward group. Their top 2 scorers were 5’11 (Kucherov & Point), and they had 5’8 Tyler Johnson and 5’9 Yanni Gourde playing checking roles. But they offset it with having a huge D-man group. McDonagh was the smallest regular D-man at 6’1. But it’s interesting that the players they have been shedding have been the smaller ones (Gourde, Johnson, Coleman, McDonagh).

 

Also of note, they just lost to a team that had a relatively smaller D-corp, but a much larger average size of forwards.

 

There’s room for smaller players on a winning team. But you have to strategize their deployment, and insulate them.

Edited July 22, 2022 by D-Money

[kanucks25]

8 minutes ago, Nucklefuts said:

It makes perfect sense to me. 

 

Hockey, a team game, works best with complimentary players not 20 of the same guy. 

 

I'm gonna go on a whim and guess you're short lol!

 

Just now, D-Money said:

Tampa won 2 cups with a relatively small forward group. Their top 2 scorers were 5’11 (Kucherov & Point), and they had 5’8 Tyler Johnson and 5’9 Yanni Gourde playing checking roles. But they offset it with having a huge D-man group. McDonagh was the smallest regular D-man at 6’1. But it’s interesting that the players they have been shedding have been the smaller ones (Gourde, Johnson, Coleman, McDonagh).

 

Also of note, they just lost to a team that had a relatively smaller D-corp, but a much larger average size of forwards.

Essentially, there is no secret recipe. However, it's clear the rule leniency in the playoffs does benefit larger D-Men as it allows them to play a more physical/obstruction style compared to the regular season.

 

Assuming effort/care/etc. is equal, I'll take hockey IQ and skill over speed and size.

[Nucklefuts]

34 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

 

Essentially, there is no secret recipe. However, it's clear the rule leniency in the playoffs does benefit larger D-Men as it allows them to play a more physical/obstruction style compared to the regular season.

 

Assuming effort/care/etc. is equal, I'll take hockey IQ and skill over speed and size.

The secret recipe, a team with complimentary characteristics. 

 

The losing recipe, a bunch of small guys. 

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

No, but if you're going to do it to Hoglander, you do it to every other player who deserves it, and the bolded above applied to most of our forwards.

Details, I asked for details and you just repeated the same vague comment.

 

15 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Good small players are effective despite their size, they have the skill and tenacity to push through. I believe Hoglander and Garland both fall under that category, nothing I've seen from either suggests their lack of size will be a hindrance in their ability to be good hockey players.

Garland is head and shoulders above Hoglander in consistent effort and ability. He's more aggressive at both ends of the ice. I'll even give you an example. Sports media made a big deal about Garlands goal scoring drought. But was it due to lack of effort or inconsistent play? 

 

Among forwards during his 19 game goal drought:

- Tied 5th with Boeser in points per game and still a +1 (tied 4th)

- Tied 3rd with Pettersson in shots on goal

- Tied 1st with Pettersson in penalties drawn

 

Was his goal scoring drought from lack of effort or inconsistent play? No, his play didn't change, the puck just wasn't going in for him. Even through Garlands worst stretch of the season the effort was there and he was still effective. Veterans will always get a little more rope than young players. Yet Chaison and Dickinson were healthy scratches as well. Try some details this time. What other forwards do you feel played inconsistently enough to be scratched and why?

[DrJockitch]

59 minutes ago, kanucks25 said:

Size is just one input, it doesn't magically predict production, impact or effectiveness. 

 

People get wrapped up in "size and speed" when it's very possible for a player to have both but still suck.

 

Good small players are effective despite their size, they have the skill and tenacity to push through. I believe Hoglander and Garland both fall under that category, nothing I've seen from either suggests their lack of size will be a hindrance in their ability to be good hockey players.

 

Maybe there is a line where too many small players is too many no matter how good they are individually, but I don't think that limit is just 2.

I agree that you can’t evaluate an individual athlete purely by size or stature but this is a team sport.  I think they are both good hockey players, have said that all along. 

There is lots of room for players of various sizes but the vast majority do tend to meet very closely to the mean, median and mode of size in the NHL. The bell curve is very steep, not a lot of huge guys, not a lot of small guys. It is the nature of sports, they court an athlete of a specific size because of specific attributes that are intrinsic to the sport. That can drift too. The NHL has drifted down somewhat after the clutch and grab era ended and speed is stressed more now. 

But ultimately the problem I was highlighting was that this is a team sport and one that generally rewards the largest men that can keep up. Most successful teams require a certain amount of size and strength, especially in the playoffs. We have some variables that aren’t going to change. EP and BB are not going to be providing toughness in the top 6. 
Our top 9 looks better now because Mik provides size and speed, Podz provides size and speed and Kuz is at least average sized and they all play with an edge.  Part of the reason our top 9 looks better is that it has really bumped one of the smaller guys out. 
I think there is room there for one of Garland and Hoglander but do you really think one of them works on the 4th line. It is underutilizing Garland especially at his price and Hogz would be better served playing in Abbotsford than the 4th line. 

[Alflives]

1 minute ago, Muttley said:

Hoglander has all the tools to be a really good player. Speed, has a tenacious drive, all he has to do is try harder to stay within the confines of what the coach

wants him to do. He's still very young and impressionable. Has a tendency to get caught out of position sometimes. No reason to think he can't figure this out.

It's my personal opinion, being only used as a checker on the fourth line is a waste.

I don’t think it’s bad for Hogs’ development as a complete player to be on our fourth line.  He clearly has (as you point out) the offensive skills, but he does need to learn the defensive parts of the NHL game.  Burrows, Kessler, Hansen and other very good top six forwards start in fourth line roles.  

Dickinson, Lazar, Hogs would be a heck of a good fourth line.  

[Alflives]

18 minutes ago, Muttley said:

I'd like to see Dickinson traded. 

Of course.  But to trade Dickinson will very likely cost us a lot of sweetener, which could be Hogs.  

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Details, I asked for details and you just repeated the same vague comment.

You weren't talking to me before that. But I don't know what more details you require regarding the part of my post you bolded. It's quite clear.

 

2 hours ago, Baggins said:

Garland is head and shoulders above Hoglander in consistent effort and ability. He's more aggressive at both ends of the ice. I'll even give you an example. Sports media made a big deal about Garlands goal scoring drought. But was it due to lack of effort or inconsistent play? 

 

Among forwards during his 19 game goal drought:

- Tied 5th with Boeser in points per game and still a +1 (tied 4th)

- Tied 3rd with Pettersson in shots on goal

- Tied 1st with Pettersson in penalties drawn

 

Was his goal scoring drought from lack of effort or inconsistent play? No, his play didn't change, the puck just wasn't going in for him. Even through Garlands worst stretch of the season the effort was there and he was still effective. Veterans will always get a little more rope than young players. Yet Chaison and Dickinson were healthy scratches as well. Try some details this time. What other forwards do you feel played inconsistently enough to be scratched and why?

Yes Garland obviously a better player than Hoglander, but he's a mostly fleshed out veteran whereas Hoglander is still a developing young player. 

[kanucks25]

2 hours ago, DrJockitch said:

I think there is room there for one of Garland and Hoglander but do you really think one of them works on the 4th line. It is underutilizing Garland especially at his price and Hogz would be better served playing in Abbotsford than the 4th line. 

I don't think two smaller players is a lot for a top 9.

 

But Hoglander can start on the 4th line. I don't really see the point in him going down to the AHL, and when do you ever see a player spend two seasons in the NHL and then get sent back down for development? At that point, they are sent down because they can't play in the NHL and I don't think that's the case for Hoglander.

 

4th line would be fine for him, it would allow him to play a role that will help develop parts of his game that are lacking. He has the tools to be a pesky checking winger if he wants to be. He would either have to play and excel in that role or not be in the lineup, and he does not seem like a kid that would be a malcontent, so I imagine he accepts that role and does his best to get better.

Edited July 22, 2022 by kanucks25

[Baggins]

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

You weren't talking to me before that. But I don't know what more details you require regarding the part of my post you bolded. It's quite clear.

It's vague at best. If you believe others, if not all, deserved being scratched give names and details. Who and why they deserved to be a healthy scratch. It's not just production. Hoglanders play was pretty inconsistent and it wasn't just here and there. 

 

1 hour ago, kanucks25 said:

Yes Garland obviously a better player than Hoglander, but he's a mostly fleshed out veteran whereas Hoglander is still a developing young player. 

Given a choice between the two I keep Garland. Garland is what we hope Hoglander becomes and he may not. Why roll the dice on getting a Garland when you already have a Garland? Garland plays like an angry elf. Hoglander plays like a happy hobbit.

[kanucks25]

8 minutes ago, Baggins said:

It's vague at best. If you believe others, if not all, deserved being scratched give names and details. Who and why they deserved to be a healthy scratch.

I'm not necessarily saying scratched but here is the list of top-9 forwards that at times had questionable work ethic and/or defensive play:

 

Miller

Horvat

Pettersson

Boeser

 

These 4 were also our top producing forwards, so there is that difference between them and Hoglander, but they shouldn't be immune to the same criticism. We'll never go anywhere if our top players aren't setting the tone when it comes to effort and details.

 

8 minutes ago, Baggins said:

Given a choice between the two I keep Garland. Garland is what we hope Hoglander becomes and he may not. Why roll the dice on getting a Garland when you already have a Garland? Garland plays like an angry elf. Hoglander plays like a happy hobbit.

Sure but there would be no reason to decide between them, at least not now while Hoglander is on his ELC.