WAIT.... what's this... schmushed banana???

*wonders if Potatoe is willing to bet on his "65-75 points" prediction*
Moderator: Referees
Minimum .9 per game average over the next 3 seasons.CorranHorn wrote:Doc..... Sedins....points
I'm telling you that eagle is fucking NUTS!!CorranHorn wrote:Good call,
Now go to the right thing and old yeller that bird...
Aaronp18 wrote:Pics or it didn't happen!
Hopefully they won't be our #1 line after this season.,.Strangelove wrote:Minimum .9 per game average over the next 3 seasons.CorranHorn wrote:Doc..... Sedins....points
But I wouldn't bet on it...
Right, Hodgson bringing a secondary threat on the PP and at E/S is so replaceable. That's why its been replaced, so simply! It has, right? Wasn't the Canucks PP like super awesome since they traded CoHo? Hasn't the offense stayed dominant?Strangelove wrote:Whatever Hodgson might have brought was replaceable
Strangelove wrote:No not much except for...
Evidence: Hodgson has 1 assist in 12 career NHL playoff games.
Did you not say in another thread that all top offensive players see their production dip in the playoffs due to closer match-ups? If it wasn't you I apologize...but that is a fact.Strangelove wrote: Evidence: Hodgson's production slipped in AHL playoff games.
2009 WJC. Kthanks. But more broadly speaking, Hodgson's regular season production jumped as well once he started getting the Hodgson treatment. It stands to reason that the same would hold true in the post-season. Not that he'd be a dominant scorer, but that he could capitalize on offensive zone starts and PP time, which is exactly what the Canucks failed to do vs. LA.Strangelove wrote:
Do you have any "evidence" to the contrary?![]()
duh, yeah? Point? Are you trying to get me to acknowledge that Hodgson couldn't help score when he wasn't on the ice?Strangelove wrote:
Umm.
Hodgson played on the #2 PP unit.
How would him leaving contribute to the fact the #1 PP became a problem.
In that same stretch you pointed out of Cody having 0 PP points in the 17 games before the trade, Henrik had 2 PP points. Plus 2 points in the 9 games before Daniel's injury. The PP was hurting before Daniel got hurt.Strangelove wrote: Now when Daniel got injured (9 games after the trade) THAT hurt the PP
Hodgson post trade: 3g 5a -7Strangelove wrote:Well your summary is wrong due to the fact your facts above are wrong.ESQ wrote: In summary, 2012 Hodgson > Kassian + Pahlsson
Hodgson: 15g 19a -4Strangelove wrote:ESQ wrote: , 2013 Hodsgon > Kassian + Roy.
[/quote][/quote]Strangelove wrote: Now, that's just silly....
Hmmm how about I take a 19 game sample for Luongo.Rumsfeld wrote:I guess that's the nice thing about a shortened season, eh old boy? When the stats don't support your argument you get to throw them away.Strangelove wrote: Last season was 20 games under ludicrous conditions.
So yeah, putting much stock in last year's numbers is madness IMPO.
Unless they DO support it of course. In which case we will throw them out there again and again with no mention of how the small sample size might be skewing them.
That's what Burke said.Aaronp18 wrote:Pics or it didn't happen!
I didn't say he wouldn't or even couldn't be good. I said that under the coaching staff the canucks had they clearly wanted someone other than Hodgson playing those minutes. They wanted Pahlsson or his ilk. They had Henrik. They had Kesler. The only spot remaining is the 4th line and on that line they had LaPierre. Down the stretch and in the playoffs with, count them, 4 centers the coaching staff was in all likelihood going to put above him in the depth chart that limited role was shaping up to be "popcorn eater". They didn't trust him and were actively deciding to find someone else for that third line role. They acquired Pahlsson on deadline day prior to agreeing to any trade with Hodgson. From everyone on that day, that deal came along at the last minute. Had it not come along both Pahlsson and Hodgson would have been on the team and AV would have given Pahlsson the spot in the lineup. I think he would also give LaPierre the spot over Hodgson. With AV, rightly or wrongly, he had to trust a player defensively to use them in the playoffs to any real degree and that goes double for his centers.ESQ wrote: What kills me about the argument that Hodgson would have been no good in the playoffs is that there is no evidence to support it. Hodgson was the 3rd line center, he was deliberately given sheltered minutes, he played a lot on the PP and put up quite a lot of points. I would argue that the TEAM performance was better having Hodgson in that limited role than in having Kassian and Pahlsson, because scoring immediately became a problem and the powerplay suffered enormously since the trade.