Luongo and Schneider Revisited (or is it continued?)

[Strangelove]

*shakes Rummy's hand extremely firmly*

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

*wonders if Potatoe is willing to bet on his "65-75 points" prediction*

[CorranHorn]

Doc..... Sedins....points

[Strangelove]

Doc..... Sedins....points

Minimum .9 per game average over the next 3 seasons.

But I wouldn't bet on it...

[CorranHorn]

Good call,

Now go to the right thing and old yeller that bird...

[Strangelove]

Good call,

Now go to the right thing and old yeller that bird...

I'm telling you that eagle is fucking NUTS!!

Every time I open the front door it SCREECHES bloody murder...

The fucking thing is out to get me and if I shoot it, I'M the bad guy??

Not a single neighbor has ventured out there so yeah I guess I'm brave compared to THEM.



I'm gonna hafta drink the rest of this bottle just to be able to get to sleep now....

[Aaronp18]

Pics or it didn't happen!

[Strangelove]

Pics or it didn't happen!

[Tiger]

Doc..... Sedins....points

Minimum .9 per game average over the next 3 seasons.

But I wouldn't bet on it...

Hopefully they won't be our #1 line after this season.,.
Predictions for 3 centers ( all soft players all poor defensively )
H Sedin... 70 pts..and more penalty minutes
CoHo.... 60 ...
Gagner ... 70 pts ...

Ooops this is far off topic !! so . goaltender predictions..
Schneider ... top 5
Luongo .. doesn't make the top 10..

[ESQ]

Whatever Hodgson might have brought was replaceable

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?

Hell, the Canucks haven't even been able to reliably replace his 4th line centre minutes.

No not much except for...

Evidence: Hodgson has 1 assist in 12 career NHL playoff games.

He was not being "Hodgsoned" in those starts and given prime offensive opportunities. In fact, knowing your research abilities, I bet you're well aware that he had 0 PP shifts in his 12 playoff starts.

Evidence: Hodgson's production slipped in AHL 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.

You're also conveniently leaving out his WJHC performance, leading the tournament in scoring, over guys like Tavares, Eberle and JVR.

Do you have any "evidence" to the contrary?

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.

Umm.

Hodgson played on the #2 PP unit.

How would him leaving contribute to the fact the #1 PP became a problem.

duh, yeah? Point? Are you trying to get me to acknowledge that Hodgson couldn't help score when he wasn't on the ice?

Now when Daniel got injured (9 games after the trade) THAT hurt the PP

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.

In summary, 2012 Hodgson > Kassian + Pahlsson

Well your summary is wrong due to the fact your facts above are wrong.

Hodgson post trade: 3g 5a -7
Kassian + Pahlsson post trade: 3g 8a +3

Some of the +- difference can be attributed to the relative difference between the President's Trophy winner and a non-playoff team, but granted not all.

, 2013 Hodsgon > Kassian + Roy.

Hodgson: 15g 19a -4
Kassian + Roy: 14g 29a -6

Surprisingly minor difference, no? But that's right, what Hodgson brought was so easily replaced!

Now, that's just silly....

[/quote][/quote]
Couldn't agree with you more.

And by the way, this point-by-point dissection is so tedious, if you do it to my post again I will be forced to concede

[the Dogsalmon]

So...whats the backup plan for our backup goalie. Do we have one?

[tantalum]

I don't think the plan has changed significantly from what it was. once they were down to one starter it was going to be Lack's position to lose. Now it is Lack's or Eriksson's position to win. Never seen either play but I think Eriksson might have a leg up given he has been healthy and put in a great season in the SEL.

[tantalum]

Last season was 20 games under ludicrous conditions.

So yeah, putting much stock in last year's numbers is madness IMPO.

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.

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.

Hmmm how about I take a 19 game sample for Luongo.

2.32 GAA, 0.915 SV%. Not so bad now. All I did was drop the final game of the season where the canucks dressed the Chicago Wolves in a nothing game.

20 games is a small sample size.

[BladesofSteel]

Pics or it didn't happen!

That's what Burke said.

[Topper]

And a coach who left him out to dry with only a forgettable backup on the bench.

[tantalum]

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.

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.

No evidence to support that...perhaps nothing definitive but there is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests that would be the case. And of course on the flip side, there is also no evidence that he would have made any sort of difference.


bah got dragged back into the off topic discussion..... I'm out now. no more dragging me in.