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.
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.