View Single Post
01-24-2013, 11:06 PM
Join Date: Feb 2010
Originally Posted by
why do people always say this? I guess context doesn't exist when it comes to Hudler bashing
he was improving every year then after his contract year he went to the KHL for a year
then he comes back and surprise surprise it takes him a year to adjust back to being in the NHL
He scored 6 points in his first 30 games back. Then he scored 31 points in his next 43, which is pace for 59 in 82. Last year he scored BELOW his displayed skill level from his previous two NHL seasons (if you remove that 30-game stretch) because he spent more than half of the season on the point on the second unit, when he is most effective down low on the PP. He likely is in the same scoring range as Filppula (65-70) if he plays 2:30 or so at forward all year on the PP. Does anyone here think Nyquist is in the 50-point range, let alone the 60-70 point range?
Originally Posted by
The Fading Captain
When Hudler played with top 6 linemates, he produced like a top sixer.
Hudler's career year came playing just over ten minutes at even strength and three minutes on the PP. He played primarily with a yet-to-breakout Filppula (at center, playing conservatively) and Mikael Samuelsson. He scored 57 points playing less than 14 minutes per game, with guys who if you are very generous were 2/3 tweeners at the time.
Hudler had physical limitations. So did Holmstrom.
So did Gretzky, Fleury, Kariya, Brett Hull, and many others. And there are many who were "the complete package" who did squat in the NHL or never even made it. Remember Jose Charbonneau? He was an excellent skater, and was supposed to be highly skilled offensively and good defensively. He went 12th overall to Montreal in 1985. Played 71 games and scored 22 points. Poor, limited Hudler already had a better career at the age of 24.
It's true Nyquist has a better overall tool kit than Hudler. But he has yet to show that he can put it to use in the NHL; the only reason Hudler wasn't a regular at 19 was because of his size. He made the team immediately after his draft, but was then sent down because Bowman felt he wasn't strong enough and needed to gain strength - which he did. Nyquist is having problems now, at the age Hudler made the Wings permanently. Given that fact alone, it's hard to give credence to the argument that Nyquist is currently better than Hudler is now, if he isn't better than Hudler was as a rookie. After all, Hudler had to compete with a much more difficult group of forwards and still forced his way in.
So do other Red Wings forwards. I don't have a really hard time with Hudler being moved because Babcock didn't like him, so why not move him somewhere where he can succeed?
Look at the Wings' offensive production over the past few games. Look at the Wings' even strength scoring from last year, and who was doing it. Look at which line was the most productive last year.
You're ok with just letting Hudler walk in his prime and replacing him with Samuelsson? That's fine and dandy management?
But this guy produced here. And even when he sucked two years ago, when he played regular minutes with Datsyuk, he was a good producer.
Yes. He was such a good producer on that line that he outproduced Datsyuk.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by pdd