View Single Post
Old
03-17-2013, 10:18 PM
  #793
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,863
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sergei Shirokov View Post
Because that is how the last 2 Stanley Cup winners have won. And it is just as important as offense if not more so.

Ever hear the adage:

"Offense wins games, Defense wins championships"



LOL we haven't been a defensive team, we have relied on offense and that offense has been shutdown, leaving us inferior defensively. And ultimately on the outside looking in.
Yeah, let's base our team-building process on some adages and folk sayings.

What about the adage, 'the best defense is a good offense!' I've heard that adage too. Let's build an all-offense team instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
I disagree. Hodgson with different wingers and an all round better team looks quite a bit different than Hodgson playing on a lottery pick team. There are plenty of cup winners who have had centres look like Hodgson at the equivalent stage of player and team development.
I think this whole argument of 'Hodgson wouldn't be scoring at nearly the same rate as a Sedin if he were on the Canucks' is really missing the point. Obviously, given a lesser role behind the Twins here, Hodgson would put up lesser point totals. But that's completely ignoring the benefit of having a player with the potential to be a ~PPG player in a lesser role.

Basically, you could put Ebbett or Schroeder on that Buffalo top line all year, and i guarantee you they will never touch the production Hodgson gets out of that assignment. They just don't have the capability. To have a player capable of PPG pace on a 2nd/3rd line is a HUGE difference maker, regardless of how much it shows up in the stats. In both acting as an insurance policy with upward mobility in the lineup...and in the fact that they're going to be able to produce at a higher rate than a lesser substitute player, even if that actual end tally is a relatively low difference of say 5g and 15pts for that individual player.

Hodgson was 'sheltered' here, yes...but you can't just shelter a player into that kind of production. If you could, don't you think AV/Gillis would've thought about sheltering Schroeder or even Kassian into huge production?

And the reality is...in Buffalo, he's Mr.Everything with that team. And realistically he's way over his head in terms of defensive role and responsibility. But there's nothing else there to insulate him at all. In Vancouver, he wouldn't be nearly so exposed. You couldn't expose him that much if you tried, given the other talent that would be around him here. So you'd get less production in total, sure...but you'd also have production at a high rate in whatever role, and you wouldn't have the same defensive shortcomings either. There would be time to grow into the role. And in a lesser role last year...Hodgson was a heck of a lot more dangerous looking offensively than Kassian has been. And it's certainly not as though Kassian hasn't been a defensively liability much of the time as well.



As for the other aspect that is really troubling about this deal:

When i think about the timing of this deal originally...it still looks as poorly timed as it did the day it was done. We swapped a productive offensive player for a guy who contributed essentially nothing in a playoff run where we couldn't score goals.

And even now...we're left waiting on this promise of 'one day Kassian will be the exact player we need right now'. Which is great if it pans out...but it's also fairly illogical. Because if we're talking another 2-3 years before he really 'figures it out'...we're going to have 'the exact player we need right now'...'3 years from now'. And coincidentally...in that same timeframe 2-3 years down the line, the Sedins are going to be declining, or potentially even leaving back to Sweden. At which point...what we'll need most is someone with the potential to be a 1st line Center.

biturbo19 is offline