HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Vancouver Canucks
Notices

Cody Hodgson Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-02-2010, 05:39 PM
  #676
Mr. Canucklehead
Mod Supervisor
Kitimat Canuck
 
Mr. Canucklehead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kitimat, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,480
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
Well we just gave away one of those ''extra'' d-men we could trade.

We no longer have extra d-men. In fact we have average depth back there.
1.) Hamhuis
2.) Edler
3.) Ballard
4.) Ehrhoff
5.) Bieksa
6.) Alberts
7.) Rome

- L. Sweatt, Connauton, Tanev, etc.

We know Rome can play solid minutes, and we have him in as No. 7. We have seen in the past that Bieksa can play solid minutes(even if last year was an abortion for him), and he is No. 5.

We have plentiful depth on the back-end, far better than average IMO.

Mr. Canucklehead is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 05:51 PM
  #677
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Canucklehead View Post
1.) Hamhuis
2.) Edler
3.) Ballard
4.) Ehrhoff
5.) Bieksa
6.) Alberts
7.) Rome

- L. Sweatt, Connauton, Tanev, etc.

We know Rome can play solid minutes, and we have him in as No. 7. We have seen in the past that Bieksa can play solid minutes(even if last year was an abortion for him), and he is No. 5.

We have plentiful depth on the back-end, far better than average IMO.
The three rookies are all question marks. I doubt we'd want to use any for more than 10 minutes in a regular season game.

The only reason our depth looks good is because our top 4 is so much more durable than years past. How often have we seen three d-men down at once in the last few years? way too often.

This good depth you speak of would see us using two complete rookies in the top 6 for a long period of time if there were 3 injuries.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:02 PM
  #678
Towelie*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 8,385
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
The three rookies are all question marks. I doubt we'd want to use any for more than 10 minutes in a regular season game.
Point me to a team that has there 8-10 defensemen on their depth chart that are not rookies.

Towelie* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:10 PM
  #679
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass Laich Anthem View Post
Point me to a team that has there 8-10 defensemen on their depth chart that are not rookies.
You'd be hard-pressed to find a 7th defenseman around the league as good as Rome. This guy is a capable third-pairing defenseman.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:21 PM
  #680
windflare
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Vancouver, B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,244
vCash: 500
We seem to have forgotten Baumgartner. Right there with Lee Sweatt behind Rome.

windflare is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:28 PM
  #681
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glass Laich Anthem View Post
Point me to a team that has there 8-10 defensemen on their depth chart that are not rookies.
Point me to a team that has had as many injuries to multiple d-men year after year as us. When Mike Gillis talks all summer about wanting 8-9 NHL level d-men and goes into the season with 7 I kind of wonder what is going on.

I hope it doesn't matter, we have a very durable top 4 that will hopefully stay healthy. But lack of depth on defense does not count as an acceptable excuse for playoff failure anymore. The message should be clear by now that we need more depth back there than other teams.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:33 PM
  #682
Canuckee
Registered User
 
Canuckee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,303
vCash: 500
who do you think would be his linemates on the moose and what line with average icetimes. including both pk icetimes and pp icetime

Canuckee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:34 PM
  #683
Laterade
Registered User
 
Laterade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,259
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
Point me to a team that has had as many injuries to multiple d-men year after year as us. When Mike Gillis talks all summer about wanting 8-9 NHL level d-men and goes into the season with 7 I kind of wonder what is going on.

I hope it doesn't matter, we have a very durable top 4 that will hopefully stay healthy. But lack of depth on defense does not count as an acceptable excuse for playoff failure anymore. The message should be clear by now that we need more depth back there than other teams.
We can do stuff at the deadline you know, season hasn't started yet..

Laterade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:43 PM
  #684
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laterade View Post
We can do stuff at the deadline you know, season hasn't started yet..
Yep we can overpay at the deadline.

Would have been nice to get an asset for O'Brien that we could then use at the deadline to bring in a depth player. Even a 3rd rounder would have been nice. Lets just pray Bieksa doesn't have his calf cut and Ballards hip holds up.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:49 PM
  #685
Dado
Guest
 
Country:
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
But lack of depth on defense does not count as an acceptable excuse for playoff failure anymore.
We're sporting nearly $70M in actual salary this season, not including prospects who won't make the team - there is NO acceptable reason for playoff failure - NONE at all.

Either this team rolls or heads roll.

  Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:54 PM
  #686
FiveAndGame
Registered User
 
FiveAndGame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dado View Post
We're sporting nearly $70M in actual salary this season, not including prospects who won't make the team - there is NO acceptable reason for playoff failure - NONE at all.

Either this team rolls or heads roll.
Would it be to much to ask you to roll out of here?

FiveAndGame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 06:59 PM
  #687
alternate
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,872
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
Yep we can overpay at the deadline.

Would have been nice to get an asset for O'Brien that we could then use at the deadline to bring in a depth player. Even a 3rd rounder would have been nice. Lets just pray Bieksa doesn't have his calf cut and Ballards hip holds up.
Agreed. Gillis should have at least called some other gms and asked for a third rounder before he but SOB on waivers. Can't believe the guy was that dumb.

alternate is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:02 PM
  #688
Spamhuis
Registered User
 
Spamhuis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,937
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Agreed. Gillis should have at least called some other gms and asked for a third rounder before he but SOB on waivers. Can't believe the guy was that dumb.
He did he had no takers.

Spamhuis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:03 PM
  #689
NugentHopkinsfan
Registered User
 
NugentHopkinsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 9,087
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Agreed. Gillis should have at least called some other gms and asked for a third rounder before he but SOB on waivers. Can't believe the guy was that dumb.
Maybe he did and nobody wanted him. I'm sure he did ask around. It's just too bad SOB lost all his value.

He went from being worth a first round pick to being worth Krajicek to being worth nothing.

NugentHopkinsfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:11 PM
  #690
Stefan It Up
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canuckee View Post
who do you think would be his linemates on the moose and what line with average icetimes. including both pk icetimes and pp icetime
no U

Stefan It Up is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:18 PM
  #691
Britton
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by alternate View Post
Agreed. Gillis should have at least called some other gms and asked for a third rounder before he but SOB on waivers. Can't believe the guy was that dumb.
Teams don't give up draft picks for players they can pick up for free off waivers when they know the team can't take any salary or contracts back. The same thing happened with Bryzgalov.

Britton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:46 PM
  #692
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Britton View Post
Teams don't give up draft picks for players they can pick up for free off waivers when they know the team can't take any salary or contracts back. The same thing happened with Bryzgalov.
Nah, that was just Brian Burke screwing up with a goaltender again.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 07:47 PM
  #693
BLAME CANADA*
The Canucks did it
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 5,696
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
Point me to a team that has had as many injuries to multiple d-men year after year as us. When Mike Gillis talks all summer about wanting 8-9 NHL level d-men and goes into the season with 7 I kind of wonder what is going on.

I hope it doesn't matter, we have a very durable top 4 that will hopefully stay healthy. But lack of depth on defense does not count as an acceptable excuse for playoff failure anymore. The message should be clear by now that we need more depth back there than other teams.
Relax man! SOB doesn't make or break our D. Injuries should hopefully not be that much of an issue as Hamhuis, Ballard, Edler and Ehrhoff are very reliable players.

BLAME CANADA* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 08:57 PM
  #694
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by HenrikSedinFan View Post
Point me to a team that has had as many injuries to multiple d-men year after year as us. When Mike Gillis talks all summer about wanting 8-9 NHL level d-men and goes into the season with 7 I kind of wonder what is going on.
So you're suggesting we carry only one extra forward when there are twice as many forward spots as defense slots? The second that two of our forwards go down with injuries, which is guaranteed to happen at some point, we're going to have to get rid of one of our 8 defensemen anyways to call up a forward. Doing it now saves the owner's some money.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:09 PM
  #695
FiveAndGame
Registered User
 
FiveAndGame's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,465
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
So you're suggesting we carry only one extra forward when there are twice as many forward spots as defense slots? The second that two of our forwards go down with injuries, which is guaranteed to happen at some point, we're going to have to get rid of one of our 8 defensemen anyways to call up a forward. Doing it now saves the owner's some money.
UNLESS, Gillis plans on using an offensive defenseman, with a decent shot but little ability to play the defensive zone, as a big body in front of the net.

FiveAndGame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:29 PM
  #696
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FiveAndGame View Post
UNLESS, Gillis plans on using an offensive defenseman, with a decent shot but little ability to play the defensive zone, as a big body in front of the net.
We've tried using defensemen as forwards before, and it has been a pretty huge fail.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:33 PM
  #697
jimmythescot
Registered User
 
jimmythescot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Edinburgh, Scotland
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,221
vCash: 500
I wouldn't say that Bieksa is a big body.

So....how about that Hodgson, eh?

jimmythescot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:39 PM
  #698
Wetcoaster
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Out There
Posts: 54,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
We've tried using defensemen as forwards before, and it has been a pretty huge fail.
Yup going back 40 years with the Canucks first ever draft pick, Dale Tallon.

Wetcoaster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:41 PM
  #699
biturbo19
Registered User
 
biturbo19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,460
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kanuck87 View Post
So you're suggesting we carry only one extra forward when there are twice as many forward spots as defense slots? The second that two of our forwards go down with injuries, which is guaranteed to happen at some point, we're going to have to get rid of one of our 8 defensemen anyways to call up a forward. Doing it now saves the owner's some money.
the thing is, we have Schroeder/Shirokov plus likely Oreskovich/Bolduc/Desbiens/Perrault/Voplatti/Sweatt/etc. as callups who are either waiver exempt or would likely clear easily. maybe even Hodgson as well. some capable 4th line fill-ins. on defence, we have...maybe Lee Sweatt who *might* be capable as an NHL fill-in, and a whole boatload of rookies who we could call up, and then Baumer who would likely clear waivers.

a #6 d-man is going to play more minutes and be counted on far more than a 4th line callup. even a top-6 call-up is going to be somewhat insulated.

so from a practical standpoint, it's more schrewd to carry 8 d-men and have a handful of forwards ready to shuttle up if needed, rather than carrying 14 forwards, when on any given night, the 12 forward spots are likely to be relatively consistent, with maybe an 'enforcer' like Rypien subbing in and out as needed.

biturbo19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-02-2010, 09:49 PM
  #700
kanuck87
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,207
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by biturbo19 View Post
the thing is, we have Schroeder/Shirokov plus likely Oreskovich/Bolduc/Desbiens/Perrault/Voplatti/Sweatt/etc. as callups who are either waiver exempt or would likely clear easily. maybe even Hodgson as well. some capable 4th line fill-ins. on defence, we have...maybe Lee Sweatt who *might* be capable as an NHL fill-in, and a whole boatload of rookies who we could call up, and then Baumer who would likely clear waivers.

a #6 d-man is going to play more minutes and be counted on far more than a 4th line callup. even a top-6 call-up is going to be somewhat insulated.

so from a practical standpoint, it's more schrewd to carry 8 d-men and have a handful of forwards ready to shuttle up if needed, rather than carrying 14 forwards, when on any given night, the 12 forward spots are likely to be relatively consistent, with maybe an 'enforcer' like Rypien subbing in and out as needed.
That's not the point. If we carry two extra d-men and one extra forward, and two of our forwards go down with a minor injury at the same time, we'll end up losing that 2nd extra defenseman anyways. Our 12 forward spots are just as likely to stay healthy as our 6 defensemen spots, so since there are twice as many forward slots as defensemen slots, it makes absolute sense to carry twice as many extra forwards than defensemen.

kanuck87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:01 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.