Bigger key to team success: Ennis or Hodgson? | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

Bigger key to team success: Ennis or Hodgson?

jBuds

pretty damn valuable
Apr 9, 2005
30,876
1,492
Richmond, VA
I know we've debated this, and I know the easier answer is ....."ummmmm....both".

But if one were to fall short(er) of expectations than the other, which of the two would put us in a tougher situation?

Note that it seems that Hodgson is centering the first line with our scoring wingers, while Ennis is getting "Roy duties"...for the first few minutes of the first game.

Can you focus in on one being more crucial than the other? Or are they so equal in terms of importance to success down the middle that it's not really a debatable question? Just curious. Had the debate yesterday and couldn't separate the two...
 
Ennis.

Pominville and Vanek can be successful without Hodgson.

the Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line tends to go as Ennis goes. Foligno and Stafford are less likely to create on their own if Ennis is slumping.
 
Ennis.

That top line with Vanek/Poms can get points even with a dud centering them. That's not to say having a stud there wouldn't propel us out of mediocrity, just that they can produce without him being great.

Without significant points coming from that second line, we're dead in the water IMO. And for that, we need Ennis from the end of last season.

EDIT:

vcv said:
Ennis.

Pominville and Vanek can be successful without Hodgson.

the Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line tends to go as Ennis goes. Foligno and Stafford are less likely to create on their own if Ennis is slumping.
Click to expand...

Pretty much word for word lol.
 
vcv said:
Ennis.

Pominville and Vanek can be successful without Hodgson.

the Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line tends to go as Ennis goes. Foligno and Stafford are less likely to create on their own if Ennis is slumping.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I thought too. Well put.
 
The lines the way they are...Ennis.

You know Vanek and Pommers are going to get their fair share no matter what, and attract the top pairings. Even if Hodgson struggles, you can be reasonably confident in Pommer's ability (and to a lesser extent, Vanek) to get some offense still--they've shown in the past that they can carry a line. We need a second line to take the heat off of them, and you can't say with the same confidence that Ennis's current linemates can produce even if Ennis struggles. Ennis is what made that line go, neither Foligno nor Stafford can be counted on to carry that line. Which means Ennis is the key to getting that secondary scoring.

EDIT: LOL I think we can close the thread now, seems like we are all in agreement for exactly the same reason :biglaugh:
 
I would say Hodgson by a nose. I think by centring Van and Poms our two biggest point producers is crucial. If he can't deliver successfully on that line we could go into some mega scoring droughts. He will also be on the first PP unit, compared to Ennis being on the second, which doesn't guarantee him more PP time but it looks that way to start, and as well will be relied on for the PK unit. Finally, defensively CoHo is seen as a two way player, and Ennis more of a liability. When is comes to being able to produce defensively in their own zone, it wouldn't be as surprising to see Ennis struggle, and more of a surprise and shame to see CoHo struggle.

Edit: Im seeing the points about V and P's ability to be successful without a good centre, but everyone is always talking about how we've been need a true #1 for years. Lets say Hodgson delivers this year and is everything we'd dreamed of and more, and both Vanek and Poms deliver point per game years, rather than their recent 60-70 points/82 years. I think having a true scoring first line and a killer PP unit would go a long way for this teams success.
 
Last edited:
vcv said:
Ennis.

Pominville and Vanek can be successful without Hodgson.

the Foligno-Ennis-Stafford line tends to go as Ennis goes. Foligno and Stafford are less likely to create on their own if Ennis is slumping.
Click to expand...

Agree with this, I really like Stafford with Ennis because his speed/quickness seems to make Stafford have to be on his A game when he's out there to keep up. If Ennis slumps, Stafford goes down with him IMO.
 
jBuds said:
I know we've debated this, and I know the easier answer is ....."ummmmm....both".

But if one were to fall short(er) of expectations than the other, which of the two would put us in a tougher situation?

Note that it seems that Hodgson is centering the first line with our scoring wingers, while Ennis is getting "Roy duties"...for the first few minutes of the first game.

Can you focus in on one being more crucial than the other? Or are they so equal in terms of importance to success down the middle that it's not really a debatable question? Just curious. Had the debate yesterday and couldn't separate the two...
Click to expand...

Its also the correct answer. No team can have sustained success without strong play up the middle. The last few years have certainly taught us this. If either falters badly we are in for a tough season.
 
In a general sense I say it's completely even, but if we're talking about more specifically within the lines, then clearly more is on Ennis to make his tick than is on Hodgson.
 
Rob Paxon said:
In a general sense I say it's completely even, but if we're talking about more specifically within the lines, then clearly more is on Ennis to make his tick than is on Hodgson.
Click to expand...

Offensively thats true. But I have a feeling Hodgson will be relied on quite a bit this year in defensive situations.
 
Hodgson, I just believe Ennis is more of a left wing than a center. Although, he should play center with Foligno and Stafford if they play the same as they did down the stretch
 
joshjull said:
Offensively thats true. But I have a feeling Hodgson will be relied on quite a bit this year in defensive situations.
Click to expand...

Agreed, that's why I think they're even overall. But I do think Ennis is much more important to his line, as Vanek-Pommers would probably be fine with, say, Hecht (if healthy and playing decently), Leino, Ott, or any other decent NHL player. Maybe not fine, but better off than a line of Foligno-[same player]-Stafford would be, I think.
 
I'll go with Hodgson because I think he'll be counted on defensively while still having to put up points. Ennis (presumably) will be getting lots of offensive zone starts and won't be expected to carry the defensive load.
 
Buffalo News: Grigs!
WGR: Grigs!

I'd say Ennis. For reasons already stated. Without Ennis making his line go, teams would focus more on Vanek and Pommers. Which not only shuts down out primary scoring but also our 2nd line would not be scoring either.
 
If Ennis is the "bigger key to success", then this iteration will fail just as miserably as the last one.
 
Bah at the "both" copouts.

Hodgson. Simplistic reasoning: if FES keeps producing as they were last year, then Hodgson's the guy who has to elevate to make sure we have the 1-2 punch.

I'm also admittedly biased / jaded against the whole winger-gone-center projects.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom