The Great Ennis vs. Hodgson Debate

[Woodhouse]

I don't think people really know what hockey IQ entails. Vision and hockey IQ are not the same thing.

I think you're trying to say that however you label playmaking (vision, imagination, creativity, among others), it makes up only one aspect of hockey sense. There's also anticipation, decision making, discipline, play under pressure, versatility, etc. to factor into the conversation as well.

 

[Splintered Sherwood]

I don't think people really know what hockey IQ entails. Vision and hockey IQ are not the same thing.

Please, enlighten the slovenly masses as to what hockey IQ really is. I'd like to know.

Not to sidetrack the debate, but the concept of IQ itself is contentious. Traditional IQ tests have been demonstrated to have both gender bias and cultural bias, so their results, if you are a female minority, may not accurately assess that person's intelligence. Factor in the additional notion put across by Gardner and others that there are multiple intelligences at play when one speaks of intelligence, what you point to when you use a coefficient or quotient that measures intelligence is not exactly clear cut.

But, to speak to the issue at hand, one facet of Intelligence that clearly applies to any endeavour, be it hockey, chess, or monster truck driving, is the ability to understand one's limitations, or simply put, to be self aware. Place that simple idea in the context of the argument and I think Hodgson understands his limitations much more than Ennis does. I simply role my eyes every time Ennis tries to be a one man army by attempting to skate through half the opposition because most of the time it ends up in a loss of possession. Ennis doesn't have the Datsyuk-esque ability to consistently pick apart half a team, so why does he even try to do so? Hodgson, on the other hand, is more economical in his approach to the game and uses his teammates more effectively than Ennis.

Others have given more points so I won't rehash them, but, I don't even think this is a debate as Hodgson is the better player.

 

[Kyndig]

Hodgson>Ennis. Both=2nd liners. A line consists of 3 players. There is room for both of them on this team.

Ennis has a +7 turnover ratio and Hodgson is a -1. This is mostly due to Ennis leading the team in takeaways. Not all his energy is wasted energy.

 

[KennyFnPowers*]

Phoenix was probably saying similar things about Briere when they moved him for Chris Gratton.

You're 100% right, things can always change. Briere pulled a complete 180 and for a while was a really solid piece of talent. Thing is that's an edge case. Odds say that probably wont happen w/ Ennis (even though it still very well may at some point down the road).

I hear that dope-schopp on wgr claim he thinks Myers is done, talentless, doesn't care if they trade him for pucks... Every single time I think to myself - Even if he's the next Chara? Even if he just takes a lot longer to grow, mature, convert ability and talent into production on the ice..? - it blows my mind that people don't always see how some talent takes longer to develop than others. If I had a frame that big I wouldn't have been able to walk normally until I was 18!

that said, I don't think Enzo is that guy, or will work out as well as Briere's career did. I could be wrong tho.

 

[brian_griffin]

Why can't we be happy we got both and that we also have some great center prospects like Girgensons, Compher,Larsson,Grigorenko and Hurley? (And also Sam Reinhart in 5 months ) Or did you guys like it better then our top 2 centers were Derek Roy and Tim Connolly and our best center prospects were Felix Schutz, Marek Zagrapan and Paul Byron?

Be happy we got 2 centers both 24 or younger, who have shown to be consistent ~50 point scoring centers? And that both aren't tin men with no hearts a la Roy/Connolly.

(Roy did everything asked of him but we won't go there.)

The only problem with having both, is, long-term, when BUF emerges from the rebuild, BUF should not have both of them as centers because it would mean one of the following scenarios:

A) 1C Hodgson with 2C/3C Ennis.
B) 2C Hodgson with 3C Ennis.

Scenario "A" likely doesn't have enough top end talent, hence the hope for '14 & '15 draft.

Scenario "B" likely doesn't have a good enough defensive center to go deep in playoffs.

Therefore, Ennis should be moved before BUF exits the rebuild.
I wouldn't move Ennis to the wing, when BUF is a Cup contender, because BUF will be able to acquire a younger, cheaper, bigger, stronger-on-puck player as a replacement. They could still use Ennis with his skill set, but better to trade him to someone between now and then who will value him more, and give BUF younger assets in return.

 

[enthusiast]

My dream scenario has both Ennis and Hodgson as wingers.

 

[Shmuffalo]

My dream scenario has both Ennis and Hodgson as wingers.

Has Hodgson played wing in the NHL?

 

[B U F F A L O]

Has Hodgson played wing in the NHL?

I believe he did in Vancouver before he was traded.

 

[BananaSquad]

My dream scenario has both Ennis and Hodgson as wingers.

Hodgson on the wing????? Lol.

 

[Sabresruletheschool]

Not sure if I'm repeating anything but neither are "complete" players. But if I had to choose who was more complete out of those two it would be Hodg. His offensive IQ is slightly better and his vision is a lot better. Ennis of course has sick skating / puck handling skills but he tries to much sometimes. I'd give the the intensity edge to Ennis. When the other team has the puck, Ennis is a big pest and causes mistakes by the other team. It's hard to say who's better because they excel in different parts in the game, and they both have fall backs. I will say Hodgson has been looking less lost in the D zone and willingness to engage has gone up. I just wish Ennis could get Hodgson's vision and Hodgson could skate like Ennis. That would be scary.

 

[Push Dr Tracksuit]

My dream scenario has both Ennis and Hodgson as wingers.

If Hodgson could play wing in the top 6 Vancouver would have moved in to that spot on a permanent basis because they've needed a reliable winger for several seasons now with Raymond's(?) inconsistencies and injuries. Look no further than Kassian's elevation to the 1st line when he landed in Vancouver to support that they had zero faith in Hodgson to play wing.

I think Ennis's flexibility is one of the most important arguments in the debate.

 

[mikemcburn]

If Hodgson could play wing in the top 6 Vancouver would have moved in to that spot on a permanent basis because they've needed a reliable winger for several seasons now with Raymond's(?) inconsistencies and injuries. Look no further than Kassian's elevation to the 1st line when he landed in Vancouver to support that they had zero faith in Hodgson to play wing.

I think Ennis's flexibility is one of the most important arguments in the debate.

Kassian did not land in Vancouver and get plugged into the 1st line. His 12:27 total ice time that first game turned out to be the most ice he saw in Vancouver for the balance of the season. He did get some looks with the Sedins, but 3 points over 21 games (17 reg season + 4 playoff) probably explains why he ended the 2011-2012 year as a healthy scratch who had averaged only 10:17 TOI/g.

In any case, the fact Kassian had some shifts with the Sedins and didn't warrant more than 6 minutes of ice time in his final four games that season (less than 4 minutes in his final two showings) had nothing to do with Hodgson, whether the coaching staff in Vancouver had faith in Hodgson on the wing, or whether Hodgson can play wing in the future.

Also, to be fair to the kid, whatever the Canucks management thought of him or however they elected to deploy him game-to-game, is irrelevant really. We're talking about a coach who dissed him publicly for faking an injury that was ultimately proven to exist (by which time the damage took nearly a year off the kid's development), and a GM who has a habit of throwing players under the bus to deflect negative media attention onto his own decisions.

The opinion of Canucks mgmt are not only (understandably) biased to covering their own butts, but also stand in wholesale contradiction to everything we've heard of Hodgson's potential and character from everyone else who has managed, coached and played with the guy throughout his (still young) career. I sure wouldn't rely on the Canucks faith (or lack thereof) to pigeonhole Hodgson's potential.

Besides, centers adapt to wing all the time and there's nothing to indicate from Hodgson's work ethic and team styled mentality to suggest he wouldn't throw himself into adapting however he's instructed.

 

[RazielMoshman]

I wonder how many teams have fans that engage in all out wars regarding which player on their team is best. Maybe other teams have fans that actually praise all good players on a team or recognise two players can have different skill sets but be as good in their own ways.

Maybe I'm crazy.

 

[mikemcburn]

I wonder how many teams have fans that engage in all out wars regarding which player on their team is best. Maybe other teams have fans that actually praise all good players on a team or recognise two players can have different skill sets but be as good in their own ways.

Maybe I'm crazy.

If you want to read an "all out war" on player vs player, try checking out the Canucks.com forums, ugh! This thread is the definition of civilized discourse by comparison

 

[SabreBlood]

Three scoring lines are better than two. Just extend Ennis and you've got a nice 2nd or 3rd line center, a player that can move to wing or stay at center. If you're stacked enough that he can be on the 3rd line, that's excellent; and he's there to move up if you need him. Have enough scoring depth to make your 4th line your shut down line, and roll 4 lines. Something like Flynn - Ott - Kaleta. That would be a fine checking line.

 

[ZeroPT*]

Skating in hockey is much like running in football (soccer). Putting your head down and running as fast as you can doesn't make you a good runner.. it makes you a fast runner. However, being able to read through defenses, make darting runs and creating space for your teammates is arguably more important and harder to master than just sprinting.

The same could be said for this debate. Ennis is faster, yes, no one will argue that. But CoHo is a much smarter skater who makes plays with his skating.. he won't beat you in a foot race, he will however, skate in a manner which will create an opening for his teammates and allow them to make a play. This is also a reason why people tend to underrate Sam Reinhart, because he doesn't skate really ****ing fast like a Mackinnon, but is a more intelligent skater-- like a Zetterberg.

I just think we should be happy to have both, because they're both very good players, who are young and will be apart of this team for awhile-- if it came down to it, and we needed to move 1 of the 2, I would trade Ennis before Hodgson, and not think twice about it.