What would our lineup look like if we still had Grabner and Hodgson ?

[Uhmkay]

One of my good friends now lives in Buffalo and is a huge Sabres fan. He was so happy when they got Hodgson and I told him at the time about the drama that was coming out here. A couple weeks ago I was watching a Buffalo game on the tube and they showed a stat showing Hodgsons defensive liabilities... he apparently lead the league in goals scored against while he was on the ice, and something like 50% of goals scored were when he was playing.

My friend who loved the trade when it happened, now HATES it and wishes they could trade for Kassian. He watches every Sabres game and told me before I saw the above stat that he had no idea how bad Hodgson was in playing D.

I'll keep Kassian thank you very much..., he's still one year behind Hodgson in development, and I think he'll turn into the type of sandpaper/scoring forward you need in playoffs.

 

[LolClarkson*]

(This is not a thread to start trade arguments.)

 

[serge2k]

(This is not a thread to start trade arguments.)

Don't see what else it could really be.

 

[Nona Di Giuseppe]

Sedin-Hodgson-Burrows
Raymond-Kesler-Grabner
Booth-Friesen-Sturm
Desbiens-Lapierre-Weise

Campoli-Bieksa
Jack Johnson-Tanev
Barker-Alberts

That's right. Your selfish game of "what if" set off a horrific butterfly effect that forever changed the Canucks roster for the worse!

Well done, sir.

 

[Lonny Bohonos]

This is not a thread to start trade arguments.

But Im curious what our starting lineup would look like if we had them and not the forwards that are in their spots.

Hodgson would probably have the second line center spot locked because Kesler is injured too much.

And I could see Grabner being on the second or third line.

It would look pretty awesome if we still had Grabner and Hodgson. Especially with Jimmy Sandlak patrolling their wing.

 

[BrockH]

If Kes could play on the wing then I don't think it was worth keeping him in the center spot just to prove a point to Mr. Hodgson.

Because it wouldn't have been the best lineup we could ice. You don't build a team around a dad's demands.

You do realize that putting out "the best lineup we could ice" is not putting Kesler at center "just to prove a point." It's how you win games...you put the best team you can in the game. Not sure how you got the "to prove a point" from my post?

 

[LiquidSnake]

Our team would look softer slower and easy to play against.

 

[Wizeman*]

I also watch the Sabres games and Cody needs to play with quality players. It maximizes his on ice vision and quick release.

He would be useless in any other role. He does not have the speed or strength nor defensive awareness. He tends to play a 130ft ice as opposed to the whole 200ft. He stays high to make up for his lack of foot speed.

He doesnt fight or make bone crunching hits, but he does kill penalties because he anticipates so well and he virtually stands still in a box.

There was no room for Hodgson to thrive here as is being proven in Buffalo. He would have had to center the Sedin line to be effective.

One of the first things AV tried was putting Cody on with Kesler and Burrows and it lasted about 2 shifts. Burr and Kes were 4 strides up the ice faster than Hodgson.

I think the trade was a win win for both teams.

I still think we should have held onto Grabner but the other poster made a good point about AV doghousing the guy . He also could never thrive under a coach like AV.

 

[Shareefruck]

I'm keeping Ehrhoff as well, because I just realized that Ballard wouldn't be there.

Sedin - Sedin - Kesler (I can't picture this line getting shut down in the playoffs)
Burrows - Hodgson - Hansen (They looked dangerous playing with Pahlsson, Burrows is a better fit with him than Kesler, and Hansen has chemistry with both)
Raymond - Schroeder - Grabner (I don't care how small this line would be, it'd be dynamite, IMO-- the playing styles complement each other perfectly)
Higgins - Lapierre - Booth (Booth wouldn't be nearly as frustrating playing here)

Edler - Ehrhoff
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Tanev

Schneider
Luongo

It completely changes our identity, we wouldn't be able to match up physically or play as many different styles, but I still think it's a big improvement on what we have, personally-- We'd come out in waves offensively with that lineup.

 

[deadinthewater]

I tried, but it's tough. Looks more like a team that will be great in a couple of years rather than right now.

Sedin - Sedin - Power Forward from Luongo trade
Burrows - Hodgson - Kesler
Raymond - Schroeder - Grabner
Kassian - Lapierre - Hansen

Edler - Tanev
Hamhuis - Bieksa
Garrison - Ballard

Schneider
XX

We wouldn't have Kassian if we kept Hodgson.

 

[Shareefruck]

We wouldn't have Kassian if we kept Hodgson.

Yeah, I forgot.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

Booth-Hodgson-Kesler sounds pretty dang good.

 

[Steve Bennett*]

I scanned nhl.com stats of Grabbster and it looks like he had that one good year in 2010-11 (52 pts in 76 games) and since then is less than half a ppg (42 pts in 99 games) - worse then his short stint with the Canucks (11 pts in 20 games)...

 

[Jyrki]

People forget Grabner was waiver material at the time he was traded; if he wasn't packaged with the pick and Bernier he'd probably have gotten sent down the wire. It took a franchise desperate for cheap warm bodies to fill their roster for him to excel; not even the Panthers liked him enough. So IMHO the "what if's" with him is pretty useless.

And will we ever stop talking about Hodgson?

 

[Shareefruck]

Booth-Hodgson-Kesler sounds pretty dang good.

That line would get lit up

 

[Shareefruck]

People forget Grabner was waiver material at the time he was traded; if he wasn't packaged with the pick and Bernier he'd probably have gotten sent down the wire. It took a franchise desperate for cheap warm bodies to fill their roster for him to excel; not even the Panthers liked him enough. So IMHO the "what if's" with him is pretty useless.

And will we ever stop talking about Hodgson?

I'll stop talking about Hodgson when homer fans stop dismissing him.

I disagree about Grabner. He looked great when he was here, IMO-- yes he had a poor start, but I don't think we would have put him on waivers. Raymond - Kesler - Grabner added a mouth-wateringly dangerous identity to this team, IMO, and I actually think he would have done better playing on our team than on the Islanders, personally. I liked his defensive game in the playoffs against Chicago.

I can see how it wouldn't have been realistic/practical to keep all of Hodgson, Grabner, and Schroeder in the lineup, though.

 

[Apple Juice]

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Hodgson-Kesler-Grabner
Booth-Lapierre-Hansen
Raymond-Higgins-Weise

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev


That'd make the most sense... 4th line doesn't necessarily need to take face-offs anyways... That'd be tremendous depth offensively

 

[Shareefruck]

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Hodgson-Kesler-Grabner
Booth-Lapierre-Hansen
Raymond-Higgins-Weise

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev


That'd make the most sense... 4th line doesn't necessarily need to take face-offs anyways... That'd be tremendous depth offensively

I don't know, those forward lines kind of look like a bit of a mess to me outside of the first one.

 

[Apple Juice]

I don't know, those forward lines kind of look like a bit of a mess to me outside of the first one.

well in a nutshell that's what it'd look like... If we were to roll into the season like that, I'm sure AV would be mixing the lines up game by game and then he'll slowly move Hodgson down to the 3rd line and move up Booth or Hansen

 

[Ainec]

Grabner, I would love back

Hodgson... no need to disrupt the locker room

 

[Outside99*]

Grabner in Vancouver = AV's doghouse. Watched a few of his Islander games, not impressed with his work ethic. not playing to his potential.

 

[Treefingers]

Sedin-Sedin-Burrows
Hodgson-Kesler-Grabner
Booth-Lapierre-Hansen
Raymond-Higgins-Weise

Hamhuis-Bieksa
Edler-Garrison
Ballard-Tanev


That'd make the most sense... 4th line doesn't necessarily need to take face-offs anyways... That'd be tremendous depth offensively

Something tells me we wouldn't have Ballard with Grabner being here.

 

[Jyrki]

I'll stop talking about Hodgson when homer fans stop dismissing him.

I disagree about Grabner. He looked great when he was here, IMO-- yes he had a poor start, but I don't think we would have put him on waivers. Raymond - Kesler - Grabner added a mouth-wateringly dangerous identity to this team, IMO, and I actually think he would have done better playing on our team than on the Islanders, personally. I liked his defensive game in the playoffs against Chicago.

I can see how it wouldn't have been realistic/practical to keep all of Hodgson, Grabner, and Schroeder in the lineup, though.

I also liked Grabner very much and thought he was in for a bright future (as he has proven, kinda) but he would've definitively gotten lost in the numbers game. No way he would've gotten Top 6 time over Samuelsson out of camp and AV wouldn't play him in a bottom 6 role (most likely 4th line because of Hansen).

 

[CanucksSayEh]

That line would get lit up

That line would beast it through the playoffs.

 

[Shareefruck]

That line would beast it through the playoffs.

Why would you put the only two players on the team who are complete defensive liabilities on the same line?