Post-Game Talk: Canucks def. Coyotes - 2-0

[Pip]

I don't see your point though, a ton of legitimate second line players are streaky scorers, if they produced on a nightly basis they would be first line players. I don't know how you can't see how he has been improving over the last few years and his transition into a top 6 talent. Just because he doesn't do well on the PP, doesn't mean that he isn't a top 6 player.

 

[Zarpan]

No, I would've been the same! You see, what you people don't get is that I'm not worried about goaltending. How that has not been obvious, I don't know!

A 15 save shutout is just meh! Id be ecstatic if i could get excited watching either goalie stop a dozen wristers from the top of the circle, but i cant. I was concerned that once again, our forwards weren't able to stop on their necks and hence allowed a really crappy team to hang around.

Do you get that?

I don't know if I've ever seen you post anything in a game thread where you just say "Schneider was good". Full stop. I'd like to see you do that just once.

You either wait to pipe in during games that he lost, or talk about how crappy the other team was.

The closest you seem to have come to that was "Schneider has been solid through these last 5 games. He hasn't been brilliant, but then again hasn't had to be." during a stretch where he won two 1-0 games.

So can you actually bring yourself to say that Schneider was good without trying to qualify it? Your inability to do so is what makes people question your biases.

 

[biturbo19]

I don't see your point though, a ton of legitimate second line players are streaky scorers, if they produced on a nightly basis they would be first line players. I don't know how you can't see how he has been improving over the last few years and his transition into a top 6 talent. Just because he doesn't do well on the PP, doesn't mean that he isn't a top 6 player.

My point is, Hansen has had stretches like he's started off this year before...and still ended up with '3rd line' production at the end of 82 games.

And nights like tonight show why. You can't question his work ethic or effort, but there are times when his hands and vision just disappear. Then there are times when he's getting a great opportunity and the points just pile up for him. He did this last year as well for a stretch. Then went relatively 'cold' again.

It's remarkable that a player with such consistent effort can have such an inconsistent set of skills. But for whatever reason...that's Hansen.

 

[NuxFan09]

ferroid was nice enough to post the top scoring wingers of each of the top team.



Seems like he is on pace with the league's elite in terms of a top 6 winger. I'm not arguing that he is a high end second liner, but he is a legitimate top 6 winger. Unless all of these teams are lacking a top 6 talent. Considering our centre depth now with a high end second liner playing third line centre, I think our forwards will be the least of our problems going forward in terms of talent. I am more afraid of our largely underperforming D core.

That was actually an interesting post by ferroid. I had no idea the Canucks' top 6 wingers were on par with those of the other top teams in the West, scoring wise.

Reinforces the point that centre depth is the truly important factor.

 

[Ozone]

My point is, Hansen has had stretches like he's started off this year before...and still ended up with '3rd line' production at the end of 82 games.

And nights like tonight show why. You can't question his work ethic or effort, but there are times when his hands and vision just disappear. Then there are times when he's getting a great opportunity and the points just pile up for him. He did this last year as well for a stretch. Then went relatively 'cold' again.

It's remarkable that a player with such consistent effort can have such an inconsistent set of skills. But for whatever reason...that's Hansen.

Kudos on your posts these last couple of pages...smart, well thought out and well written.

 

[NuxFan09]

For me, I don't want to label Hansen as a 2nd liner now or just a 3rd liner either. At the end of the day, I think of the guy as a 9th round pick who came into the league strictly as a grinder and is now exceeding expectations. He's like Pascal Dupuis light (light because Dupuis was still a scoring star at the junior level).

 

[Pip]

My point is, Hansen has had stretches like he's started off this year before...and still ended up with '3rd line' production at the end of 82 games.

And nights like tonight show why. You can't question his work ethic or effort, but there are times when his hands and vision just disappear. Then there are times when he's getting a great opportunity and the points just pile up for him. He did this last year as well for a stretch. Then went relatively 'cold' again.

It's remarkable that a player with such consistent effort can have such an inconsistent set of skills. But for whatever reason...that's Hansen.

I would argue that most second line players do go on cold streaks though, only first line players produce every game. I think the issue that we are having here is a difference in the definition of a second line player in which you have a much higher standard than me. I feel when I look league wide, even just within playoff teams, Hansen averages as a second line player, not an elite second liner, but one nonetheless.

 

[Royal Canuck]

Kinda boring game, but hey, a win is a win.

 

[ferroid]

My final word on the top six winger debate before I stop procrastinating is this:

Regardless of feelings of whether or not a player's performance projects over an 82 game season, or judging past seasons as evidence of legitimacy of evidence:

Would you call Alex Burrows, this season so far, a top six winger?
If so, then Jannik Hansen certainly is as well (they have the same number of points).

If not, we sure are paying a lot for a third line winger!

 

[biturbo19]

Kudos on your posts these last couple of pages...smart, well thought out and well written.

Well thank you.

For me, I don't want to label Hansen as a 2nd liner now or just a 3rd liner either. At the end of the day, I think of the guy as a 9th round pick who came into the league strictly as a grinder and is now exceeding expectations. He's like Pascal Dupuis light (light because Dupuis was still a scoring star at the junior level).

I think that's a very fair assessment of what Hansen is. And if this Kesler+Roy thing goes as well as it looks based on tonight...it really honestly won't matter who is a 2nd or 3rd liner here. It'll be about fit and chemistry.

I would add that Hansen wasn't exactly a slouch in the WHL when he came over...maybe not a 'star' but pretty respectable. And at the time Dupuis was playing in the Q...that's the era where that 'QMJHL is a higher scoring league' myth was perpetuated. But regardless...they're both players who have scoring touch, but are essentially 3rd liners...both have found a fit where they can produce at a higher rate than normal (more so with Dupuis).

I would argue that most second line players do go on cold streaks though, only first line players produce every game. I think the issue that we are having here is a difference in the definition of a second line player in which you have a much higher standard than me. I feel when I look league wide, even just within playoff teams, Hansen averages as a second line player, not an elite second liner, but one nonetheless.

Nobody is expecting a '2nd line player' to produce every game. But what Hansen does is different. He'll rack up points during a good run, then go cold and look like 'ol stonehands for a long run. In a short season like this...Hansen's early hot streak projects out over a full season as a lot more than it would if you truly incorporate his tendency to run hot and cold. Like i said, it happened last year to a significant extent. He had a run where people were going gaga over Hansen. But it cooled off and he went back to what he is. An ideal 3rd line Winger.

My final word on the top six winger debate before I stop procrastinating is this:

Regardless of feelings of whether or not a player's performance projects over an 82 game season, or judging past seasons as evidence of legitimacy of evidence:

Would you call Alex Burrows, this season so far, a top six winger?
If so, then Jannik Hansen certainly is as well (they have the same number of points).

If not, we sure are paying a lot for a third line winger!

Alex Burrows is an extremely unique case. Highly atypical of the development curve on players, and an oddity in his magic chemistry with a pair of bonafide first liners in the Sedins. And I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this point...are you suggesting that Hansen would produce at a Burrows level with the Sedins? Because we've seen...just like with other opportunities, Hansen has shown flashes with the Twins, but he's not anywhere close to Burrows ability on that top line.

 

[Pip]

Kinda boring game, but hey, a win is a win.

I thought the first two periods were pretty entertaining all things considered, third was a bit boring at times I would agree though

 

[StringerBell]

I think the reason lots of people have trouble considering Hansen to be a 2nd line player is because his offensive instincts and creativity aren't even close to a top 6 level. He's a 3rd liner by skillset who produces at a 2nd line rate.

In other words, labelling players by top 6/third line is a terrible descriptor for a lot of players.

 

[Aphid Attraction]

My final word on the top six winger debate before I stop procrastinating is this:

Regardless of feelings of whether or not a player's performance projects over an 82 game season, or judging past seasons as evidence of legitimacy of evidence:

Would you call Alex Burrows, this season so far, a top six winger?
If so, then Jannik Hansen certainly is as well (they have the same number of points).

If not, we sure are paying a lot for a third line winger!

Don't mean to be a dink but this year Burrows has also been put at 2nd line winger, 2nd and 3rd line center and had less PP time then Hansen, so one might assume that if he was on the top line wing the whole season, with as much PP time, he would be out scoring Hansen, thus meaning that if you compare point for point then Hansen has not produced at the same top 6 pace.

IMO however, I think Hansen is a very good tweener like all our wingers not named Sedin

 

[Aphid Attraction]

I think the reason lots of people have trouble considering Hansen to be a 2nd line player is because his offensive instincts and creativity aren't even close to a top 6 level. He's a 3rd liner by skillset who produces at a 2nd line rate.

In other words, labelling players by top 6/third line is a terrible descriptor for a lot of players.

Also honey badger doesn't give a **** what we label him...

 

[vanuck]

I think the reason lots of people have trouble considering Hansen to be a 2nd line player is because his offensive instincts and creativity aren't even close to a top 6 level. He's a 3rd liner by skillset who produces at a 2nd line rate.

In other words, labelling players by top 6/third line is a terrible descriptor for a lot of players.

I think that's a fair way to put it, though I would argue that his passing ability is probably that of a 'top 6' player's.

Nothing wrong with having someone who produces like a 2nd liner on the 3rd line... it's what championship teams need.

 

[Tiranis]

Hansen produced at a 2nd line rate last season despite 3rd line minutes and no PP time. New argument, please, since this one doesn't hold up to evidence.

This season he's not just producing at a 2nd line rate, he's producing a Top 50 rate at ES (that's 1st line numbers). There's no evidence this is simply a product of a hot streak either. Even if we include PP production, he's up there with guys like Iginla, Gaborik, Callahan, Selanne, Saad, Turris, Franzen, Clarkson, Eriksson, Pavelski, Richards, etc.

So much emphasis on how players look around here. Same goes for Garrison. This isn't a prospect you're evaluating, it's a real player getting real results. He's missing on chances but he's also creating a ton of chances that he does convert on or setup for his teammates to convert on.

In general, Jannik Hansen is really no more stone-hands than any other player on our roster. His shooting percentage is right around 10 which is pretty average, even if it means he's not a sniper. The difference between him and a 1st line guy like Parise is the amount of chances created by them, not the amount of chances converted.

 

[biturbo19]

Hansen produced at a 2nd line rate last season despite 3rd line minutes and no PP time. New argument, please, since this one doesn't hold up to evidence.

This season he's not just producing at a 2nd line rate, he's producing a Top 50 rate at ES (that's 1st line numbers). There's no evidence this is simply a product of a hot streak either. Even if we include PP production, he's up there with guys like Iginla, Gaborik, Callahan, Selanne, Saad, Turris, Franzen, Clarkson, Eriksson, Pavelski, Richards, etc.

So much emphasis on how players look around here. Same goes for Garrison. This isn't a prospect you're evaluating, it's a real player getting real results. He's missing on chances but he's also creating a ton of chances that he does convert on or setup for his teammates to convert on.

In general, Jannik Hansen is really no more stone-hands than any other player on our roster. His shooting percentage is right around 10 which is pretty average, even if it means he's not a sniper. The difference between him and a 1st line guy like Parise is the amount of chances created by them, not the amount of chances converted.

Last year, Hansen put up less than 40pts. And that's with playing time alongside the Sedins (where there is a fairly well established trend of point production). If that's what we're striving for as a '2nd liner', the bad guys have won.

As for this year? Yes, he's produced at a 'pace' that would make him a top-6 forward. But we're talking half...of a half of a season.

And i know you and others have mentioned this before...production on a weak team doesn't always equate to production on a strong/deep team. What exactly do you think this Canucks forward corps has been so far this year, up to the point we added a legitimate center in Roy and got Kesler back? Hansen took a great opportunity on a (temporarily) weak team and ran with it. He hit one of his hot streaks at just the right time and his stats reflect that. If you project that out...he's what, a ~45pt player? And we've all acknowledged he's having a great breakout year. If that's his high point...he's still just a fringe top-6 player.

Take a look at LA last year winning the Cup. They have underperforming players, yes...guys like Richards and Penner were performing at a level way below what they've shown themselves capable of. Those are Cup winning 2nd liners. They're 60pt players, even if they don't show it every year.

This isn't 'The Sims: hockey edition'. Unrealized capacity to score means something...and i'd like to hear evidence that the Kings' top-6 guys are trumped by Jannik Hansen's production this year.

Should i break it down?

1.Kopitar: 70-80pt range consistently.
2.Brown: 50pt range consistently, and often close to 60pt.
3.Richards: 60pt range most years, and actually hit 80pts. I will eat a shoe if Hansen hits 80pts no matter what line or system he plays in.
4.Williams: 50-60pt range consistently when healthy, with a record of exceeding that in earlier years.
5.Carter: 50-80pt range. Wide variance there as he's not much of a passer...but in that context...nearly a 50g scorer. Let me know when Hansen scores half that many.
6.Penner: had an abysmal year with the Kings and a poor fit much of the time...but a player with a recorded ability to be a 60pt+ 30g+ scorer.

and For the bonus round...

7.Gagne: a player who, despite constant injuries, put up similar or better points than Hansen, in typically a lot fewer games. This was a reserve forward for the Kings.



My point? Winning the cup isn't about having guys who can eek out 'average' top-6 production. It's about having guys who can exceed that. And in the context of a team with intentions on winning the Stanley Cup...Hansen is not a 'legitimate top-6 forward'. He's an epic 3rd liner.

And i don't know why some people are dead set on claiming he's more than that.

 

[Bougieman]

Yeah, we only got one goal on 41 shots, but the goals and points will DEF come if we keep playing like we did today. The last two games are the kind of Canucks that I signed up for, man. ^_^

I am so glad we have Roy and now Kesler back, if this is the effect they're having. It's no coincidence that we're playing like this all of a sudden.

 

[putridgasbag]

Last year, Hansen put up less than 40pts. And that's with playing time alongside the Sedins (where there is a fairly well established trend of point production). If that's what we're striving for as a '2nd liner', the bad guys have won.

As for this year? Yes, he's produced at a 'pace' that would make him a top-6 forward. But we're talking half...of a half of a season.

And i know you and others have mentioned this before...production on a weak team doesn't always equate to production on a strong/deep team. What exactly do you think this Canucks forward corps has been so far this year, up to the point we added a legitimate center in Roy and got Kesler back? Hansen took a great opportunity on a (temporarily) weak team and ran with it. He hit one of his hot streaks at just the right time and his stats reflect that. If you project that out...he's what, a ~45pt player? And we've all acknowledged he's having a great breakout year. If that's his high point...he's still just a fringe top-6 player.

Take a look at LA last year winning the Cup. They have underperforming players, yes...guys like Richards and Penner were performing at a level way below what they've shown themselves capable of. Those are Cup winning 2nd liners. They're 60pt players, even if they don't show it every year.

This isn't 'The Sims: hockey edition'. Unrealized capacity to score means something...and i'd like to hear evidence that the Kings' top-6 guys are trumped by Jannik Hansen's production this year.

Should i break it down?

1.Kopitar: 70-80pt range consistently.
2.Brown: 50pt range consistently, and often close to 60pt.
3.Richards: 60pt range most years, and actually hit 80pts. I will eat a shoe if Hansen hits 80pts no matter what line or system he plays in.
4.Williams: 50-60pt range consistently when healthy, with a record of exceeding that in earlier years.
5.Carter: 50-80pt range. Wide variance there as he's not much of a passer...but in that context...nearly a 50g scorer. Let me know when Hansen scores half that many.
6.Penner: had an abysmal year with the Kings and a poor fit much of the time...but a player with a recorded ability to be a 60pt+ 30g+ scorer.

and For the bonus round...

7.Gagne: a player who, despite constant injuries, put up similar or better points than Hansen, in typically a lot fewer games. This was a reserve forward for the Kings.



My point? Winning the cup isn't about having guys who can eek out 'average' top-6 production. It's about having guys who can exceed that. And in the context of a team with intentions on winning the Stanley Cup...Hansen is not a 'legitimate top-6 forward'. He's an epic 3rd liner.

And i don't know why some people are dead set on claiming he's more than that.

Easy question to answer because you are wrong.

What you want is a guy who produces at a top line pace playing on the second line.

 

[Alflives*]

I would argue that most second line players do go on cold streaks though, only first line players produce every game. I think the issue that we are having here is a difference in the definition of a second line player in which you have a much higher standard than me. I feel when I look league wide, even just within playoff teams, Hansen averages as a second line player, not an elite second liner, but one nonetheless.

Hanson is a very important player, regardless of which line he starts on. Yes, he has poor hands, but he compensates for this with fabulous puck retrieval skills. He plays his regular shift, and is a top PK guy. Second or Third line is not the point. He is a valuable player to the Canucks, and would play the same role on any NHL team.

 

[Luck 6]

I thought the first two periods were pretty entertaining all things considered, third was a bit boring at times I would agree though

I think in order to call Hansen a top 6 forward, you need to define a top 6 forward. The two of you likely have a different definition, so you're arguing a moot point. Hansen is on pace for ~45 points this season, assuming he were to continue at that pace does that make him a top 6 forward? Very debatable. In addition to the statistics, I feel offensive play on the ice is a clear indicator. Does the play die on a players stick in the offensive zone? Is he dynamic/creative enough to keep a play alive? Does he have an excellent shot or offensive positioning? For Hansen, he's average in all of the above categories. Instead, he earns his points by out working opponents. Because of that, I place him as a great 3rd liner who can essentially play anywhere in the line-up in short stints. I wouldn't call him a legit top 6 forward though because despite his stats, his play on the ice doesn't usually reflect that.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Anaheim's Top 4 Scoring Wingers:

Corey Perrey @ 31 points in 36 games
Bobby Ryan @ 28 Points in 40 games
Teemu Selanne @ 22 points in 40 games
Kyle Palmieri @ 16 Points in 35 games

Chicago's Top 4 Scoring Wingers:

Patrick Kane @ 46 points in 38 games
Marian Hossa @ 23 points in 31 games
Brandon Saad @ 23 points in 37 games
Bryan Bickell @ 20 points in 38 games

Vancouver's Top 4 Scoring Wingers:

Daniel Sedin @ 33 points in 39 games
Alex Burrows @ 22 points in 39 games
Jannik Hansen @ 22 points in 38 games
Mason Raymond @ 19 points in 37 games

Patrick Sharp is injured, but he should also be on the list for Chicago.

And of course there are teams like Boston and Pittsburgh, with much better winger depth.

Seguin/Jagr/Marchand/EDIT:Lucic
Iginla/Neal/Kunitz/Dupuis

 

[Tiranis]

I think in order to call Hansen a top 6 forward, you need to define a top 6 forward. The two of you likely have a different definition, so you're arguing a moot point. Hansen is on pace for ~45 points this season, assuming he were to continue at that pace does that make him a top 6 forward? Very debatable. In addition to the statistics, I feel offensive play on the ice is a clear indicator. Does the play die on a players stick in the offensive zone? Is he dynamic/creative enough to keep a play alive? Does he have an excellent shot or offensive positioning? For Hansen, he's average in all of the above categories. Instead, he earns his points by out working opponents. Because of that, I place him as a great 3rd liner who can essentially play anywhere in the line-up in short stints. I wouldn't call him a legit top 6 forward though because despite his stats, his play on the ice doesn't usually reflect that.

Is Milan Lucic a top 6 forward? Because he mostly uses his size, strength and work ethic to get his points. He doesn't have great hockey IQ, his offensive vision is limited, his shot is no better than Hansen's, he has no 'skill', etc.

Hansen doesn't have size but he has speed and he has better hockey IQ.

Patrick Sharp is injured, but he should also be on the list for Chicago.

And of course there are teams like Boston and Pittsburgh, with much better winger depth.

Seguin/Jagr/Marchand/Horton
Iginla/Neal/Kunitz/Dupuis

Iginla has 1 more point than Hansen. Neal, Kunitz and Dupuis are completely useless without their top 2 centres. They have a combined 2 goals in the games that Malkin and/or Crosby are out of the line-up.

Every single argument in this thread seems to rest on how these players look or their name recognition rather than actual on-ice results over the past 2 years. I'm sorry if that doesn't sway my opinion.

 

[Vankiller Whale]

Iginla has 1 more point than Hansen. Neal, Kunitz and Dupuis are completely useless without their top 2 centres. They have a combined 2 goals in the games that Malkin and/or Crosby are out of the line-up.

Crosby was injured what, just last week? Regardless, even if a lot of their success has to do with their centres, at least they have success. Hansen with the Sedins on the PP has been awful. If he could produce Kunitz-like numbers even as a product of playing with the Sedins, then that would be great.

Also, Hansen having a hot streak in a shortened season doesn't all of a sudden vault him up to Iginla calibre. Apart from a couple of breakaways that usually fail, Hansen isn't able to generate offense on his own to the same degree as other players, and that leaves only Kesler(or Roy) as the only truly dangerous player on their line.

Playing Roy and Kesler on the same line and having a Raymond-Hansen-Schroeder line might alleviate that, but who knows.

 

[m9]

I have an issue when people only use even-strength numbers to help someone like Hansen's case. Part of being a top six or even top nine player is the ability to play on the PP and put up points , and Hansen just isn't very effective out there as of now. He's a bargain and a very good player but I think all of his numbers need to be included, not just even-strength.