227 replies to this topic

[SouthernWingsFan]

You cry me a river and learn hockey. He isnt making excuses, all players who play their hardest end up injured by the end of playoffs. No one is making excuses injures are legit. So stop searching for reasons to hate hossa even though he owned your ass and the rest of the league by winning the cup.

Hossa didn't own jack squat.

I see your point and definitely recognize hard work and backchecking and the like - stuff that doesn't go on the stat sheet usually.

I'm happy that he finally got a Stanley Cup, more power to him for contributing in different ways than goals.

However, a good part of his salary comes from producing goals and points. Something that he hasn't done all that much in the postseason outside of maybe 2 or 3 times.

Neither side is right or wrong. So quit getting your panties in a bunch if people think Hossa didn't do his part to help Chicago win. The argument that he did other things outside of points is legitmate, so is his lack of goal scoring production.

[eva unit zero]

Byfuglien wouldn't even be in this conversation if he didn't scrape up all of the scraps from Toews and Kane on the PP. He scored 5 PP goals in 22 games, compared to 6 in the regular season. his pace works out to 19, which would have put him second to Stamkos' 24 in the regular season.

Toews was a beast all playoffs... Byfuglien was good, but no better than Hossa. The difference is Hossa was the best player on his line most of the run, while Byfuglien was the third best player on his.

Hossa scored more than Versteeg, had more impact defensively, and created more chances.
Hossa scored more than Bolland at even strength, and both were key to the Hawks' PK unit.

In fact, only Kane (16) and Sharp (15) had more even strength points than Hossa (14) did, and Hossa's 11 even strength assists led the team.

So no, he wasn't scoring a bunch of goals; he was only on pace for 11. But he was a key defensive player and was still on pace for 50+ points. People measuring him entirely by his goals are stupid and don't know hockey. Period.

[Gordon Bombay]

Hossa was probably the Hawks second best forward in the postseason, maybe third (behind Sharp, but I don't think so). He was making things happen offensively every single time he got the puck in the offensive zone, was a monster defensively, and was consistently winning battles on the boards. It's really sad that people can't get over this irrational disdain they have towards Hossa. Either that or they're erroneously looking at point totals to determine how good a player was. Either way, it's sad that so many people don't understand how good Marian Hossa was this postseason.

Edited by Gordon Bombay, 14 June 2010 - 10:31 AM.

[GordieSid&Ted]

Byfuglien wouldn't even be in this conversation if he didn't scrape up all of the scraps from Toews and Kane on the PP. He scored 5 PP goals in 22 games, compared to 6 in the regular season. his pace works out to 19, which would have put him second to Stamkos' 24 in the regular season.

Toews was a beast all playoffs... Byfuglien was good, but no better than Hossa. The difference is Hossa was the best player on his line most of the run, while Byfuglien was the third best player on his.

Hossa scored more than Versteeg, had more impact defensively, and created more chances.
Hossa scored more than Bolland at even strength, and both were key to the Hawks' PK unit.

In fact, only Kane (16) and Sharp (15) had more even strength points than Hossa (14) did, and Hossa's 11 even strength assists led the team.

So no, he wasn't scoring a bunch of goals; he was only on pace for 11. But he was a key defensive player and was still on pace for 50+ points. People measuring him entirely by his goals are stupid and don't know hockey. Period.

Holy s***! For once i'm in 100% agreement with Eva on every point. Well, I dunno so much about people being stupid or not knowing hockey. I think it's a little bit of people being blinded by hate and bitterness and letting their emotions cloud rational judgment. I thought Hossa was very noticeable on most of his shifts. He controlled the puck a lot, he backchecked like Datsyuk and Z. He's one of the best all around forwards in the freaking world and his coach and every single Hawks player will tell you he played his ass off and was extremely effective in the playoffs, including the finals. Goals, schmoals. He did everything else he needed to do to help them win.

[wingnut40]

Byfuglien wouldn't even be in this conversation if he didn't scrape up all of the scraps from Toews and Kane on the PP. He scored 5 PP goals in 22 games, compared to 6 in the regular season. his pace works out to 19, which would have put him second to Stamkos' 24 in the regular season.

Toews was a beast all playoffs... Byfuglien was good, but no better than Hossa. The difference is Hossa was the best player on his line most of the run, while Byfuglien was the third best player on his.

Hossa scored more than Versteeg, had more impact defensively, and created more chances.
Hossa scored more than Bolland at even strength, and both were key to the Hawks' PK unit.

In fact, only Kane (16) and Sharp (15) had more even strength points than Hossa (14) did, and Hossa's 11 even strength assists led the team.

So no, he wasn't scoring a bunch of goals; he was only on pace for 11. But he was a key defensive player and was still on pace for 50+ points. People measuring him entirely by his goals are stupid and don't know hockey. Period.

This x infinity.

[edicius]

If the guy requires long periods of rest in order to perform well then maybe he should have stayed in Atlanta.

Well, he did miss 25 games with Chicago this past season. Missing almost one-third of your team's games seems like a pretty good rest to me.

[Doc Holliday]

Holy s***! For once i'm in 100% agreement with Eva on every point. Well, I dunno so much about people being stupid or not knowing hockey. I think it's a little bit of people being blinded by hate and bitterness and letting their emotions cloud rational judgment. I thought Hossa was very noticeable on most of his shifts. He controlled the puck a lot, he backchecked like Datsyuk and Z. He's one of the best all around forwards in the freaking world and his coach and every single Hawks player will tell you he played his ass off and was extremely effective in the playoffs, including the finals. Goals, schmoals. He did everything else he needed to do to help them win.

Great. He was noticeable. He still didn't score goals. The 40 goal scorer actually scored less than his "injury prone" post-season last year.

And before you get on the "irrational hate" bandwagon, I was so happy for Hossa winning the cup. I rooted for him all the way because he is a great guy and I miss him in a Wings uniform. But he hasn't performed the way HE is supposed to. Two way play means defense AND offense. He brought the defense, but was unable to bring the bacon in offense (despite him "looking good").

If Chicago doesn't have the depth Hossa is under the microscope.

And Eva, I'm glad a 50 point pace (15 goal pace?) is good enough for a 5+ million dollar player.

[RockyMountainWingGal]

Holy s***! For once i'm in 100% agreement with Eva on every point. Well, I dunno so much about people being stupid or not knowing hockey. I think it's a little bit of people being blinded by hate and bitterness and letting their emotions cloud rational judgment. I thought Hossa was very noticeable on most of his shifts. He controlled the puck a lot, he backchecked like Datsyuk and Z. He's one of the best all around forwards in the freaking world and his coach and every single Hawks player will tell you he played his ass off and was extremely effective in the playoffs, including the finals. Goals, schmoals. He did everything else he needed to do to help them win.

Bold = Have to disagree with you on that one. IMO he is good, but not great. He wouldn't bounce around so much were he that great.

Everything is rosy when you win it all. Had the Hawks lost - there would be a few different opinions on Hossa. Likewise, had we won it all last year, there would have been less of a microscope on his invisibility.