Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Sutter to RW?


The Brindy Gypsy

Sutter to RW  

151 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

23 hours ago, Green Building said:

No, it really wasn't even close to an anomaly at all. It was just him getting back on track to what he did in 2011-12 where he had 39 points. Following that year was the lockout shortened season where he had 27 points in 47 games, another anomaly I'm sure, Torts definitely anomaly-ed him in 2013, but Hansen wasn't the only victim of that experiment. If you meant that he rippled 6 more goals than his previous [2] bests then I guess there's that, it just doesn't seem like much of a thing to call him out on when his point totals were very similar to his previous years, excluding Tort's, and pro-rating the lockout. 

 

I agree that Bo is physically prepared to take on more minutes, and has the smarts to be mentally prepared as well. He's one of several players I'm looking forward to seeing back in uni next season, but let's leave Eriksson on the Twins line to take a little scoring pressure off of them, and maybe bump their totals up 5-10 points if the Team Sweden chemistry still exists. If not, sure, move him around, but I'd like to see him get at least a 1/2 season, if not a full one, before considering that.  

Yeah and he is a regular on the PP too right? Don't get me wrong I love his play and he is such a versatile player but I think his biggest asset to the team is being a shut down guy who is a key to the PK. Yes he can produce points but his bread and butter has been playing in the bottom six and it is where he excels at IMO. Thats what I said about the bottom six is that we need some leadership(Hansen,Burrows,Dorsett) to play in the bottom six with the youngsters. If you think it would be better off to take him off those lines to be strictly a point producer in the top 6 he would be sorely missed.

Put Erickson on the top line to gain another 10-20 points and make the second line weaker? That doesn't make sense. 

This team has needed second line scoring for a very long time. I remember them looking for someone to play with Kesler on the second line years ago. We need to stop being a one lined team. Especially with a top line consisting of two older players with no aggression or toughness. This line will have a tough time come playoff time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

Yeah and he is a regular on the PP too right? Don't get me wrong I love his play and he is such a versatile player but I think his biggest asset to the team is being a shut down guy who is a key to the PK. Yes he can produce points but his bread and butter has been playing in the bottom six and it is where he excels at IMO. Thats what I said about the bottom six is that we need some leadership(Hansen,Burrows,Dorsett) to play in the bottom six with the youngsters. If you think it would be better off to take him off those lines to be strictly a point producer in the top 6 he would be sorely missed.

Put Erickson on the top line to gain another 10-20 points and make the second line weaker? That doesn't make sense. 

This team has needed second line scoring for a very long time. I remember them looking for someone to play with Kesler on the second line years ago. We need to stop being a one lined team. Especially with a top line consisting of two older players with no aggression or toughness. This line will have a tough time come playoff time. 

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by anomaly. You must have been referencing his specific deployment rather than his overall production as the latter wouldn't make would make sense.

 

Yes, we need secondary scoring, but if Eriksson can generate 10-20 more points on the 1st line that doesn't make the 2nd line weaker. After all, Eriksson wasn't even here last season right? At worst the 2nd line remains status quo unless there is an overall point reduction. Not likely, but possible. At best we get some players stepping up for 5-8 more points each resulting in top 6 improvements all around. 

 

Like I said, I'm open to Eriksson moving down he lineup, but the guy has put banked points with the twins before, and we may as well give him another go with them until he falters. Only way I can see him not playing with Hank and Dank 5 on 5 is if he is their PP winger, but if they rock the PP as a unit then it's only a matter of time until they are deployed as such 5 on 5 as well.

 

I don't know about your "stop being a one lined team" comment. Come on man, over the last several years we've seen enough line scrambles to give a Denny's cook a migraine. And are you really trying to make a point about calling the twins and Eriksson weak when your replacement winger would be who?  Tough guy Sutter with all his aggression? 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Yeah and he is a regular on the PP too right? Don't get me wrong I love his play and he is such a versatile player but I think his biggest asset to the team is being a shut down guy who is a key to the PK. Yes he can produce points but his bread and butter has been playing in the bottom six and it is where he excels at IMO. Thats what I said about the bottom six is that we need some leadership(Hansen,Burrows,Dorsett) to play in the bottom six with the youngsters. If you think it would be better off to take him off those lines to be strictly a point producer in the top 6 he would be sorely missed.

Put Erickson on the top line to gain another 10-20 points and make the second line weaker? That doesn't make sense. 

This team has needed second line scoring for a very long time. I remember them looking for someone to play with Kesler on the second line years ago. We need to stop being a one lined team. Especially with a top line consisting of two older players with no aggression or toughness. This line will have a tough time come playoff time. 

You seem to forget that Keslers line carried the shutdown role despite being second line. After a 70+ point season they decided to bring in Malhotra to anchor the third line as shutdown and let the second line have more offensive time. The third line doesn't have to be the shutdown line. It can also be used as a development line with easier opposition as was done with Hodgson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Baggins said:

You seem to forget that Keslers line carried the shutdown role despite being second line. After a 70+ point season they decided to bring in Malhotra to anchor the third line as shutdown and let the second line have more offensive time. The third line doesn't have to be the shutdown line. It can also be used as a development line with easier opposition as was done with Hodgson.

Kesler WAS the shutdown guy but what quality wingers did he play with? They did not have the personnel to have a quality second line. 

The third and fourth lines can be both the shutdown line(s) along with being developmental. Young players usually need to get their defensive play down before they flourish into offensive forces. We have seen this numerous times over the years.

Hodgson is NOT a good example for you as he did not develope into much of anything.::D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Green Building said:

Perhaps I misunderstood what you meant by anomaly. You must have been referencing his specific deployment rather than his overall production as the latter wouldn't make would make sense.

 

Yes, we need secondary scoring, but if Eriksson can generate 10-20 more points on the 1st line that doesn't make the 2nd line weaker. After all, Eriksson wasn't even here last season right? At worst the 2nd line remains status quo unless there is an overall point reduction. Not likely, but possible. At best we get some players stepping up for 5-8 more points each resulting in top 6 improvements all around. 

 

Like I said, I'm open to Eriksson moving down he lineup, but the guy has put banked points with the twins before, and we may as well give him another go with them until he falters. Only way I can see him not playing with Hank and Dank 5 on 5 is if he is their PP winger, but if they rock the PP as a unit then it's only a matter of time until they are deployed as such 5 on 5 as well.

 

I don't know about your "stop being a one lined team" comment. Come on man, over the last several years we've seen enough line scrambles to give a Denny's cook a migraine. And are you really trying to make a point about calling the twins and Eriksson weak when your replacement winger would be who?  Tough guy Sutter with all his aggression? 

 

 

 

 

Yes I was referencing his role on the team and not his individual point production.

In making the second line weaker I meant taking off a gifted offensive guy(Erickson) and putting on someone else on the second line. The top line is going to produce points regardless of the winger and we have already seen some good chemistry with Sutter. Adding an aditional C also gives the top line more opportunity to remain puck possession.

You are right he will most likely play on the PP with the twins and that is going to be fun to watch, but playing on the PP is much different then playing a regular shift.

We have complained of being a one lined team for a long time where have you been? The WCE and then the Twins has been our production lines for years. Kesler was our only legit second liner we have had for a long time IMO but had no quality wingers. 

I guess we can agree to disagree on our assessment of who has more toughness and aggression between Sutter and Erickson as I have not seen LE play alongside the twins yet. Time will tell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Kesler WAS the shutdown guy but what quality wingers did he play with? They did not have the personnel to have a quality second line. 

The third and fourth lines can be both the shutdown line(s) along with being developmental. Young players usually need to get their defensive play down before they flourish into offensive forces. We have seen this numerous times over the years.

Hodgson is NOT a good example for you as he did not develope into much of anything.::D

I agree young players need to get their defensive game down but you don't do that by throwing them to the wolves (opposition top line).

 

Hodgsons value was increased by sheltered minutes on the third line. It doesn't matter what he became after he was traded as his development afterwards is on another team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Yes I was referencing his role on the team and not his individual point production.

In making the second line weaker I meant taking off a gifted offensive guy(Erickson) and putting on someone else on the second line. The top line is going to produce points regardless of the winger and we have already seen some good chemistry with Sutter. Adding an aditional C also gives the top line more opportunity to remain puck possession.

You are right he will most likely play on the PP with the twins and that is going to be fun to watch, but playing on the PP is much different then playing a regular shift.

We have complained of being a one lined team for a long time where have you been? The WCE and then the Twins has been our production lines for years. Kesler was our only legit second liner we have had for a long time IMO but had no quality wingers. 

I guess we can agree to disagree on our assessment of who has more toughness and aggression between Sutter and Erickson as I have not seen LE play alongside the twins yet. Time will tell.

Give Samuelsson some credit.  He was a legit top 6.  I can't say the same for May-Ray.  But the point is that in Keslers best years, they were a legit scoring threat in addition to the Sedins which made both lines stronger.

 

This leads to my next point.  Sutter was added to the Canucks to:

  1. Shelter younger, developing centres.  Namely, Horvat.  Put them in a position to succeed.  That is, not to have to face as difficult match ups and to develop their game at the NHL level.  And,
  2. Match up against the oppositions most difficult lines.  The big, the bad and the ugly.  Which free's up Hank and Dank (and others) to do their thing.
  3. Don't underestimate the importance of having such a player and the ripple effect of benefits up and down the line up that it creates.  Last season, this was turned on it's head in a negative way due to Sutter's 2 long term injuries and the Canucks finished 3rd from the bottom.  If Sutter is IN the line up, the opposite effect happens.

So to the suggestion that Sutter be moved to the wing, I strongly disagree.  This team has strength down the middle (if not much else) in the forwards.  Not playing Sedin, Sutter, and Horvat on separate lines is selling the group short because the group is stronger than any individual and spreading the opposition thinner is only to the Canucks benefit because lines with all these centres can be a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Give Samuelsson some credit.  He was a legit top 6.  I can't say the same for May-Ray.  But the point is that in Keslers best years, they were a legit scoring threat in addition to the Sedins which made both lines stronger.

 

This leads to my next point.  Sutter was added to the Canucks to:

  1. Shelter younger, developing centres.  Namely, Horvat.  Put them in a position to succeed.  That is, not to have to face as difficult match ups and to develop their game at the NHL level.  And,
  2. Match up against the oppositions most difficult lines.  The big, the bad and the ugly.  Which free's up Hank and Dank (and others) to do their thing.
  3. Don't underestimate the importance of having such a player and the ripple effect of benefits up and down the line up that it creates.  Last season, this was turned on it's head in a negative way due to Sutter's 2 long term injuries and the Canucks finished 3rd from the bottom.  If Sutter is IN the line up, the opposite effect happens.

So to the suggestion that Sutter be moved to the wing, I strongly disagree.  This team has strength down the middle (if not much else) in the forwards.  Not playing Sedin, Sutter, and Horvat on separate lines is selling the group short because the group is stronger than any individual and spreading the opposition thinner is only to the Canucks benefit because lines with all these centres can be a threat.

Your explanation does make sense and I agree with you. I guess that would lead to going back to having a legitamite 2nd line which would mean we still require another winger who has good offensive abilities. I like the idea of Bo and Baert playing against less stronger lines but we would still require a good winger to play with Sutter. 

Sutter and Hansen would be a good start to forming a shutdown line but would still require a left winger which would explain what JB is still looking for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

who is this Sutter guy we be talking about?

the guy I watched lose most of his faceoffs, the guy we saw little of cause he is always on the LTI list?

 

I am sure our Coach will balance the lines according to what He sees and expects, I see a case for him at RW and at C.

 

hmm , I would like to see more games played, before I judge

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Puckster said:

who is this Sutter guy we be talking about?

the guy I watched lose most of his faceoffs, the guy we saw little of cause he is always on the LTI list?

 

I am sure our Coach will balance the lines according to what He sees and expects, I see a case for him at RW and at C.

 

hmm , I would like to see more games played, before I judge

Yeah............hope WD learned a little from last year because his line juggling sucked. He does not have the skill AV had when feeling out his team and putting the right guys out at the right situations. I cringed whenever he put Weber on the PP because he basically lost possesion every time he tried too carry the puck but WD continued to play him.

Don't know why your puking all over Sutter. He played very well last year and the team played better when he was in the line up. He is one of the more skilled players on the team and he is a Sutter. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For this year Sutter should anchor the 2nd line so Hotvat and Granlund can develop in more sheltered roles.

 

Next year hopefully we can afford to have Sutter as 2nd line RW as Horvat and Granlund develop into more prominent roles.

 

Barring any trades in the top-6, I could see something like this in 2017.18

 

Daniel - Henrik - Eriksson

Baertschi - Horvat - Sutter

Virtanen - Granlund - Hansen

_______ - Gaunce - _______

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, EdgarM said:

Your explanation does make sense and I agree with you. I guess that would lead to going back to having a legitamite 2nd line which would mean we still require another winger who has good offensive abilities. I like the idea of Bo and Baert playing against less stronger lines but we would still require a good winger to play with Sutter. 

Sutter and Hansen would be a good start to forming a shutdown line but would still require a left winger which would explain what JB is still looking for.

Ya, they could use another top 6 winger.  But if not by free agency how?  Shopping top 4 D this year is crazy talk imo and so is shopping Hansen.

In the mean time, I think they wait on Horvat and Baertchi's development.  In time a 2nd line of line of Baertschi Horvat Virtanen would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Ya, they could use another top 6 winger.  But if not by free agency how?  Shopping top 4 D this year is crazy talk imo and so is shopping Hansen.

In the mean time, I think they wait on Horvat and Baertchi's development.  In time a 2nd line of line of Baertschi Horvat Virtanen would be nice.

Not really sure but some kind of trade most likely. Teams are always looking for certain players whether because of injury,cap space or WHY the right opportunity may present itself. There is a little cap space available as well if the right deal comes along.

That line I can see in the future for sure. Just need a little more seasoning. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really Puking at him, just have not seen enuff to warrant the cost. Injuries cost us bigtime/playoffs last year and his were the most glaring imho. If he stays healthy , I am sure the coach will determine where he plays. I hope he can contribute as advertised, that would make us stronger yet, compared to last year.

Lets face reality, If half our OT losses where wins, we make the playoffs last year. That is how tight it was. Any improvement could put us over the mark. A lot of little ones is sure to set the tone.

- gudbranson v Hammer

- Erickson v Vrbata

-  tryamkin v webber

- a healthy Sutter

- If Juliov(sp) stays with the big club ???

 

All these are betterments in my mind, altho the loss of Hammer is suspect to me , we may miss him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...