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

[Article] Sutter is not a shutdown centre

Rate this topic


Ossi Vaananen

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, EdgarM said:

I think you have that backwards. A player who can play in "ALL" situations is much more valuable then a "one dimensional" player. The Sedins would have stayed in the league longer if they could play some kind of defense. They became a "liability" and so they had to go. Their one dimensional play was easily shut down in the playoffs with tighter, aggressive checking.

A player such as Sutter becomes all that more valuable as their defense, veteran experience helps when the other team tightens up their defense. A defensive guy who can pop in the odd goal is someone I want on the ice in a game 7 or in O/T. 

The young guys are going to "NEED" players such as him as they learn to play in tighter checking games and eventually playoff games. Thinking these players such as Sutter are expendable at this stage of the rebuild is just silly IMO.

I agree with the role players but we have not had depth and we have had tons of injuries to try and assemble "Roles" for our players the last couple of seasons. Its been a mish mash and I am thinking guys will have better set roles this coming season. 

Gaudette is not ready yet and I would not rush him into having all that defensive responsibility just yet.

The Sedins could still be playing, but they took the high road.  They knew they weren't the same players anymore, and didn't want to handcuff the team.  They did the right thing.  They will rightfully be honoured with their numbers being raised to the rafters this upcoming season.  Always and forever Canucks.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

The Sedins could still be playing, but they took the high road.  They knew they weren't the same players anymore, and didn't want to handcuff the team.  They did the right thing.  They will rightfully be honoured with their numbers being raised to the rafters this upcoming season.  Always and forever Canucks.

Do the right thing? Going to a contender for some draft picks would have been the "right thing" to do. Winning a Cup would have been the "right thing" to do. What Hansen and Burrows did were "Always and forever Canucks" moves in my books. They couldn't keep up with the game, they knew it and that's why they quit.

  • Wat 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2019 at 6:20 PM, xereau said:

He missed like 8 games TOTAL before signing here.

 

When healthy it opens up totally different roles for Horvat.

 

The crappy system, the crappy linemates really should be the story in the article, and not Sutter.

Bummer is he just has trash luck since he came here and who knows if his luck will change any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/30/2019 at 6:07 PM, khay said:

Agree. Draisaitl is not a center. Edmonton would not have sucked if Draisaitl put up 50G 100 pts as a 2nd line center behind McDavid's 116 points.

 

As for shutdown line, I feel like it's a strategy for teams with lack of talent. If your team is not talented, then you have not much choice but to employ defensive players and hope to keep the scoring low. Now we have enough talent to not have to ice 2 shutdown lines. I actually think Sutter can still be useful if healthy at both ends of the ice (he scored 20 goals before) but maybe we should keep him on the wing.

 

The article suggests Miller as an option at 3C and I think that might be a great idea. 

 

Ferland-EP-Boeser

Baer-Horvat-Pearson

Eriksson-Miller-Sutter

Virtanen-Beagle-Leivo

Goldobin

Motte

Roussel (IR)

Schaller (trade/minor)

 

 

Seriously?!   .. why would we want to tie Millers legs to a couple of boat anchors?

 

Let Eriksson and Sutter go and have room on that list for Gaudette and another prospect.. not only do we knock off 8-10 mil off the cap,.  opportunity is created for the farm.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EdgarM said:

I think you have that backwards. A player who can play in "ALL" situations is much more valuable then a "one dimensional" player. The Sedins would have stayed in the league longer if they could play some kind of defense. They became a "liability" and so they had to go. Their one dimensional play was easily shut down in the playoffs with tighter, aggressive checking.

A player such as Sutter becomes all that more valuable as their defense, veteran experience helps when the other team tightens up their defense. A defensive guy who can pop in the odd goal is someone I want on the ice in a game 7 or in O/T. 

The young guys are going to "NEED" players such as him as they learn to play in tighter checking games and eventually playoff games. Thinking these players such as Sutter are expendable at this stage of the rebuild is just silly IMO.

I agree with the role players but we have not had depth and we have had tons of injuries to try and assemble "Roles" for our players the last couple of seasons. Its been a mish mash and I am thinking guys will have better set roles this coming season. 

Gaudette is not ready yet and I would not rush him into having all that defensive responsibility just yet.

I get what  your saying. Those players have a place. All I'm saying is a very good offensive player, even if not great defensively is valued more than a Jack of all trades. Just based on what a team will pay them. Right now Boeser is in the midst of landing a new contract with us.  He was a respectable -2 last year, but also either he or Petey scored their plus/minus up.  I thought Brock at times was atrocious defensively. But he's valued more than a Sutter, even adding in experience.    Just like a very good, and large, defence specialist like Chara, is valued more than a JOAT.  JOATs are not as difficult to find. But yes, every team needs one or two. They have a place.  But a specialist makes more than a general practitioner for a reason.

 

And I'm not saying I'd not want him back here to start the season. I also agree with Borvat in that I want to see him healthy and playing with a full healthy line up. When he doesn't have to take on so much responsibility. With a new crop that can fill those specialist roles, both offensively, and defensively. That's when a JOAT finds a more comfortable pace to play at. I wish him well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2019 at 9:05 AM, Ossi Vaananen said:

I don't mean to plug someone else's work but I found this one interesting. The Pass It To Bulis blog looked at some fancy stats regarding Sutter and compared him to other centres league-wide. The article is here: https://www.vancourier.com/pass-it-to-bulis/brandon-sutter-is-not-a-shutdown-centre-1.23931634?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Posted below:

Oof. It hurts to see guys we passed on like Bonino and Richardson performing that much better. It seems Beagle has outperformed Sutter as well. As the article says, maybe cross our fingers and hope that Gaudette is ready for the second half. 

 

For the Too Long Didn't Read crowd: just look at the first chart. Sutter is egregious when it comes scoring against based on frequency of defensive zone starts.

Vrbata had his best year with us playing with Bono.  Bono I always thought was an underrated distributor And yeah, I never quite understood the Richardson thing.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, samurai said:

Vrbata had his best year with us playing with Bono.  Bono I always thought was an underrated distributor And yeah, I never quite understood the Richardson thing.  

'Bono' went onto win two cups after leaving us. He's a great 3C we just played him as a 2C due to lack of depth. Either Richardson or Bonino would have been better for us, both production and cap wise. But hindsight 20/20.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

Having a deeper team is going to help everybody's performance

 

Sutter was just fine when he played in Pittsburgh, then he came here and sucked.  Depth might be the answer to that question / riddle.

 

Bonino sucked when he was here (ok, not 100% but he was over his head as a 2C).....who knew he was good when he landed in Pitt?

 

 

 

 

Good call 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kilgore said:

I think these analytics back up the eye test on ice.   I've always said he's like a Jack of all Trades and Master of None.  Which is not a great thing to be @ $4.5 million per season. He not terrible at anything, but he's not very good either.  The NHL values players who are masters at one role, and good at one other perhaps.  For example, the Sedins, masters at scoring, offence, ragging the puck in the O zone, but not so great defensively, or shoot-outs. Tanev, in his prime at least, fantastic as a defensive defenseman, not so good at offence. That is what is valuable in the NHL.  When a coach can rely on a certain player to perform well in a role needed at a certain time in the game.

 

A player like Sutter who never shines in any one area, but rather mediocre, does not add value to the team.  He has turned into a very expensive plug. And that is double trouble if he eats up so much cap space. I'll grant his experience being a veteran in the league counts for something in different situations. And there is a bit of a mulligan for injuries taking away his rhythm even when he gets back on ice, but I've learned to never expect much from him on his shift now. He's a place taker, not bad, not good. just taking space. Hopefully Gaudette makes him expendable at the TD...if Brendan can at least be healthy around then.

 

 

People can bring up analytics all they want, did Sutter look better playing or did Gaudette? Who was driving play better? It was very clear, night and day that Gaudette, when he was on the ice was a much player than Sutter was. I don't really care who Sutter was facing, how much D-zone starts he had, how many times he took a piss that day, don't really care and it shouldn't matter. He either played good or didn't. Pretty simple. I don't buy that crap "oh hes on pace for 17 goals if he had less d-zone starts". Ep40 was on pace for 120 pts the first 30 games, it didn't happen. Analytics is a bonus for studying play tendencies, but it can also lead to a bunch of excuses. If say a guy like Tyler Motte gets every minute of powerplay, every advantageous matchup, and scores 80 goals in the process, are we going to complain and downplay it? Thats what I thought

  • Wat 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, kilgore said:

I get what  your saying. Those players have a place. All I'm saying is a very good offensive player, even if not great defensively is valued more than a Jack of all trades. Just based on what a team will pay them. Right now Boeser is in the midst of landing a new contract with us.  He was a respectable -2 last year, but also either he or Petey scored their plus/minus up.  I thought Brock at times was atrocious defensively. But he's valued more than a Sutter, even adding in experience.    Just like a very good, and large, defence specialist like Chara, is valued more than a JOAT.  JOATs are not as difficult to find. But yes, every team needs one or two. They have a place.  But a specialist makes more than a general practitioner for a reason.

 

And I'm not saying I'd not want him back here to start the season. I also agree with Borvat in that I want to see him healthy and playing with a full healthy line up. When he doesn't have to take on so much responsibility. With a new crop that can fill those specialist roles, both offensively, and defensively. That's when a JOAT finds a more comfortable pace to play at. I wish him well.

You are right the offensively gifted are more valuable then the defensive specialist, however, the playoffs are a whole new beast and the offensive guys who cannot play much defense are nullified and when you get into double O/T and triple O/T, those players such as Sutter are all the more valuable.

When you talk about the "very good offensive" players, they are not all the same and there are some who are also  defensively responsible. Yzerman is a prime example as was are very own Linden. They were great offensively, especially in the playoffs, and were defensively responsible at the same time. I believe Petey is going to be one of those players as will Bo.

Now Sutter is no Bo or Petey and that's why he will most likely play on the 3rd line. As they say, "defense wins championships" and as history shows us, our offense only guys such as Naslund and the Sedins, did not fair so well in the playoffs and were much more successful in the regular seasons of their careers.

Yes we need the pure offense line and the pure defense line but the 2nd and 3rd lines need to be a bit of both and so I disagree with your numbers of only "1 or 2 on a team".

JOAT's are not easily found either as I think Ferlund and Miller fall into this category and they bring much needed intagibles that don't come along every day. This and that they can also put the puck in the net at times.

So yes very good offensive players are in high demand but those with defensive abilities are a more precious commodity which usually pays dividends in the playoffs when it really counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sutter and Beagle will both benefit from the new D group this season.  We seemed to let some of the guys who struggled in transition go while adding guys (including Hughes) who do well in the area.  

 

Players who soak up the big D zone starts should have an easier time, especially if they’re good on the draw.  Which they are.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

You are right the offensively gifted are more valuable then the defensive specialist, however, the playoffs are a whole new beast and the offensive guys who cannot play much defense are nullified and when you get into double O/T and triple O/T, those players such as Sutter are all the more valuable.

When you talk about the "very good offensive" players, they are not all the same and there are some who are also  defensively responsible. Yzerman is a prime example as was are very own Linden. They were great offensively, especially in the playoffs, and were defensively responsible at the same time. I believe Petey is going to be one of those players as will Bo.

Now Sutter is no Bo or Petey and that's why he will most likely play on the 3rd line. As they say, "defense wins championships" and as history shows us, our offense only guys such as Naslund and the Sedins, did not fair so well in the playoffs and were much more successful in the regular seasons of their careers.

Yes we need the pure offense line and the pure defense line but the 2nd and 3rd lines need to be a bit of both and so I disagree with your numbers of only "1 or 2 on a team".

JOAT's are not easily found either as I think Ferlund and Miller fall into this category and they bring much needed intagibles that don't come along every day. This and that they can also put the puck in the net at times.

So yes very good offensive players are in high demand but those with defensive abilities are a more precious commodity which usually pays dividends in the playoffs when it really counts.

Didn't Hank score an OT goal in quadruple OT?  Guess he got nullified there.  But don't let facts get in your way.  He also had another OT goal too.

Edited by Viper007
  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not based in 'analyticz'.   It's a very weak (in-vogue among noobs) opinion trying to prop itself up with a cherry-picked small sample metric, ironically contradicted by much larger samples in Sutter's career.  

 

A long-dead and beaten horse that will be put to rest when this market (once again) sees what a healthy Sutter does on a healthy Canucks roster.

 

The goldfish in the media market so quickly forget what a Sutter, Dorsett combination looked like wrecking the Oilers/McMe1st - and the impact that has on an opponent - when your superstars get owned by an opponent's '3rd line'.  

 

'Analytics' is only as good as the analyst - this article is one horrible attempt at being an 'analyst'.

 

 

These discussions really expose the noobs.

  • Cheers 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oldnews said:

This is not based in 'analyticz'.   It's a very weak (in-vogue among noobs) opinion trying to prop itself up with a cherry-picked small sample metric, ironically contradicted by much larger samples in Sutter's career.  

 

A long-dead and beaten horse that will be put to rest when this market (once again) sees what a healthy Sutter does on a healthy Canucks roster.

 

The goldfish in the media market so quickly forget what a Sutter, Dorsett combination looked like wrecking the Oilers/McMe1st - and the impact that has on an opponent - when your superstars get owned by an opponent's '3rd line'.  

 

'Analytics' is only as good as the analyst - this article is one horrible attempt at being an 'analyst'.

 

 

These discussions really expose the noobs.

Just saw one of these  guys on facebook Bo Horvat is a terrible defensive player because he was a minus player during a rebuild. :picard:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Viper007 said:

Didn't Hank score an OT goal in quadruple OT?  Guess he got nullified there.  But don't let facts get in your way.  He also had another OT goal too.

Yes he scored 1 in 2002 and the 1 you speak of in 2007. Didn't do much in 2011 against Boston did he. Didn't the PP go for like 3/32 in the final series? No I don't think the "FACTS" got in the way at all. Thanks for asking though. ::D

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EdgarM said:

You are right the offensively gifted are more valuable then the defensive specialist, however, the playoffs are a whole new beast and the offensive guys who cannot play much defense are nullified and when you get into double O/T and triple O/T, those players such as Sutter are all the more valuable.

When you talk about the "very good offensive" players, they are not all the same and there are some who are also  defensively responsible. Yzerman is a prime example as was are very own Linden. They were great offensively, especially in the playoffs, and were defensively responsible at the same time. I believe Petey is going to be one of those players as will Bo.

Now Sutter is no Bo or Petey and that's why he will most likely play on the 3rd line. As they say, "defense wins championships" and as history shows us, our offense only guys such as Naslund and the Sedins, did not fair so well in the playoffs and were much more successful in the regular seasons of their careers.

Yes we need the pure offense line and the pure defense line but the 2nd and 3rd lines need to be a bit of both and so I disagree with your numbers of only "1 or 2 on a team".

JOAT's are not easily found either as I think Ferlund and Miller fall into this category and they bring much needed intagibles that don't come along every day. This and that they can also put the puck in the net at times.

So yes very good offensive players are in high demand but those with defensive abilities are a more precious commodity which usually pays dividends in the playoffs when it really counts.

 

I agree in the playoffs we need even our offensive stars to be good defensively as well.  (I'm looking at you Brock).  I wasn't talking playoffs specifically. We have to get there first. But what I was saying was defensive specialists are JUST AS valuable as offensive specialists, all season and post season. By defensive specialists I gave Chara as an example, or Weber, or a Pronger.  In that they also have size and intimidation. We haven't really ever had a player like that so its hard to relate. Maybe Myers?....we'll see.  And that value is paid for.  Obviously those players also have an offensive upside, but primarily they are paid to shut down the best the opposition has as well as keeping pests honest.

 

And yes we need more than 1 or 2 JOATs. I was speaking more about highly effective ones. ie when we had both Kesler and Burrows in the early part of their careers. I think ANY forward who is not a star is a JOAT to some degree, or they won't last long. Its that 'degree' of talent in all those areas that must be determined.  Sutter has not proven...to me by my eye test, forget analytics even....to be a high end JOAT. Not a 4.5 million one at least. The "and master at none" is also part of that term.  He has been quite mediocre IMO.  Not bad, but not great either. Certainly not the "foundational" piece that JB bragged about when he got him and paid him as such.

 

I think above mediocre JOATs are harder to find. I agree there. And I have high hopes for Ferland and Miller.  But IMO Sutter does not fall into that high end category. Maybe he'll prove me wrong. He's just not that noticeable out there. scoring goals or hitting, aggressive play.  He's good on the PK, but that is really not a rare commodity in the NHL I'm willing to give him another chance. Like I said, with a better supporting cast, and being healthy, I'm sure he'll have a better year. And having him is better than not, for our depth. As long as it doesn't interfere with managing the salary cap. We have a glut of forwards. And he just stands out as one (besides LE) who does not give value for money, including being injury prone, at least after he moved here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Yes he scored 1 in 2002 and the 1 you speak of in 2007. Didn't do much in 2011 against Boston did he. Didn't the PP go for like 3/32 in the final series? No I don't think the "FACTS" got in the way at all. Thanks for asking though. ::D

Reduced to being a one line team by the finals makes it easy to defend especially for a team like Boston. Look at Calgary this year, one line team and got walked all over by Colorado who are just average defensively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, EdgarM said:

Yes he scored 1 in 2002 and the 1 you speak of in 2007. Didn't do much in 2011 against Boston did he. Didn't the PP go for like 3/32 in the final series? No I don't think the "FACTS" got in the way at all. Thanks for asking though. ::D

First you talk about OT now you talk about the PP in one series.  Talk about changing the subject real fast.  Oh BTW, without the Sedins' PP against SJ, they wouldn't have probably even made the finals.  Your negativity to the Sedins' is constant and quite frankly I'm getting real sick of it. 

 

BTW what did Edgar Martinez do for the mariners in the playoffs.  I bet alot less than the Sedins'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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