Canucks 2024-2025 Line Combinations and Roster Discussion

[rypper]

I heard Drance quote that Pettersson only played a total of 12 min with Garland and Joshua on his wings.

(I don't know if that's playoffs exclusive or regular season too.)

Worth a look, especially if Debrusk isn't a great fit or you want to get Garland and Joshua more ice.

 

[Lindgren]

If I had to predict the opening-night line-up I'd go with the obvious choices, which several have posted.

But I expect that through the exhibition season there'll be at least one experiment of significance with someone other than Hronek partnering Hughes. They did it with McWard, and they persisted when it looked to everybody like it couldn't work.

This time around, barring roster changes, I guess we'll see Desharnais get a shot there.

 

[Shareefruck]

If you must move Joshua and Garland up (which seems pointless to me), I would much rather try this than put the mismatching Pettersson with them.

Joshua - Miller - Garland
DeBrusk - Pettersson - Boeser

It's a bad idea though, because our remaining players simply aren't fit for building an effective third line out of them, IMO. They've clearly made signings with tweeners playing in the top six in mind.

I agree that Drance's sentiment is illogical and stupid, though. The fact that Joshua and Garland gets similar results with Blueger as with Miller/Lindholm/Suter suggests to me that they should stick with Blueger or Suter. It also looks like Pettersson is the one guy they haven't gotten similar results with in their limited sample size, so why on earth would that be the guy you choose?

 

[Hodgy]

Our defense still looks very suspect to me.

Soucy and Myers as the second pairing is far from ideal and resembles the third pairing of a deep team.

And Desharnais and Forbort are a pretty average bottom pairing.

Overall, I think there was a significant aggregate downgrade from Cole and Zadorov to Desharnais and Forbort.

Looks like we are hoping that the sum will be greater then the parts under Tochett’s system, and that may be the case, and if it is, then spending the extra money upfront could work out very well. However, if that’s not the case, things could get ugly as this team doesn’t score a ton under Tochett’s system.

 

[alternate]

This idea of trying to extend the Garland+Dakota chemistry to Pettersson doesn't make any logical sense to me whatsoever. In fact, it seems downright obtuse and wasteful tbh. Not the first time Drance has had a completely stupid idea that he won't stop trying to run with though.

"These two wingers get stellar results no matter who their Center is" doesn't lend itself even remotely to, "let's stick them with our eleven million dollar man". It's just wasting the utility of what Garland + Joshua can do.

ie. When they're getting as good or better results with a "cheap" Center like Bluegers (who is eminently incapable of driving offense on his own line), why would you not just press that advantage to the maximum?

And in turn...let Pettersson drive the offense on his own separate line. Which is what he's being paid to do. The whole idea just reeks of lack of faith in Pettersson to actually drive offense commensurate with his new salary...needing a "crutch" basically. Which is bogus.

It also completely bypasses the context of what that would do to the matchups they and other lines face. If you concentrate things that way, they're going to draw tougher defensive matchups and focus, which is going to hurt a lot of that little niche where Garland+Joshua tend to exploit secondary/tertiary matchups defensively. But more than what it does to their matchups...it then leaves a hole in who is left to exploit those other matchups. If you put your line driving winger duo AND your line driving $11M Center on the same line...you've then got the Miller+Boeser line, and then what? Who is driving the offense on Line3 if it's not Garland+Dak?


And finally...Garland and Pettersson play like shit together. They don't mesh. At all. It doesn't work. Their modes of production just are not very compatible. So at best, you're basically neutering Pettersson into a "passenger" role...that could be just as effectively (or more effectively) filled by a cheap checker like Bluegers.


It's just stupid. I cannot wrap my head around why people think this would be a remotely worthwhile idea to even explore seriously. I don't know where the idea even came from, and i'm not sure if it's catastrophic statbrain or what. But i kinda hate it.


You've got this amazing duo with Garland + Joshua who can carry a cheap guy like Bluegers or Suter. Why would you not just leave well enough alone? Focus on making the other parts of the Top-6 fit together somehow. There's enough parts and pieces to find something that should click...and plenty more options to even rotate guys like Sherwood through for a spark every now and then.

Petey between Garland and Joshua is absolutely worth a look. I expect DeBrusk-Petey will be first Crack, but I mean Blueger had 6 goals last season. I don't see why replacing Blueger with a better player wouldn't lead to more production.

Think part of this is the belief people still have that Garland can't play with anyone but Joseph and Blueger. That's overrated imo. As the team became more predictable within the system. Garland played effectively with Miller and EP for short stretches. There's also familiarity with what Garland likes to do and what he does well. This makes it easier for high IQ players to read off him.

Joshua is also ready for more than what Blueger can provide. Not taking away from Teddy, but his value doesn't come from his offensive wizardry. Joshua didn't look great in the top 6 last year, but that doesn't mean he should be pigeon holed into winger for a 6 goal Center before giving him another look with high end offensive talent.

Problem for me with anyone insisting Joshua-Blueger-Garland needs to be a thing, is I feel DJ and Gar outgrew Blu by the end of the year. They need bigger offensive opportunities (and our team needs them to succeed with them), while imo Blueger is more effective in different types of minutes.

DeBrusk-Petey-Garland
Heinen-JTM'-Boeser
Joshua-Suter-Sherwood
Podkolzin-Blueger-Hoglander

 

[biturbo19]

I heard Drance quote that Pettersson only played a total of 12 min with Garland and Joshua on his wings.

(I don't know if that's playoffs exclusive or regular season too.)

Worth a look, especially if Debrusk isn't a great fit or you want to get Garland and Joshua more ice.

They did in fact barely play together as a unit of three this season. But we've also seen bits of each of them with Pettersson individually, and it doesn't work. So i don't really understand why Drance thinks that the combination would be worthwhile. Especially when...as his own stats show...Bluegers is clearly the best, most effective Center with them. And honestly, that's terrific because he's cheap, so it gives you a "2b Line" for like $10M total, which is an absolute bargain.

That frees you up to do other things with your #1 Line Bozo + Boeser. And your #2a Line Pettersson + whoever, and presumably DeBrusk as long as it fits.


But people wanting to shuffle DeBrusk off Petey's line before we've even seen him there is bizarre. Especially in favour of a guy like Garland who we have repeatedly seen in significant samples, does not mesh with Pettersson's style of play at all. It's not that Garland isn't talented enough, it's that he's "wrong talented" for the role.

And breaking up the insane chemistry that Garland + Joshua have to carry a 2B sort of line at even strength productively, no matter who their center, is also madness.

If you must move Joshua and Garland up (which seems pointless to me), I would much rather try this than put the mismatching Pettersson with them.

Joshua - Miller - Garland
DeBrusk - Pettersson - Boeser

It's a bad idea though, because our remaining players simply aren't fit for building an effective third line out of them, IMO. They've clearly made signings with tweeners playing in the top six in mind.

I agree that Drance's sentiment is illogical and stupid, though. The fact that Joshua and Garland gets similar results with Blueger as with Miller/Lindholm/Suter suggests to me that they should stick with Blueger or Suter. It also looks like Pettersson is the one guy they haven't gotten similar results with in their limited sample size, so why on earth would that be the guy you choose?

Yeah. If you're insistent on goofing around with things to move Dak+Garland up the depth chart page, this makes a lot more sense. They actually work with Miller, to some extent. But the fact it isn't actually *any better* than just having Bluegers there, should tell you everything you need to know about how they operate. Which should inform what you do with your other "premium line driving talent". Which is basically...JT, Pettersson, Boeser in some combination over one or two lines.


If you put Pettersson with Dak+Garland, even if it doesn't hold him back (which it likely would), you've still got an absolute lolzy mess of a bunch of leftovers for the Bottom-6. And you've got zero real "offensive play-drivers" to impact things there. You've got Hoggy who basically just scores his own goals detached from linemates, and that's it. You've still got Bluegers...but he scores a lot less there.


It just doesn't make any sense.

 

[biturbo19]

Petey between Garland and Joshua is absolutely worth a look. I expect DeBrusk-Petey will be first Crack, but I mean Blueger had 6 goals last season. I don't see why replacing Blueger with a better player wouldn't lead to more production.

Think part of this is the belief people still have that Garland can't play with anyone but Joseph and Blueger. That's overrated imo. As the team became more predictable within the system. Garland played effectively with Miller and EP for short stretches. There's also familiarity with what Garland likes to do and what he does well. This makes it easier for high IQ players to read off him.

Joshua is also ready for more than what Blueger can provide. Not taking away from Teddy, but his value doesn't come from his offensive wizardry. Joshua didn't look great in the top 6 last year, but that doesn't mean he should be pigeon holed into winger for a 6 goal Center before giving him another look with high end offensive talent.

Problem for me with anyone insisting Joshua-Blueger-Garland needs to be a thing, is I feel DJ and Gar outgrew Blu by the end of the year. They need bigger offensive opportunities (and our team needs them to succeed with them), while imo Blueger is more effective in different types of minutes.

DeBrusk-Petey-Garland
Heinen-JTM'-Boeser
Joshua-Suter-Sherwood
Podkolzin-Blueger-Hoglander

I think you're massively underselling what it is that Bluegers brings to that duo as a Center. It's a wonky winger-centric duo which is unconventional...but Bluegers is the perfect responsible defensive presence, smart forechecker, and good at transporting the puck through the neutral zone and with smart dump-ins that the Dakota-Garland duo needs to thrive.

There's a reason the stats show that they're effective with anyone, but most effective with Bluegers. He just complements their game perfectly. He doesn't get in the way. He chips in and contributes where he's needed. He let's them forecheck aggressively and play down below the hashmarks knowing they've got a safe man high. It's just a marriage of convenience that yields terrific results at a grand total of like $10M for the whole Unit. That's fantastic value for a 2B sort of line.


And it means you can afford to goof around and try different things with Pettersson and his line. Hopefully DeBrusk works there. If not, you adjust things. But right now...he's effectively the best all-around winger Petey has played with outside the 649 Line (depending what you think of Kuz). You've gotta give that a second to coalesce.



But it's not a belief that Joshua-Garland can't play with anyone but Bluegers. It's a question of why would they not play with Bluegers? Every element from the eye test to the stats shows that it's the most effective combo. It's super cost efficient. It's basically a multiplier for the team's depth to have a 3rd line that has to be treated like a 2nd line offensively even with a "6 Goal Teddy" centering it.


Worrying about what "Bluegers can do for Joshua" is completely and utterly missing the point of how that line works and how Joshua scored so much in the first place last year. Joshy goes as far as Garly takes him. The Center is just there for insulation to let 'em work.


Dakota Joshua With Garland:

CF = 56%.
GF = 71%.
SCF = 58%.
HDSC = 65%.


Dakota Joshua Without Garland:

CF= 36%.
GF= 40%.
SCF= 39%.
HDSC= 40%.



In other words...Without Conor Garland, Dakota Joshy's numbers f***ing crater.

So maybe let's just leave well enough alone and let 'em cook imo.

 

[TruGr1t]

If you must move Joshua and Garland up (which seems pointless to me), I would much rather try this than put the mismatching Pettersson with them.

Joshua - Miller - Garland
DeBrusk - Pettersson - Boeser

It's a bad idea though, because our remaining players simply aren't fit for building an effective third line out of them, IMO. They've clearly made signings with tweeners playing in the top six in mind.

I agree that Drance's sentiment is illogical and stupid, though. The fact that Joshua and Garland gets similar results with Blueger as with Miller/Lindholm/Suter suggests to me that they should stick with Blueger or Suter. It also looks like Pettersson is the one guy they haven't gotten similar results with in their limited sample size, so why on earth would that be the guy you choose?

I don't think Hoglander-Suter-Heinen is a bad third line at all, in the grand scheme of things. You have two guys that should get 15+ goals on the wings, and Suter is a perfectly adequate third-line centre. Heinen is serviceable defensively, while Suter is better. That's actually a fairly proto-typical third line these days. They may be a bit small, but they should be able to chip in some offense while playing responsible minutes, and both Suter and Heinen PK. In this scenario, the top two lines would get the bulk of the match-up minutes anyways.

Again, I don't think they'll start this way, since putting Heinen in the top six is what allows you to move Suter back to 3C, barring any movement to get Joshua and Garland higher in the line-up. But it is an option. PDG/Podkolzin-Blueger-Sherwood is also a good fourth-line set-up that can probably handle more minutes than your average fourth line.

Regardless of the rest of it (ie. moving Joshua and Garland), I don't mind that bottom six setup at all.

 

[HockeyWooot]

Sherwood Pettersson Debrusk
Heinen Miller Boeser
Joshua Blueger Garland
Hoglander Suter Aman

Hughes Hronek
Soucy Myers
Forbort Desharnais

Demko
Silovs

Reckon Hoglander starts in top 6 but gets dropped down occasionally. Suter, Heinen, Hoglander, Sherwood probably have different stints up and down the lineup until they carve out a role.

 

[Russian_fanatic]

Debrusk-Miller-Boeser
Joshua-EP-Garland
Heinen-Suter/Blueger-Hoglander
Aman/PDG-Suter/Blueger-Sherwood

Defense
Hughes-Hronek
Soucy-Myers
XX-Deshernais

Demko
Silovs

 

[vadim sharifijanov]

I don't think Hoglander-Suter-Heinen is a bad third line at all, in the grand scheme of things.

but man, what if it’s a ridiculously overqualified fourth line?

x miller boeser
y petey debrusk
josh blue garland
hoglander suter heinen

but this depends on sherwood and pod being able to plug in to the top six and do chris higgins things. or for petey amd miller to be just that good. maybe?

 

[TruGr1t]

but man, what if it’s a ridiculously overqualified fourth line?

x miller boeser
y petey debrusk
josh blue garland
hoglander suter heinen

but this depends on sherwood and pod being able to plug in to the top six and do chris higgins things. or for petey amd miller to be just that good. maybe?

That seems like a bit of a waste, and you'll be handicapping the top six with again, probably suboptimal wing options. Heinen is pretty much locked into the top six, in my opinion, unless Garland and/or Joshua moves up. Hoglander is the swing player, but I can't see a better replacement for him on the current roster assuming you're moving Suter to centre.

 

[StrictlyCommercial]

Heinen-Miller-Boeser
Debrusk-Pettersson-Sherwood
Joshua-Blueger-Garland
Hoglander-Suter-Podkolzin

Sherwood makes sense on Pete's right as a right handed face off option.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't think Hoglander-Suter-Heinen is a bad third line at all, in the grand scheme of things. You have two guys that should get 15+ goals on the wings, and Suter is a perfectly adequate third-line centre. Heinen is serviceable defensively, while Suter is better. That's actually a fairly proto-typical third line these days. They may be a bit small, but they should be able to chip in some offense while playing responsible minutes, and both Suter and Heinen PK. In this scenario, the top two lines would get the bulk of the match-up minutes anyways.

Again, I don't think they'll start this way, since putting Heinen in the top six is what allows you to move Suter back to 3C, barring any movement to get Joshua and Garland higher in the line-up. But it is an option. PDG/Podkolzin-Blueger-Sherwood is also a good fourth-line set-up that can probably handle more minutes than your average fourth line.

Regardless of the rest of it (ie. moving Joshua and Garland), I don't mind that bottom six setup at all.

I disagree and do mind it, personally.

First, offensively/stylistically, they don't really seem like they would gel. As far as I'm aware, Suter/Heinen have not really shown that they can generate much on their own or without playing a supplementary role with stronger play-drivers (I could be wrong about Heinen, but they've only scored 15+ goals or 30+ points in those types of complementary situations, no?), and Hoglander is able to generate offense on his own, but often at the expense of flow/cohesion with the other players he plays with (if I'm not mistaken, both Heinen and Suter are known as guys whose games heavily feed off of that flow/cohesion). I don't think they stylistically fit, and even if they hypothetically did, I'm not sure that the caliber of players is strong enough to ensure that they all produce the numbers they did before (in better situations).

Second, that's not nearly a strong enough defensive line to use in match-ups. Suter is the strongest defensive player there, which isn't great for a third line.

It's just a mish-mash of tweeners posing as a third line with minimal potential in creating an identity of any sort, IMO. In a pinch/injury situation, sure, I wouldn't think it's a catastrophe, but it just feels aimless to me.

 

[TruGr1t]

I disagree and do mind it, personally.

First, offensively/stylistically, they don't really seem like they would gel. As far as I'm aware, Suter/Heinen have not really shown that they can generate much on their own or without playing a supplementary role with stronger play-drivers (I could be wrong about Heinen, but they've only scored 15+ goals or 30+ points in those types of complementary situations, no?), and Hoglander is able to generate offense on his own, but often at the expense of flow/cohesion with the other players he plays with (if I'm not mistaken, both Heinen and Suter are known as guys whose games heavily feed off of that flow/cohesion). I don't think they stylistically fit, and even if they hypothetically did, I'm not sure that the caliber of players is strong enough to ensure that they all produce the numbers they did before (in better situations).

Second, that's not nearly a strong enough defensive line to use in match-ups. Suter is the strongest defensive player there, which isn't great for a third line.

It's just a mish-mash of tweeners posing as a third line with minimal potential in creating an identity of any sort, IMO. In a pinch/injury situation, sure, I wouldn't think it's a catastrophe, but it just feels aimless to me.

Yeah we can disagree. The only concern I really have is size, I’m not particularly concerned about Heinen defensively and definitely not Suter.

Suter is what he is. He’s generated roughly equivalent numbers offensive production in his career regardless of usage, 25-35 points. Last year, despite extensive usage on the top line and some PP time, similar results. His strength is his ability to play systems, read off his line mates, and be responsible defensively.

Heinen is interesting as his game seems to be rounding out, he started PKing last year, he’s shown he can play up line-up and produce goals. He is below Joshua defensively but ahead of Garland. He is nowhere near Suter defensively.

I think that’s a slightly above-average third line that would be handling around 15 mins and expected to produce around 50-60 goals, which is pretty good.

Hoglander is the wildcard, I don’t really love him anywhere, but if Tocchet is going to continue giving him sub-15 mins per night that’s not the worst spot.

As I mentioned, in that scenario the top six handles most of the matchup duties anyway.

 

[alternate]

I think you're massively underselling what it is that Bluegers brings to that duo as a Center. It's a wonky winger-centric duo which is unconventional...but Bluegers is the perfect responsible defensive presence, smart forechecker, and good at transporting the puck through the neutral zone and with smart dump-ins that the Dakota-Garland duo needs to thrive.

There's a reason the stats show that they're effective with anyone, but most effective with Bluegers. He just complements their game perfectly. He doesn't get in the way. He chips in and contributes where he's needed. He let's them forecheck aggressively and play down below the hashmarks knowing they've got a safe man high. It's just a marriage of convenience that yields terrific results at a grand total of like $10M for the whole Unit. That's fantastic value for a 2B sort of line.


And it means you can afford to goof around and try different things with Pettersson and his line. Hopefully DeBrusk works there. If not, you adjust things. But right now...he's effectively the best all-around winger Petey has played with outside the 649 Line (depending what you think of Kuz). You've gotta give that a second to coalesce.



But it's not a belief that Joshua-Garland can't play with anyone but Bluegers. It's a question of why would they not play with Bluegers? Every element from the eye test to the stats shows that it's the most effective combo. It's super cost efficient. It's basically a multiplier for the team's depth to have a 3rd line that has to be treated like a 2nd line offensively even with a "6 Goal Teddy" centering it.


Worrying about what "Bluegers can do for Joshua" is completely and utterly missing the point of how that line works and how Joshua scored so much in the first place last year. Joshy goes as far as Garly takes him. The Center is just there for insulation to let 'em work.


Dakota Joshua With Garland:

CF = 56%.
GF = 71%.
SCF = 58%.
HDSC = 65%.


Dakota Joshua Without Garland:

CF= 36%.
GF= 40%.
SCF= 39%.
HDSC= 40%.



In other words...Without Conor Garland, Dakota Joshy's numbers f***ing crater.

So maybe let's just leave well enough alone and let 'em cook imo.

How has it been shown Bluegers is the most effective combo with Dakota and Garland? It's essentially all that's been tried.

The chart posted a while ago had 300+ minutes with Blueger at pivot, then Miller and Suter around 70 (not scrolling back to find it. Put the 2 minutes together, it was roughly 1/3 the minutes Blueger played, so wonky sample size.

But their EG% is 65+% versus 58% with Bluegers. Goal differential was also trending to be better for both the other centers.

Offensively. Bluegers is clearly the weak link. The line has had success, no arguments there. But I'd like to see if there's more to give with Joshua and Garland, because I think there is.

 

[CanucksSayEh]

JDB-Hughes-Hoglander 1st line

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

Hoglander-Aman-Podkolzin
Sherwood-Suter-Garland
Joshua-Miller-DeBrusk
Heinen-Blueger-Boeser
(PDG, Pettersson)

 

[Regal]

How has it been shown Bluegers is the most effective combo with Dakota and Garland? It's essentially all that's been tried.

The chart posted a while ago had 300+ minutes with Blueger at pivot, then Miller and Suter around 70 (not scrolling back to find it. Put the 2 minutes together, it was roughly 1/3 the minutes Blueger played, so wonky sample size.

But their EG% is 65+% versus 58% with Bluegers. Goal differential was also trending to be better for both the other centers.

Offensively. Bluegers is clearly the weak link. The line has had success, no arguments there. But I'd like to see if there's more to give with Joshua and Garland, because I think there is.

The issue for me is that it potentially severely downgrades the third line. If Pettersson is back on track his line should be good regardless of linemates which gives the team three lines capable of being the best on any given night. If you put him with Joshua and Garland and the line improves over Blueger, that’s great, but they would have to improve by more than the difference between the new third line and what Pettersson’s line would do, and I’m not sure that’s the case. I think it only makes sense to mess with it if the top 6 is struggling as currently constructed.

 

[TruGr1t]

The issue for me is that it potentially severely downgrades the third line. If Pettersson is back on track his line should be good regardless of linemates which gives the team three lines capable of being the best on any given night. If you put him with Joshua and Garland and the line improves over Blueger, that’s great, but they would have to improve by more than the difference between the new third line and what Pettersson’s line would do, and I’m not sure that’s the case. I think it only makes sense to mess with it if the top 6 is struggling as currently constructed.

Suter has historically been a better player than Blueger in terms of G/60 and defensively while playing against tougher competition. I don't see how you really downgrade the third line by having Suter centre it, and he should probably be ahead of Blueger on the depth chart anyway.

Based on career-to-date play, replacing Suter between Joshua-Garland should actually give you even better results. He is similar to Blueger in a lot of ways at centre, but typically generates 7-10 more goals per season.

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

Suter has historically been a better player than Blueger in terms of G/60 and defensively while playing against tougher competition. I don't see how you really downgrade the third line by having Suter centre it, and he should probably be ahead of Blueger on the depth chart anyway.

Based on career-to-date play, replacing Suter between Joshua-Garland should actually give you even better results. He is similar to Blueger in a lot of ways at centre, but typically generates 7-10 more goals per season.

Suter actually started with them when they started to gel at rhe beginning of the year when Blueger was hurt too.

 

[TruGr1t]

With Sprong:

Heinen-Miller-Boeser
DeBrusk-Pettersson-Sprong
Joshua-Suter-Garland
Hoglander-Blueger-Sherwood

Everyone on their natural side. I assume Hoglander will start with Pettersson, but that means DeBrusk plays his off side.

 

[David71]

as much i like the joshua/blueger/garland line they were technically the 2nd line last year scoring goals preventing goals and took pressure off miller/boeser line. petey was a ghost. i can see joshua with miller and boeser at some point his forechecking and big body will create space.. sprong/sherwood could get sometime with petterson fast plus/shooting the puck. the defense is the biggest questionmark and weakness heading into 24/25 season.

 

[Hoglander]

Lines with Sprong:

1st line: Sprong


the rest doesn't matter

 

[SopelFanThe3rd]

Sprong on the top line is not a good look. Especially with EP.

Hoglander - Pettersson - DeBrusk
Heinen - Miller - Boeser
Joshua - Blueger - Garland
Sherwood - Suter - Sprong
(Podkolzin)

Hughes - Hronek
Soucy - Myers
Forbort - Desharnais
(Juulsen, Friedman)

Demko
Silovs

Sorry but the Canucks absolutely can risk losing PDG or Aman on waivers. Useful players but also replaceable.

I know people don't love the D but I'm fine with seeing what they can do and feel Juulsen is being underrated now.