i think garland is just not that good. good stickhandler, fast and shifty with the puck but poor finishing and general inability to make a difference off the puck. you're way better off with a player who scores less but does it more efficiently and with more to bring outside of raw production
Confirmed with Link: Canucks sign F Conor Garland to 5-Year Deal ($4.95M AAV)
- Thread starter Baby Pettersson
- Start date
Nucker101
Foundational Poster
- Apr 2, 2013
- 21,886
- 17,946
He's played with some talented player for sure, but his most common linemate last year was Tanner Pearson(overall ice time shared at 5v5) and the year before it was Nick Schmaltz so it's not like he's been riding shotgun as a 3rd wheel the last 2 seasons. A lot of his points are primary points too so it's definitely not secondary assists leeching.
Combining the current season with the last 2 years, he ranks 19th in the NHL amongst regular forwards(100 GP min) in points per 60 minutes so playing him at 5v5 has paid off.
The eye test funnily enough always looks bad when evaluating players who have unsustainably low on-ice sh%'s and vice-versa.
He's not having a good year this season, but Garland has traditionally been very good 5 v 5. Last season he was again dominant 5 v 5. He generated a ton of chances, drew a ton of penalties, led the team in takeaways, and finished second behind Miller in 5 v 5 goals last season. He certainly made "a difference off the puck" by driving possession. Not really sure what you mean by Garland being a poor finisher and being inefficient.
I hate this fairly recent trend of calling players dominant for accumulating points 5 on 5. The idea he was dominant last season is hilarious to me. He picked up a lot of points and the start and end of the season. This doesn’t make him a “play driver”.
The guys a flat track pony who tends to produce when nothing is on the line against bad teams.
i'm not saying he's a terrible player i'm just saying he's less than the sum of his parts. he's definitely got great puck skills and he puts up possession numbers because of it but he's a volume shooter who converts at a poor rate and because he's so puck dominant he doesn't use his teammates well. most of the assists he puts up come off rebound and second chances not passing plays. i think it's very likely that he hurts good players more than he helps them by taking away opportunity. still a good second/third line player but he's nowhere near a top line player despite his surface level metrics
I wonder how much his concussion in the preseason has affected his play and confidence, and his ability to go into the hard areas as a smaller player.
His shot attempts are down about 30% and his hit totals are down by more than half. It speaks to a player who isn't as involved and is playing more on the perimeter.
His shot attempts are down about 30% and his hit totals are down by more than half. It speaks to a player who isn't as involved and is playing more on the perimeter.
Fits the eye test. Garland's entire game is built around being ultra aggressive, hounding the puck, and shooting for all sorts of angles. Quite similar to Mikael Samuelsson's strategy.
Explain how he converts at a poor rate? You say he’s a volume shooter but his shooting percentage was ~9.4% last season. That’s decent. I think we all agree that he’s in no way an elite sniper if that’s what you’re trying to say.
At the end of the day it’s getting results. There’s no reason why he can’t play on a first line alongside elite level players on a contender. But he hasn’t gotten that opportunity obviously.
RobertKron
Registered User
- Sep 1, 2007
- 16,103
- 9,706
No comment on Garland, but wanted to point out that it's a year later and Guenther has the same number of points as Garland in fewer games.
kanucks25
Chris Tanev #1 Fan
He looked okay during his stretch with Miller and Bo. Bruce can't wait for any opportunity to shuffle him down the lineup, though. I think if this line was kept together long-term his numbers would look fine.
He's a secondary scorer that needs to play with good players to produce due to his size. Secondary scorers by nature are going to have down periods (he's not paid to be a primary scorer, nor is he played in that role) and secondary scorers will struggle with lesser linemates. Not sure why anyone would expect good results from a Garland - Dries - Boeser type line.
Most players are streaky and secondary scorers can go a week or two in a down period, that's just the reality. There aren't many secondary players that contribute every night, unless you're talking a grinder that also hits and kills penalties.
Like Boeser I think Garland is a good complimentary player in the right mix. Garland and Boeser, at least when it comes to 5on5, is redudant (not to mention Kuzmenko's emergence). The issue is he's an offense-only winger on a team that has too many of this type of player, which isn't exactly his fault.
He's a secondary scorer that needs to play with good players to produce due to his size. Secondary scorers by nature are going to have down periods (he's not paid to be a primary scorer, nor is he played in that role) and secondary scorers will struggle with lesser linemates. Not sure why anyone would expect good results from a Garland - Dries - Boeser type line.
Most players are streaky and secondary scorers can go a week or two in a down period, that's just the reality. There aren't many secondary players that contribute every night, unless you're talking a grinder that also hits and kills penalties.
Like Boeser I think Garland is a good complimentary player in the right mix. Garland and Boeser, at least when it comes to 5on5, is redudant (not to mention Kuzmenko's emergence). The issue is he's an offense-only winger on a team that has too many of this type of player, which isn't exactly his fault.
Agree except Garland has been able to produce in the past regardless of who he plays with.
Garland’s value at the time of acquisition was that he was a 25 year old right shot right winger who could have play in the top 6 and be signed to an affordable contract and produce 5 v 5 at a ~elite level. Of course if he is playing with an AHL centre in 3rd line minutes he isn’t being used properly.
The problem with saying that he's playing with an AHL center as if it's an excuse for his play is it forgets that he had ample opportunity this year with other centers, Also, as a guy who is supposed to be a top 6 capable play driver he should be the one elevating the others on that line. He quite simply has had a bad year thus far and a lot of that falls on him.
I also think the book may be out on him. His little spins/direction changes and stick handling along the boards in the offensive zone aren't nearly as effective as they were (and that was a large chunk of his offensive game). Opposition has adjusted and they simply position themselves so Garland spins into trouble instead of open ice.
I also think the book may be out on him. His little spins/direction changes and stick handling along the boards in the offensive zone aren't nearly as effective as they were (and that was a large chunk of his offensive game). Opposition has adjusted and they simply position themselves so Garland spins into trouble instead of open ice.
sting101
Registered User
- Feb 8, 2012
- 16,779
- 16,094
If Kuzmenko and Hoglander are staying then Garland has to go
To WPG for Lundmark (future 5-7 RD) and Barron (4C) or 3rd
To NASH for Glass (future 3C) and 3rd
To anybody that gets us a high 2nd plus a 3rd/4th i would do just so we could lock up Kuzmenko who is clearly a better player
maybe Armstrong will take him back for Guenther or Lawson Crouse lol
To WPG for Lundmark (future 5-7 RD) and Barron (4C) or 3rd
To NASH for Glass (future 3C) and 3rd
To anybody that gets us a high 2nd plus a 3rd/4th i would do just so we could lock up Kuzmenko who is clearly a better player
maybe Armstrong will take him back for Guenther or Lawson Crouse lol
I think regardless of Hoglander staying or not, Boeser and Garland likely have to be moved. If they can achieve that along with a Myers move after his bonus is paid out that will start to right the ship.
Don’t disagree but was Garland not better with Horvat and Miller? And were they necessarily better without them?
I do think Garland is having a poor season (concussion-related issues?) and many others are having an up and down season.
oceanchild
Registered User
Let's face it, the Coyotes 'sold high' on Garland. There was a reason they weren't interested in a contract extension once he became an RFA.
And just as obviously not the first time Benning acquired a guy at the top of the market, and then doubled down by re-sighing the player to a pricey extension. Think Gudbranson and Sutter.
It's little wonder this team is in salary cap purgatory.
And just as obviously not the first time Benning acquired a guy at the top of the market, and then doubled down by re-sighing the player to a pricey extension. Think Gudbranson and Sutter.
It's little wonder this team is in salary cap purgatory.
604
Registered User
- Nov 1, 2011
- 7,384
- 1,614
The trade was terrible the day it happened.
The trade is evolving exactly as expected.
One thing that Benning is consistent at.
I thought with his dyed hair it helped him age gracefully.
Hit the post
I have your gold medal Zippy!
Don't insult Sutter by lumping him with that #6D. Overpaid yes but he was fairly solid for us as a defensive center before his body gave out. IMHO
Raistlin
Registered User
- Aug 25, 2006
- 5,014
- 3,954
hes out due to long covid right?
Garland is in a funk right now and has been underwhelming to his standards. He was earmarked to be a mainstay on the third scoring line along with Horvat or Miller and Hoglander... but when Miller regressed back to wing, he is left with Dries. He is a victim of circumstances as he is not a playdriver by himself. lets see how he does with Strudnika
BenningHurtsMySoul
Unfair Huggy Bear
Coyotes absolutely fleeced us in that trade. Set the team back years.
