Confirmed with Link: Canucks Sign Pius Suter - 2-years @ $1.6M AAV

[bossram]

I don't think many people believe that. Especially not in the role that we glaringly needed right now. Dickinson would be a far worse fit than Suter to play a sort de facto 3C role with skilled offensive-minded players. Suter has a more appropriate skillset to at least have a shot at being useful there, when we already have a backfill for Dickinson in Bluegers now to fill any of that other role.

But as above...judging Dickinson as a player solely based on one catastrophic sample out of his career absent context, is a super parochial way of thinking about it. For all we know, Dickinson could've been a great natural fit with Tocchet behind the bench. With more structured game and asking for different things out of his players, deployed in a way that made more sense to his strengths/limitations. Leaning entirely on the one major outlier year (good or bad) is typically not a reliable way of assessing players.

I mean, some people are literally saying Suter "will be worse than Dickinson, but cheaper".

Yeah, outside of Vancouver Dickinson was much better. But his performance in Vancouver was awful and Suter will give them components that are more needed for them right now. It's hard to be worse than what Dickinson was in Vancouver.

Agreed for Petey, but Miller is one of two guys on the team that can win faceoffs. He's going to PK.

He will be on the PK, but shouldn't. I don't really value winning the faceoff to immediately turn it over and get scored on very highly.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

Speaking of Suter and Dries, this signing is also a big boost for the offense in Abbotsford. Dries is an impact player at the AHL-level.

If Dries clears waivers and gets to Abbotsford, he’s a major player for them. He’s utilitarian enough, though, that I could see another team claim him for forward depth.

 

[sting101]

Dries would undoubtedly clear unless a team runs into a rash of injuries during the tail end of pre season. If he gets claimed your happy you upgraded with Suter because as much as he has the speed and individual skill to play in the NHL he is poor defensively and is about as bad as it gets as a playmaker. With a little more time and space to make plays in the AHL he is a top line player.

Suter was a smart acquisition, you got Dries to the AHL where he needs to be and is a good call up vet if needed short term, you get internal competition between Blueger Suter and Amen for this season where inevitably there will be injuries and you get a contract expiring in Blueger that makes way for Raty when he starts his journey to becoming the future 3C.

Studnicka was a swing and miss as a C. Like Dries he doesn't see the ice good enough and makes too many positional and puck management gaffs to be used in that role on a team looking for btm 6 certainty and playoffs.

Nils Amen's development arc is of keen interest for me. His range and improving confidence of last season had him trending towards a potential elite shut down 4C who can be used in crucial closing minutes and defensive situations.

 

[F A N]

None of this is a comment about Suter in particular because I don't know the player well enough to have any type of specific opinion about him, but:

I think the term "5C" is pretty wobbly and not well chosen, but I don't think the concept is weird and is certainly pretty relevant here - especially when you're dealing with the 3/4 line divide. It's not an unlikely scenario to have a winger on your 3rd line that you'd prefer to move to the middle in a pinch rather than bump your 8 minute a game run-around 4C into those minutes even if you'd prefer to otherwise not have that player play centre, because the gap between a 3C and 4C can be really very huge depending on deployment. That differs from a player that is legitimately capable of playing that role, but has been pushed to the wing because you have other better options or they're even better over there or whatever it may be.

You and MS clearly disagree on which of those Suter is, and I'm not sure why you're scuffling about the general concept rather than the particular player.

This is also getting into the territory of being kind of the same conversation that was had around Dickinson where people anointed him a real good 3C because he was a 3rd liner who had also played in the middle even though there's obviously more to it than that. Again, not making a comment about Suter in particular, but just that the concept shouldn't really be foreign.

I never said it's a foreign concept calling a player a 5C. What I said was "...logically when someone says 5C one thinks of a guy who is often a healthy scratch or an emergency C." THIS interpretation shouldn't be a foreign concept.

My understanding is that Suter was a C in Switzerland. He has spent significant time at the C position in the NHL with varying success. He failed as a 2C in Detroit. He has spent time as a 1st line winger as well but he has a significant sample size as a C in the NHL. To me he's an NHL calibre centre regardless of whether he is a 3C, 4C or better as a winger.

Again, saying Suter is a better winger than a C is fine. But he clearly has proven himself good enough to be an 3rd/4th line C in the NHL. If you disagree then we just signed a bottom 6 winger who can fill in at C in a pinch (but really you shouldn't have him playing that position). Is that what you think the Canucks did here?

The fact that Miller is better on the wing doesn't mean he isn't good enough to be a 2C/3C in the NHL. The fact that Dickinson isn't a good 3C doesn't mean he isn't an NHL calibre 4C in the NHL. If he isn't then ya you can call him a 5C.

The conversation IS about Suter because MS called him a 5C. I obviously disagree. Do YOU disagree?

 

[lawrence]

Plan the parade

 

[F A N]

Dries would undoubtedly clear unless a team runs into a rash of injuries during the tail end of pre season. If he gets claimed your happy you upgraded with Suter because as much as he has the speed and individual skill to play in the NHL he is poor defensively and is about as bad as it gets as a playmaker. With a little more time and space to make plays in the AHL he is a top line player.

Suter was a smart acquisition, you got Dries to the AHL where he needs to be and is a good call up vet if needed short term, you get internal competition between Blueger Suter and Amen for this season where inevitably there will be injuries and you get a contract expiring in Blueger that makes way for Raty when he starts his journey to becoming the future 3C.

Studnicka was a swing and miss as a C. Like Dries he doesn't see the ice good enough and makes too many positional and puck management gaffs to be used in that role on a team looking for btm 6 certainty and playoffs.

Nils Amen's development arc is of keen interest for me. His range and improving confidence of last season had him trending towards a potential elite shut down 4C who can be used in crucial closing minutes and defensive situations.

Agreed. I think if Raty isn't good enough to beat out Dries for a spot you sent them down. Ideally you have Dries as a first-callup in the AHL but we probably don't want Raty sitting. Aman (he's 23) is a vet as far as I'm concerned so treat him like one. Aman is waivers exempt so if he doesn't beat Dries for a spot there should be no concerns about sending Aman down.

Studnicka I could care less. If he wins a roster spot that's great. If he doesn't well down he goes.

 

[RobertKron]

I never said it's a foreign concept calling a player a 5C. What I said was "...logically when someone says 5C one thinks of a guy who is often a healthy scratch or an emergency C." THIS interpretation shouldn't be a foreign concept.

My understanding is that Suter was a C in Switzerland. He has spent significant time at the C position in the NHL with varying success. He failed as a 2C in Detroit. He has spent time as a 1st line winger as well but he has a significant sample size as a C in the NHL. To me he's an NHL calibre centre regardless of whether he is a 3C, 4C or better as a winger.

Again, saying Suter is a better winger than a C is fine. But he clearly has proven himself good enough to be an 3rd/4th line C in the NHL. If you disagree then we just signed a bottom 6 winger who can fill in at C in a pinch (but really you shouldn't have him playing that position). Is that what you think the Canucks did here?

The fact that Miller is better on the wing doesn't mean he isn't good enough to be a 2C/3C in the NHL. The fact that Dickinson isn't a good 3C doesn't mean he isn't an NHL calibre 4C in the NHL. If he isn't then ya you can call him a 5C.

The conversation IS about Suter because MS called him a 5C. I obviously disagree. Do YOU disagree?

I said that I'm not commenting on Suter because I'm not familiar enough with the player.

Again, it's pretty clear what MS meant with their post - even moreso after a clarification - so I don't really understand why you keep framing their argument with your own definitions rather than just accepting that they mean something different by 5C, which they have even clarified.

 

[LemonSauceD]

I'd probably go Blueger/Mikheyev, Suter/Joshua, Aman/PDG on the PK. Get Miller off of it entirely, at the least.

They added defensive pieces. Utilize them to give Miller and Petey more offensive minutes.

I don’t mind giving Miller and Petey some PK time as well considering they both led the league in PK points/goals, which is just as important as being able to kill off penalties, IMO. Goals are goals.

Perhaps near the tail end of a PP with maybe 30 seconds left you deploy these two and hope they can take advantage of a dwindling 2nd PP unit. I agree though, part of managing their minutes would be to cut down ice time and our 2 best goal scorers shouldn’t be our 1st PK option out there.

 

[Nick Lang]

I don’t mind giving Miller and Petey some PK time as well considering they both led the league in PK points/goals, which is just as important as being able to kill off penalties, IMO. Goals are goals.

Perhaps near the tail end of a PP with maybe 30 seconds left you deploy these two and hope they can take advantage of a dwindling 2nd PP unit. I agree though, part of managing their minutes would be to cut down ice time and our 2 best goal scorers shouldn’t be our 1st PK option out there.

I think it's far more important that your PKer's don't get scored on than it is scoring goals themselves while shorthanded.

 

[logan5]

Pettersson poses a huge threat to score, or set up a goal when he is pk'ing. There was a stretch under Tocchet where the Canucks scored 9 shorthanded goals in 20 games. That'll mess with an opposing teams power play in a big way. Hoping Pettersson still gets his pk time.

 

[F A N]

I said that I'm not commenting on Suter because I'm not familiar enough with the player.

Again, it's pretty clear what MS meant with their post - even moreso after a clarification - so I don't really understand why you keep framing their argument with your own definitions rather than just accepting that they mean something different by 5C, which they have even clarified.

Huh? WTF are you talking about? Why bother posting in the Suter thread if you're not going to discuss the player?

MS described Suter as a 5C. Clearly the reasonable interpretation is that of a player below that of a 4C. This is his clarification:

A guy who is better-suited on the wing but can slide into a C spot if you have injuries. It’s not saying he’s a healthy scratch.

Same deal as Rodrigues, Kerfoot and others. Guys who are pretty decent middle-6 utility players who can play C but who you really wouldn’t want as your 3C in a fully healthy roster.

I don't think I am disagreeing with MS's definition here - which is essentially a player you don't want at C with a healthy roster.

I don't know why you have such difficulties understanding this. I think Suter has proven himself as a capable NHL centre. Clearly most of us here see this signing as the Canucks signing a C. I think most of us here who like the signing WANT Suter playing C rather than a guy you really don't want playing C "in a healthy lineup."

Again, I use JT Miller as an example. Do I think he's better as a winger? Yes. Do I think he's capable of filling in as a 2C/3C role? Yes? Is he a guy you wouldn't want as a C in a fully healthy roster? Well no because he's making $8M and we don't have a better 2C. The answer would be yes if we had a better 2C because I think Miller as a top 6 winger would be more valuable than playing a 3C role. In no way does that make him a 4C or 5C.

 

[ChilliBilly]

I hope they throw EP and miller out when its near the end of the PK. When there is less than 15 seconds left.. Or for that matter EP and Kuz. Also, when they have been off the ice for a while cuz of penalties.

 

[Mr. Canucklehead]

I hope they throw EP and miller out when its near the end of the PK. When there is less than 15 seconds left.. Or for that matter EP and Kuz. Also, when they have been off the ice for a while cuz of penalties.

I think we'll see exactly that. The two quick strike goals against Toronto this year were absolutely glorious, and hopefully that sort of counter attack can become a bit more commonplace.

 

[ChilliBilly]

I think we'll see exactly that. The two quick strike goals against Toronto this year were absolutely glorious, and hopefully that sort of counter attack can become a bit more commonplace.

yeah and I think the other dangerous one is Mikheyev. Send him out for the 2nd PK.

Edit - and sorry, this is off topic. Belongs elsewhere.

 

[m9]

I know many people on the board have been wanting Suter signed for awhile so I'll defer to the group-think a bit here and hope he can help our bottom-six & PK.

That being said I don't like that we gave him two years. It sounds like nobody else was willing to give him term which is why he's still unsigned 6 weeks later.

 

[Nick Lang]

Huh? WTF are you talking about? Why bother posting in the Suter thread if you're not going to discuss the player?

MS described Suter as a 5C. Clearly the reasonable interpretation is that of a player below that of a 4C. This is his clarification:


I don't think I am disagreeing with MS's definition here - which is essentially a player you don't want at C with a healthy roster.

I don't know why you have such difficulties understanding this. I think Suter has proven himself as a capable NHL centre. Clearly most of us here see this signing as the Canucks signing a C. I think most of us here who like the signing WANT Suter playing C rather than a guy you really don't want playing C "in a healthy lineup."

Again, I use JT Miller as an example. Do I think he's better as a winger? Yes. Do I think he's capable of filling in as a 2C/3C role? Yes? Is he a guy you wouldn't want as a C in a fully healthy roster? Well no because he's making $8M and we don't have a better 2C. The answer would be yes if we had a better 2C because I think Miller as a top 6 winger would be more valuable than playing a 3C role. In no way does that make him a 4C or 5C.

Not to get in the way of this illuminating 5C discussion but I'll weigh in with my limited knowledge of these players. It seems to me that Blueger is the better option at Center due to his face-offs and defensive prowess, 50.1 - 46.8, last year as well as his experience, and PK ability. I could see Suter on his wing. I think Blueger is also better defensively while Suter can chip in with some goals and steady play. Aman plays 4C unless maybe he and Suter are both given opportunities there. In that sense I kind of agree with the 5C moniker. He's a winger who can play center in a pinch.

 

[Pastor Of Muppetz]

I know many people on the board have been wanting Suter signed for awhile so I'll defer to the group-think a bit here and hope he can help our bottom-six & PK.

That being said I don't like that we gave him two years. It sounds like nobody else was willing to give him term which is why he's still unsigned 6 weeks later.

I admittedly knew very little about this player, but after a bit of research, he sounds precisely like the type of player the Canucks need..Rest assured, I dont think there's any doubt that he's going to help one of the leagues worst PK's next season, and be a very reliable player., with a high hockey IQ....The only downside of the player is that he isnt big

I like the way Allvin is facing the Canucks deficiencies head on..I dont see this deal looking any worse next season.

 

[Canuckle1970]

Not that I'm comparing Pius Suter to Igor Larionov, but Igor demonstrated that smarts can overcome lack of size.

A pk that can improve by 10 to 15% will make quite an impact. And I include better goaltending as part of that improved pk.

 

[biturbo19]

I never said it's a foreign concept calling a player a 5C. What I said was "...logically when someone says 5C one thinks of a guy who is often a healthy scratch or an emergency C." THIS interpretation shouldn't be a foreign concept.

My understanding is that Suter was a C in Switzerland. He has spent significant time at the C position in the NHL with varying success. He failed as a 2C in Detroit. He has spent time as a 1st line winger as well but he has a significant sample size as a C in the NHL. To me he's an NHL calibre centre regardless of whether he is a 3C, 4C or better as a winger.

Again, saying Suter is a better winger than a C is fine. But he clearly has proven himself good enough to be an 3rd/4th line C in the NHL. If you disagree then we just signed a bottom 6 winger who can fill in at C in a pinch (but really you shouldn't have him playing that position). Is that what you think the Canucks did here?

The fact that Miller is better on the wing doesn't mean he isn't good enough to be a 2C/3C in the NHL. The fact that Dickinson isn't a good 3C doesn't mean he isn't an NHL calibre 4C in the NHL. If he isn't then ya you can call him a 5C.

The conversation IS about Suter because MS called him a 5C. I obviously disagree. Do YOU disagree?

The way i see it, is that there are differences in what you want out of a Center/Forward in different roles.

With a true #3C, you want a guy who is able to take on tough matchup minutes and anchor a line while still chipping in offense.


With a #4C, the prototypical guy is some combination of big/physical/fast/pesty and can make their impact with those limited minutes. DZone starts, winning faceoffs, killing penalties. Creating "energy" by generating a sustained forecheck with simple, straightforward, "get the puck below the hashmarks and mash it into the net or jump on broken plays" sort of minutes. Really good 4th liners make their limited EV minutes count by playing a game that doesn't need them to handle the puck a lot or get creative with it to be effective. Then expand their impact on the PK. The reality of 4th line EV minutes is that a player is going to go long stretches of time without ever touching the ice, much less the puck. Offensive-oriented players can't ever get into a rhythm in that mode.



Pius Suter is one of those players who falls in a sort of awkward no-mans-land as a sort of "tweener" amongst a few different things.

He has okay offensive skills. Enough juice on the offensive end to be a 3C...but he's not anything like a "matchup center". So if you've got a solid roster, you don't actually want him as your #3C. His defensive mediocrity means he's not anything like the anchor of a stout 3rd line which means you're having to dump off those hard minutes on your Top-6 and 4th Line to "shelter" them. However, those offensive skills make him a candidate for temporary stopgap promotion into the Top-6, ideally as a winger though. Over other Bottom-6 types.


However, he isn't big, fast, physical, or impactful in the sense of typical 4th line player though. Which is where there's a clear split. He's a guy who needs to be in a generally cushy "offensive minutes" role to really thrive. Put him on a crash and bang low minutes 4th line and he'll offer next to nothing. This makes him...not a 4C.

That's what makes him more of a so-called 5C. Where you don't really want him in any role from #1/2/3/4C if you're building a conventional contending roster. He's not really cut out for any of them. Placing him anywhere there, reframes and places additional responsibility on some other role.



That's where he's in an awkward "tweener" realm as a guy who i'd actually personally characterize as a "Top-9" Filler...or a #5C. Or maybe even call him a #2f Center. Where he profiles a lot more like a Top-6C and has had most of his production there. But if he's in your Top-6, your Top-6 sucks donkey nuts.

You have to open up the brainbox and start to think critically about roles and practicalities. Rather than thinking about #1/2/3/4C as a strict hierarchy of scoring ability or "pure skill". You have to think like a coach, in who you'd want to send over the boards to be effective in a particular role to make your life easier and your team more successful.



We've been down this road before. There are ways to make it work. Santorelli was beloved here because he had a good stint as a cushy Top-6W. Similar sort of player but less dynamic. Washed out of the league fairly quickly. Jeff Tambellini was a similar player for us too. Where he could play as the "4c" when someone like Manny/Lappy was there to do the heavy lifting ahead of him.


I think that's where this Pius Suter signing could work out. If Bluegers proves he can still be that counterpart in a split role 3a/3b sort of line composition.

But the reality is...Pius Suter is not a #3C. There's a reason he was left hanging well into August as a free agent. There's a reason the Blackhawks let him go. He's a tweener sort of player. Just so happens that we may actually have room for a "tweener" like him while trying to make this bizarrely constructed roster work.

 

[F A N]

Not to get in the way of this illuminating 5C discussion but I'll weigh in with my limited knowledge of these players. It seems to me that Blueger is the better option at Center due to his face-offs and defensive prowess, 50.1 - 46.8, last year as well as his experience, and PK ability. I could see Suter on his wing. I think Blueger is also better defensively while Suter can chip in with some goals and steady play. Aman plays 4C unless maybe he and Suter are both given opportunities there. In that sense I kind of agree with the 5C moniker. He's a winger who can play center in a pinch.

If Blueger is the better option at Center partly due to his face-offs then Aman has no business playing C. If the argument is that Suter is a winger who can play center in a pinch I have no issues with the 5C moniker. But I don't think that's the case. I think Suter is a C who can play both wings as well.

 

[Nick Lang]

If Blueger is the better option at Center partly due to his face-offs then Aman has no business playing C. If the argument is that Suter is a winger who can play center in a pinch I have no issues with the 5C moniker. But I don't think that's the case. I think Suter is a C who can play both wings as well.

I'll be more than happy if that's the case. Like I said I've got limited viewings and I'm going off of a fair bit of internet research, although I do remember liking his play in a couple games I watched of the Red Wings this season. If he is better than advertised then great! I am far more knowledgeable with regards to Blueger and would say he's a fair bit better option at 3C imo.

I hear you on Aman as he's pretty horrible on the dot. In that sense that's where I see them playing on the 4th line together with perhaps Suter taking some/all face-offs and taking some pressure off. Aman played quite well down the stretch and I agree with @biturbo19 that he profiles more like a prototypical 4C with his speed, forecheck, and disruption abilities than Suter does. More than happy to be wowed by Suter and his Center abilities though even if it sends Aman back to Abby.

 

[F A N]

The way i see it, is that there are differences in what you want out of a Center/Forward in different roles.

With a true #3C, you want a guy who is able to take on tough matchup minutes and anchor a line while still chipping in offense.


With a #4C, the prototypical guy is some combination of big/physical/fast/pesty and can make their impact with those limited minutes. DZone starts, winning faceoffs, killing penalties. Creating "energy" by generating a sustained forecheck with simple, straightforward, "get the puck below the hashmarks and mash it into the net or jump on broken plays" sort of minutes. Really good 4th liners make their limited EV minutes count by playing a game that doesn't need them to handle the puck a lot or get creative with it to be effective. Then expand their impact on the PK. The reality of 4th line EV minutes is that a player is going to go long stretches of time without ever touching the ice, much less the puck. Offensive-oriented players can't ever get into a rhythm in that mode.



Pius Suter is one of those players who falls in a sort of awkward no-mans-land as a sort of "tweener" amongst a few different things.

He has okay offensive skills. Enough juice on the offensive end to be a 3C...but he's not anything like a "matchup center". So if you've got a solid roster, you don't actually want him as your #3C. His defensive mediocrity means he's not anything like the anchor of a stout 3rd line which means you're having to dump off those hard minutes on your Top-6 and 4th Line to "shelter" them. However, those offensive skills make him a candidate for temporary stopgap promotion into the Top-6, ideally as a winger though. Over other Bottom-6 types.


However, he isn't big, fast, physical, or impactful in the sense of typical 4th line player though. Which is where there's a clear split. He's a guy who needs to be in a generally cushy "offensive minutes" role to really thrive. Put him on a crash and bang low minutes 4th line and he'll offer next to nothing. This makes him...not a 4C.

That's what makes him more of a so-called 5C. Where you don't really want him in any role from #1/2/3/4C if you're building a conventional contending roster. He's not really cut out for any of them. Placing him anywhere there, reframes and places additional responsibility on some other role.



That's where he's in an awkward "tweener" realm as a guy who i'd actually personally characterize as a "Top-9" Filler...or a #5C. Or maybe even call him a #2f Center. Where he profiles a lot more like a Top-6C and has had most of his production there. But if he's in your Top-6, your Top-6 sucks donkey nuts.

You have to open up the brainbox and start to think critically about roles and practicalities. Rather than thinking about #1/2/3/4C as a strict hierarchy of scoring ability or "pure skill". You have to think like a coach, in who you'd want to send over the boards to be effective in a particular role to make your life easier and your team more successful.



We've been down this road before. There are ways to make it work. Santorelli was beloved here because he had a good stint as a cushy Top-6W. Similar sort of player but less dynamic. Washed out of the league fairly quickly. Jeff Tambellini was a similar player for us too. Where he could play as the "4c" when someone like Manny/Lappy was there to do the heavy lifting ahead of him.


I think that's where this Pius Suter signing could work out. If Bluegers proves he can still be that counterpart in a split role 3a/3b sort of line composition.

But the reality is...Pius Suter is not a #3C. There's a reason he was left hanging well into August as a free agent. There's a reason the Blackhawks let him go. He's a tweener sort of player. Just so happens that we may actually have room for a "tweener" like him while trying to make this bizarrely constructed roster work.

I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying here. But being a "tweener" because he doesn't bring the prototypical traits doesn't mean the player isn't an NHL centre. I would be very surprised if management didn't pencil Suter in as a C.

Take the version of Kyle Wellwood that we last saw in a Canucks jersey. He was a tweener. Was he an NHL calibre C? Certainly. Was he a winger rather than a C? No.

But on the topic of thinking like a coach, Suter has been utilized all over the lineup as a swiss army knife type player. Coaches seem to love his him.

 

[biturbo19]

If Blueger is the better option at Center partly due to his face-offs then Aman has no business playing C. If the argument is that Suter is a winger who can play center in a pinch I have no issues with the 5C moniker. But I don't think that's the case. I think Suter is a C who can play both wings as well.

The reality is...Suter played at least half his minutes last year with another Center on his line. Be that Larkin/Copp/Veleno/Sundkvist.


I suppose it's possible that they think these two are actually going to be a complementary duo. Just do it by "quantity" not "quality" down the middle. Have the share the Center duties

But Bluegers with his speed and defensive acumen seems like the better bet at something like a matchup Center role.

Suter seems like a better bet at centering someone like Garland who can sort of make things happen for himself from the wing. Along with a player like Hoggy/Podz who needs some offensive skill to work with if they want to expand that area of their game.

And Aman is in the mix as well somewhere.


It's just a murky, poorly constructed roster overall. But who knows...depth is king these days and we've got plenty of wingers who are good.

 

[F A N]

I'll be more than happy if that's the case. Like I said I've got limited viewings and I'm going off of a fair bit of internet research, although I do remember liking his play in a couple games I watched of the Red Wings this season. If he is better than advertised then great! I am far more knowledgeable with regards to Blueger and would say he's a fair bit better option at 3C imo.

I hear you on Aman as he's pretty horrible on the dot. In that sense that's where I see them playing on the 4th line together with perhaps Suter taking some/all face-offs and taking some pressure off. Aman played quite well down the stretch and I agree with @biturbo19 that he profiles more like a prototypical 4C with his speed, forecheck, and disruption abilities than Suter does. More than happy to be wowed by Suter and his Center abilities though even if it sends Aman back to Abby.

I mentioned this about Aman in another thread. There are some posters who see Aman as being this disruptive forechecker who is good defensively but he barely hits and his takeaway stats are abysmal. Suter hits even less than Aman but last season he had 31 takeaways. The year before he had 46. His rookie year he had 27 in 55 games. Aman had 9 takeways.

 

[biturbo19]

I'll be more than happy if that's the case. Like I said I've got limited viewings and I'm going off of a fair bit of internet research, although I do remember liking his play in a couple games I watched of the Red Wings this season. If he is better than advertised then great! I am far more knowledgeable with regards to Blueger and would say he's a fair bit better option at 3C imo.

I hear you on Aman as he's pretty horrible on the dot. In that sense that's where I see them playing on the 4th line together with perhaps Suter taking some/all face-offs and taking some pressure off. Aman played quite well down the stretch and I agree with @biturbo19 that he profiles more like a prototypical 4C with his speed, forecheck, and disruption abilities than Suter does. More than happy to be wowed by Suter and his Center abilities though even if it sends Aman back to Abby.

I actually liked Suter way way back as a draft eligible when he played with Guelph. I thought he was one of those "safe bet to play" sort of guys. He did enough of everything well enough to think he'd carve out games as a depth filler 13th F "supersub" at worst.

But i've progressively liked him less and less since. He's like Markus Granlund in that he just doesn't do anything particularly well. He hasn't really developed any defining quality. He's the epitome of a "nothing" player. Just A Guy. Island of Granlunds but maybe with a better JFresh chart idk.


The faceoff thing...with Aman, that's a problem. Not a huge one and there's reason thing believe he could still improve there. You can also always have a winger step in for him. That's where i actually like the idea of this move pushing it so that we can run Bluegers+Aman as a potential duo. Two defensive-oriented guys with lots of speed who play a straightforward game...hopefully one of them can win a faceoff.

I don't necessary disagree with what you are saying here. But being a "tweener" because he doesn't bring the prototypical traits doesn't mean the player isn't an NHL centre. I would be very surprised if management didn't pencil Suter in as a C.

Take the version of Kyle Wellwood that we last saw in a Canucks jersey. He was a tweener. Was he an NHL calibre C? Certainly. Was he a winger rather than a C? No.

But on the topic of thinking like a coach, Suter has been utilized all over the lineup as a swiss army knife type player. Coaches seem to love his him.

I think Wellwood is a fair comparable to what i anticipate they're going for with Suter. Not nearly the same skill level, but i think it's a similar concept.

I do see a lot of potential for Suter-Garland to become a really perfect duo of a winger who is weirdly productive at 5v5 without much help from his Center...and a Center who has some okay offensive chops who really needs to have his ass carried. It creates one of those weird "3rd scoring lines".

It just means that 4th line (be it Bluegers, Aman, whatever mix) is going to have to carry a much heavier load that typical defensively. It also means that either the Petey or Miller line is going to have to carry a heavier load than ideal as well. It's not the way you want to build a team. But i do appreciate that they're trying to make this messy situation work.