Is Brandon Sutter Really THAT Bad?

[HitoftheMillennium*]

The guy posts respectable-looking numbers year after year. I haven't watched the Canucks much since he was traded to the team, but I do recall watching him in the 2015 playoffs and thinking he was one of the Penguins better forwards in their first-round loss that year.

Maybe I'm watching the "wrong" games, but he's never looked like a particularly bad player to me.

Is overrated defensively? Does he make a lot of inept plays even though he scores at a respectable level for a checker?


Just trying to figure out why people talk about him as if he's one of the worst third line centres in the League when his numbers don't suggest he is.

Click to read more...

 

[Le Barron de HF]

He's soft and can only generate offense off the rush.

 

[Pick87your71Poison]

I can speak for his time with the Pens. He produced solid enough #s for a 3rd liner like you said and he is solid defensively, but the issue we had was all of his production was off the rush. He was pretty much useless along the boards, helping to cycle the puck, or getting his teammates involved at all, so pretty much every player he played with took a hit offensively and the third line overall just didn't do a good enough job of controlling play on a regular basis. He is ok for what he is, but what made the Pens so good for the last couple years is being able to roll their lines and maintain pressure and that is just not something we could do regularly with Sutter on the 3rd.

 

[tarheelhockey]

Sutter's a decent choice for a pure shutdown role. He'll get the job done defensively and chip in the odd point. If you're expecting him to carry a line offensively, you're in trouble.

 

[y2kcanucks]

He's not very good at all. His offensive production relative to his ice-time (he was top 50 in TOI/game last season, for example) is shockingly poor and inefficient.

Defensively he's not very good either. He does not suppress shots against. He's a poor puck possession player who makes his linemates worse.

I see him as an OK option as a 4C because he's fast and can kill penalties, and has a good shot, but if you're relying on him as a 3C or better you're probably not doing very well.

 

[bossram]

No he's not THAT bad. But he has limited use, and should only be put in a bottom-six role. As for the Canucks, his usage and pay grade is vastly beyond his ability.

Sutter is good on faceoffs, the PK and scoring off the rush occasionally. He is devoid of any offensive creativity or possession game, and is generally an anchor to his teammates. His
"ideal use" is probably that of a defensive oriented 4th line center, or maybe 3rd line checking/shutdown line.

Putting him on the 1PP, and oscillating between "foundational center" and 1st line center as the Canucks have is a surefire way to waste way your better players.

 

[VanJack]

At $2.5m a season he'd be a value player....but at $4.5m a year with term, he's a cap-killer.

 

[Josepho]

He can probably pass as a 3rd line RW who can play C on PK. Decent shot, good skater, not too much else.

Absolutely horrendous at distributing the puck, which is a huge red flag for a center. I think most Canucks fans hate the usage and contract far more than they hate the player.

 

[Glass Eyes]

Probably a decent 4th line center or 3RW, but otherwise in way over his head. Awful contract and a terrible possession player.

 

[Sidney the Kidney]

Can't speak too much about Sutter's play in Carolina or Vancouver, but my issues with him when he was a Pen were:

1-He's soft. If he went into a 50/50 board battle, he'd end up losing that battle the vast majority of the time. He also seems to have taken his temperament from his mom's side of the family, because I don't see an ounce of the "Sutter grit" that his dad and uncles possessed as NHL players.

2-He's got very little offensive awareness and is a poor passer. Sutter doesn't know how to utilize his linemates, and often times his line is a typical one-and-done offensive chance because of it. He simply lacks the vision to be a guy who can create opportunities for his linemates.

3-He's defensively responsible, but he's not *that* good defensively to make up for the two things above. So if he's playing anywhere above your 3rd or 4th line, you're probably not a very good team. I'd even argue if he's your 3C, you're not a good team because he'll ensure your 3rd line is a possession nightmare.

Sutter has one thing going for him offensively: he's got a nice shot and can be dangerous off the rush/in transition. Any other offensive situation and he's basically useless.

He's the kind of player that's fine if you're paying him $2.5 to $3 million as a defensive guy/PK guy in your bottom six. But I don't know what Benning was thinking paying him and treating him like he's a core guy.

 

[Internet Explorer]

He gets more respect than he deserves because of his name.

 

[Pharrell Williams]

remember when the penguins got bonino, clendening, and a 2nd for sutter and a 3rd lol




(bonino is better)

((and a 2nd is better than a 3rd))

(((and clendening is... better than nothing i guess)))

 

[1909]

He can probably pass as a 3rd line RW who can play C on PK. Decent shot, good skater, not too much else.

Absolutely horrendous at distributing the puck, which is a huge red flag for a center. I think most Canucks fans hate the usage and contract far more than they hate the player.

He is basically another Lars Eller.

 

[sr edler]

Yes he is.

 

[ProstheticConscience]

He's not really bad, he's just the personification of a lot of issues the team has.

--absurdly off pro scouting: Sutter was sold to us as a "foundational centre" with gritty two-way play and the ability to anchor a line. Yeah, no.

--stupid contract handed out for no reason: Sutter was instantly made the highest-paid NHL forward to have never hit 40 points in a season with full NTC and even a retroactive NTC to cover the year we got him before his new contract kicked in.

--traded the better, cheaper player in Bonino to get him and just for laughs threw in the higher draft pick and a depth dman.

--coach overplayed him in stupid positions (like #1 PP) while ignoring better options.

--once again, the team got worse, more expensive and lost a draft pick. That's one in a long series of moves Benning's made that have had that effect.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

He's basically Mason Raymond.

 

[vwg*]

He's pretty overpaid but otherwise he's basically an average to above average bottom 6 type of player.

 

[CanuckGame39]

He's basically Mason Raymond.

Not even close to a decent comparison.

Raymond was trash. Sutter is a decent 3rd liner.

 

[OvermanKingGainer]

Not even close to a decent comparison.

Raymond was trash. Sutter is a decent 3rd liner.

Raymond was "trash" on a perennial President's Trophy winner and cup contender, Sutter is "a decent 3rd liner" on a perennial 1st overall draft pick contender. Neither guy should play center, both guys can give you around 20 goals, and both guys have blazing speed but little else to offer.

 

[HitoftheMillennium*]

He's not really bad, he's just the personification of a lot of issues the team has.

--absurdly off pro scouting: Sutter was sold to us as a "foundational centre" with gritty two-way play and the ability to anchor a line. Yeah, no.

--stupid contract handed out for no reason: Sutter was instantly made the highest-paid NHL forward to have never hit 40 points in a season with full NTC and even a retroactive NTC to cover the year we got him before his new contract kicked in.

--traded the better, cheaper player in Bonino to get him and just for laughs threw in the higher draft pick and a depth dman.

--coach overplayed him in stupid positions (like #1 PP) while ignoring better options.

--once again, the team got worse, more expensive and lost a draft pick. That's one in a long series of moves Benning's made that have had that effect.

Thanks.

This is a good summary of why people talk about him the way they do, I suppose.

 

[Igor Shestyorkin]

remember when the penguins got bonino, clendening, and a 2nd for sutter and a 3rd lol




(bonino is better)

((and a 2nd is better than a 3rd))

(((and clendening is... better than nothing i guess)))

Considering everything, I'd rather have Clendening..

 

[Skobel24]

Raymond was "trash" on a perennial President's Trophy winner and cup contender, Sutter is "a decent 3rd liner" on a perennial 1st overall draft pick contender. Neither guy should play center, both guys can give you around 20 goals, and both guys have blazing speed but little else to offer.

I actually agree with you on this.

 

[Regal]

Not even close to a decent comparison.

Raymond was trash. Sutter is a decent 3rd liner.

Raymond was easily a better player than Sutter before his back injury.

Raymond was "trash" on a perennial President's Trophy winner and cup contender, Sutter is "a decent 3rd liner" on a perennial 1st overall draft pick contender. Neither guy should play center, both guys can give you around 20 goals, and both guys have blazing speed but little else to offer.

No, you're probably looking at him from his time in Calgary. Before his back injury, Raymond was actually a decent 2nd liner/great tweener, whereas I'm not sure Sutter should be above the 4th line on a contender. Sutter has decent wheels, but I wouldn't call him blazing fast. It helps him off the rush, but it's not something he uses regularly as a weapon to create space, whereas Raymond did have that kind of speed. Raymond was also a far better puckhandler and passer, who had offensive ability beyond shooting on the rush, and could actually help control an effective cycle. He was probably a better PKer as well. In 09-10 and 10-11 combined, he had a 1.84 P/60 and a team best 56.6% CF% (5.2 rel), whereas last year Sutter had a 1.16 P/60 and 3rd-worst on the team 45.2 CF% (-3.5 rel). Raymond was helped by peak Kesler and a strong team around him, but he actually had the ability to play off of better skilled players. Sutter kills everyone around him. He's awful.

 

[wonton15]

He's one of those players who is actually mediocre at just about everything but puts up points because the coach overplays him / there's no other option. Kinda like Markus Granlund too..

 

[KeninsFan]

Can't speak too much about Sutter's play in Carolina or Vancouver, but my issues with him when he was a Pen were:

1-He's soft. If he went into a 50/50 board battle, he'd end up losing that battle the vast majority of the time. He also seems to have taken his temperament from his mom's side of the family, because I don't see an ounce of the "Sutter grit" that his dad and uncles possessed as NHL players.

2-He's got very little offensive awareness and is a poor passer. Sutter doesn't know how to utilize his linemates, and often times his line is a typical one-and-done offensive chance because of it. He simply lacks the vision to be a guy who can create opportunities for his linemates.

3-He's defensively responsible, but he's not *that* good defensively to make up for the two things above. So if he's playing anywhere above your 3rd or 4th line, you're probably not a very good team. I'd even argue if he's your 3C, you're not a good team because he'll ensure your 3rd line is a possession nightmare.

Sutter has one thing going for him offensively: he's got a nice shot and can be dangerous off the rush/in transition. Any other offensive situation and he's basically useless.

He's the kind of player that's fine if you're paying him $2.5 to $3 million as a defensive guy/PK guy in your bottom six. But I don't know what Benning was thinking paying him and treating him like he's a core guy.

Very fair and I agree with literally all of it. On the positives he's fast and while lacking offensive vision he can take a good wrister flying down the wing.

- Canucks fan