Canucks Army Year In Review: Markus Granlund

Looking back at the season that was, you’d be be hard-pressed to find a more disappointing player than Markus Granlund. After a breakout 19-goal, 32-point 2016-17 campaign, Granlund finished the season with just 12 points and looked worse by virtually every statistical measure available.

Season GP G A P S CF% GF% G/60 P/60
2016-17 69 19 13 32 122 50.73 40.26 0.89 1.41
2017-18 52 8 4 12 93 46.75 34.29 0.38 0.48

Any analysis of Granlund’s season must begin with a look at why he fared so well in 2016-17. This was something I looked at in an earlier article, following his cold start to the season. I looked at every one of his goals, and concluded his performance was likely a one-off:

Going back and looking at these goals, I had a few observations. The first was how many garbage goals Granlund had last season. That’s not a bad thing, that’s how most players score in today’s NHL. I just think a lot of people remember the flashes of one-shot scoring Granlund showed last year. In reality, there were a lot more rebounds and a lot of jabbing at loose pucks in the blue paint. That puts the “bum wrist” aspect in context a bit. Granlund’s goals relied a lot less on his shot last season than I think people realize.

The second takeaway I had was just how many goals Granlund scored right off the faceoff. This doesn’t strike me as easily repeatable for a couple of reasons. First, if it’s a set play, that’s something teams eventually get wise to and start to adjust. Second, there are just so many factors that have to go the Canucks way for these plays to succeed. The centre (Brandon Sutter, in all of these cases,) has to win the faceoff and get the puck to Granlund immediately, and then Granlund has to get the shot off quickly enough to fool the goaltender. It’s also worth noting that the clean shots Granlund was able to get off the faceoff came against Kari Lehtonen and Pekka Rinne, who are both known to be behind the eight-ball at times. Given the randomness of faceoffs and the traffic and chaos that usually ensues in the immediate aftermath, it feels like you can only go back to this well so many times. Unfortunately, there’s a dearth of data and study on the subject, so I don’t feel comfortable coming to a firm conclusion yet, so it remains a hunch.

What stands out about these goals is just how differently Sutter and Granlund were used last season. The importance of zone starts is often greatly overstated, but I think it’s important when considering this particular play because you have to be starting in the offensive zone to execute it. Desjardins liked to dole out zone starts pretty evenly, and in this case, I think it greatly benefited the Sutter-Granlund combo. Sutter generally struggles to generate zone time because of his poor playmaking ability. This is perhaps most notable in transition.

Throughout his career, Sutter has resorted to dump-ins to gain the zone. More often than not, this meant the puck would spend only a few seconds in the offensive zone before it was sent the other way by the opponent. Starting Sutter in the offensive zone went a long way towards mitigating this. Travis Green, on the other hand, has used the Sutter-Granlund combo in a completely different role that not only doesn’t emphasize offence but also rarely allows them to execute a play that they got a lot of mileage out of last season. This means that even if scoring a goal right off a faceoff is a repeatable skill, Granlund isn’t being put in the position to do it to the degree he was last season.

Finally, Granlund was far from the only person creating offence when he was on the ice. Sure, he played a lot with Sutter, who was a complete non-factor on a lot of these goals; but almost all of his minutes with Sutter also came with one of Loui Eriksson or Jannik Hansen, who are both capable of creating offence and had a couple of nice set-ups for Granlund over the course of last season.

If you look at who got the primary assists on Granlund’s goals last season, you’ll see that eight of his goals were assisted by Eriksson, Bo Horvat, or the Sedins. That’s why I don’t think we need to adjust too much for the fact that Granlund spent so much time with Brandon Sutter.

To make a long story short, Granlund’s impressive 2016-17 campaign likely wasn’t going to be repeated given the luck and increased opportunity that went into it. Even if Granlund were capable of shooting at a 15% clip again, he wasn’t going to get the favourable deployment he received in 2016-17. There were simply better players blocking his way this time around.

Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Given the role that was left over for Granlund after the additions of Gagner, Vanek, and Boeser, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised things turned out the way they did. The differences are enough to give you whiplash. Granlund went from playing prime offensive minutes on the team’s top line (and in an ill-advised secondary scoring role with Brandon Sutter), to playing primarily in a shutdown role.

Granlund playing big minutes with Brandon Sutter was nothing new, but the context had changed significantly. Anyone who watched more than ten minutes of Canucks hockey last season would be able to gleam that the Brandon Sutter line was not out there to score goals. The Granlund-Sutter combo received a ton of defensive zone starts and often played against the team’s toughest competition. While these factors can often be overrated, it’s not out of bounds to suggest it the situation Granlund found himself in was sub-optimal.

Overall, the underlying metrics don’t paint a pretty picture for Granlund, but for what it’s worth, his two most common linemates posted downright ugly numbers when he wasn’t stapled to their wing. There’s a legitimate case to be made that Granlund not only kept Sutter’s numbers from completely cratering this season, but also saw a significant dip in his own numbers because of his deployment.


Advertisement - Continue Reading Below

Looking again at my piece from early last season, I think it’s important to keep in mind that Granlund’s loss was in many ways the team’s gain:

[I]t’s clear that expecting Granlund to have a repeat of last year was unfair from the get-go, given his usage. The idea that Granlund was carrying his line offensively is a myth, at least when you look at the results.

Goals can be pretty random; but for whatever it’s worth, Granlund has been deprived of a lot of the things that made him successful last season.

That’s actually a good thing.

Part of the reason Markus Granlund had such a good year last season is that the Canucks just didn’t have anybody else to fill his role. He got more offensive opportunities, more minutes, and better linemates than he probably deserved, and he was able to capitalize. This season, the Canucks have better players to give those opportunities, and Granlund has been left playing with some of the team’s least offensively gifted players.

The Canucks lineup is bound to look completely different next season, and Granlund stands to be one of the players that could most benefit the most from the changes. The Canucks’ coaching staff wasn’t afraid to experiment with a more modern look in their bottom-six, as they frequently deployed players in a sheltered scoring role. I’d like to see Granlund get a look on a modern fourth line, perhaps as a two-way presence with Adam Gaudette and Sam Gagner. Granlund also had some success with Loui Eriksson, who the Canucks will also be looking to step up in the absence of Henrik and Daniel Sedin. That absence also means an additional two spots will be open on the teams power-play units. Granlund scored a couple of power play goals at the tail end of the 2016-17 season and looked good in the process, so perhaps he could fill a spot on the team’s second unit.

Regardless of how the Canucks’ coaching staff handles Garnlund, I think we could all use to temper our expectations. Granlund likely should have been a 15-goal, 30-point player in 2016-17, and that’s likely what he’s going to be moving forward. That being said, I see no reason why he can’t get back to playing the way that made him successful in his breakout season with some changes in his deployment. The days of him getting the type of looks in the team’s top-six that he received under Willie Desjardins are likely a thing of the past, but that’s probably a good thing.

      • canuckfan

        Granlund has done EVERYTHING that has been asked of him. He can play offence if needed and when asked does a great job defensively. He is the kind of player a coach can rely on. Does what the team needs of him. I would not trade him. Eriksson, Sutter and Granlund were asked to shutdown opposing players and they did it as well as kill penalties.

  • WHL

    Re-signing Granlund makes total sense. If I’m not mistaken, Granlund also spent a fair amount of his playing time at center this season yet a good chunk (but not all, of course) of his success in 2016/2017 was primarily while playing as a winger (albeit, while playing with the Sedins).

    Having Granlund gives the Canucks more depth and helps the bottom 6 (or bottom 9). My expectations for Granlund next season aren’t that high, but he seems to be one of those players that generally helps the team instead of hurts it, even if he’s not producing on offense. If Granlund has a decent season, then there’s always the possibility of giving him an opportunity elsewhere if one of the prospects is ready for full time NHL duty.

    • Whyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy would you put a defensive centre who outside of one fluke season has never shown any offensive upside between two scoring wingers?

      If anything put Gagner there and hope Eriksson can cover up for his defensive weaknesses. Even more ideally Petterson makes the transition to centre and you put Eriksson and Dahlen or Gagner on his wings.

      • TD

        I could see Granlund centering Pettersson and Dahlen. He is reliable defensively and but is still a good passer with some offensive abilities. The offence would run through Pettersson and to a lesser extent Dahlen. The Canucks know Pettersson and Dahlen have chemistry, but you would need a defensive presence with two rookies.

  • wojohowitz

    Both Granlund and Baertschi are candidates to be traded for a higher draft position – if signed by draft day. Something like 37th to 27th if the right player is still available.

      • RobG

        The Wild gave up Alex Tuck and Eric Huala to keep Dumba from going to Vegas. He was not only their best defenseman he was one their best players all year. There is ZERO chance the Wild trade him. Especially not for that sorry lot. Keep dreaming.

        • wojohowitz

          Your post is a little non-sensical in this respect; The Wild did not think enough of Dumba to put him on their protected list preferring Scandella instead so they offered Vegas Tuch and Haula in a side deal to leave Dumba alone which Vegas found agreeable.

          This transaction just might explain why Chuck Fletcher lost his job as only nine days later he traded Scandella to Buffalo. The kicker on this is that Minny as of right now doesn`t have a GM to make any deals.

          • Canuck4Life20

            Hutton, Gudbranson, and a 2nd just became the new Ballard, Raymond, and a second. Not a chance you get a 50 point (good for 19th in the league) defenceman without giving up either Pettersson or Boeser in return and even that might not get it done.

          • Canuck4Life20

            And the reason that Dumba was left unprotected was obviously because they already had the side deal worked out. The fact they were willing to give up two assets to keep him tells me they knew his worth.

    • Killer Marmot

      The Canucks only have 13 forwards on the roster right now. If you add Peterson and Dahlen (which is optimistic) that’s 15. Subtract Baertschi and Granlund that’s back to 13.

      That sounds like a lot, but the Canucks played 25 individual forwards last season. They’re going to have sign some depth UFAs this summer as it is. Trading those two for draft picks would make the situation dire.

      • TD

        On the radio the other day, I think it was Ryan Beich saying Dahlen has been very good and that he thought there was a good chance he would be on the Canucks next year. He turns 21 in December, so he isn’t young. He was the best player in the Allvesken. And his team is moving to the SHL after beating an SHL team in a relegation series in which Dahlen was the best player. If the SHL is comparable or a little better than the AHL, than I don’t see why he may not be ready for the NHL. I would expect some growing pains, but by all accounts he has been one of the best players on the Comets for his 4 games and has shown a mature defensive game.

  • Mattias

    “Looking back at the season that was, you’d be be hard-pressed to find a more disappointing player than Markus Granlund.”
    I can think of one player the CA thoroughly criticized Jim Benning for trading away…
    Hunter Shinkaruk.
    Giving cred where due never hurts