The Purpose of the Canucks' Fourth Line? Prospect Development

For much of the season, the Canucks' 4th line has been a target for criticism. It's been a patchwork unit all year long, with little in the way of consistency (save the presence of Tanner Glass). Worse, the players the Canucks have placed on it have had such varying skillsets and playing styles that we once speculated that the team had no idea what we they wanted from the 4th line.

Guys like Guillaume Desbiens and Aaron Volpatti indicated a desire for toughness; guys like Peter Schaefer and Mario Bliznak indicated a desire for a checking line; guys like Joel Perrault and Cody Hodgson indicated a sudden hope of tertiary scoring. The personnel and personality of the 4th changed so drastically from night to night, it often seemed as though the Canucks were simply hoping to trip over the answer.

On Thursday, Mike Gillis was on the Team 1040 morning show with Scotty Rintoul and Ray Ferraro, and while querying him on the somewhat puzzling timing of the Cody Hodgson callup, Scotty finally asked him directly about the seeming inconsistency of the 4th line. Gillis's response was more than a little interesting:

The 4th line--there's been a lot made of it--but we've intentionally brought players in and out to give them experience, and to get them familiar with what goes on here and play in games here. We've used it as a little bit of a development tool, because we want to get these young players into game experience in the NHL. And, even if they're not ready to be as consistent as we'd like, you still want them to get familiar with everything that goes on: game days, how it works, getting on the plane, familiar with the training staff, familiar with their teammates. So we've used that as a little bit of an experiment the whole year, and now we feel pretty confident that we have young players [for whom] it won't be a big surprise if we have to use them down the stretch or in the playoffs. [...] Even though we might have wanted more consistency out of that line, we have used it for different purposes at different times, so it's a little unfair to say we've been searching for something.

In short: the Canucks aren't searching for something. They're prospecting.

Gillis admits here that the line has lacked consistency to the naked eye--that it's appeared, at times, the Canucks were on a bit of a mapless treasure hunt--but he also gives a solid explanation. The primary purpose of the Canucks' 4th line under Gillis and Vigneault isn't to provide checking, grit, or additional scoring--it's to provide development and experience to the players in the Canucks' prospect system. As for what the Canucks expect of these young players, it's simply this: to play their game, and to gain the experience necessary to improve it.

Friend of Tanner Glass and exceptionally cool tweep @RayDerge recently pointed out that The Scrabble Champ has been on the ice for the first NHL goal of four separate guys this season, as Mario Bliznak, Alex Bolduc, Aaron Volpatti, and Cody Hodgson all lit the lamp on his line (begging the question of whether Glass is being intentionally utilized as a mentor, especially considering his leadership history). Bearing in mind what Gillis has told us about the purpose of the 4th line, this has to be a win for the Canucks. In fact, through this new lens, the Canucks' 4th line appears to be doing exactly what it's supposed to: giving invaluable experience to a long list of young'uns.

Surprise Moves for Joel Perrault and Jonas Andersson

Jonas Andersson might be okay at hockey.

The Canucks announced today that Joel Perrault has been re-assigned to the Manitoba Moose. This in itself was surprising, as the 4th line had shown steady improvement with Perrault in the lineup and it was assumed by many that he had earned his spot as the 4th-line center and would need a few games of poor play to lose it. Instead, it appears that Alexandre Bolduc, who re-joined the team as an emergency call-up last game, will slot back in immediately.

The second surprise was the player called up from the Moose to replace Perrault: Jonas Andersson. Many Canucks fans will simply respond with "Who?" and it's difficult to blame them. Andersson had a cup of coffee at the NHL level with the Nashville Predators...8 years ago. This season for the Moose was his first in North America since 2003, spending the intervening years in Sweden, Finland, and Belarus. He re-signed with the Predators in the offseason but was packaged up with Ryan Parent in the Shane O'Brien trade. Unlike Victor Oreskovich, who got a lot of attention as the throw-in player in the Keith Ballard deal, no one paid any attention to Andersson, which is entirely understandable. Oreskovich played 50 games for the Florida Panthers last season; Andersson played 30 games with HC Dinamo Minsk.

Instead, it's been Andersson that has been more impressive with the Moose this year, combining size, speed, and skill in the top-six and putting up 6 points in 12 games, most recently scoring 2 points in 4 games last week. Meanwhile, Oreskovich has slipped below management's radar: he hasn't scored a goal since October 16th and has no points since November 12th.

With Mikael Samuelsson out of the lineup with a "mild" concussion, it's possible that Andersson could make the jump to the third line with some strong play. JJ Guerrero at Canucks Hockey Blog had speculated that we might see Cody Hodgson called up in place of Samuelsson, but it seems that the Canucks will prefer him to spend a longer period of time with the Moose and only give him a call if they have need of a center.

I Watched This Game: Canucks vs. Coyotes, November 21, 2010

Canucks 2 - 3 Coyotes

Crud. We watched this game, and crud.

• For the fifth game in a row (!!!), the Canucks dug themselves a two-goal hole before they generated anything. This is a problem. They dig more holes than Dig Dug. Word of advice to the Canucks: I have personally found it is easier to win games when, at some point, I am winning.
  
  
• We at PITB feel like the topic has been a little played out, but the Canucks defense corps is a shoddy six-man unit right now. There is a corpse-ness to their defensive game, and the holes that they dig for themselves are becoming graves. Wasn't defensive depth supposed to be a strength going into this season? I've never missed Sami Salo so much, and he once spent a wonderful summer living in my backyard, teaching me lessons about life.
  
  
• Has anyone seen the Sedins cycle, maybe in a lost and found box somewhere? If so, please return it to Rogers Arena, care of Daniel and Henrik. They continue to avoid sustained offensive pressure like it was housework assigned by their wives (say, doing laundry or taking out the trash--they avoid cycling and recycling). Tonight we noticed that the crummy defense is also playing into this problem, as pucks sent to the blue line have a tendency of sitting on a defenseman's stick long enough for opposing defenders to recover and take away shooting lanes. We request quicker decisions and puck movement.
  
  
• We saw hot and cold from the fourth line tonight. I was just beginning to rag on them for playing ungood when Tanner Glass scored on a heads-up setup from Peter Schaefer, briefly nullifying the statement. Then they gave up the game-winning goal, so... yeah. Note: we were going to link to TVTropes.com's "So yeah" entry here, but it appears to be gone. In it's place, let's try: Sorry, I'm Gay.
  
  
• Anyway. Tanner Glass pounced on that loose puck like it was an unpluralized word dangling over a triple word score (#ScrabbleMeTanner). He read that play like it was 1984.
  
  
• In case anybody thought Joel Perrault was going to accomplish anything, he had 8 shifts tonight and a team-low 4:49 of ice time. He won zero draws, which is notable, as he took two. Who else is left to play center? Bryant "Big Country" Reeves is a natural center looking for a contract, and he's already got some ties to Vancouver.
  
  
• Unfortunately, the 4th-line center role is no longer the Canucks key concern. They have more worries than Simba the lion king, pre-Hakuna Matata.
  
  
• Mason Raymond is simply struggling with his confidence. He hasn't scored since the fluke in Toronto, and that's his only goal in November. His last tally came on October 26 versus Colorado. You could see his lack of confidence tonight on a shorthanded 2-on-1, when he passed the puck off to Alex Burrows, despite having a step on the lone man back. Mason Raymond is a speed demon, not a passing demon. Maybe he should watch every goal he scored last season to get his confidence back?
  
  
• On a positive note, this was a better game than the game which shall not be named, otherwise known as the Voldemort game. Our theory is that the Canucks played the Voldermort game against the Blackhawks in honour of the new Harry Potter movie, which they obviously all saw when it opened the night before.
  
  
• Though it didn't lead to a tying goal, the Canucks' urgency in the game's final minute was something to be praised. They should do that fifty-nine more times each night.
  
  
• I feel like the sun might be setting on Alain Vigneault's heavily-criticized faith in Aaron Rome. It appears all roads are being diverted away from Rome, having previously led to him exclusively, at least in a common idiom. He played 10:30 tonight, and still managed to find time to take a minor penalty and finish the night minus-2. How does he fit it all in?
  
  
• That's what she said.
  
  
• Lucky for Aaron Rome, the team is sucking collectively, like they're all on a date at a malt shoppe. Andrew Alberts wins the participant ribbon for his non-play on Scottie Upshall on the game's first goal. Take the stick, NHLberts, or we'll send you down to AHLberts faster than you can say, "Please don't do that."
  

Canucks vs. the 4th line Center, Level 6: Joel Perrault

Get well soon, Bolduc.

Word broke yesterday that the Canucks had called up Joel Perrault from the Manitoba Moose and sent Mario "The Shiznit" Bliznak down the minors. It's a minor move (get it?), but it speaks to a larger issue: the Canucks' fourth-line center position is becoming a major problem. Worse, even a good showing from Joel Perrault won't completely resolve it; the problem isn't completely with personnel. The Canucks don't know what they want.

The issues with the Canucks' fourth-line boils down to the ongoing need for a consistent fourth-line center. A line without a center is not a line, and the Canucks haven't had a fourth-line since Ryan Johnson wasn't the answer.

In the offseason, with limited knowledge of the players coming to training camp, I outlined six potential pivots for Vancouver's much-maligned fourth unit. Each had their strengths, and each had their weaknesses (such as Schneider, whose weakness seemed to be a lack of strengths... save perhaps, at his size, strength), but there was, at that time, a case to be made for any one of those guys. Alex Bolduc won the job out of training camp in what seemed a fait accompli. Granted, what originally started out as a six-horse race turned into a zero-horse race (otherwise known as not a race) when none of the fourth-line centers stood out, but it appeared the coaching staff went in with an eye on Bolduc, and nobody changed their mind. It's possible Rick Rypien might have, but he got hurt.

Despite winning the job, however, the coaching staff's faith in Bolduc wasn't clearly not that high. He was given 13 shifts in the opener for just over six minutes of total icetime. He took 1 faceoff. He won it, if you care, but it hardly matters? It's a sample size of 1. For context, consider that Mason Raymond won a faceoff that night. Not only is Raymond a winger, he's the winger who typically doesn't take the faceoff when his centerman gets waved out.

Alex Bolduc was the 4th-line center. Faceoffs are one of his primary duties. How do you end up taking as many draws as Mason Raymond? Lack of trust, that's how. And to make matters worse, Bolduc finished the game with a lack of healthy ankles. An MRI after the game revealed he had suffered a high ankle sprain and would be out 6-8 weeks.

The Canucks turned to a now-healthy Rick Rypien. "Rypien has played most of his career at the centre position and I have a lot of confidence that he can do a real good job for us," Alain Vigneault said in a vote of confidence. But Rypien failed to hold on to the job either, and when he grabbed that fan in Minnesota and got suspended, the Canucks found themselves again without a fourth-line center.

In truth, the Canucks knew Rypien was only a short-term solution. While he might be a natural center, it's hard to win a faceoff with bloody knuckles, and it's hard to center a line from the penalty box. We've seen in the last few games that the Canucks feel much more comfortable with Rypien on the wing, where his prerequisite major penalty doesn't leave two low-minute wingers without a center.

Rypien's suspension led to some questionable decisions by Canucks' management. Even though Rypien was a short-term fix, the Canucks apparently cared so little about this position that they went through a handful of even more ill-fitting options. Jeff Tambellini saw some spot duty. He performed serviceably, but not well enough to keep the job. It's not surprising. Tamby was a winger playing out of position. Failing to learn a lesson from that, the Canucks shrugged and tossed Peter Schaefer in the middle. He, too, wasn't a long-term answer. Finally, after a couple weeks of ignoring the personnel gap, and realizing Rypien was no mustard-cutter, the Canucks called Mario Bliznak--the first natural center in four attempts--from Manitoba.

The Canucks trusted him to take a few draws, but he didn't get it done. In four games, Bliznak went 7-for-21 in the faceoff circle, including an 0-for-4 showing in Toronto. It wasn't impressive, but it was also a small sample size on a road trip where nobody played particularly well. His defensive game remained on track, however, and he finished his short stint a plus-1, the plus coming from a goal scored in garbage time in Ottawa.

Bliznak's demotion makes some sense: the fourth line was not good on the road trip, and the center usually takes the hit. They hurt the team by getting hemmed in their own zone, dulling Canuck momentum, and leaving the top-three lines with defensive zone starts. Effectively, they gave opponents a break from the Canucks' attacking system. But that's been going on for years.

And Bliznak isn't a scorer, not even close. He's been a third-line center at best since his WHL days. He might not have been at his utmost, but the Canucks had to know what they were getting. Instead, they went in a different direction.

Perrault is the polar opposite of Bliznak--a top-six pivot in Manitoba known for his scoring and not his defense. It's such a drastic change that it leads one to wonder if the Canucks know what they even want from their fourth-line center. Bliznak wasn't blowing minds, but he also wasn't blowing leads. Perrault, as a more talented offensive player, might help to open things up a little more, maybe sustain the offensive flow, but it could backfire in a hurry. Are the Canucks cognizant they're trading defensive awareness for a sustained attack? You'd assume so (they know more than I do), but that's not what they wanted coming into the season, when they called simply for a fourth unit they could trust defensively.

It's stopped making sense. Two weeks ago, they couldn't care less who was centering the fourth-line. Now they care enough to blame a guy who played four games for a problem that's been around for over two years. Joel Perrault seems doomed to fail as well, as he's not a defensive center. If his line gives up a goal or two, Vigneault will be chewing gum much harder than is safe.

Or maybe he won't care. I don't know. I fear that nobody knows. The reality is, until they can be clear about what they want out of their fourth-line pivot, they'll never be able to measure whether or not the one they've got is doing his job.