Maybe Erik Gudbranson really will fit in with the Pittsburgh Penguins?

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      In trading Erik Gudbranson, the Vancouver Canucks were roundly applauded. And it wasn’t so much because of the return, though Tanner Pearson has proven himself capable in two games with the Canucks.

      No, the major win for Vancouver was in finding a suitor for the much-maligned Gudbranson. Night after night he was seemingly unable to create anything for the Canucks offensively and was often turnstiled by the opposition. In short, he looked slow and ineffective in most of the contests he played the last two years.

      This year, according to a few telling metrics, he was one of the worst defencemen in the league. His ice time had, understandably, shrunk under coach Travis Green and he often found himself on the third pairing.

      So it’s something of a surprise to see that, after two games with the Pittsburgh Penguins, Gudbranson hasn't been a complete anchor. In fact, the veteran defenceman has actually looked…capable?

      In the two games Gudbranson has played, he’s been almost exclusively paired with Marcus Pettersson (no relation to Elias). The two formed the clear second unit behind Justin Schultz and Jack Johnson (also considered one of the poorer rearguards in the league, according to advanced metrics).

      The Penguins lost the first game to Buffalo 4-3. And though Gudbranson was on the ice for the Sabres tying goal late in the third period, he had a solid game by most measures. And certainly when compared to his previous work.

      He was actually passing the puck, finding seams in the opposition to get it to his teammates. Yes, the Penguins dominated the game in spite of the score, so his advanced stats were always going to be somewhat inflated. But his Relative Corsi (how he performed compared to the rest of his team in terms of shots directed at the net) was fourth among Penguins in just over 20 minute of ice time. That just didn’t happen in Vancouver, even at the best of times.

      Of course, having very good forwards helps, and Gudbranson was often on the ice with either Sidney Crosby or Evgeni Malkin.

      The same was true Saturday in Montreal as the Canadiens hosted Pittsburgh. And though the Penguins won the game 5-1, the Canadiens actually held play for most of the game.

      It was the opposite of the Buffalo contest, in that Pittsburgh players generally had terrible underlying numbers. But Gudbranson really wasn’t that terrible, coming in ninth in terms of 5-on-5 Relative Corsi on his team. Again, that did not happen very often in Vancouver.

      He also registered an assist and was a plus-3 on the night, which also didn’t happen often on this side of North America.

      So, what’s really changed? He’s playing with better players, yes. Is that it? Maybe. When he said in his first interview with the Pittsburgh media, after one practice, that he felt comfortable with the team’s system in they way they support each other around the puck, it was hard to take him seriously. After all, it was one practice.

      But he reiterated that notion after the game against Buffalo. “The puck support on this team is something that they preach big time. You could certainly sense it early on. There was a lot of options, especially under pressure,” said Gudbranson.

      He didn’t seem to think he had options in Vancouver, that’s obvious. He was a turnover machine and seemed to be infatuated with icing the puck. And yes, it’s quite clear that playing with world class players will do wonders for one’s own game.

      Nothing Gudbranson does in Pittsburgh will change the notion that the Canucks did the right thing in moving on from him. But it is interesting how a different system and the presence of star forwards can seemingly have such an effect on a player many (rightfully) thought was done in the league.

      There will be many rough nights for Gudbranson going forward. But it’s clear he’s in a better situation now, and so are the Canucks.

      Follow @ncaddell on Twitter

      More

      Comments