Year-End Grades: Sutherland and Holland (and a disclaimer at the end)

Brock Sutherland: A

I thought Brock had a stellar year. At the end of last season I was so frustrated with him and to be honest I was nervous about what he'd do this year. But he was outstanding. In my opinion he was one of the most improved players on the whole team. He was solid, smart, reliable. I also think pairing him with Big Mac was genius. Matt's so skilled that I think Brock upped his game even more to stay even with his D partner. Plus, did you see the bromance develop with those two? It was adorbs.

Suds is solid with the puck and not afraid to finish his checks--or drop his gloves. He makes smart decisions and is rarely out of position. We saw his offensive upside as well this season, he racked up four goals and 19 assists. Surprisingly though, he ended up only a +4, but I've never believed +/- to be a complete picture of a defenseman, especially one of the top four who log tons of minutes.

----------

Patrick Holland: A-

I'm not sure what to say about Holland. Yes, he improved his two-way game tremendously which is a good thing. But at times he struggled with it. It's a developmental league and he's developing, but there are some growing pains. It's also hard to know what is his role on the team changing to be more of a defensive minded forward, and how much is what the Calgary Flames have said they want from him (and how much that gels with what the Americans want for him). Well, that's about as clear as mud.

I think there are a lot of positives to Patrick's game. He doesn't get rattled, he's very deliberate. He's also got more physicality to his game, which is good--he's a big enough guy, use that size. And really, 60 points (22g 40a) is nothing to sneeze at. He and Feser were once again paired up as the shut-down guys and they did that very effectively.

Disclaimer: As I was doing these grades I noticed a whole lot of guys had very good grades. So why then a 3rd place finish? Why a 2nd round exit? We could go back to the Hiller debate (but we're not going to) but I think the bigger issue is there were a lot of outstanding individuals on the team. And at times they played as individuals, not as a team. Therefore they earned high grades from me, as individuals. If I were to grade the team as a whole, I'd say B. They had all the pieces, but those pieces were either injured or not coming together as they should have.