[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Your contention is Burrows isn't a top line player because when he was on the 3rd line he wasn't putting up 1st line numbers?

*sigh*

My contention is no coach in the league would choose Burrows to build a first line around. He is a first line player on THIS team because of his chemistry with the Sedins. His even strength ice time increased by one minute per game when he was put with the Sedins. ONE minute. Yet look at the difference in his production. Chemistry can't always be explained. But he certainly has it with the Sedins. If he is truly a first line player in his own right why doesn't he play the PP?

I'm not knocking Burrows I love the way the kid plays. But he doesn't have the skills to carry a top line. The Sedins don't need Burrows and they've proven it. Can the reverse be said?

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Also, I think people underestimate Burrows ability to produce without the Sedins. Kes and Raymond are still two good players, and they would allow Burrows to use his speed off the rush more. I think he could still put up some half-decent numbers with them

Last season in the three months (Nov, Dec, Jan) prior to being moved up to the top line Burrows had a total of 14 (4, 4, 6) points. To put that in perspective in Dec alone Daniel had 16 points and in Jan alone Henrik had 15. Is Burrows truly a top line player? No he's not. No coach in the league would look at Burrows as the guy to build a top line around. But for whatever reason he has chemistry with the Sedins and produces well when playing with them. For that reason alone he is a top line player on THIS team.

There were many who thought Burrows signed for considerably less at $2M than what he was worth. My response was, unlike Carter, Burrows knows who is buttering his bread. Burrows has better chemistry with the Sedins than anybody else we've seen since Carter and chemistry goes a long ways. On his own merits Burrows would be a boarderline top 6 player. He's shown himself to be a mediocre producer when playing without the Sedins.

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

> 60,000 views.

clutch, come back, we miss you.

Clutch: Last Seen = 21st June 2009 - 12:15 PM

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Now I know another 20 pages in the short time left in the season is a tall order. It's going to require that people lower their standards a bit. (I somehow managed to type that with a straight face) There will need to be several substanceless posts, eg. "Clutch = Fail", etc., maybe some finger pointing (Nelson's HA HA! is always a nice touch), and anything else that we can come up with.

There's always who we should trade the useless bum for during the off-season. as he's going to be overpaid next year....lol.

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Last Seen: 6th April 2009 - 01:03 PM

Come on clutch it time to man up don't you think?

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Ok 23 goals with the sedins. Of course burrows is going to get points with them. Vignault had to put him with them cause he took kesler away from him. he'd be nothing without kesler. Vignault got french love for him.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

lol

armchair gm's from b.c. that probably never stepped on the ice make me laugh.

Ive watched and played hockey all my life and i know garbage when i see it. It just goes to show how mixed up vancouver canuck fans are when it comes to hockey. most of you should try playing the game before thinking your experts by watching it.

Well this ought to put to rest the notion that playing the game actually makes you knowledgeable.

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Ouch! 41 pages and 5 months of Clutch looking stupid.

[Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?]

Worlds biggest douche.

Burrows, the OP, or you?