Burrows? Do We Really Need Him?

[AmazingNuck]

It's a bad thing because he's getting credit for being a top player when he's not. Producing is great for him, he'll get a fatter contract every time, but you said it your self you care about production so if you put a better player on the line, and the better player produces more, that's better right? all I'm saying is that players with more skills should be given a chance to play on that line. And as far as him being on a scoring line, is Kesler not on a scoring line? how come his defense coverage hasn't changed?

If he's performing like it, how is he not one? There's a lot more to hockey than skill.

"Player A has a lot more skill than Player B.. but Player B outperforms him in every single way. Which is the better player?"

Well, his contract is four more years at 2m.. he got a pretty big raise from league minimum to what it is now, so I think anyone that would call him "overpaid" was just blind. I mean, unless you're denying that he deserved a raise from the league minimum?

Not always. A lot of it is chemistry. You can throw skilled players together and hope it works, but the players that read off each other the best will likely have the best scoring chances. I'll ask you this- what has Burrows done to lose his spot with the Sedins? Has he not produced enough..? Has he not worked hard enough..? I'm betting you're a guy that would take a Kovalev over a Doan ten times out of ten.

Probably because Kesler is a better player.

"Gear A works great in Machine A.. but Gear B, working well in Machine B, is of finer quality than Gear A. Both machines are doing very well and producing a lot. There's no guarantee that Machine A, if Gear B is inserted, will produce the same quality of products and at the same pace that Machine A is right now, but Gear B is of finer quality.. therefore, MachineA/GearB should work great together!"

Edited December 3, 2009 by AmazingNuck

[sixpercent]

It's a bad thing because he's getting credit for being a top player when he's not. Producing is great for him, he'll get a fatter contract every time, but you said it your self you care about production so if you put a better player on the line, and the better player produces more, that's better right? all I'm saying is that players with more skills should be given a chance to play on that line. And as far as him being on a scoring line, is Kesler not on a scoring line? how come his defense coverage hasn't changed?

And I don't feel like quoting the part you just edited so I'll answer it without a quote. A skilled player that hasn't played with the top guys that produces 50p is likely to produce more on the top line, who by the way play a style of hockey more suitable for Sammuleson.

You're being silly right now, you should re-read what you write. Maybe you just dont understand how hockey teams work. Right now with burrows on the top line we get results, he makes the sedins play better, the sedins make him better, simply put. Then we have a second SCORING line or kes, sam, ray. Because of the speed of ray and kes the second line can also play well in our own zone. Because of the skill of sammy it becomes a threat in the offensive zone.

So what do we have so far:

A top line that produces amazing results.

A second line that can score and play well in our own zone.

So you wanna take burr off the first and replace him with sammy.

Where does that leave the second line, sure kes and ray will still be able to produce, but that line becomes less of a threat, and who do you put on it, burr? bernier? wellwood? No thx.

We found success last year with sundin on the second, sammy took his spot and is doing the job very well.

When it comes down too it burrows doesnt have the individual skill to be a "first line player" but he's one of the best role players the canucks have. As well as one of the hardest working guys on the team. And the top line continues to produce better than it ever has, and we have the best 1-2 punch we've had in years.

Is that easy enough for you to understand yet?

Edited December 3, 2009 by sixpercent

[sardine linden hike]

It's a bad thing because he's getting credit for being a top player when he's not. Producing is great for him, he'll get a fatter contract every time, but you said it your self you care about production so if you put a better player on the line, and the better player produces more, that's better right? all I'm saying is that players with more skills should be given a chance to play on that line. And as far as him being on a scoring line, is Kesler not on a scoring line? how come his defense coverage hasn't changed?

And I don't feel like quoting the part you just edited so I'll answer it without a quote. A skilled player that hasn't played with the top guys that produces 50p is likely to produce more on the top line, who by the way play a style of hockey more suitable for Sammuleson.

You need to understand when to stop posting on a topic. The ONLY thing that matters is the result. When Burrows moved onto the Sedin line, they all benefited.

[yapperface]

Burrows has consistently scored at the rate of a top line player for the last season and a bit...

WHEN HE'S HEALTHY. CANNOT stress that enough.

[Error: Not Found]

It's more beneficial to the whole team if Burrows plays on the top line rather than Samuelsson. Lets say Burrows moves to the 2nd/3rd line and Samuelsson moves to the first line. Samuelsson might gain 15 points from playing with the Sedns, but Burrows might end up losing 25 points by NOT playing with the Sedins. Net loss: 10 points. Also, with Burrows not a consistent offensive threat on the 2nd/3rd line, we'll only have one goal scoring line + two 'energy' lines as opposed to two goal scoring lines.

[Clark Kent]

If he's performing like it, how is he not one? There's a lot more to hockey than skill.

"Player A has a lot more skill than Player B.. but Player B outperforms him in every single way. Which is the better player?"

Well, his contract is four more years at 2m.. he got a pretty big raise from league minimum to what it is now, so I think anyone that would call him "overpaid" was just blind. I mean, unless you're denying that he deserved a raise from the league minimum?

Not always. A lot of it is chemistry. You can throw skilled players together and hope it works, but the players that read off each other the best will likely have the best scoring chances. I'll ask you this- what has Burrows done to lose his spot with the Sedins? Has he not produced enough..? Has he not worked hard enough..? I'm betting you're a guy that would take a Kovalev over a Doan ten times out of ten.

Probably because Kesler is a better player.

Player B might produce better, but he's also playing with better players so therefore he should be expected to produce more.

No, I was just saying that if he produces he'll get a raise every time which is good for him.

No, he has produced enough, enough for him. Put a more skilled player on the line and see if he produces more.

You're being silly right now, you should re-read what you write. Maybe you just dont understand how hockey teams work. Right now with burrows on the top line we get results, he makes the sedins play better, the sedins make him better, simply put. Then we have a second SCORING line or kes, sam, ray. Because of the speed of ray and kes the second line can also play well in our own zone. Because of the skill of sammy it becomes a threat in the offensive zone.

So what do we have so far:

A top line that produces amazing results.

A second line that can score and play well in our own zone.

So you wanna take burr off the first and replace him with sammy.

Where does that leave the second line, sure kes and ray will still be able to produce, but that line becomes less of a threat, and who do you put on it, burr? bernier? wellwood? No thx.

We found success last year with sundin on the second, sammy took his spot and is doing the job very well.

When it comes down too it burrows doesnt have the individual skill to be a "first line player" but he's one of the best role players the canucks have. As well as one of the hardest working guys on the team. And the top line continues to produce better than it ever has, and we have the best 1-2 punch we've had in years.

Is that easy enough for you to understand yet?

Maybe you don't understand how hockey works. 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly second line numbers, that's what samuelsson has, so he's not doing much right now, he is a better player then Burrows and plays a similar style to the Sedins. So putting a player like samuelsson who is a better player the burrows on the first line, and seeing if he produces better then burrows wont hurt.

The only reason burr is on the first line is because he produces, but what if someone else can produce better then him on that line? do we not make a change because burr is producing on the first line?

as far as currently having two scoring lines, like i pointed out 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly great. I would rather have him on the first line and someone like hansen on the 2nd line as he plays a similar type of game as kesler and raymond and he had good chemistry with Kesler last year before he got injured.

[Scope1230]

It's a bad thing because he's getting credit for being a top player when he's not. Producing is great for him, he'll get a fatter contract every time, but you said it your self you care about production so if you put a better player on the line, and the better player produces more, that's better right? all I'm saying is that players with more skills should be given a chance to play on that line. And as far as him being on a scoring line, is Kesler not on a scoring line? how come his defense coverage hasn't changed?

And I don't feel like quoting the part you just edited so I'll answer it without a quote. A skilled player that hasn't played with the top guys that produces 50p is likely to produce more on the top line, who by the way play a style of hockey more suitable for Sammuleson.

Didn't you hear Burrows? He said that he considers him as a 3rd liner and will get a 3rd liner contract.

4 years @ 2m is a good contract for "3rd liner" playing on the top line.

If he wants more than 3m, seriously, let him walk.

No one will sign him above 3m.

2m is a good price for BOTH Canucks and himself.

Player B might produce better, but he's also playing with better players so therefore he should be expected to produce more.

No, I was just saying that if he produces he'll get a raise every time which is good for him.

No, he has produced enough, enough for him. Put a more skilled player on the line and see if he produces more.

Maybe you don't understand how hockey works. 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly second line numbers, that's what samuelsson has, so he's not doing much right now, he is a better player then Burrows and plays a similar style to the Sedins. So putting a player like samuelsson who is a better player the burrows on the first line, and seeing if he produces better then burrows wont hurt.

The only reason burr is on the first line is because he produces, but what if someone else can produce better then him on that line? do we not make a change because burr is producing on the first line?

as far as currently having two scoring lines, like i pointed out 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly great. I would rather have him on the first line and someone like hansen on the 2nd line as he plays a similar type of game as kesler and raymond and he had good chemistry with Kesler last year before he got injured.

Do you understand that many people disagree with you and you think others are wrong? Ignorant biatch.

How long had Daniel come back? Less than 11 games.

Guess what? When Daniel came back, he returns to his PPG. Daniel came back 5 games ago, and he has gotten 5 points.

Do you expect a top line to have 3 PPG player especially the one with 3rd line contract? NO!

In all seriousness, you need to see a doctor.

[Clark Kent]

Didn't you hear Burrows? He said that he considers him as a 3rd liner and will get a 3rd liner contract.

4 years @ 2m is a good contract for "3rd liner" playing on the top line.

If he wants more than 3m, seriously, let him walk.

No one will sign him above 3m.

2m is a good price for BOTH Canucks and himself.

Do you understand that many people disagree with you and you think others are wrong? Ignorant biatch.

How long had Daniel come back? Less than 11 games.

Guess what? When Daniel came back, he returns to his PPG. Daniel came back 5 games ago, and he has gotten 5 points.

Do you expect a top line to have 3 PPG player especially the one with 3rd line contract? NO!

In all seriousness, you need to see a doctor.

1) When did I say he's overpaid? I said he's producing and he'll get a fatter contract because of that. Does that mean I said he's overpaid? no.

2) Who the frack are you calling ignorant biatch? just cause people disagree doesn't mean there right and I'm wrong, your feline donkey mob mentality shows your an ignorant prick

3) I was talking about Samuelsson having 4 points in 11 games, he's been playing with Kesler and Raymond for a while.

4) What part of this do you not get? a top line should be a top line if your going to make excuses for them because one of the players on that line isn't getting paid top 3 money, well then maybe you shouldn't have him on your top line and not make excuses for him

In all seriousness, you need to jump off a bridge.

[DunnyCanucker]

-78

[Regal]

Player B might produce better, but he's also playing with better players so therefore he should be expected to produce more.

No, I was just saying that if he produces he'll get a raise every time which is good for him.

No, he has produced enough, enough for him. Put a more skilled player on the line and see if he produces more.

Maybe you don't understand how hockey works. 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly second line numbers, that's what samuelsson has, so he's not doing much right now, he is a better player then Burrows and plays a similar style to the Sedins. So putting a player like samuelsson who is a better player the burrows on the first line, and seeing if he produces better then burrows wont hurt.

The only reason burr is on the first line is because he produces, but what if someone else can produce better then him on that line? do we not make a change because burr is producing on the first line?

as far as currently having two scoring lines, like i pointed out 4 points in 11 games isn't exactly great. I would rather have him on the first line and someone like hansen on the 2nd line as he plays a similar type of game as kesler and raymond and he had good chemistry with Kesler last year before he got injured.

I understand what you're saying to some extent. The old "if it ain't broke, don't fix it line" doesn't always make sense if you can make something better. And you;re right, Samuelsson has been in a bit of a funk after a hot start to the season, so it would be good to try to get him going, and I don't think he meshes too well with Kesler and Raymond.

With that said though, I think there are no guarantees that Sammi will play well or better with the Sedins. He plays a similar style, sure, but part of what makes Burrows work on that line is that he doesn't play the same style. He can get in first on the forecheck, fight in front for rebounds and loose pucks, and add an element of speed. As much as the Sedins help him, he definitely helps them as well.

Honestly, what people dub "skill" on here is a little misleading I think. Sure, great stickhandling and passing and shooting are skills. But so is hockey sense, a nose for the net, the ability to find and bang home loose pucks. Just because a player isn't deking around the defense and roofing a wrister shortside doesn't mean he isn't skilled. It takes certain skills to score garbage goals around the net as well. If it didn't, Bernier would have had 30 goals last year.

As well, I think people get to hung up on the idea of first line, second line, top 6 forward, etc. If a player fits with other players, it shouldn't matter whether or not he's considered a traditional top line player or not. You try to make the best lines possible that have chemistry, and add different dimensions to the team. Before moving Burrows, I would actually try Sammi on the third line, and move Hansen to line 2. Everyone whines that Sammi was brought in to be a top 6 player if someone puts him on the third line, or claims that he's not a checker, but the fact is, our third line is not a checking line as it is currently constructed, and if it works, it works. He would still get PP time with the Sedins, and enough 5 on 5 minutes that it wouldn't really change his role too much.

If things still don't work, I;m not adverse to putting him on the first line, and bumping Burrows to the second line. I've seen people claim that it would make the second line less of a threat, but if Sammi isn't producing anyways, than how is it less of a threat. 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

[Baggins]

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.

[Papayas]

can we stop comparing Carter to Burrows?

Carter's "chemistry" with the Sedins was a result of the lack of attention the other teams put on the Sedins. The WCE line was still the top line for the Canuck at that time and most of the teams were still unfamilar with the Sedins' play style.. Throw in the fact that the teams were still adjusting to the new rules at the time, those were the big factors why Anson Carter can just stand in front of the net and waited for the Sedins to feed him to puck. Even if the team re-sign Carter for whatever amount of money, do people seriously think he can repeat that kind of success as the team's first line player? There is a reason why no one until Burrows can play and perform beside the Twins after Carter left.. it's not because Carter had chemistry with the Twins... it's because the other teams are taking the twins seriously as the Canucks first liners.

Even if the Sedins are the reason why Burrows can perform right now, he earned his goals and points in a hard way. As long as he shows chemistry with the Twins, I don't see why people have to complain about Burrows has to play with the Sedins. It's not like anyone can play and be successful beside them... and I thought CDC should have known this by now.

[babych]

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.

Very well said. The chemistry these 3 have is amazing. Since Daniel has been back, that line has combined for 6 goals and 16 points in 5 games. This includes getting blanked by Chicago in Daniels' first game back.

[#1Luongo06]

hes scoring with the sedins thats all that matters no point in arguing against it because the facts are plain in daylight hes a 1st line player with em

[sardine linden hike]

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.

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?

[Regal]

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.

In the first 3 months of last season, Kesler had 20 points, and then had 39 the rest of the way when he started playing with Sundin and Demitra. He's now scoring almost a point per game without either of those players. Players change and improve. Because Kesler saw such dramatic improvement with Sundin, a lot of people claimed that he wouldn't put up the numbers without him, but he has. He's improved as a player and has been put in a scorers role and has responded.

Likewise, Burrows was on the checking line with Kesler for those first 3 months, and then broke out after being put in a scorers role with the Sedins. How much of it is the Sedins, and how much of it is the new role and Burrows' own improvement? It's hard to say. Granted he did struggle when Daniel went down, and has now been producing a lot more with him back. But I would argue that the top line never found consistent chemistry when Daniel was gone, and I think Burrows might have moved away from what he does best to make up for the loss.

You can take that to show that he's not a top line player, and I agree, I never said he was. I also never said he would produce as much as he does with the Sedins. And I like that he realized this when looking for his new contract, unlike Anson Carter. But I think keeping him in an offensive role with good players (even if they aren't as good as the Sedins), such as Raymond and Kesler, he would still produce more than the 31 points he put up in 07-08, which seems to be what a lot of people think he'd do without the Sedins

[Baggins]

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?

[BedBeats™2.0]

The Sedins don't need Burrows and they've proven it. Can the reverse be said?

Id be curious to see some hockey analytic stats regarding Danny's absence from Hank and Burrows (i do realize that that first line was tinkered with...and Burr was not always Hanks winger in that span).

While it is totally true that the Twins do not need Burrows....from watching the game, you can easily infer that the a "goals created" stat is much stronger when those 3 play together.

[Baggins]

In the first 3 months of last season, Kesler had 20 points, and then had 39 the rest of the way when he started playing with Sundin and Demitra. He's now scoring almost a point per game without either of those players. Players change and improve. Because Kesler saw such dramatic improvement with Sundin, a lot of people claimed that he wouldn't put up the numbers without him, but he has. He's improved as a player and has been put in a scorers role and has responded.

Likewise, Burrows was on the checking line with Kesler for those first 3 months, and then broke out after being put in a scorers role with the Sedins. How much of it is the Sedins, and how much of it is the new role and Burrows' own improvement? It's hard to say. Granted he did struggle when Daniel went down, and has now been producing a lot more with him back. But I would argue that the top line never found consistent chemistry when Daniel was gone, and I think Burrows might have moved away from what he does best to make up for the loss.

You can take that to show that he's not a top line player, and I agree, I never said he was. I also never said he would produce as much as he does with the Sedins. And I like that he realized this when looking for his new contract, unlike Anson Carter. But I think keeping him in an offensive role with good players (even if they aren't as good as the Sedins), such as Raymond and Kesler, he would still produce more than the 31 points he put up in 07-08, which seems to be what a lot of people think he'd do without the Sedins

It seems to me Henriks production was quite consistent while his brother was out.

You do realize that when Kesler/Burrows played their checking role they led all forwards in takeaways. A great deal of their success as shutdown players was taking the puck away and keeping the other teams top line in their own end. Two years ago among our forwards Kesler was 3rd in shots (some pp time) and Burrows was 6th (no pp time). They were out shooting the 2nd line players in their checking roles. But Burrows simply wasn't particularly productive playing with Kesler. This season without Sundin and Demitra, Kesler is currently on pace for 15 goals. One could draw the conclusion his current linemates aren't quite the same caliber as playmakers. Among our forwards Kesler is third in shots and 6th in goals. Last season he was 2nd in shots and 3rd in goals. We're only a third of the way in the season and things could change but thus far Kesler hasn't been as effective in the goal scoring department as he was with Sundin/Demitra.

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not knocking either. I think both have improved their play over two years ago. Still there's some pretty good evidence there that they both benefited offensively by playing separately with superior players than each other are.

[Baggins]

Id be curious to see some hockey analytic stats regarding Danny's absence from Hank and Burrows (i do realize that that first line was tinkered with...and Burr was not always Hanks winger in that span).

While it is totally true that the Twins do not need Burrows....from watching the game, you can easily infer that the a "goals created" stat is much stronger when those 3 play together.

As I've said several times, Burrows has a chemistry with the two. I'd say away from the Sedins both Burrows and Bernier are relative equals productively. They play a similar game, hard hitting and go to the net. Yet with the Sedins Burrows is head and shoulders above Bernier. Why? For whatever reason he just seems to have a chemistry with the two. I don't really care why as long as it continues.