Injury Report: Pre-season injuries (that may impact season start)

[Led Zappa]

Kurz believes Burns is a few weeks away from returning.

http://www.csnbayarea.com/blog/kevin-kurz/sharks-mailbag-when-will-burns-return

Hope he's right for once.

 

[poppap527]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

 

[hockeyball]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

Burns is a premiere defensemen. They are hard to come by, you don't make them play forward. Trade someone else for a forward if you have to but other than that, no.

 

[WTFetus]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

Marleau - Thornton - Pavelski
Burns - Couture - Havlat
Clowe - Gomez - Galiardi
Desjardins - Handzus - Burish

Vlasic - Boyle
Stuart - Demers
Irwin - Braun

 

[Kitten Mittons]

Burish likes to make hits. We should put him on defense.

 

[Grave]

Could pair him with seto

 

[Brokencow]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

I would feel the same way as I did when Sergei Federov played defense.

 

[AgentCooper]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

Adamantly against it. He's a #1 defenseman and the future of our D core.

 

[BaileyMacTavish]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

I don't like it.

 

[Oppa]

I don't like it.

Quoted

In case he comes back and leads the league in goals as a forward.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

I could see TMac using it as a secret weapon on a limited basis. Burns parked in front of the goalie on the PP could have some merit

 

[WTFetus]

Burns parked in front of the goalie on the PP could have some merit

That's just a waste. Just because he's big, it doesn't mean he should screen the goalie. Especially considering his wrister is lethal.
I would say maybe Murray, but even that's a stretch. You need at least some offensive instincts to tip pucks and bat in rebounds. Murray has none.

 

[hohosaregood]

Didn't Jacques Lemaire kinda screw up Burns when he did that? Burns got moved to defense and he was starting to do well then he got moved back to forward. Anyways, it's a bad idea.

 

[FeedingFrenzy]

What is everyones opinion on Burns playing as a forward when he returns? He did it quite often in Minnesota and with the plethora of D men we have, it would be a good way of inserting a hard shot into the forwards group without having to make the tough decision on which Dman to sit.

Burns is a premiere defensemen. They are hard to come by, you don't make them play forward. Trade someone else for a forward if you have to but other than that, no.

I would feel the same way as I did when Sergei Federov played defense.

Adamantly against it. He's a #1 defenseman and the future of our D core.

Didn't Jacques Lemaire kinda screw up Burns when he did that? Burns got moved to defense and he was starting to do well then he got moved back to forward. Anyways, it's a bad idea.

Food for thought, just proves anything is possible irregardless of STATS and people's opinion..

 

[hockeyball]

Food for thought, just proves anything is possible irregardless of STATS and people's opinion..

I don't see anything wrong with any of those statements. I see people saying we need a #1 dman more (valid) and people saying It may hurt Burns when he is moved back (yet to be seen). What is your point?

 

[TomasHertlsRooster]

Food for thought, just proves anything is possible irregardless of STATS and people's opinion..

I still want Burns back on defense next season...

 

[poppap527]

I don't see anything wrong with any of those statements. I see people saying we need a #1 dman more (valid) and people saying It may hurt Burns when he is moved back (yet to be seen). What is your point?

The point is, I love being right, because it doesn't happen often.

 

[hohosaregood]

The point is, I love being right, because it doesn't happen often.

If Braun didn't end up being amazing, it'd kinda suck.

 

[OrrNumber4]

My thinking was that they were choosing between a 40-50 point, puck-moving and puck-rushing defenseman with good defensive skills, and a two-way winger who could get 70 points leeching off Thornton. The former is much more valuable and rarer than the latter.

In reality, the choice was between said defenseman, and a monster power forward. That kind of player is equally, if not more, rare. He absolutely revolutionizes the first line...and that translates into points and goals for his linemates; it also trickles down to the other lines.

 

[AgentCooper]

I don't see anything wrong with any of those statements. I see people saying we need a #1 dman more (valid) and people saying It may hurt Burns when he is moved back (yet to be seen). What is your point?

Yeah, I still stand by what I said.

 

[hockeyball]

The point is, I love being right, because it doesn't happen often.

Just because a huge risk worked out doesn't mean huge risks are a good idea in general. Sharks got very lucky in this case, but everything said above was totally valid. No one is ever going to make a case to me that "going with your gut" is a valid strategy. There was a lot of evidence that Burns was a top-end defensemen, which the Sharks badly need (still do). There was little to no evidence that he would be a good forward. Anyone who says they 'knew' it would work out is just posturing, you didn't know, you just guessed and by a 50/50 chance you were right.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If Braun didn't end up being amazing, it'd kinda suck.

Not a good comparison. Braun is turning out into a great defensive-dman who can move/pass the puck. A #4 guy. Burns was slated to be a #1 premier d-man.

Frankly, Braun is getting overrated. Perhaps it is because he is shining compared to Demers, Irwin, and Petrecki, but is he that much better than the heights Demers reached in 2010?

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

Not a good comparison. Braun is turning out into a great defensive-dman who can move/pass the puck. A #4 guy. Burns was slated to be a #1 premier d-man.

Frankly, Braun is getting overrated. Perhaps it is because he is shining compared to Demers, Irwin, and Petrecki, but is he that much better than the heights Demers reached in 2010?

I disagree. Braun has been comparable to Vlasic this year. And Vlasic has been fantastic. I do not know how that is overrating Braun.

 

[Led Zappa]

Just because a huge risk worked out doesn't mean huge risks are a good idea in general. Sharks got very lucky in this case, but everything said above was totally valid. No one is ever going to make a case to me that "going with your gut" is a valid strategy. There was a lot of evidence that Burns was a top-end defensemen, which the Sharks badly need (still do). There was little to no evidence that he would be a good forward. Anyone who says they 'knew' it would work out is just posturing, you didn't know, you just guessed and by a 50/50 chance you were right.

Good to know that you could never be wrong and those that "took the other view" could never be right

 

[poppap527]

Just because a huge risk worked out doesn't mean huge risks are a good idea in general. Sharks got very lucky in this case, but everything said above was totally valid. No one is ever going to make a case to me that "going with your gut" is a valid strategy. There was a lot of evidence that Burns was a top-end defensemen, which the Sharks badly need (still do). There was little to no evidence that he would be a good forward. Anyone who says they 'knew' it would work out is just posturing, you didn't know, you just guessed and by a 50/50 chance you were right.

Can you say that last part, one more time?

I'm just saying it did work out and he's been fun to watch. It has worked out well with the team and at the time I made the statement, we had 8 NHL caliber Dmen, were thin on forwards, weren't scoring goals, and Burns had experience up front.

It kind of made sense to at least experiment with it. I won't even go as far to say I thought it would work out this well, however.