'16/'17 Norris Trophy winner: Brent Burns

[lordjedediah]

Dont really have a problem with Burns winning but I do have a huge problem with how the narratives change every year. Last year they shafted Karlsson for the same reasons Burns won this year, all so Due Doughty could get his award for consistently being a slightly above avarage 1dman.

Anyway NHL is a joke and a plastic league in general so not much to get upset over. Karlsson should have 4 Norrises by now and if he were candian we all know he would.

He's not Canadian and he has 2 and shockingly when he won those 2 he beat Canadiens. Resorting to nationality as an excuse is a low as it gets.

 

[psycat]

He's not Canadian and he has 2 and shockingly when he won those 2 he beat Canadiens. Resorting to nationality as an excuse is a low as it gets.

Not an excuse it's the truth. Call me when a European player get's the Bergeron treatment or when a (European)"peak Kronwall-esque" defender get's awarded the Norris(as happened in Due Drews case).

The fact that Karlsson only got 2 Norrises when he should have 4 kinda doesnt help your argument. But it's ok it's natural that people are biased towards their own kin, that said it makes the NHL-awards kinda moot in general.

But sure if you got another way to explain the fact that the voters change the narrative to fit for a canadian defender year after year, even directly contradicting their own decision the year prior enlighten me. Doubt you will come up with anything though.

 

[Micklebot]

So, just to recap:

1. The voters ****ed up last year in overvaluing Doughty's defensive play by giving him the Norris over Karlsson. Given that, they should have continued to **** up and overvalue defensive play by giving the Norris to someone else besides Burns, because he's apparently awful defensively. Which is ironic because...

2. Karlsson was erroneously labeled as weak defensively for years, which was nothing more than ignorant narrative that states that offensively-minded defenseman are inherently awful defensively. However, while that label doesn't apply to Karlsson (and Senator fans have spent a lot of time fighting back against this narrative), it clearly applies to Burns, despite evidence to the contrary, because, well, **** him.

3. Burns should have heavily penalized for his drop-off the last quarter of the season, because Karlsson's struggles of near equal magnitude occurred during the first quarter of the season and that was so long ago I already forgot about it so it doesn't count.

4. Even though this was a regular season award, Karlsson was incredible in the playoffs and that should be taken into consideration. Especially since Burns has never had an inspired playoff run where he would also go PPG, even outscoring the eventual Conn Smythe winner by five points (hint: that was last ****ing year and no one gave two *****).

5. Finally, going back to lat year's botched vote, voters should have never given it to a player simply because they feel that he was "due." Given that, they should have righted the ship by giving it to Karlsson because he was now "due," as obviously, rather than doing the correct thing this year by giving it to whom they felt was the best defensemen, they should have listened to the old adage "two wrongs clearly and obviously make a right" and given it to Karlsson who was now "due" himself.

Pretty much sums it up, yes?

Look, Karlsson got absolutely ****ed out of last year's Norris. I completely and totally understand why people are upset. It was brutal. That does not mean Karlsson is "owed" jack **** the year after as some sort of compensation, nor does it mean that, just because the voters **** the bed one year, they need to continually **** the bed in years afterward to establish consistency.

No one is even suggesting that Karlsson isn't actually the best defenseman in the league or that he isn't Hall of Fame bound; this year, Brent Burns just went absolutely ham and outplayed him for about 60+ games, and took home the award for this season. That's all.

Karlsson is great. In fact, if I'm putting together a team to compete for the Cup next year, I personally take him over McDavid, Crosby, whothe****ever with very little hesitation.

That being said, he's not untouchable, infallible, or otherworldly. He got ****ed last season, bested this season, and now life moves on.

Huh? Sorry, but Karlsson didn't really have a section of the season where he struggled badly. In fact, by the ~30 games mark, the two were pretty much neck and neck in terms of production, Burns having a solid edge in goals. Burns however was red hot from late December to the start of March, and ice cold from March to April. About 30 games on fire, and 20 games ice cold. Karlsson's season was pretty even across the board.

I've got no issues with Burns winning, we don't need to make up crap about Karlsson here. I would have voted Karlsson myself, and the rationale I have is that Karlsson did what he did with much tougher deployment, and while you can't penalize Burns for doing great in the minutes he's given, you should be able to credit Karlsson for doing so well in comparably tougher deployment

 

[lordjedediah]

Not an excuse it's the truth. Call me when a European player get's the Bergeron treatment or when a (European)"peak Kronwall-esque" defender get's awarded the Norris(as happened in Due Drews case).

The fact that Karlsson only got 2 Norrises when he should have 4 kinda doesnt help your argument. But it's ok it's natural that people are biased towards their own kin, that said it makes the NHL-awards kinda moot in general.

The fact that you truly and honestly believe that Karlsson should automatically have 4 and the only reason he doesn't is because he is Canadian make me sad.

 

[Max Power]

People are not able to differentiate the 2.

Ugh, I hope this is a joke.
Karlsson was amazing in playoffs considering he was injured, but carried his team to the playoffs during regular season

I'm not sure why a few are so defensive on people thinking Karlsson should have won, so what... it's a valid argument. It does not mean Burns was an absurd choice, it clearly is not. Be happy for your guy, he earned

 

[psycat]

The fact that you truly and honestly believe that Karlsson should automatically have 4 and the only reason he doesn't is because he is Canadian make me sad.

No he should have 4 cause of his play on the ice, not automatically since he infact played those seasons. Your inability to see the obvious makes me sad.

 

[Barrie22]

Ugh, I hope this is a joke.
Karlsson was amazing in playoffs considering he was injured, but carried his team to the playoffs during regular season

I'm not sure why a few are so defensive on people thinking Karlsson should have won, so what... it's a valid argument. It does not mean Burns was an absurd choice, it clearly is not. Be happy for your guy, he earned

And burns carried the sharks to the playoffs also.

 

[Barrie22]

Huh? Sorry, but Karlsson didn't really have a section of the season where he struggled badly. In fact, by the ~30 games mark, the two were pretty much neck and neck in terms of production, Burns having a solid edge in goals. Burns however was red hot from late December to the start of March, and ice cold from March to April. About 30 games on fire, and 20 games ice cold. Karlsson's season was pretty even across the board.

I've got no issues with Burns winning, we don't need to make up crap about Karlsson here. I would have voted Karlsson myself, and the rationale I have is that Karlsson did what he did with much tougher deployment, and while you can't penalize Burns for doing great in the minutes he's given, you should be able to credit Karlsson for doing so well in comparably tougher deployment

19 game streak same as burns cold streak.

Burns to end the season. 9 points in 19 games. Karlsson around november 12 points in 19 games. Slightly better, but still below there season averages.

Funny thing is the 9 points in 19 games comes to a 40 point season over 82 games. Most defensemen would be excited about a finishing with a 40 point season in todays nhl.

 

[topshelf15]

Meh ,dont get all the salt .Congrats to Burns he deserved one for that season TBH the no real shame in losing to great player like Burns

 

[Micklebot]

19 game streak same as burns cold streak.

Burns to end the season. 9 points in 19 games. Karlsson around november 12 points in 19 games. Slightly better, but still below there season averages.

Funny thing is the 9 points in 19 games comes to a 40 point season over 82 games. Most defensemen would be excited about a finishing with a 40 point season in todays nhl.

You're equating a 52 pts pace with a 39 pts pace, while also ignoring that Burns also had a 19 game strentch (games 6-24) where he scored 12 pts in 19 games in Oct-Nov (basically the exact same time as Karlsson's), so Burns I guess had the exact same cold stretch as Karlsson to start the season, and then worse one to finish it off. Every player goes through ups and downs, Karlsson's peaks and values where not as pronounced as Burns' and to claim they just had their slumps at different points in the season is imo disingenuous.

Like I said, I have no issues with Burns winning, but making stuff up to make people who were disapointed with it is uneccesary.

 

[NickyFotiu]

All 3 had strong seasons. I had it
1.Burns
2.Karlsson
3.Hedman

Any of the 3 could have a case made for them. Hedman is my 3rd place in part because TB missed the playoffs. Just hard to ignore 29 goals by a defensemen. There are several teams where no forward even scored 29 goals including my Rangers.

 

[SAK11]

19 game streak same as burns cold streak.

Burns to end the season. 9 points in 19 games. Karlsson around november 12 points in 19 games. Slightly better, but still below there season averages.

Funny thing is the 9 points in 19 games comes to a 40 point season over 82 games. Most defensemen would be excited about a finishing with a 40 point season in todays nhl.

12 points in 19 games comes to a 52 point season over 82 games, much better than a 40 point season.

Burns' cold streak was much worse than Karlsson's. He scored 6 points in 16 games. His team lost 10 of those games. He was a minus 9, and scored only 1 goal in that time [and as everyone knows, his goal scoring was the best part about him for most of the year].
Karlsson never had a stretch that poor this year.

I have less of a problem with Burns winning this year than Doughty last year, but saying they both had the same cold streak just isn't true.

 

[NickyFotiu]

I do not believe in cherry picking 1 month for a full regular season award. If you insist on doing that you could just as easily say Burns still ended up with 12 more goals than Karlsson and 13 more goals than Hedman despite having a slow month.

 

[lordjedediah]

No he should have 4 cause of his play on the ice, not automatically since he infact played those seasons. Your inability to see the obvious makes me sad.

Except Karlsson shouldn't have won in 2014-2015.

 

[SAK11]

So, just to recap:

1. The voters ****ed up last year in overvaluing Doughty's defensive play by giving him the Norris over Karlsson. Given that, they should have continued to **** up and overvalue defensive play by giving the Norris to someone else besides Burns, because he's apparently awful defensively. Which is ironic because...

2. Karlsson was erroneously labeled as weak defensively for years, which was nothing more than ignorant narrative that states that offensively-minded defenseman are inherently awful defensively. However, while that label doesn't apply to Karlsson (and Senator fans have spent a lot of time fighting back against this narrative), it clearly applies to Burns, despite evidence to the contrary, because, well, **** him.

3. Burns should have heavily penalized for his drop-off the last quarter of the season, because Karlsson's struggles of near equal magnitude occurred during the first quarter of the season and that was so long ago I already forgot about it so it doesn't count.

4. Even though this was a regular season award, Karlsson was incredible in the playoffs and that should be taken into consideration. Especially since Burns has never had an inspired playoff run where he would also go PPG, even outscoring the eventual Conn Smythe winner by five points (hint: that was last ****ing year and no one gave two *****).

5. Finally, going back to lat year's botched vote, voters should have never given it to a player simply because they feel that he was "due." Given that, they should have righted the ship by giving it to Karlsson because he was now "due," as obviously, rather than doing the correct thing this year by giving it to whom they felt was the best defensemen, they should have listened to the old adage "two wrongs clearly and obviously make a right" and given it to Karlsson who was now "due" himself.

Pretty much sums it up, yes?

1. People are angry about the inconsistency of the voters. To give it to Burns this year a year after they didn't give it to Karlsson is inconsistent.

2. Karlsson has been falsely labelled as a rover/4th forward/terrible defensively. Of course Sens fans are going to mad about this when people try to diminish what he's done by stating that he sucks at defense. As far as people commenting on Burns' defense, I personally think he's fine defensively. Not great, and plays with more of a forward mentality than Karlsson does, but still capable in his own end.

3. Karlsson didn't have any stretch of games where he struggled the way Burns did at the end of the year. Not sure what stretch of games you're thinking of at the start of the year, but you must be miss-remembering/making this up. He was fairly consistent as a point producer all year. Burns had a 16 game stretch toward the end of the year where he scored just 1 goal and 6 points, well worse than what you'd expect from him. His team lost most of these games and ended up losing the division. It's not all Burns' fault, but inevitably, as their top point producer, he failed to produce and they lost. So yes, this is something that can be brought up in the Norris debate.

4. Karlsson supporters aren't advocating for his playoffs to be included as part of his resume for this award. What they're saying is his play in the playoffs was much like what we saw from him all year long. And yet at the end of his playoff run, people were praising him, most were calling him easily the best d-man in the NHL and some were saying he belongs in the debate for best player in the world. It's just frustrating that it took the playoffs for people to really see his greatness that he's shown for years.

5. Never give it to a player who is "due". Give it to who deserves it. Karlsson supporters suggest that he deserved it, thus should have won it in each of the last 2 years. Nothing complicated about that.

 

[gorangers0525]

Burns winning this season makes much more sense than Doughty winning last season.

 

[DANTHEMAN1967]

Great post in a thread about Burns winning the Norris

I included it as a reminder to all that the Norris is supposed to be an award given to the best "all-round" defender.
If it is only awarded to the highest scoring "defender" than perhaps Karlsson would have more of them (though not this year) otherwise everyone needs to remember that there are two things to consider, both offensive prowess and defensive prowess, when determining who gets the vote for best "defender".
I still marvel at how Rod Langway ever managed to win the reward with the obvious bias towards scoring.

 

[Barrie22]

1. People are angry about the inconsistency of the voters. To give it to Burns this year a year after they didn't give it to Karlsson is inconsistent.

2. Karlsson has been falsely labelled as a rover/4th forward/terrible defensively. Of course Sens fans are going to mad about this when people try to diminish what he's done by stating that he sucks at defense. As far as people commenting on Burns' defense, I personally think he's fine defensively. Not great, and plays with more of a forward mentality than Karlsson does, but still capable in his own end.

3. Karlsson didn't have any stretch of games where he struggled the way Burns did at the end of the year. Not sure what stretch of games you're thinking of at the start of the year, but you must be miss-remembering/making this up. He was fairly consistent as a point producer all year. Burns had a 16 game stretch toward the end of the year where he scored just 1 goal and 6 points, well worse than what you'd expect from him. His team lost most of these games and ended up losing the division. It's not all Burns' fault, but inevitably, as their top point producer, he failed to produce and they lost. So yes, this is something that can be brought up in the Norris debate.

4. Karlsson supporters aren't advocating for his playoffs to be included as part of his resume for this award. What they're saying is his play in the playoffs was much like what we saw from him all year long. And yet at the end of his playoff run, people were praising him, most were calling him easily the best d-man in the NHL and some were saying he belongs in the debate for best player in the world. It's just frustrating that it took the playoffs for people to really see his greatness that he's shown for years.

5. Never give it to a player who is "due". Give it to who deserves it. Karlsson supporters suggest that he deserved it, thus should have won it in each of the last 2 years. Nothing complicated about that.

Only commenting on the burns being a more a forward mentality.

The majority of burns goals come from above the faceoff circles. The way burns scores his goals are as close to being a normal defenseman can be. And that is because he has one of the deadliest wrist/snap shots in the league. It is hard and wicked accurate.

Sure he has his goals where he sneaks in from the point and gets a pass close to the net. But then again even the most defensive minded and clueless offensive players like vlasic scores those kinds of goals.

And burns if he gets a full head of steam and an opening with the puck. Nobody will be able to stop him without taking a penalty in the process as sens found out in ottawa last year. When he made the sens rookie defensemen and karlsson look lost on his game tying goal.

 

[SotasicA]

Congratulations, Burns!

Nay-sayers can count points. Especially Karlsson fans, because Karlsson never should have won his first Norris. He only did because apparently points now decide if a defenseman can play well or not.

 

[Agent Zub]

Congratulations, Burns!

Nay-sayers can count points. Especially Karlsson fans, because Karlsson never should have won his first Norris. He only did because apparently points now decide if a defenseman can play well or not.

Ottawa: 47GF 50GA
Karlsson ON: 32GF 16 GA
Karlsson OFF: 15 GF 34 GA


On Ice

TOI|GF|GA|GF%|CF/60|CA/60|CF%
412:20 |21 (3.06/60)| 10 (1.46/60) |67.7%|54.57| 47.73| 53.3

Off Ice

TOI|GF|GA|GF%|CF/60|CA/60|CF%
598:26|13(1.30/60)|24 (2.41/60)|35.1%|50.53 |58.35 |46.4 %

is this a player who is just about points?

 

[Alwalys]

SJ fans need to understand that this would be a none issue if EK won last season.

SJ fans don't care, nor should they.

So, just to recap:

1. The voters ****ed up last year in overvaluing Doughty's defensive play by giving him the Norris over Karlsson. Given that, they should have continued to **** up and overvalue defensive play by giving the Norris to someone else besides Burns, because he's apparently awful defensively. Which is ironic because...

2. Karlsson was erroneously labeled as weak defensively for years, which was nothing more than ignorant narrative that states that offensively-minded defenseman are inherently awful defensively. However, while that label doesn't apply to Karlsson (and Senator fans have spent a lot of time fighting back against this narrative), it clearly applies to Burns, despite evidence to the contrary, because, well, **** him.

3. Burns should have heavily penalized for his drop-off the last quarter of the season, because Karlsson's struggles of near equal magnitude occurred during the first quarter of the season and that was so long ago I already forgot about it so it doesn't count.

4. Even though this was a regular season award, Karlsson was incredible in the playoffs and that should be taken into consideration. Especially since Burns has never had an inspired playoff run where he would also go PPG, even outscoring the eventual Conn Smythe winner by five points (hint: that was last ****ing year and no one gave two *****).

5. Finally, going back to lat year's botched vote, voters should have never given it to a player simply because they feel that he was "due." Given that, they should have righted the ship by giving it to Karlsson because he was now "due," as obviously, rather than doing the correct thing this year by giving it to whom they felt was the best defensemen, they should have listened to the old adage "two wrongs clearly and obviously make a right" and given it to Karlsson who was now "due" himself.

Pretty much sums it up, yes?

Look, Karlsson got absolutely ****ed out of last year's Norris. I completely and totally understand why people are upset. It was brutal. That does not mean Karlsson is "owed" jack **** the year after as some sort of compensation, nor does it mean that, just because the voters **** the bed one year, they need to continually **** the bed in years afterward to establish consistency.

No one is even suggesting that Karlsson isn't actually the best defenseman in the league or that he isn't Hall of Fame bound; this year, Brent Burns just went absolutely ham and outplayed him for about 60+ games, and took home the award for this season. That's all.

Karlsson is great. In fact, if I'm putting together a team to compete for the Cup next year, I personally take him over McDavid, Crosby, whothe****ever with very little hesitation.

That being said, he's not untouchable, infallible, or otherworldly. He got ****ed last season, bested this season, and now life moves on.

pretty much yeah.

also when talking about burns' purported "slump" his topline stats belie how long or deep that slump actually was. Yes there was a period during the season where he slumped but it was really only about half as long as people think it was. The rest of the time Burns was Burnsing the same as the rest of the season, the pucks just weren't going in -- for the entire team. His possession numbers and shot rates were as high as during the times he was scoring. That's why in the end he led the league in shots, which is a really significant feat.

 

[tacogeoff]

Meh. We all knew burns was going to win. It was close I'm my eyes. Ek should of won last season but it is what it is. On to next season.

 

[Jorge Garcia]

Why are people using Karlsson's incredible playoffs as justification for him winning a regular season award

You have a point. But then, Karlsson's "incredible" playoffs weren't really incredible at all. That's the way he usually plays. Except, of course, his speed, agility and acceleration were distinctly subpar because of injury. He was better during the regular season.
But I'm OK with Burns winning. He plays great, he's nine feet tall, he looks like Sasquatch, he dresses like a cartoon character, he has a big, goofy, toothless grin and a big, big personality. And his early and midseason goal-scoring was truly amazing. I would have voted for Karlsson, but it wasn't crazy that Burns won.

 

[jetsforever]

Congrats to him! Burns has always been one of my favourite defenceman and he's really stepped up the past couple seasons

 

[kingsholygrail]

Bringing up the playoffs when the voting is done before them. I love it.