Brendan Dillon

[DonskoiDonscored]

Burns GF60 2.35 GA60 2.65
Dillon GF60 1.83 GA60 2.66

np.

That has nothing to do with what you said.

the Sharks get scored on even more whenever Dillon is on the ice

The simple fact is, they don't. Even if you want to equate it to GA/60 which isn't direct, it's still a .01 difference.

 

[Helistin]

That has nothing to do with what you said.



The simple fact is, they don't. Even if you want to equate it to GA/60 which isn't direct, it's still a .01 difference.

The simple fact is, yes they do. plus the added bonus is the Sharks score much less.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

The simple fact is, yes they do. plus the added bonus is the Sharks score much less.

In 1 Game, on average, Brenden Dillon will have 1 GA while Burns has 1.2 GA.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

That's really a pointless argument. The entire team needs to get better defensively and it's not just d-men. It's forwards too.

 

[Helistin]

True enough. Wasn't in the plans to fuel the Burns vs Dillon war.

 

[Led Zappa]

I don't buy into this idea that it's coming at the expense of play in his own end. Defensively, the team itself simply was not that good. Burns was not sacrificing defensive positioning for offensive chances. He'd take risks with the puck moving it up the ice but everything was mostly kept in front of him.

The team as a whole needs to improve defensively. The forwards had issues all year back-checking on the rush and having their guy. Even on in-zone defensive plays, they were losing their guys a ton and not collapsing back to the net to get their guy. Burns' partner most of the year was also not a guy that was any good defensively. Dillon was probably the best of the bunch and he wasn't that good acclimating to SJ and playing off of Burns.

I agree with the general point of this post. If Burns is a #4 or even a #5 defensive player and a #1 offensive player, which he is, then the harping of him as a defensive player is way out of place. Burns deserving of his salary and place on this team at worst.

 

[SoftDumpInTheCorner]

I was hoping this trade was going to work out but it hasn't really panned out. Im hoping Dillon can turn it around this coming season. He wasn't very good this season as was the rest of the team defensively. I still think he is a solid 5th defenseman and can fill a #4 spot in a pinch, nothing more. If Wilson can surround Burns, Vlasic and Braun with another top 4 defenseman, then I would like to see Dillon in that 5th spot with Tennyson.

 

[Sleepy]

I was hoping this trade was going to work out but it hasn't really panned out. Im hoping Dillon can turn it around this coming season. He wasn't very good this season as was the rest of the team defensively. I still think he is a solid 5th defenseman and can fill a #4 spot in a pinch, nothing more. If Wilson can surround Burns, Vlasic and Braun with another top 4 defenseman, then I would like to see Dillon in that 5th spot with Tennyson.

I'd like to see them move some significant assets to try and acquire a young elite (top5-7) two-way defenseman. I still believe a two-way Norris defenseman is almost a need for Cup winning teams; the Sharks haven't really had that. Boyle was close, but the two-way part was debatable.

Sadly, you have to draft/sign and develop those guys because they're just not very often for trade.

 

[DystopianTierney]

That's really a pointless argument. The entire team needs to get better defensively and it's not just d-men. It's forwards too.

The ENTIRE team was disgusting defensively this season.

The stats - They prove it...

 

[Episkey]

I was looking at Hockey Analysis and saw that Dillon's on-ice sv% is worst on the team and he also has the second worst on-ice sh%. A big reason why his goal differential stats look bad is that he's not getting a lot of help from the goalies and the players are shooting at a low percentage while he is on the ice.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

In 1 Game, on average, Brenden Dillon will have 1 GA while Burns has 1.2 GA.

In a 82-game season Burns will put up 60 pts, while Dillon puts up 10.

 

[magic school bus]

In a 82-game season Burns will put up 60 pts, while Dillon puts up 10.

*frog sipping tea*

 

[weastern bias]

It depends on who you ask, I myself definitely want to keep him around

A lot of Shark fans are sour on Dillon, but he was really set up to fail here from the beginning

He spent large parts of the season playing on his wrong side, and playing with very poor partners (rookies, plugs, offense-only guys, ect.)

Eventually our blueline was so injured he was playing the #1 slot (or sharing that load with Braun on the top pair)

Then Braun got hurt; Brenden Dillon finished the season playing on the second pair, on his wrong side, with JOHN SCOTT as his partner

He never had a chance to have good numbers, but by my eye, he was at worst our 3rd best D man

Dillon should be a fine 2nd pairing guy; if he's on your bottom pair, you're stacked

Edit: Apparently I was responding to a deleted post; this one's for you STLBLUES44