Brent Burns - F or D?

[Gecklund]

If Vlasic gets injured we would have the worst D in the league.

Burns isn't going to fix that by himself. It's just a thing to try.

 

[Boy Hedican]

He was a d-man on the second unit.

Are you sure? For the entire year? I remember several times seeing him play in the corners on the PP and wondering why he was so inaffective on pp's as a forward.

Edit: I looked it up on a few sites and they had him listed as the first PP dman. Obviously it changed throughout the season though. But I could be wrong.

 

[Boy Hedican]

And how do you know this? Many of us had Tennyson pencilled in the top 6. Many of had Braun on the bottom pairing. (Both of these in the offseason of last year) then Tennyson had that bad year. Everything can change overnight, you don't know what is going to happen. Especially with the Sharks.

Well I've seen Tennyson play enough, along with the Worcester guys assessment of his play, to know that Burns on d > Tennyson and it's not worth flipping Burns around just to see if a guy like Tennyson can finally make the cut. That's just bad player management.

 

[Gecklund]

Well I've seen Tennyson play enough, along with the Worcester guys assessment of his play, to know that Burns on d > Tennyson and it's not worth flipping Burns around just to see if a guy like Tennyson can finally make the cut. That's just bad player management.

And so what happens with Tennyson? So we rush Goldobin and improve our D when we aren't even planning on competing?

 

[Led Zappa]

Let's make room for the young guns, but don't play them for fear of ruining them. I'm getting confused.

 

[Gecklund]

Let's make room for the young guns, but don't play them for fear of ruining them. I'm getting confused.

I would rather Goldobin get a year or two in juniors. Play Tennyson and Mueller/Abelthauser on defense. That would be a good start on turning the defense younger. Then Hertl, McGinn, Nieto, maybe Tierney, Hamilton, Hayes, etc. up front.

 

[SJeasy]

Burns hit 40+ points twice before with the Wild, and he was close his first year with us. And that first year with us, was he on the 1st unit PP? I don't remember but I doubt it. Aren't most of us slotting Demers to be the 1st unit PP QB and Burns on the other side? I'd rather have him there then Pavs.

In his first year, he split time on first unit. Boyle was full time first unit and was therefore QBing. And Boyle was a QB at the time who enhanced PP production although he isn't good for defensive partners on the PP like Markov and Kaberle were.

He wasn't QBing in Minny. It is pretty evident by his assist #'s. His big production years were for goals. A good #1 QB is going to have more than 30 assists overall. In this case good means a QB who enhances overall PP production.

It falls back into my observation of what makes a top 10 team PP. It takes two playmakers, one QB and one forward playmaker. Triggers rarely enhance team results. Same for snipers.

 

[oyster]

In his first year, he split time on first unit. Boyle was full time first unit and was therefore QBing. And Boyle was a QB at the time who enhanced PP production although he isn't good for defensive partners on the PP like Markov and Kaberle were.

He wasn't QBing in Minny. It is pretty evident by his assist #'s. His big production years were for goals. A good #1 QB is going to have more than 30 assists overall. In this case good means a QB who enhances overall PP production.

It falls back into my observation of what makes a top 10 team PP. It takes two playmakers, one QB and one forward playmaker. Triggers rarely enhance team results. Same for snipers.

Burns offside + Demers?

Maybe Marleau goes back on point with Burns on the right side. Looking over the roster I think Demers is the next best thing to Boyle for the PP on the backend, but we'll see how it shakes out.

 

[MardocAgain]

My biggest problem in the kings series was that our lack of point shots on the PP. Too much running the PP through Joe. Boyle was really only used for zone entry and when he shot it was from moving into the circles, not from the back. Would like to see Burns blasting shots from the blueline with others screening the goalie / banging in rebounds.

 

[SJeasy]

My biggest problem in the kings series was that our lack of point shots on the PP. Too much running the PP through Joe. Boyle was really only used for zone entry and when he shot it was from moving into the circles, not from the back. Would like to see Burns blasting shots from the blueline with others screening the goalie / banging in rebounds.

They haven't used Boyle for entries for a year and a half. It's been Marleau. Boyle's role this past season was primarily for his shot on PP and we all saw how that went.

The PP strategy that you suggest is a quick way to a below average PP. Going for tips and rebounds is very low percentage. It is a last resort although it is a fallback option.

Puck movement is key to a high percentage PP.

 

[Juxtaposer]

My biggest problem in the kings series was that our lack of point shots on the PP. Too much running the PP through Joe. Boyle was really only used for zone entry and when he shot it was from moving into the circles, not from the back. Would like to see Burns blasting shots from the blueline with others screening the goalie / banging in rebounds.

Frankly, I disagree completely. If anything, the Sharks put too much emphasis on pointshots.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Frankly, I disagree completely. If anything, the Sharks put too much emphasis on pointshots.

Am I allowed to blame Joe Thornton for that?

 

[MardocAgain]

They haven't used Boyle for entries for a year and a half. It's been Marleau. Boyle's role this past season was primarily for his shot on PP and we all saw how that went.

The PP strategy that you suggest is a quick way to a below average PP. Going for tips and rebounds is very low percentage. It is a last resort although it is a fallback option.

Puck movement is key to a high percentage PP.

Then what team was I watching all last year because I absolutely don't remember Marleau doing zone entries. Not disagreeing, just wondering aloud.

Maybe I just want that because whenever teams get hard point shots against us my bum hole clenches up, usually followed by yelling the F-word.

 

[Boy Hedican]

And so what happens with Tennyson? So we rush Goldobin and improve our D when we aren't even planning on competing?

Tennyson continues to try and crack the lineup. You're taking about moving a player to another position just to give him a shot. I agree with what the org says they're gonna so - compete for a spot. If there's no room for a player like Tennyson to crack our top 6, so be it. He doesn't HAVE to play in SJ.

 

[Gecklund]

Tennyson continues to try and crack the lineup. You're taking about moving a player to another position just to give him a shot. I agree with what the org says they're gonna so - compete for a spot. If there's no room for a player like Tennyson to crack our top 6, so be it. He doesn't HAVE to play in SJ.

I'm not saying he does HAVE to play in SJ. But there's no room whatsoever on the right side if Burns goes back. If Tennyson sucks in training camp/preseason, so be it. Burns can be put back at D. But, if Tennyson actually plays well, why force him back to the AHL? That would be extremely bad for his development.

 

[SJeasy]

Then what team was I watching all last year because I absolutely don't remember Marleau doing zone entries. Not disagreeing, just wondering aloud.

Maybe I just want that because whenever teams get hard point shots against us my bum hole clenches up, usually followed by yelling the F-word.

You were used to Boyle doing entries as he did in his heyday with the Sharks. After he became slower and more hesitant, I am pretty sure they took him off that duty directly. A few years ago, Marleau was not a good option for entries and it surprised me when they started depending on him. Marleau has become very good as he has learned TM's C&C system well. Marleau is really good with short chips. The other entry option that they use is hitting JT with a pass at the blueline. Boyle does initiate the rush up ice.

Rather than looking at the actual Sharks game, take a gander at the stats from other teams and look to the teams who have high percentage powerplays. Look at how they play and look for commonalities between top teams. I have done so. Top teams require two QBs, one a blueliner and one a forward usually. Montreal uses two blueliners as an exception. The last part of the equation that can improve a PP is the coach that can come up with unique strategies. This last is icing on the cake. Without the highly skilled players, teams can hit 15%. With one QB, about 17%. With 2 QBs, 20%. Coaching can then push it as high as 23-24%. With Boyle in his prime, JT and TM when he first came to the Sharks, the team was in the above 20% category. It has fallen off primarily due to Boyle's decline. The Jackets don't have close to the personnel of the Sharks, used the same base PP strategy and achieved a better result last year. CBJ should have maxed out at about 17%.