Burns to forward

[Alwalys]

BURNS TO FORWARD

Click to read more...

 

[Pavelski2112]

Honestly might as well.

Maybe it will wake his ass up like it did the first time.

 

[weastern bias]

28-19-88
9-12-62
20-23-68
11-46-86

44-65
4-38
51-5

Jesus f***ing Christ we're so motherf***ing f***ed

 

[Pavelski2112]

28-19-88
9-12-62
20-23-68
11-46-86

44-65
4-38
51-5

Jesus ****ing Christ we're so mother****ing ****ed

Lol, thinking it'll be Patty at center instead of Gambrell.

If Patty and Joe get in the escape pod like they should, it'll be even better:

9-23-62
20-7-86
68-46-11
73-someone?-75/45

But Couture would probably be back by then.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

No to Burns playing forward. Just stop.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

BURNS TO FORWARD

Not a bad idea at all. Be interested to see if it happens. Anyone know from when we did this in
the past if Burns had a preference - Defense or Forward?

 

[Alwalys]

Not a bad idea at all. Be interested to see if it happens. Anyone know from when we did this in
the past if Burns had a preference - Defense or Forward?

I don't think it was ever stated but he plays with such unbridled joy as a forward I think it's pretty sure to be forward.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

BURNS TO FORWARD

Why though? He has been playing well for the last few games.

Also, creating one hole to fill another is pretty pointless.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Not a bad idea at all. Be interested to see if it happens. Anyone know from when we did this in
the past if Burns had a preference - Defense or Forward?

It's a terrible idea. They don't have the depth behind Burns to even float that idea seriously.

 

[Tw1ster]

I’d be down to see it from an entertainment stand point. Plug Heed in and let it fly. It’s not like we have anything to lose

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

It's a terrible idea. They don't have the depth behind Burns to even float that idea seriously.

You have the PDB favorite in Tom Heed.

 

[Pavelski2112]

It's a terrible idea. They don't have the depth behind Burns to even float that idea seriously.

This is the deepest defense the Sharks have had in a long, long time. Last time Burns was at forward, our #1 RHD was a washed-up Dan Boyle.

4-65
44-72
51-38

If the Sharks trade Dillon I wouldn't disagree, but honestly, the hole at forward is so big that it's almost worth a shot.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

This is the deepest defense the Sharks have had in a long, long time. Last time Burns was at forward, our #1 RHD was a washed-up Dan Boyle.

4-65
44-72
51-38

If the Sharks trade Dillon I wouldn't disagree, but honestly, the hole at forward is so big that it's almost worth a shot.

They also had Jason Demers

 

[Pavelski2112]

They also had Jason Demers

Demers was pretty inconsistent. Sometimes he'd look like a top-4 guy, but in the playoffs, he was just bad. Stuart and Hannan were both garbage. Irwin was bad most of the time.

 

[Anomie2029]

I would do it. I mean it's not like you can ruin a 34 year olds development.

It would also allow Heed to see some game time.

 

[Barrie22]

Yall are worried that burns won't play out his contract at the level needed to make it worth while. But here every one is asking for him to forward which will just speed up his decline into useless.

 

[The Ice Hockey Dude]

It's a terrible idea. They don't have the depth behind Burns to even float that idea seriously.

Our depth at forward is worse!

 

[Levie]

Moving him to forward hurt his trade value. No.

 

[Crazy Joe Divola]

No point, this year is shot. No point in screwing up Burns’ rhythm and practice routines to try to bandaid our forward group this year.

At this point it’s just riding out the season and working on the small things that they can carry over into next year.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Demers was pretty inconsistent. Sometimes he'd look like a top-4 guy, but in the playoffs, he was just bad. Stuart and Hannan were both garbage. Irwin was bad most of the time.

But he was a legitimate NHL d-man that they don’t have now to make this type of suggestion viable. Tim Heed is many levels below Demers even with his inconsistencies.

Our depth at forward is worse!

Then when implemented our D would show to be just as bad with only two legitimate top four D.

 

[Levie]

Demers was pretty inconsistent. Sometimes he'd look like a top-4 guy, but in the playoffs, he was just bad. Stuart and Hannan were both garbage. Irwin was bad most of the time.

Demers was great in our 2011 run and we likely beat the Canucks with him fully healthy.

 

[hohosaregood]

At this point, flinging shit is the only thing we've got left for entertainment.

 

[Alwalys]

This is the deepest defense the Sharks have had in a long, long time. Last time Burns was at forward, our #1 RHD was a washed-up Dan Boyle.

4-65
44-72
51-38

If the Sharks trade Dillon I wouldn't disagree, but honestly, the hole at forward is so big that it's almost worth a shot.

This, and that it would open up another hole isn't necessarily a reason not to do it, better balance could have value. Several smaller holes could be harder to exploit than one huge one.

 

[seroes]

Nah. Just trade him.

 

[tealzamboni]

BURNS TO FORWARD

I wouldn't mind, but I think his contract/age might be the more pressing concern. He may have more value as a trade target than he would at any position on this team now.

Now, if this were JONES TO FORWARD, that might be addition by subtraction from the net . . .