vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 29,114
- 16,871
Would have definitely been a nightmare offensively but that defensive element was such an important part of the Sedins elevation from top-line scorers to Hall of Famers. In many ways Burrows was already a perfect partner and you’d just need to identify someone with an even higher offensive ceiling without losing the defense.
The Sedins were never that good defensively. They weren’t necessarily bad but it just didn’t fit their gameplan. They wanted to possess the puck for as long as they could and wear everyone wide out. There’s an interview from a while back where Burrows was asked why he fit with the Sedins. He didn’t fit the expected profile at all but he mentioned two key elements: get them the puck (so he was responsible for the defensive side of things) and get open. Since the Sedins were in constant motion, he knew that he too had to be in constant motion. Find the invisible seems, chip the puck back to them to keep the cycle going, and just get into the right spot at the right time instead of waiting for them to find him. Alfredsson could certainly do that offensively but I don’t think he could replicate Burrows extremely commitment to making sure the Sedins always had the puck.
i guess what i'm getting at is, of any star player of that era, alfredsson is the closest to burrows. what other star was as skilled a puck retriever and as determined a turnover causer as alfredsson? which star winger could lock an opposing forward down like alfredsson could? who else had such an indomitable motor? he wasn't burrows, but he was the closest thing among the stars.
imo where you would really lose if you replaced burrows with alfie is on the PK. he was a good penalty killer, but he wasn't the best PK forward of his generation like burrows. but that's not a sedin-compatible situation, of course.