The Official Pierre "high five" Dorion Thread | Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.

Deku

I'm off the planet
Nov 5, 2011
19,828
4,474
Ottawa
Well, you can aim that at other posters because I considered Stone to be also lacking in production after his injury. The key word there is injury, so Stone gets a pass more so than Burrows. Burrows was invisible (and I mean that literally, since there were games I didn't even notice he played and thought he was scratched) for a good chunk of games. You can say what you want, but the reality is that in that small chunk of games where Burrows was playing with us, he produced some points, but more than half came in 3 games. While the other 5 pts came in 15 games. So the worry is that he will be a 2.5M fourth liner.

Ok, 5 points in 15 games is a 25-30 point pace, isnt it? Sounds like 3rd line production to me
 

God Says No

Registered User
Mar 16, 2012
8,526
1,899
Ok, 5 points in 15 games is a 25-30 point pace, isnt it? Sounds like 3rd line production to me

Yip, you can't really extrapolate those numbers from such as a small sample size but if he produces those points then yeah he'll be a decent 3rd liner. Again, the worry is that he'll regress to 4th line levels. For the price we paid we need more.
 

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,229
10,452
Yukon
To be fair, a good chunk of his points was just 3 three games.
Let's see how he does this year, and more importantly next. There were stretches where Burrows was completely invisible.

He could end up being a severely overpaid 4th liner.



I don't see anyone complaining about that trade. That was a good one. The Burrows one was an over payment. The Thompson signing was an over payment as well.

Streakiness is just part of hockey and different guys contribute every night. Having 3 great games with 5 points in 15 sprinkled around it should be in no way a negative on a guy only getting paid 2.5 mil.

He's also invisible at times because he literally never makes a mistake and always takes the hit to make the play. He's just a really smart, hard hockey player. All his contributions to the ot goals was him getting smattered along the boards as he smartly chips it to the right guy or he was standing in front of the net.
 

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,229
10,452
Yukon
Yip, you can't really extrapolate those numbers from such as a small sample size but if he produces those points then yeah he'll be a decent 3rd liner. Again, the worry is that he'll regress to 4th line levels. For the price we paid we need more.

He hasnt been a 4th liner his entire career, he had a good showing for us last year. Why do we have to assume he will regress. He's getting old but there's been no indication yet that he will just fall off a cliff.
 

Deku

I'm off the planet
Nov 5, 2011
19,828
4,474
Ottawa
Yip, you can't really extrapolate those numbers from such as a small sample size but if he produces those points then yeah he'll be a decent 3rd liner. Again, the worry is that he'll regress to 4th line levels. For the price we paid we need more.

Ok, but there's literally no reason to assume that he will suddenly become a 4th liner other than "age", even though we see countless players in this league who play well into their late 30s. It's a possibility, but I wouldn't say that it's likely. If Burrows showed up here and played like crap then ya I would be worried, but he was solid IMO
 

God Says No

Registered User
Mar 16, 2012
8,526
1,899
Streakiness is just part of hockey and different guys contribute every night. Having 3 great games with 5 points in 15 sprinkled around it should be in no way a negative on a guy only getting paid 2.5 mil.

He's also invisible at times because he literally never makes a mistake and always takes the hit to make the play. He's just a really smart, hard hockey player. All his contributions to the ot goals was him getting smattered along the boards as he smartly chips it to the right guy or he was standing in front of the net.

Not sure about that. If he was making the correct plays you would have noticed him. I saw a lot of nothing for 80% or the time.

He hasnt been a 4th liner his entire career, he had a good showing for us last year. Why do we have to assume he will regress. He's getting old but there's been no indication yet that he will just fall off a cliff.

Partly it's due to his age. Partly it's due to his play with the Sens last year. BTW, he's not going to fall off a cliff. That hill he's on is not very high. I say it's closer to hitting a ditch.

My prediction is he'll produce at low 20s (20 to 25). Start on the third line, get some PP time. As the year goes on, he'll get less playing time and eventually end up on the 4th line.

He'll always be a lightning rod for criticism just due to the circumstances of his acquisition. If he was traded for a 3rd, and signed a smaller deal, and Dorion didn't build him up, you would not have all this.
 

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,229
10,452
Yukon
Not sure about that. If he was making the correct plays you would have noticed him. I saw a lot of nothing for 80% or the time.



Partly it's due to his age. Partly it's due to his play with the Sens last year. BTW, he's not going to fall off a cliff. That hill he's on is not very high. I say it's closer to hitting a ditch.

My prediction is he'll produce at low 20s (20 to 25). Start on the third line, get some PP time. As the year goes on, he'll get less playing time and eventually end up on the 4th line.

He'll always be a lightning rod for criticism just due to the circumstances of his acquisition. If he was traded for a 3rd, and signed a smaller deal, and Dorion didn't build him up, you would not have all this.

Well i noticed him on pretty much every playoff ot goal so thats something but we're just arguing our own opinions on that. I just think there's something to be said for a guy never making a bad play and not noticing him for the wrong reasons. He's getting 2.5 not 7.25 like bobby, so even if its only 25-30 points, that's right in line with his salary. We see a completely different player out there obviously, i thought he was great for us.

2.5 mil is nothing these days and a guy gauranteed to get 0.25 ppg with the potential and career average just slightly below 0.5 ppg who plays both pk and pp is more than getting your moneys worth. I'd be shocked if he doesn't play primarily top 9 this year since his production and history shows that's where he should be.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,362
Well, you can aim that at other posters because I considered Stone to be also lacking in production after his injury. The key word there is injury, so Stone gets a pass more so than Burrows. Burrows was invisible (and I mean that literally, since there were games I didn't even notice he played and thought he was scratched) for a good chunk of games. You can say what you want, but the reality is that in that small chunk of games where Burrows was playing with us, he produced some points, but more than half came in 3 games. While the other 5 pts came in 15 games. So the worry is that he will be a 2.5M fourth liner.

Ah, so Burrows never played through injury or was 100% healthy every game he played? News to me. Or are excuses only valid when they suit your argument?


It's kind of funny, a 25 pts pace during your cherry picked games (omitting his top 3 games) is basically 3rd line production, but you're worried about him being a drastically overpaid 4th liner because three games out of the 20 he played for us made his average with the sens that of a very good 3rd liner, or even 2nd liner.

Honestly, I'm really having a hard time following your position here, you use a small sample where you cherry pick out his top games, claim it's bad that when ignoring those games, he produces at a level consistent with the role he plays, then say you can't extrapolate from small samples, so his production in that small sample is meaningless, even though it's the same sample you've used to claim he's going to be an overpaid 4th liner, and you do all this with the pretext of 'to be fair'.

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion on a player, but he had another 55 games in Vancouver at a 30 pts pace playing on the third line, so you can't really claim a 28 pts pace in his cherry picked set of game with Ottawa are the outlier of the sample.
 

2CHAINZ

Registered User
Feb 27, 2008
14,435
20,003
So for years this board complained about the bottom 6. The bottom 6 gets fixed and now the issue is we paid too much to fix it ? Sorry I'm really trying to figure out why I should hate management.
 

God Says No

Registered User
Mar 16, 2012
8,526
1,899
Well i noticed him on pretty much every playoff ot goal so thats something but we're just arguing our own opinions on that. I just think there's something to be said for a guy never making a bad play and not noticing him for the wrong reasons. He's getting 2.5 not 7.25 like bobby, so even if its only 25-30 points, that's right in line with his salary. We see a completely different player out there obviously, i thought he was great for us.

2.5 mil is nothing these days and a guy gauranteed to get 0.25 ppg with the potential and career average just slightly below 0.5 ppg who plays both pk and pp is more than getting your moneys worth. I'd be shocked if he doesn't play primarily top 9 this year since his production and history shows that's where he should be.

That's odd, since he wasn't on the ice for every OT goal. So either your memory is failing you, or you are making things up.

Anyways, like I said the worry is that the price we paid won't reflect the production. He was ok in his time with Ottawa, nothing more. I expected more.

Ah, so Burrows never played through injury or was 100% healthy every game he played? News to me. Or are excuses only valid when they suit your argument?


It's kind of funny, a 25 pts pace during your cherry picked games (omitting his top 3 games) is basically 3rd line production, but you're worried about him being a drastically overpaid 4th liner because three games out of the 20 he played for us made his average with the sens that of a very good 3rd liner, or even 2nd liner.

Honestly, I'm really having a hard time following your position here, you use a small sample where you cherry pick out his top games, claim it's bad that when ignoring those games, he produces at a level consistent with the role he plays, then say you can't extrapolate from small samples, so his production in that small sample is meaningless, even though it's the same sample you've used to claim he's going to be an overpaid 4th liner, and you do all this with the pretext of 'to be fair'.

I mean, you're entitled to your opinion on a player, but he had another 55 games in Vancouver at a 30 pts pace playing on the third line, so you can't really claim a 28 pts pace in his cherry picked set of game with Ottawa are the outlier of the sample.

I'm not cherry picking, just outlining that more than 50% of his points came in 3 out of 20 games he played in the regular season. The rest he was pretty much invisible. Yourself and other posters are trying to build him up more so than he deserves. We acquired him to be more than a third liner.
 

Canadian Time

Registered User
Mar 2, 2002
2,193
327
Visit site
Dorion talked about Burrows being a top 6 forward, did he not?

He said he could play up and down the lineup in many important roles and provide the leadership left open by Mac's absence.

That's what he did, don't try to make it sound like Dorion was promising more. Burrows will be fine filling in anywhere on the lineup if needed, I just don't get the all out angst over freaking Dahlen. Sometimes teams trade prospects, when you have a few that's part of the deal.
 

maclean

Registered User
Jan 4, 2014
8,380
2,546
So for years this board complained about the bottom 6. The bottom 6 gets fixed and now the issue is we paid too much to fix it ? Sorry I'm really trying to figure out why I should hate management.

Don't think about it, just FEEEEEL it man
 

Stylizer1

SENSimillanaire
Jun 12, 2009
19,276
3,689
Ottabot City
So for years this board complained about the bottom 6. The bottom 6 gets fixed and now the issue is we paid too much to fix it ? Sorry I'm really trying to figure out why I should hate management.
I think you have it backwards. This board complained about our top 6 and it has yet to be fixed.
 

YouGotAStuGoing

Registered User
Mar 26, 2010
19,339
4,913
Ottawa, Ontario
I think you have it backwards. This board complained about our top 6 and it has yet to be fixed.

Stop, stop, you're both right! People have complained about our top six and our bottom six. And our 2nd defenceman. And our 3-4 pairing. And our bottom pairing. And our goalies, both starter and backup. And our management.
 

Punchbowl

Registered User
Apr 4, 2010
2,803
248
I just dont think there were any forwards out there that would radically impact Ottawa's offense. THe Sens are deep, and talented up front. Unless you're bringing in a legit number 1 center, or star left wing . . . I don't know how you're going to upgrade. They're fine up front.

The issue is on defense. I'm not the biggest Shattenkirk fan, and he was probably going to the Rangers no matter what anyway. Alzner might have been ok, Markov would be an upgrade . . . but I think Dorien is in "lets see what we have" mode.

He has two young defensemen who impressed last year in Harper and Claesson, who are going to be pushing for icetime. And then there is Chabot, who is a bit of a wildcard but could very well prove himself a top 4 defenseman in his rookie year if things go well. So out of those three, maybe they find a way to replace Methot.

If it doesn't work out, and things look dire on defense . . . it will be a lot easier to swing a deal after Christmas.

Yeah, I don't want Dorion fishing in UFA for a solution to our lack of star talent up-front anyway. An elite centre should be our biggest priority in my opinion, and as you suggested we aren't likely to find one of those in free agency. They are so rarely available, I can't fault Dorion for not acquiring one (and who's to say he doesn't do so through trade or the draft).


As you mentioned, the defence is the easier issue to address. I would like to see us make a move before the start of the season to procure some extra depth because, at the moment, one of Claesson, Boro, Harpur, or Chabot is going to be getting top 4 minutes.

I wouldn't be comfortable with that. Especially if EK needs extra time to recover from surgery or one of Phaneuf/Ceci are injured; then we're looking at two unproven options in the top four playing significant minutes. Dion already alarms me from time to time.

I hope Dorion does something before the season starts, but trading does get tougher to accomplish the closer we get to opening night. I don't know who is or isn't available, but I would hope Dorion isn't satisfied to just sit and hope until October.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,362
That's odd, since he wasn't on the ice for every OT goal. So either your memory is failing you, or you are making things up.

Anyways, like I said the worry is that the price we paid won't reflect the production. He was ok in his time with Ottawa, nothing more. I expected more.



I'm not cherry picking, just outlining that more than 50% of his points came in 3 out of 20 games he played in the regular season. The rest he was pretty much invisible. Yourself and other posters are trying to build him up more so than he deserves. We acquired him to be more than a third liner.

He played more than 20 games though, but i guess you'd like to omit the 7 multi point games he had for the canucks too.

I must say its pretty rich to hear you say he will be an overpaid 4th liner while claiming others are builing him to be ore than he deserves whe we point out that he has perfectly fine numbers for a third liner.
 

L'Aveuglette

つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Jan 8, 2007
47,729
19,699
Montreal
He said he could play up and down the lineup in many important roles and provide the leadership left open by Mac's absence.

That's what he did, don't try to make it sound like Dorion was promising more. Burrows will be fine filling in anywhere on the lineup if needed, I just don't get the all out angst over freaking Dahlen. Sometimes teams trade prospects, when you have a few that's part of the deal.

If we need Burrows to regularly fill in a role on the top-6, we're in trouble.

And if you don't get the angst over giving away a top-5 Sens prospect for a 36 year-old bottom-6 guy, what can I really tell you?
 

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,229
10,452
Yukon
That's odd, since he wasn't on the ice for every OT goal. So either your memory is failing you, or you are making things up.

Anyways, like I said the worry is that the price we paid won't reflect the production. He was ok in his time with Ottawa, nothing more. I expected more.



I'm not cherry picking, just outlining that more than 50% of his points came in 3 out of 20 games he played in the regular season. The rest he was pretty much invisible. Yourself and other posters are trying to build him up more so than he deserves. We acquired him to be more than a third liner.

Thats why I said pretty much (I assumed this would imply not every single one), it was all but one or two of the OT goals. My memory is fine and I could dig up the proof but theres no point arguing with someone that obviously just doesnt like the player.

2.5 Mil is 3rd line money these days. Our 3rd line center is about to get paid between 3 and 4 while smith is right between there. 2 guys that only outproduced Burrows by 1 and 2 points last year.

You are cherry picking if youre discluding games like that and there's no reasonable explanation to do so other than it fits your argument, almost every player is inconsistent if you do that, especially guys like Burrows that are more like 0.3-0.5 ppg players. If you disclude Pageau's 4 goal game this year and his hat trick game against Montreal his playoff point totals look like ****, but he's adored by the fans and we all know discluding those 2 games just isn't how it works.
 
Last edited:

Nac Mac Feegle

wee & free
Jun 10, 2011
34,829
9,252
Why do we exclude Burrows top 3 games to fit the narrative though? Do we take away Stones top 3 games and the 11 pts he scored in them and label him based on that level of production?

I always find it funny to read 'to be fair' followed by something you would likely not consider fair if done to another player.

Maybe we don't need to exclude them, but we can acknowledge the "new team high" effect. A guy being traded, as a ton of raw energy, wants to make a good impression...those extra bundles of nerves tend to add wings to your skates for a little while. Kinda like how a lot of rookies look good in preseason or the first few games of the regular season, before reality sets in.
 

BonHoonLayneCornell

Registered User
Oct 16, 2006
15,229
10,452
Yukon
Maybe we don't need to exclude them, but we can acknowledge the "new team high" effect. A guy being traded, as a ton of raw energy, wants to make a good impression...those extra bundles of nerves tend to add wings to your skates for a little while. Kinda like how a lot of rookies look good in preseason or the first few games of the regular season, before reality sets in.

This can definitely play in to it. It just seem like a weird way to try to demonstrate something. "Hey if we remove every good game this guy had he was terrible!". Hockey is an up and down thing for most guys all year and the points/good games can come in bunches then they disappear for a while again. Its not uncommon for good players to go 10, 15, 20 or more games doing sfa then all of a sudden they go on a hot streak and all is forgotten.
 

Micklebot

Moderator
Apr 27, 2010
53,145
30,362
Maybe we don't need to exclude them, but we can acknowledge the "new team high" effect. A guy being traded, as a ton of raw energy, wants to make a good impression...those extra bundles of nerves tend to add wings to your skates for a little while. Kinda like how a lot of rookies look good in preseason or the first few games of the regular season, before reality sets in.

Ok, that explains his first game where he got 2 points, it's probably a stretch to explain his 3rd game, where he got 2 pts, but that's a colossal stretch to explain his 6th game with the team being a 2 pts game.

Having said that, do we consider that he came to a new team and had to build chemistry with new teammates may have caused him to look out of place? Or maybe learning Boucher's system, which we all know took some time for the team to figure out, may have made him look out of place?

Nobody is expecting the 45 pts pace he had in his 20 reg season games as a Sen or even his 37 pts pace he had reg season playoff combined as a Sen, what some of us are saying is he's not a 4th line plug, and there's no indication that he's overpaid as a 3rd liner at 2.5 mil. He played 90 games this season all combined (Van, Ott and playoffs), and had a 33 pts pace per 82 during those 90 games, so why are people acting as though we should only expect 20-25 based on a small 20 game sample where we exclude his better games but include all his worst? Every play has ups and downs, and will look significantly worse if you exclude the highs.

People are quick to call him a bottom 6 forward, but I fully expect he'll be used as more of a middle 6 guy, playing on any of the top three lines, which frankly should make sense to most around here given that Hoffman was mostly used on the 3rd line; Boucher likes to spread things out and mix and match.

I would have liked it if we had kept Methot, or found a stop gap replacement until we knew Chabot was ready, but aside from that, I'm pretty happy with what the team looks like going into this season. With MacArthur back, and no growing pains implementing a new defensive system, I think we'll have a much better start to the year. I expect that somebody on the coaching staff's summer job will be devising a functional PP system, and they'll actually have time to implement it in the preseason this year. I'm also hopeful that Brassard and Ryan will have bounce back years offensively. (Ryan should have his armoured gloves this season, so here's hoping no more broken fingers! and both he and Brassard out-produced there regular season paces in the playoffs)

I think we have a ton of depth up front;
- Hoffman, MacArthur, Smith, and Dzingel have all shown they can handle top 6 LW duties, Burrows can slide into that role in a pinch too.
-Turris, Brassard make a good one-two punch, and Pageau is an excellent 3rd line center that can handle 2nd line center duties if needed. Thompson from the reviews in Anahiem is a great 4th line center that had injury issues. Could be a center version of Pyatt for us.
- Stone and Ryan make for a pretty solid top 6 RW combo, Burrows is more than adequate as a 3rd RW option. White could be knocking at the door as well and Dzingel can flip sides and play 3rd line RW when needed. Pyatt also showed some chemistry with Pageau as a shutdown line.
-Dzingel, Thompson, Pyatt, Paul and White will fight out for that 4th line, a mix of defensive vets, and promising youth, some of which have the capacity to step up into bigger roles.

Going into this season, unlike last year, we not only have good depth when healthy, but we have guys that can step into bigger roles playing on lower lines should we lose a top guy to injury, and extra bodies that can step in when needed for the bottom 6. No need to call up the likes of Blunden or Varone, and hope they can handle it, instead, we have White or Dzingel as our 13th forward, maybe Paul if he maintains his play from the dev camp.

The only downside is Brassard and Karlsson's surgery; hopefully both are ready to go by the start of the season, or early on in it, and don't suffer too much aftereffects. We need both guys going on all cylinders.

I won't get into the backend, we have 8 or 9 guys that can play at this level imo, but some uncertainty as to who can handle filling Methot's role.
 

swiftwin

★SUMMER.OF.PIERRE★
Jul 26, 2005
23,560
12,939
Well, you can aim that at other posters because I considered Stone to be also lacking in production after his injury. The key word there is injury, so Stone gets a pass more so than Burrows. Burrows was invisible (and I mean that literally, since there were games I didn't even notice he played and thought he was scratched) for a good chunk of games. You can say what you want, but the reality is that in that small chunk of games where Burrows was playing with us, he produced some points, but more than half came in 3 games. While the other 5 pts came in 15 games. So the worry is that he will be a 2.5M fourth liner.

Isn't that a good thing for a bottom 6 player? Infact, that's exactly what we needed out of him in the playoffs. As opposed to someone like Kelly who couldn't be trusted to ice time. Burrows quietly ate up minutes, and came in clutch on a couple OT primary assists. I firmly believe that if Burrows hadn't of gotten injured, we would have won game 7 against the Pens, and probably the cup.
 

Agent Zub

Registered User
Jan 2, 2015
14,424
11,713
Imo you're supposed to improve on your top six to push players down. That's what makes a deep team.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->