Player Discussion Kyle Burroughs

[M2Beezy]

What are the examples he came up with?

But Gillis
But Luongo recapture
But covid
But schedule
But cupboards
But negative fans
But JP Barry

 

[settinguptheplay]

I had no idea who the guy was when we signed him. I had assumed another over his head AHLer who would tread water until his eventual demotion. But he has been solid. I keep waiting for him to implode. But he looks like a seasoned vet. As of now I would place him on the team. But there is plenty of preseason to go. So far he has been a great signing.

 

[Petey O]

Not expecting sunshine and rainbows. But the odd topical discussion would be nice. Every thread devolving into a management bash thread is getting old and stale. Criticisms are fine. Repeating the same criticism post after post gets to be a bit much. Imagine if you had a group of buddies and every time you went to eat at your favorite restaurant one of them would start to complain about the management of the establishment. You know the place is not perfect. You know they are not always the friendliest. But you love the food. At what point do you tell your buddy to shut the F up? If you don't like the restaurant then don't go to it. Day after day. Every time you talk about your favorite restaurant he breaks into the same criticisms. Do you never turn to him and say... I get it! You don't like the place. You don't need to tell me anymore.

I have no objection to the person. No objection to the criticism. It is the auto repeat function that is the issue. The endless extreme negativity has even led to Benning's family being harassed in public. Even had one swell individual on these boards say that she deserved it.

If one doesn't see, or understand, the societal ramifications of this type of toxic negativity that is on the individual. But their denial does not mean it doesn't exist.

I'm generally anti-Benning but I'm giving his team a chance this season. Doesn't really bother me either way what happens this season.

But, this is generally accepted as the board that has been most critical of management and there are literally 3 other huge communities that are really pro-Benning. It serves as a good counterbalance to those.

 

[settinguptheplay]

I'm generally anti-Benning but I'm giving his team a chance this season. Doesn't really bother me either way what happens this season.

But, this is generally accepted as the board that has been most critical of management and there are literally 3 other huge communities that are really pro-Benning. It serves as a good counterbalance to those.

I will leave it with this.

Criticism - OJ may never be a regular in the NHL because of his pivot's
Negativity - OJ sucks and Benning is an idiot for not drafting Tkachuk

The criticism stays on topic. OJ and his NHL abilities. The Nancy goes back in history to bring up draft position and cries over spilled milk. Takes personal shots instead of commenting on the topic at hand. Which is OJ and his shortcomings. This has zero to do with his draft position, who was drafted after him or who did the drafting. This is not criticism. It is toxic negativity.

Before Hughes/Pettersson signings - Haha! Benning so dumb! You sign your stars for whatever it takes before signing depth players!!!! Now we have no cap left!

After signings - Haha! Walks Pettersson to UFA and overpays for that scrub Hughes!

See. It does not matter. The Nancy's will always find the negative slant and drag it right back to Benning. It is not the criticism that is the issue. This is something the Nancy's need to understand. It is the constant changing of goalposts or simply dropping the complaint when it is proven false and reinventing a new slant. Over and over. If it was simply criticism I would fully support it. But this is not criticism. It is chronic negativity and has real life impacts on people. It comes across as a bit obsessive. Too much emotion wrapped up in what is supposed to be entertainment.

 

[ratbid]

I will leave it with this.

Criticism - OJ may never be a regular in the NHL because of his pivot's
Negativity - OJ sucks and Benning is an idiot for not drafting Tkachuk

The criticism stays on topic. OJ and his NHL abilities. The Nancy goes back in history to bring up draft position and cries over spilled milk. Takes personal shots instead of commenting on the topic at hand. Which is OJ and his shortcomings. This has zero to do with his draft position, who was drafted after him or who did the drafting. This is not criticism. It is toxic negativity.

Before Hughes/Pettersson signings - Haha! Benning so dumb! You sign your stars for whatever it takes before signing depth players!!!! Now we have no cap left!

After signings - Haha! Walks Pettersson to UFA and overpays for that scrub Hughes!

See. It does not matter. The Nancy's will always find the negative slant and drag it right back to Benning. It is not the criticism that is the issue. This is something the Nancy's need to understand. It is the constant changing of goalposts or simply dropping the complaint when it is proven false and reinventing a new slant. Over and over. If it was simply criticism I would fully support it. But this is not criticism. It is chronic negativity and has real life impacts on people. It comes across as a bit obsessive. Too much emotion wrapped up in what is supposed to be entertainment.

Dude... this is a thread about Burroughs.

 

[Lindgren]

There's nothing stopping someone from posting something about Burroughs. I'd love to read something by somebody who has followed him through camp and preseason or who knows something about him from having seen more of him earlier in his career.

I asked if he Burroughs was "Tanev light." What have people noticed about his play? Can a defenceman who doesn't put up big numbers and doesn't stand out physically be an effective defender who gets overlooked? Do players of that sort get undervalued and, thus, offer a potential moneyball advantage? Is Burroughs possibly such a player, or is there enough evidence to say with confidence that he is now and will be, throughout his career, nothing more than a tweener?

How does he look tonight?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

He was mostly a healthy scratch in TB playing like 9 easy minutes/game when he got into the lineup. He was the furthest thing from a 'key piece'.

19-20 SC GP:11 PTS:2 +3 ATOI: 10:52 HIT 34
20-21 SC GP:8 PTS:1 +1 ATOI: 9:14 HIT 20

Just saying that if he could hold his own as a 6/7 for the best team in the league, he could do it for the Canucks. He could be an effective 6th Dman for the Canucks as he would add some grit and size to the bottom pairing, Rathbone-Schenn looks like it will be the bottom pairing and could become a bit like a lite version of the Hughes-Schenn pairing, which was very effective for us.

 

[Lindgren]

19-20 SC GP:11 PTS:2 +3 ATOI: 10:52 HIT 34
20-21 SC GP:8 PTS:1 +1 ATOI: 9:14 HIT 20

Just saying that if he could hold his own as a 6/7 for the best team in the league, he could do it for the Canucks. He could be an effective 6th Dman for the Canucks as he would add some grit and size to the bottom pairing, Rathbone-Schenn looks like it will be the bottom pairing and could become a bit like a lite version of the Hughes-Schenn pairing, which was very effective for us.

How do you think Burroughs would do?

 

[Bertuzzzi44]

How do you think Burroughs would do?

Lol I liked his game, we don’t have much depth on RD and due to that he should see some time with the big club during the season when injuries occur and I’m sure he’ll fill in admirably.

Depth chart IMO:
LD RD
Rathbone Schenn
Hunt Bowie
Juolevi Burroughs
Breisbois Woo

 

[F A N]

Edit: I see FAN came up with a couple, though I would certainly argue that Vey got a ridiculous number of chances before finally, finally being turfed.

That's the thing. A lot of people love saying that Benning would keep giving a player opportunities because of acquisition cost. Actually he has largely done the opposite. Clendenning was shipped off quickly. Vey was given a one year deal and waived before the season started. He buried contacts instead of giving the player more opportunities to stay with the club. Obviously a lot of it was his head coach pushing for certain moves but I don't know why Benning gets accused of keeping players on the Canucks to make himself look good.

Speaking of Vey, he legit made the team in 2014-2015 at camp/preseason IIRC. He didn't in 2015-2016 and was waived before the season began.

 

[Lindgren]

So, Burroughs survived the first round of cuts. How much longer does he stay up with the big club?

 

[Grub]

Hopefully he pans out. When was the last time we had a Kevin Bieksa, or Chris Tanev type D that has stepped up regardless of draft position.

 

[MS]

19-20 SC GP:11 PTS:2 +3 ATOI: 10:52 HIT 34
20-21 SC GP:8 PTS:1 +1 ATOI: 9:14 HIT 20

Just saying that if he could hold his own as a 6/7 for the best team in the league, he could do it for the Canucks. He could be an effective 6th Dman for the Canucks as he would add some grit and size to the bottom pairing, Rathbone-Schenn looks like it will be the bottom pairing and could become a bit like a lite version of the Hughes-Schenn pairing, which was very effective for us.

Looking ok when insulated in soft minutes on a good team is completely different than looking ok in tougher minutes on a bad team.

Schenn was absolutely cratered in 19-20. In 20-21, TB basically tried to hide him in the softest minutes imaginable.

 

[MS]

Debating whether the team would keep Burroughs if he outplayed Schenn isn't really off-topic?

 

[Melvin]

That 9:14 is even inflated by game 5 against NYI when he played 15 minutes in an 8-0 win and got his only point. He then played 10 minutes in game 6, they lost and he didn't play again. Didn't play in any elimination games, didn't play in the finals, mostly took 10-15 shifts in games in the first 2 rounds when the team was at least 2 games ahead in the series. He's basically the equivalent of a mop-up reliever that you only use when the score difference is 5+ runs and you want to rest guys who actually matter. To use that as evidence that he could "hold his own" as a regular player on a much worse overall team is a huge stretch.

 

[Lindgren]

Debating whether the team would keep Burroughs if he outplayed Schenn isn't really off-topic?

The general debate about the history of this management group with respect to how it makes judgments about players, including how they were acquired, their veteran status, etc., is an interesting one, but it does seem rather off topic, especially when there's been so little discussion about the player himself.

Probably (and understandably) none of the experts have really paid much attention to Burroughs' performance through pre-season, so they simply don't have much to say about his specific weaknesses or strengths.

 

[Canucks LB]

Never doubt a player thats named similar as a canucks legend

 

[krutovsdonut]

i think a tryout of hunt on the right side is a sign green is not sold on burroughs or schenn. it surely goes against green's instincts.

so i get the feeling none of these guys, including burroughs, are truly making the team. they are trying to figure out a bandaid solution while they wait on hamonic.

 

[MS]

i think a tryout of hunt on the right side is a sign green is not sold on burroughs or schenn. it surely goes against green's instincts.

so i get the feeling none of these guys, including burroughs, are truly making the team. they are trying to figure out a bandaid solution while they wait on hamonic.

When did they try Hunt on the right side? He was paired with Burroughs playing on the left last night, and paired with Myers playing on the left before that.

 

[krutovsdonut]

When did they try Hunt on the right side? He was paired with Burroughs playing on the left last night, and paired with Myers playing on the left before that.

i may have misunderstood what happened on friday. i did not see the game but i thought i saw comments that they tried him on the right.

 

[MS]

i may have misunderstood what happened on friday. i did not see the game but i thought i saw comments that they tried him on the right.

IIRC the pairings on Friday were :

Hunt-Myers
Juolevi-Burroughs
Rathbone-Schenn

 

[F A N]

So, Burroughs survived the first round of cuts. How much longer does he stay up with the big club?

Now might be a good time to sneak him down given the number of Dmen that passed through waivers. But waivers aside, if the Canucks are going to carry 8 Dmen, Burroughs should be in contention for that final spot.

 

[Lindgren]

Burroughs is in the line-up again tonight. He's certainly getting a long look.

 

[F A N]

Burroughs is in the line-up again tonight. He's certainly getting a long look.

They did sign him for 2 years and with Keeper injured might as well take the opportunity to give Burroughs a solid look.

 

[Melvin]

After tonight’s game should be no doubt remaining that Burroughs should be ahead of Schenn on the depth chart.

does anyone who argues that the Canucks are a “meritocracy” want to bet that things will play out this way?

would bet $100 Schenn makes the team ahead of Burroughs regardless.