Ian White vs Brent Burns

by ResidentShark on Jan 3, 2012 7:34 PM PST

The stat lines for each player (through 35 games) are as follows

Brent Burns: 6G, 6A, 12PTS, +10, 12PIM, 98 SOG

Ian White: 5G, 15A, 20PTS, +24, 10PIM, 95 SOG

I have to say, where Ian White stands statistically is where I expected Burns to be at this point in the season. I should also say that I was a huge fan of White and was sad when we let him go as I thought he showed tremendous upside in the postseason. It's not to say that Burns has been a disappointment or that I dislike him. I was and still am excited to have him in teal, and I think his lack of production has been a result of hockey's fickle nature more than anything else. But given Ian White's offensive production so far this year, I couldn't help myself from comparing Burns and White (a player the organization felt was no longer needed after the addition of #88).

This item was created by a member of this blog's community and is not necessarily endorsed by Fear The Fin.

Tweet Comment 28 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Playing D along Lidstrom will make you look amazing.

Burns has size and speed that White doesn’t have. I’m disappointed with Burns’ production, like everyone else, but I don’t think White would have that stat line if we had retained him. Long term, I still think Burns is the better choice. But I really hope Burns steps up the second half and playoffs, because we need it badly.

Picklesnakebit since 2011.
@shampeon

by ievans on Jan 3, 2012 8:09 PM PST reply actions

Playing D along Lidstrom will make you look amazing.

Really – I don’t know if much more needs to be said.

I’m glad they let White walk and am happy Burns is a Shark even though he’s not played up to expectations, yet. He will be the better d-man long term.

by milanahalek on Jan 3, 2012 8:50 PM PST up reply actions

I like Burns. I know eventually I’d be biting my tongue if I said I didn’t like the moves the organization made for him. Nick Lidstrom isn’t real.

by ResidentShark on Jan 3, 2012 11:54 PM PST up reply actions

What I was going to say

Not that White hasn’t played well. But having both of them on the same fantasy team this year, they definitely tend to double-dip on their points.

Now imagine. Burns and Lidstrom as a pair. Mind blown.

Rated M for McGinn.

by DownRUpLYB on Jan 4, 2012 11:46 AM PST up reply actions

Steve Holt!

The artist formerly know as *"Sharks_Fan_In_Toronto"*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUDcSeUvkOw

by Evil Stanchion on Jan 3, 2012 8:47 PM PST reply actions

I understand people are frustrated with Burns' point totals,

But Boyle and Demers have regressed significantly as well. All three of our primary ‘offensive defensemen’ should be scoring more than they have this year.

by Briceratops on Jan 3, 2012 9:24 PM PST reply actions

Justin Braun being awesome helps compensate for this.

The artist formerly know as *"Sharks_Fan_In_Toronto"*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUDcSeUvkOw

by Evil Stanchion on Jan 3, 2012 10:09 PM PST up reply actions

Justin Braun's success also gives me hope for our farm system.

He was only our eighth ranked prospect heading into this year.

by Briceratops on Jan 4, 2012 10:40 AM PST up reply actions

If you go by the guys at hockeysfuture

It’s a good site, but not too reliable. The ratings are good for the top prospects, with Schenn and RNH and Johansen at 8.5C’s, and Crosby was a 10C, and Ovechkin was a 9.5A. Those predictions seemed right to me, but if you look at the lower levels? It’s not that accurate, which I can understand, but hockeysfuture can be wrong quite a lot. It’s not their fault, prospects don’t always pan out, but its just a good reference site, nothing to really use as a tracking system and follow by the word.

"I think he just dedicated a Cee Lo Green song to the referee"-Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda on Randy Carlyle yelling at the referee

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Jan 4, 2012 1:16 PM PST up reply actions

HF

I’m sorry but HF is a horrible place to go for prospect rankings, especially for Sharks prospects!! Last I heard they don’t have anyone who actually covers the Sharks or their AHL team so who knows where they get their information from.

by milanahalek on Jan 4, 2012 1:24 PM PST up reply actions

Burns has been incredible lately with Vlasic for SJ...barring a couple of games and mistakes

White? Playing alongside a cyborg called Niklas Lidstrom, winner of 7 Norris trophies, and a defenseman who is among the top 5 of all time at his position, can make Douglas Murray look like Shea Weber. Enough said :P

If Burns was playing alongside Lidstrom, I’d think he puts up 60 points at his peak for the year, and I’m not even kidding.

"I think he just dedicated a Cee Lo Green song to the referee"-Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda on Randy Carlyle yelling at the referee

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Jan 3, 2012 11:56 PM PST reply actions

Lidstrom is in a category of his own, yes. Should probably have been mentioned in my little write up.

by ResidentShark on Jan 4, 2012 12:28 AM PST reply actions

You don't fill up the Assist and +/- Columns

unless your teammate puts the puck in the net. Not his fault the guys he’s passing to aren’t scoring.

#CaptianObvious

by BillytheSid on Jan 4, 2012 1:40 AM PST reply actions

I like this discussion; it is fun for argument’s sake. Here are my two cents…

I can’t wrap my head around the idea of comparing two almost opposite skill sets. Unless there wasn’t the implication that the Sharks would have kept White if not for acquiring Burns, we would never dream of having this discussion (IMHO). The only thing they have in common is the position they play in.

In regards to defense, the very last thing Burns is, is safe, especially when compared to White. I feel like if the Sharks would be more consistent with their net presence play and a little more aggressive, Burns’ stats would look better; The Sharks want to play with the formula that fits Burns, but they aren’t for enough minutes in a given 60 minutes.

by Lytning on Jan 4, 2012 9:16 AM PST reply actions

Well, they’re both offensive defensemen, and despite their obvious differences in playing style fill the same niche.

Burns offers another dimension with his size and speed, so he has the potential to be a phenomenal 2 way defenseman. Ian White is a pretty good defenseman but will never be a game-changer. White and Brad Stuart are actually quite similar players, and it’s not surprising that both of them are succeeding in the Wings system.

Picklesnakebit since 2011.
@shampeon

by ievans on Jan 4, 2012 10:12 AM PST up reply actions

I agree with you. White kinda fit right in to the Wings’ system, like a lot of thought he would. Heck, it was deservedly so. He played his ass of for the Sharks and got what was coming to him one way or another. That’s another subject.

Both are offensive defensemen, yes, but they do the same job in different ways.

My point in a nutshell was that it is a lack of synchronization/polish within the Burns/Sharks relationship. It’s not all on him, but once he learns what he needs to learn, he will be elite both ways.

by Lytning on Jan 4, 2012 10:28 AM PST up reply actions

Brad Stuart

seems to have added a lot more physicality (and being a prick) to his game, which is probably the most notable difference between the two. But aside from that, I see what you mean.

Rated M for McGinn.

by DownRUpLYB on Jan 4, 2012 11:50 AM PST up reply actions

Defensively, I think Burns has looked fairly solid, albeit the occasional lapse. He has 56 blocked shots compared to White’s 38, although that is probably a result of White playing cautiously since fracturing his jaw on a blocked shot.

by ResidentShark on Jan 4, 2012 10:45 AM PST up reply actions

I thought so too

But then I realized he was starting in the offensive zone 59.7% of the time. That’s second on the team behind Andrew Murray, and sixth overall among NHL defensemen. Curiously enough, Ian White actually ranks ahead of him in that regard at 60.8%. I’m not sure if they are starting Burns so much in the O-Zone to maximize his offensive contributions or to mask his defensive game, but he’s not going to be the player worth giving up a young top six forward, a first round pick, and one of the top prospects in the game (Coyle ranked #25 overall) unless he can dominate both sides of the ice.

by Briceratops on Jan 4, 2012 11:15 AM PST up reply actions

Remember, number 25 overall may seem really bad,

especially since Couture was…20 or 30 or so? idk, but yeah, anyways,
Charlie Coyle is a hell of a player. But look at the trade

Setoguchi has not done very well in Minnesota, and Phillips was in a weak draft. If you go by hockey’sfuture anyways, he’s supposed to turn out to be a 2nd liner, like Setoguchi…
Coyle is projected to turn out as a 1st-2nd liner, a Ryane Clowe-esque guy… But Burns is a rare hybrid who can change the game. If he adapts well in SJ…

"I think he just dedicated a Cee Lo Green song to the referee"-Randy Hahn and Drew Remenda on Randy Carlyle yelling at the referee

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Jan 4, 2012 1:20 PM PST up reply actions

Number 25 in all of hockey is pretty damn good.

He’ll probably rank higher at the beginning of next season due to so many prospects graduating.

by Briceratops on Jan 4, 2012 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

Or lower, behind guys like Yakupov and all the D in 2012.

Red Line Station and @RedArmyLine, featuring coverage of the most frustrating team in the NHL
I believe in next year.

by red army line on Jan 6, 2012 5:14 AM PST via Android app up reply actions

Couture

Not sure if you & bricertops are talking about the same thing here

He was the #9 overall pick…and Briceratops was talking about Coyle’s prospect ranking league wide.

by milanahalek on Jan 4, 2012 1:36 PM PST up reply actions

I’m not sure if they are starting Burns so much in the O-Zone to maximize his offensive contributions or to mask his defensive game

They start him in the O zone because they want to maximize his offense. If you look at his QualComp, they’re not trying to mask anything with Burns’ defensive game.

by milanahalek on Jan 4, 2012 1:21 PM PST reply actions

oops

That was a failed reply to Briceratops

by milanahalek on Jan 4, 2012 1:25 PM PST up reply actions

The only reason I'm upset we let White walk

Is cuz the Wings were able to sign him for $2.875 mill. I would have definitely kept White for that

"Everybody had a part in this. As you can see, our fans love this. And we love them. And bring on the next team." -Joe Thornton
"I'm not saying I invented the turtleneck. But I was the first person to realize its potential as a tactical garment. The tactical turtleneck! The... tactleneck!"-Sterling Archer

by waive kent huskins on Jan 4, 2012 10:33 PM PST reply actions

I agree completely considering the price of Vand and C White could have retained I White with the large remaining cap space, especially considering the Burns deal was done at the draft, essentially before the UFA signings.

Even if he was slated as another offensive defenseman I think he could have worked well opposite what Demers was developing into last season (obviously you must disregard the hindsight knowledge of Demers’ struggles), to then have Braun competing with everyone else for that spot.

Outside of that though i’m glad we have Burns if a either or choice was definitive. He adds a lot more to the defensive game than just the offensive output, now that he’s finally getting comfortable and not trying to impress.

by VVhirlwind on Jan 6, 2012 4:20 AM PST up reply actions