[getbak]

Originally Posted by jeffman

Didn't he trash Bobby Ryan as low intensity for the Sochi olympics?

It's funny that people got mad at Burke for saying that, but if you read the whole transcript of the conversation, he was defending Ryan and arguing in favour of his inclusion on the Olympic team. For some reason, people latched onto the part of the quote where Burke said Ryan isn't an intense player, while completely ignoring everything else.

Holmgren suggests the coaches have to decide if Ryan is going to be an integral part of the power-play groups, and if so, he needs to be pushed ahead. But if not, maybe they should be looking at two more well-rounded players.

"I agree," Poile says.

Burke points out that Poile has included the coaches more than he did when he occupied the GM position in Vancouver four years before. It's good, but, he adds, "I think coaches see snapshots, and I think GMs watch the whole movie."

"I think we have to know what we're taking with Bobby," says Burke, who had him in Anaheim when the Ducks won the Stanley Cup in 2007.

"He's a passive guy," Burke says. And over 82 games, yes, Saad and or Pacioretty might be more attractive than Ryan. But Ryan's a game-breaker.

"He is not intense. That word is not in his vocabulary," Burke says. "It's never going to be in his vocabulary. He can't spell intense."

If he's not going to be put in a role in which he can score an important goal, use his skills as a sniper, he shouldn't go, Burke says.

"Is everybody really happy with our speed up front?" Poile asks.

There is a pause.

"I don't think it's a fast team," Tallon notes.

Ryan doesn't add to the speed quotient, so do these last two spots need to be filled with speed guys? And if there are injuries, which of these guys are more compatible, more able to move up the roster to fill in more demanding roles?

Pacioretty and Saad are both better 60-minute players, Burke says, "But neither can do what Bobby can do."