He won the Norris because he put up insane offensive numbers for a defenseman. He didn't win for his defensive capabilities.

he won for being a great two-way player ... if he's so bad defensively, Doughty would have won it.

But he's not a great two-way player. Norris voters put more stock in offensive production because it's easier to quantify than defensive abilities. He went on an insane offensive tear during the first 2/3 of then season, which is the primary reason he won.

then why was Chara up for the Norris in 2013-14?

There are a lot of defensemen that are consistently "up for" the Norris, simply because of their reputation and their consistency. Look back at all previous Norris winners. Since 1969 there have only been two seasons where the Norris winner finished below 50 points, aside from the lockout-shortened season in 2012-13.

because he was a defensive defensemen who at 36 years old led his team to a Presidents' Trophy while managing to put up 40 points. 40 points for a defensive defensemen is a pretty fair stat line. He had no real chance of winning. The difference in votes between 1 and 2 on the ballot was 366 votes. Pretty lopsided
What Doc said is pretty accurate as well

but guys, Burns is good both ways ... just because he's an offensive d-man doesn't mean he's not good defensively, that's just maybe not as much a part of his game as offence is.

i never said he was bad defensively...i just answered your question about chara

Just because he's a Norris winner doesn't mean he's good defensively. When Karlsson won his first Norris, he wasn't that great defensively. He's only begun to round out his game within the past few years.

yeah he was ... you can't win the Norris without being good defensively. Sure, it's not all about defence, if it was Doughty would have won the Norris, but you can't win it if you're not good defensively.

I go with Burns because there are not many who said it and I like its style of play.

thanks for voting!