The argument here though is that without his playmaking skills, Thornton was a 4th line center.
Personally, I would be ecstatic to have a guy who scored 20 goals and 0 assists and is a completely dominant possession player as my 3C. Like even if it was literally impossible for anybody else to score a goal if Thornton would get an assist on it.
Wouldn't his playmaking skill at least correlate with his possession skills? Sure he could still dominate along the boards and protect the puck well with his size, but his fantastic ability to move the puck is a massive part of his possession game.
Moreover, a zero-assist player isn't getting any PP time, which means he is a ~10 goal player.
I would rather have Thornton with 0 assists as my 3C than Chris Tierney tbh. Thornton’s possession game in his prime with Meier and LaBanc would have probably been a much better line than Meier-Tierney-LaBanc. And again, this is assuming a completely fictional scenario where a Sharks player literally cannot score a goal if Thornton will get an assist on it. A scenario in which Thornton were to pass it to Meier, Meier would skate towards an empty net, and pull a Patrik Stefan every time...I would still take Thornton over Chris Tierney as #3C.
Even if I concede this point, you're still saying Thornton is a #3C, which is hardly great praise.
Again, I understand some of the criticisms of Thornton being a dominant player in the regular season for the majority of his prime and not following it up in the playoffs. My response has always been that while Thornton has had some poor playoff performances, he has also had some dominant performances, and he has never had the luxury of a Crosby, or Toews, who scored less than 20 points, had <1PPG as #1C, and still won a Cup. By the eye test, Thornton has always been a dominant forward in the playoffs. He has always controlled possession. But at a certain point, it is definitely fair to be unhappy with a player of his caliber if they do not produce enough.
I disagree with the implications of your language. I think JT's poor playoff performances handidly outweight his dominant ones. His playoff record is decidedly negative, even disregarding his time in Boston. This is not only statistically accurate, but for many of us, also true via the eye test...many of us have called out his frustratingly ineffective tentative and downtempo style of play.
ON4 shows his clear biases, though, when saying things like “Thornton without his playmaking ability is a #4C, but Marchessault without his playmaking ability is still a top-6 forward.” Comparing a player like Jonathan Marchessault to Joe Thornton is literally something that a troll would do on the main board, with full knowledge in the back of their mind that Thornton is far superior, and with the pure intention of riling up Sharks fans. You could ask an objective Vegas fan who was following hockey prior to 2017 what they think of the Thornton/Marchessault comparison and they would laugh and say they wish Marchessault was on Thornton’s level.
This is a version of the motte-and-bailey. Thornton is far superior precisely because of his generational-caliber playmaking. But in this situation, we're taking away Thornton's massive advantage. That caveat is critical to understanding the comparison. The caveat is made because Thornton's playmaking is often neutralized (though, of course, not completely eliminated) come the playoffs.
Thornton’s 36 year old season was on a different level from anything Marchessault ever has and ever will do. Thornton was top-5 in Hart voting and Selke Voting, and he was top-5 in regular season and playoff scoring. He scored more points than the Conn Smythe winning forward. Thornton’s line dominated every single line that they played against in the first 3 rounds and his team completely destroyed every other team they played with a bottom-6 full of completely useless players. The Sharks would have easily won the Stanley Cup if they didn’t run into the very best post-lockout hockey team in the SCF. If the Sharks ran into an average Eastern Conference Finalist, it would be more of the same.
Joe Thornton was clearly the Sharks's second-best player in the 2016 RS, and their best forward. But come the playoffs, he was the fifth-best player and third-best forward.
I still think it was his best playoff performance ever, but that's because the bar has been set so low. His scoring rate dropped *again*. His GPG cratered *again*.
Lastly, the best post-lockout hockey team (as defined by the 2005 lockout) was the 2010 Blackhawks.
March will never even sniff the kind of dominance jumbo was capable of in his prime and that's not a slight against him at all
Maybe you didn't follow the plot on this one.
In any case, consider this: Jonathan Marchessault is six points away from tieing Thornton's career playoff best, in just
half as many games. He's scored more goals in 12 games than Joe Thornton has in any two of his career playoffs
combined. His +/- would already be the best of Thornton's long career.
