OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,817
- 5,072
GDT: PDF GAME 4 - San Jose Sharks Vs. Vegas Golden Knights - 7 PM PST, NBCSN
- Thread starter TomasHertlsRooster
- Start date
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,817
- 5,072
Notice how when the other team dumps pucks in on Vlasic’s side, Braun and he will switch up so that Braun can take a hit and move the puck. There is a lot of value in having a player who will do that.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
You mean “if Joe Thornton returns to the lineup and plays like a Hart candidate”? Yeah no shit.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
That is what on paper means. This team is better on paper. The issue is whether or not Thornton can step in and excel with his new linemates and play at least near that level
Remember, for as insane as his regular season was, Thornton was not the best player on the team in the 2016 playoffs. Couture, Burns, and Pavelski all scored more goals and points. Vlasic played tremendous defensively and shut down every single star player he was tasked to match up against. Jones was the best player in the SCF.
I have been saying for a while now that this team could win the Pacific Division without Joe Thornton and they’ve proven me right this far but they need Joe Thornton in rounds 3 and 4 and they need him playing at least close to that level if they want to have a shot at winning. It’s hard to gauge where Thornton will be due to his injury but given the amount of rest he has had, I wouldn’t be surprised if he was able to come in and finally have that playoff performance over a point per game that he has never had in his career.
The thing is, this current team does have superstars. Brent Burns is a superstar defenseman who was a finalist for the Ted Lindsay Award last season as one of the NHL’s 3 best players. There is literally no question that Brent Burns is a superstar and has superstar level talent, and there is no question that he can use it to bulldoze the opposition; he proved in game 2 that he can play over 30 minutes, control the neutral zone, and take over the game offensively on the scoreboard. Martin Jones’ playoff track record is up there with the best in the NHL - he may not be a superstar big name or a regular season Vezina candidate but his playoff performances are up there with every single currently active NHL goaltender.
LOL! I love how you sidestep what I said and just make up your own straw man argument to debate. Now that's silly.
Nowhere did I say anything about winning with or without superstars. Superstars wasn't even mentioned until you did it. Just looking at the Sharks in the Thornton era proves that only having one good line won't win you shit. This current team has Burns, Jones, Vlassic, Pavs, Couture, and Kane to a certain degree with the potential to add Jumbo back. This years Hertl, this years donskoi, this years Tierny, are all far superior to their 2016 version. Meier, Fehr, Sorenson, Boedker all superior to 2016 players whose roles they've replaced except maybe Marleau who didn't really stand out in the 2016 run. Those players along with the vastly superior depth of this team compared to the 2016 team make this comparison laughable. This is a no brainer but hey believe what you want. I'm fine to just let you be wrong at this point.BTW, feel free to name the teams that have won the cup without depth over the last 20 years. I bet it's incredibly rare.
If you're picked for Team Canada in the world cup and the Olympics you're a superstar. 8 mil per season says the team views him that way too.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
@Juxtaposer @OrrNumber4 what do you guys think of Nashville? Supposedly the best team in the NHL, they do not have one superstar outside of maybe Subban who is not as good as Burns. Their top-2 centers are easily inferior to Pavelski and Couture/Hertl and Rinne blows in the playoffs.
I would probably say that they are pretenders tbh. Just as I say that, Hartman scores lol
I would probably say that they are pretenders tbh. Just as I say that, Hartman scores lol
BaileyMacTavish
Hockey lovin' wolf
Winnipeg had made Rinne look mortal. I am more worried about the Jets honestly
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
I am terrified of the Jets and I have been terrified of only the Jets and whoever makes it out of the East since before the playoffs started.
anthonyyy
Registered User
Same. Partly because Dustin Byfuglien is going to kill Donskoi and whatever his injury is with one hit. The Kane vs. Winnipeg narrative intrigues me though.
OrrNumber4
Registered User
- Jul 25, 2002
- 15,817
- 5,072
They have Josi, who sometimes, I think, is the best defenseman in the West.
I don't think it is a coincidence that their run last year came with Rinne playing his best playoff hockey. Through the first three rounds, he had maybe two bad games (games 2 vs. STL and ANA) and several huge games where he stole wins for his team. This year, he's been underwhelming (and abysmal against Winnipeg) so far; it shouldn't be surprising that Nashville looks like a pretender right now.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
LOL! I love how you sidestep what I said and just make up your own straw man argument to debate. Now that's silly.
BTW, feel free to name the teams that have won the cup without depth over the last 20 years. I bet it's incredibly rare.
You said the sentence "depth is pretty much always better than a great line". I'm refuting that claim. Having a great line is infinitely more important than depth. The year the Sharks got the furthest was the year where they possessed the single best line in the entire NHL. I'm not so sure you're helping your cause by using the Sharks as an example.
And hello? The 2017 Pittsburgh Penguins had HORRIBLE depth. They had the four leading scorers in the playoffs (Malkin, Crosby, Kessel, and Guentzel) and then their next leading scorer up front was Chris f***ing Kunitz with 11 points in 20 games. Their defense consisted of Justin Schultz, Ian Cole, Ron Hainsey, Olli Maatta, Brian Dumoulin, and Trevor Daley.
It's funny that you ask me to name Cup-winning teams without great depth, because I could ask you to name a Cup-winning team without multiple superstars. The 2017 Penguins won with horrific depth. There is not a single team that has won without multiple superstars/an elite first line. It's rare but possible to win without depth. It is impossible to win without superstars.
You talk about how Hertl/Meier or whoever has improved since 2016 but you fail to consider who is worse. Vlasic is worse. Braun is MUCH worse. Those two were the pillars on D in 2016, they were downright perfect. They have both declined visibly since then. Couture had a playoff for the history books in 2016, he's not going to repeat that. Suggesting that Pavelski this year is better than the Pavelski of the first three rounds in 2016 is recency bias at its finest. Never mind Burns. So yeah, the depth has improved. But the stars have declined.
If this year's Sharks go to the Stanley Cup Finals, then you can just "let me be wrong".
Until then, the 2016 Sharks were the best Sharks in team history and it's not close.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
You said the sentence "depth is pretty much always better than a great line". I'm refuting that claim. Having a great line is infinitely more important than depth. The year the Sharks got the furthest was the year where they possessed the single best line in the entire NHL. I'm not so sure you're helping your cause by using the Sharks as an example.
And hello? The 2017 Pittsburgh Penguins had HORRIBLE depth. They had the four leading scorers in the playoffs (Malkin, Crosby, Kessel, and Guentzel) and then their next leading scorer up front was Chris ****ing Kunitz with 11 points in 20 games. Their defense consisted of Justin Schultz, Ian Cole, Ron Hainsey, Olli Maatta, Brian Dumoulin, and Trevor Daley.
It's funny that you ask me to name Cup-winning teams without great depth, because I could ask you to name a Cup-winning team without multiple superstars. The 2017 Penguins won with horrific depth. There is not a single team that has won without multiple superstars/an elite first line. It's rare but possible to win without depth. It is impossible to win without superstars.
You talk about how Hertl/Meier or whoever has improved since 2016 but you fail to consider who is worse. Vlasic is worse. Braun is MUCH worse. Those two were the pillars on D in 2016, they were downright perfect. They have both declined visibly since then. Couture had a playoff for the history books in 2016, he's not going to repeat that. Suggesting that Pavelski this year is better than the Pavelski of the first three rounds in 2016 is recency bias at its finest. Never mind Burns. So yeah, the depth has improved. But the stars have declined.
If this year's Sharks go to the Stanley Cup Finals, then you can just "let me be wrong".
That’s why we say on paper. Because on paper, this team is easily the best. “Vlasic” looks the same on paper right now as it did in 2016, but Marc-Edouard Vlasic has obviously regressed as a defenseman. The man who shut down Crosby and McDavid is suddenly getting torched by William Karlsson.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
Is that what you mean when you say "on paper"? Is that what everyone means? If so, I've been doing it wrong. For me, "on paper" means "2016 Vlasic" vs "2018 Vlasic".
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Generally, yeah. I have no doubt that the 2016 team was better than this one and while I love this one, I understand they have absolutely no hope against Winnipeg or either of the Atlantic teams unless Joe Thornton returns to the lineup and plays at a near superstar level, which is unlikely but not completely impossible at all.
In the SCF, though, I thought our stars generally played one another even, and that Pittsburgh’s depth was why they were able to wreck us. If we had this bottom-6 in 2016 I think we would have had a chance to beat Pittsburgh tbh. Maybe I am using revisionist history though.
Also, remember that Pittsburgh last year was an anomaly and a fluke on the level of 2011 Boston.
If Nashville wins against Winnipeg, you may eat your words regarding us making the SCF. I could easily see us winning that series on the back of our goalie and MVP being more valuable than their goalie and MVP.
Sharks have already have gone way passed my expectations this year, they're playing some good hockey right now. Seems like most of the teams left have a lot more fire power but the Sharks have some pretty good playoffs players on the team, lots of good possession guys.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
I would be thrilled to be wrong, and I totally agree that the 2018 Sharks are awesome and have a special feel to them. I do love this team. But it’s hard for me to look at it and think “yeah, this is a potential Stanley Cup winner”. I just felt so incredibly strongly about the 2016 team, which is why I was so absolutely gutted when Pittsburgh won the East. Every win this postseason for me is just gravy. Watching Hertl assert himself and Meier blossom has been unbelievably fun. Seeing Pavelski’s second-half resurgence has been amazing. Seeing this team win without Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau has been nothing short of awesome.
This is a team that I think has surprised a lot of people, including me, with their determination and refusal to give up, their work ethic and how much fun they have just playing hockey, their ability to comeback from any deficit and steal wins out from under their opponents’ noses. Those characteristics are why this team has gotten farther than anyone would have expected on paper and could go farther still.
But winning a Stanley Cup is not a fluke. I’m not naive enough to say “the best team always wins the Stanley Cup”, but it’s always from a group of four or five identified as elite teams. And I’m not saying that the 2017 Penguins are a good team to try and emulate, but is are no such thing as “fluke” Stanley Cup winners (although I will say that 2011 was a shitshow all-around).
Gene Parmesan
Dedicated to babies who came feet first
I think some posters should watch other teams and realize the Sharks aren't that far off from them.
Jets, Pens, and Lightning are the only teams I think would trample the Sharks, but against the Predators, Bruins, and Caps I think the Sharks could atleast make it a series.
Juxtaposer
Outro: Divina Comedia
In what world are the Sharks "not that far off" from the Bruins, Predators, Lightning, or Jets?
RickyHP
Registered User
would love to see thornton put in tomorrow. i dont feel like its entirely impossible.
it could potentially be a 'check' but not necessarily a checkmate to vegas from PDB's perspective.
it could potentially be a 'check' but not necessarily a checkmate to vegas from PDB's perspective.
TomasHertlsRooster
Don’t say eye test when you mean points
Last year was a major shit show as well. I’m not sure how much of those playoffs you watched but Pittsburgh winning was just a fluke.
This team doesn’t have to be a “potential Stanley Cup Winner”. They literally just have to win 2 out of 3 against a team they are pretty obviously better than, and then hope that Nashville makes the WCF and hope that one of Washington or Pittsburgh makes the ECF. It’s not the most likely scenario by any means but at this point it’s far too likely to just treat it like something that has no chance of happening; especially when there is an x-factor like a well-rested Joe Thornton that could return to the lineup at any point.
This. I know the Jets/Predators are the big bad wolves that we’re supposed to be scared of, and those teams are very good, but neither one of them look particularly terrifying.
How much of the Predators do you watch? Do you not remember the game we had against them near the end of the season?
