Injury Report: Vlasic 12/30

[Limekiller]

When have I ever come up with a tinfoil hat theory? My "theory" is pretty simple and consistent: DeBoer is bad at his job.

That's the one. That one right there in bold, that's the one. You're welcome.

 

[do0glas]

FWIW, I'm actually agreeing with Sideshow here. Schlemko is injured now, but before, I'm pretty confident it was just healthy scratches. Schlemko sounded dumbfounded with his comments of why he was scratched. Deboer's excuse was that he's scratching players if they aren't playing up-to-par (which I thought was ridiculous since Schlemko was the 2nd best D after Burns at the time).
Both of those comments don't come out if Schlemko is just injured. "Upper-body injury", "Day-to-day", "Banged up" are all vague excuses that coaches make all the time to not give other teams an edge. You don't say what was actually said. It really doesn't make sense to not say he was injured before, but announce it now.

Seems like we're just trying to rewrite history in any way to not critique a decision. First, some argue he "partied" with his Calgary friends. Then that he had some "locker-room" drama. And now he was injured the whole time?

And honestly. You and SR refuse to give deboer credit for practically anything it seems. Which considering how well the team is doing is just as illogical as the decisions you criticize about yhe 4th line and third pairing.

As far as schlemko: players may play through an injury and not inform the coach. Coach finds out and sits you for lying and then protects your rep by saying you were injured later and not commenting.

But really who knows. But just calling the coach an idiot will force ppl to at least come up with possibilities.

No one was legitimately saying nieto had a mental illness. Ppl were merely speculating and SR wants to turn that into a circus which every thread he touches tends to devolve into.

 

[Sideshow Raheem]

That's the one. That one right there in bold, that's the one. You're welcome.

That's not a tinfoil hat theory, bub. You might disagree with it but it's not some wild half-baked conspiracy. It's an opinion.

 

[WTFetus]

And honestly. You and SR refuse to give deboer credit for practically anything it seems. Which considering how well the team is doing is just as illogical as the decisions you criticize about yhe 4th line and third pairing.

As far as schlemko: players may play through an injury and not inform the coach. Coach finds out and sits you for lying and then protects your rep by saying you were injured later and not commenting.

But really who knows. But just calling the coach an idiot will force ppl to at least come up with possibilities.

No one was legitimately saying nieto had a mental illness. Ppl were merely speculating and SR wants to turn that into a circus which every thread he touches tends to devolve into.

Well that's a new one...

 

[Limekiller]

That's not a tinfoil hat theory, bub. You might disagree with it but it's not some wild half-baked conspiracy. It's an opinion.

An "opinion" that is completely unsupported by facts other than the ones that only exist in your head, and completely departs from actual reality is not worth the paper it's printed on. So yeah, when your "opinion" is being presented as "fact" by you over and over and over and over again ad nausea, it's just as much tinfoil hattery as things like the theories or "opinions" that claim that the government is secretly being controlled by aliens living inside the hollow earth, (or others of that variety) and probably is less accurate.

Once again:

 

[do0glas]

Well that's a new one...

Yep and coach is an idiot! Is super insightful. But keep playing hype man

 

[Juxtaposer]

FYI: it's possible to disagree with a decision without thinking the decision-maker is a moron.

I agree with WTFetus. A lot of posters are tripping over themselves to come up with excuses for why Schlemko was scratched.

 

[WTFetus]

FYI: it's possible to disagree with a decision without thinking the decision-maker is a moron.

I agree with WTFetus. A lot of posters are tripping over themselves to come up with excuses for why Schlemko was scratched.

I actually like Sideshow's slightly tamer approach. Deboer values players weirdly (like every coach).

 

[Mattb124]

FYI: it's possible to disagree with a decision without thinking the decision-maker is a moron.

I agree with WTFetus. A lot of posters are tripping over themselves to come up with excuses for why Schlemko was scratched.

And one for why he shouldn't have been.

 

[do0glas]

No one is coming up with excuses. Its speculation. But that's not allowed here.

You want to say we are bending over backwards to do that. Stop immediately denigrating every minor *yes ****ing minor* line up decision. (Not you specifically)

We are in first. Games in hand. 8th in the league.

If the coach benches someone he should damn well get the benefit of the doubt that maybe. Just maybe there are other issues at play.

Hed have to make a compelling case that schlemko was playing poorly. We all know he has been very good in his role. So why if a coach has his team performing this well should we assume hes ignorant of that fact?

 

[Limekiller]

FYI: it's possible to disagree with a decision without thinking the decision-maker is a moron.

I agree with WTFetus. A lot of posters are tripping over themselves to come up with excuses for why Schlemko was scratched.

It's just speculation in the face of no hard information. He could have been injured, he could have broken a team rule, he could have slept through a meeting, etc. The point is we just don't know the real reason, and since it seems a puzzling decision from the outside, people are going to speculate. There is nothing wrong with speculation, it's when people start presenting that speculation as fact that there's an issue. Some (*cough* You Know Who *cough*) are worse about this than others, of course.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I actually like Sideshow's slightly tamer approach. Deboer values players weirdly (like every coach).

Tamer???

 

[hockeyball]

FYI: it's possible to disagree with a decision without thinking the decision-maker is a moron.

I agree with WTFetus. A lot of posters are tripping over themselves to come up with excuses for why Schlemko was scratched.

I think the point is we should probably give the only coach that has ever got this team to the Stanley Cup finals a little credit and assume there was a good reason, more than likely. Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's ********.

 

[Juxtaposer]

It's just speculation in the face of no hard information. He could have been injured, he could have broken a team rule, he could have slept through a meeting, etc. The point is we just don't know the real reason, and since it seems a puzzling decision from the outside, people are going to speculate. There is nothing wrong with speculation, it's when people start presenting that speculation as fact that there's an issue. Some (*cough* You Know Who *cough*) are worse about this than others, of course.

I'm all for speculation. But you to admit that a lot of posters have taken extremely black and white views of the Schlemko benching.

 

[Juxtaposer]

I think the point is we should probably give the only coach that has ever got this team to the Stanley Cup finals a little credit and assume there was a good reason, more than likely. Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's ********.

Again, it's possible to disagree with a decision without disliking DeBoer. DeBoer has earned the benefit of the doubt and he's made a lot of shrewd calls that have worked out this year. The only decisions I take issue with are scratching Shlemko (with the knowledge that it's certainly possible there's a great reason that we just will never know) and not playing Dell enough.

But on the other hand, suggesting that there must be a smart reason for DeBoer's sketchy decisions is an appeal to authority. God knows NHL coaches aren't perfect.

 

[do0glas]

I'm all for speculation. But you to admit that a lot of posters have taken extremely black and white views of the Schlemko benching.

Huh? Youve lost me.

One guy has taken a hard line stance on this issue and its Sideshow.

Most everyone is puzzled by it admittedly and turned tl speculating

Even in this very thread. The tamest version of his stance was that deboer values players weirdly.

Honestly im done with this. Dude is basically bizz.

 

[Limekiller]

I'm all for speculation. But you to admit that a lot of posters have taken extremely black and white views of the Schlemko benching.

Oh, sure. Some posters take black and white positions that are the equivalent of insisting Dewey really DID beat Truman on every other issue as well. I think we all know who some of the worst offenders are.

In any case, in my personal opinion, I think the most likely cause is some kind of injury that got aggravated vs LA, or there was a team infraction of some kind that they don't want getting outside the locker room. (for good reason). Ultimately, when looked at in the context of the season as a whole, whether or not a 3rd pairing D is or isn't sat for 3 games has all the impact of farting upwind in a hurricane. As a result I don't understand the furor about it in the least. It happened, it's not happening any more, so who cares? (Other than those specific individuals that are trying to drive their ludicrous and tinfoil-hat-level agendas, I guess.)

 

[Sideshow Raheem]

I think the point is we should probably give the only coach that has ever got this team to the Stanley Cup finals a little credit and assume there was a good reason, more than likely. Just because we don't know what it is, doesn't mean it's ********.

He made plenty of terrible decisions while "getting" us to the Stanley Cup Final too. Spaling in every night when it was abundantly clear at the time this was an AHL 4th line caliber player at best (objectively confirmed now, given that he was unable to get any sort of NHL job this season even despite the Sharks' playoff success). Not to mention playing Polak in every game of the Final even when it was clear DeMelo would have been a better option against a speedy Penguins team. Perhaps we would have actually won the Cup if he had made more sensible lineup decisions. Regardless no coach is beyond reproach nor deserves the benefit of the doubt for repeated bad decisions.

 

[hockeyball]

He made plenty of terrible decisions while "getting" us to the Stanley Cup Final too. Spaling in every night when it was abundantly clear at the time this was an AHL 4th line caliber player at best (objectively confirmed now, given that he was unable to get any sort of NHL job this season even despite the Sharks' playoff success). Not to mention playing Polak in every game of the Final even when it was clear DeMelo would have been a better option against a speedy Penguins team. Perhaps we would have actually won the Cup if he had made more sensible lineup decisions. Regardless no coach is beyond reproach nor deserves the benefit of the doubt for repeated bad decisions.

No coach is beyond reproach.

But this situation is different. We know he was benched for a reason since he gave an interview and commented on 'getting past it and moving on' and so forth. Something occured, he got punished for it, we don't know what it was so speculating on DeBoer's intelligence level based on just about zero information is absurd.

 

[tahoesharksfan]

He made plenty of terrible decisions while "getting" us to the Stanley Cup Final too.

Your positions in a nutshell...wha?!

 

[hohosaregood]

If Deboer is an idiot, then about 20-25 other coaches are mentally ******** and borderline invalids. If Deboer is your firing point, we'd have a new coach every other game.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

If Deboer is an idiot, then about 20-25 other coaches are mentally ******** and borderline invalids. If Deboer is your firing point, we'd have a new coach every other game.

Nah cuz we'd just hire him and we'd coast to multiple cup wins. He's the smartest.

 

[MardocAgain]

I heard a theory on DudesOnHockey podcast that Schlemko got benched because the org wanted to give DeMelo some playing time to see if he was worth protecting in the expansion draft and since Schlemko is the least tenured Shark, he's the safest to bench without upsetting the group.

Regardless, we used to complain about John Scott, and before that it was Adam Burish, there will always be a 4th line decision to whine about on any team. If our biggest gripe with our team is the choice of 4th line forwards or 3rd pairing defenders, then our team must be doing well. It is bonkers crazy to suggest that a team should fire its coach while in 1st place in the division. That simply does not happen in the NHL. The discussion should be mute because it's a total fantasy and the Sharks would 100% have to fall out of a playoff spot (well out) to even begin to wonder if they would fire their coach.

 

[hohosaregood]

I heard a theory on DudesOnHockey podcast that Schlemko got benched because the org wanted to give DeMelo some playing time to see if he was worth protecting in the expansion draft and since Schlemko is the least tenured Shark, he's the safest to bench without upsetting the group.

Regardless, we used to complain about John Scott, and before that it was Adam Burish, there will always be a 4th line decision to whine about on any team. If our biggest gripe with our team is the choice of 4th line forwards or 3rd pairing defenders, then our team must be doing well. It is bonkers crazy to suggest that a team should fire its coach while in 1st place in the division. That simply does not happen in the NHL. The discussion should be mute because it's a total fantasy and the Sharks would 100% have to fall out of a playoff spot (well out) to even begin to wonder if they wild fire their coach.

Seniority is definitely a thing in sports and if you're gonna get worked up into developing an ulcer, you need to reevaluate how you watch sports.

 

[CrypTic]

I heard a theory on DudesOnHockey podcast that Schlemko got benched because the org wanted to give DeMelo some playing time to see if he was worth protecting in the expansion draft and since Schlemko is the least tenured Shark, he's the safest to bench without upsetting the group.

Regardless, we used to complain about John Scott, and before that it was Adam Burish, there will always be a 4th line decision to whine about on any team. If our biggest gripe with our team is the choice of 4th line forwards or 3rd pairing defenders, then our team must be doing well. It is bonkers crazy to suggest that a team should fire its coach while in 1st place in the division. That simply does not happen in the NHL. The discussion should be mute because it's a total fantasy and the Sharks would 100% have to fall out of a playoff spot (well out) to even begin to wonder if they would fire their coach.

Did the DudesOnHockey say who else the org might want to protect? Because I have a hard time thinking of a scenario when it would make sense to protect DeMelo.

I agree with your last paragraph. Someone on the team is going to be the worst (relative to expectations) and ppl will complain about them. f you're complaining about minor players, your team is doing pretty well.