Doug Wilson presser 1p CSNCA April 20

[Gilligans Island]

So, it wasn't the players who were tuning out the coach. It was the coach tuning out the players

I can see that.

JTs comment kind of backs that up

 

[boylerroom]

So, it wasn't the players who were tuning out the coach. It was the coach tuning out the players

No, I think Tmac saw pretty clearly that the "inmates were running the prison" so to speak. You could see about 2/3 of the way into the season that he wasn't sure what else to say or do with this squad anymore.

I think it's pretty damning and indicative of the real problem with this team underachieving lies squarely in the dressing room.

 

[SabresSharks]

No, I think Tmac saw pretty clearly that the "inmates were running the prison" so to speak. You could see about 2/3 of the way into the season that he wasn't sure what else to say or do with this squad anymore.

I think it's pretty damning and indicative of the real problem with this team underachieving lies squarely in the dressing room.

Too bad the Sharks aren't a rock group. Todd's tell-all book would be great reading.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I would argue Dan Boyle and Brent Burns were/are both top flight d-men especially when they were acquired. Boyle was a #1 at time of the trade, and Burns was coming off an All-Star seasons and a rising #1 capable d-man. If you consider guys like Karlsson and Subban #1's then both of them need to be as well. If you don't consider those guys #1 d-men, then I don't really think there are more than maybe 2-3 #1 d-men in the league.

I'd agree that Burns was an up-and-coming guy (and might have gotten there had SJ not played games with him), but Boyle was always in the tier just below the elite d-men.

I guess I would consider Karlsson and Subban to be top-level D-men trending upwards. I don't think Burns ever in his career has come close, and Boyle was not quite as dynamic as either while being at best as good defensively.

Sure, I don't agree with you, but you're entitled to that opinion and I'd hope you also consider that he signed them below market value and when they signed those contracts the team was one of the best in the league and Marleau/Thornton were both producing at a high level. Thornton still is while Marleau had a down year which could be the start of a decline.

Actually....no. Marleau and Thornton were not producing at a high level...in the playoffs. I've outlined several times why I think that is. But in summation, both players have repeatedly shown that they can't lead this team anywhere come the postseason. That they did so again in 2014 really shouldn't have been a surprise.

Not sure why? When the Sharks acquired Burns, Thornton, and Heatley, these were all highly desired guys. Do people not remember how pissed Detroit was when we acquired Burns? The Sharks were able to acquire all of these guys in deals they won.

Just because a player is desired doesn't make him good or a right fit. We know the mess Heatley turned into, for example. Alexander Daigle was probably incredibly desired...you wouldn't blame a GM for picking him? GMs aren't there to go along with established opinion; they are there to deliver results.

They are producing results on the ice, just not cups. Thornton has been one of the top producers in the NHL since the trade, Burns has been effective anywhere he's been placed on the team, Heatley put up 40 goals, Boyle was a top producer among D-men for years, etc...

I would argue that Boyle has been middling in the playoffs. Burns has been terrible in the playoffs. Thornton's playoff failures are well known.

To me, "results on the ice" = cups. The Sharks haven't even made the final. The 2003-2004 team achieved more than a post-JT roster ever has.

We all want a cup, but not winning one doesn't make these acquisitions suddenly bad. You need 20 guys producing to win a cup

You might need 20 guys producing, but not 20 guys producing equally. Look at any SC-finalist over the past decade+....save for maybe New York, it is the top players leading the way. You will be amazed how good the depth looks when the top players are out there driving the play.

, and we've never been lucky enough to have them all do that for April to June. I am still shocked some of our teams didn't have better outcomes.

It isn't a matter of luck...it is a matter of execution.

That might be a key point of difference between you and I. I think that the Sharks have been bad. You, apparently, think they have been unlucky. To each his own, but a fairly irreconcilable situation.

lol, are you for real?? After the seasons they had, most were patting DW on the back for getting those 2 signed for an HTD.. They under-performed and now you want to blame DW??

That is great that *most* were doing so *at the time*. At some point, you have to judge the GM on the end results of his moves. It shouldn't have come as a shock that either player could regress with age.

Moreover, I am talking about their playoff failures. What JT and Marleau did against LA last year was really par-for-the-course, given their careers. That is something I wanted to avoid. DW signed them and apparently got upset when the players failed to deliver yet again.

 

[Alwalys]

I'd agree that Burns was an up-and-coming guy (and might have gotten there had SJ not played games with him), but Boyle was always in the tier just below the elite d-men.

I guess I would consider Karlsson and Subban to be top-level D-men trending upwards. I don't think Burns ever in his career has come close, and Boyle was not quite as dynamic as either while being at best as good defensively.



Actually....no. Marleau and Thornton were not producing at a high level...in the playoffs. I've outlined several times why I think that is. But in summation, both players have repeatedly shown that they can't lead this team anywhere come the postseason. That they did so again in 2014 really shouldn't have been a surprise.



Just because a player is desired doesn't make him good or a right fit. We know the mess Heatley turned into, for example. Alexander Daigle was probably incredibly desired...you wouldn't blame a GM for picking him? GMs aren't there to go along with established opinion; they are there to deliver results.



I would argue that Boyle has been middling in the playoffs. Burns has been terrible in the playoffs. Thornton's playoff failures are well known.

To me, "results on the ice" = cups. The Sharks haven't even made the final. The 2003-2004 team achieved more than a post-JT roster ever has.



You might need 20 guys producing, but not 20 guys producing equally. Look at any SC-finalist over the past decade+....save for maybe New York, it is the top players leading the way. You will be amazed how good the depth looks when the top players are out there driving the play.



It isn't a matter of luck...it is a matter of execution.

That might be a key point of difference between you and I. I think that the Sharks have been bad. You, apparently, think they have been unlucky. To each his own, but a fairly irreconcilable situation.



That is great that *most* were doing so *at the time*. At some point, you have to judge the GM on the end results of his moves. It shouldn't have come as a shock that either player could regress with age.

Moreover, I am talking about their playoff failures. What JT and Marleau did against LA last year was really par-for-the-course, given their careers. That is something I wanted to avoid. DW signed them and apparently got upset when the players failed to deliver yet again.

These are the most tired, off-the-mark arguments. What, other than appearing at or near the top of the scoring lists, or assisting others to do so, while taking on the tough defensive assignments, constitutes leading a team? That's about all JT does, and in our good years Patty did the same. Time and time again it's our DEPTH that fails to step up and become the crucial game-changers that every Cup champ REQUIRES. When the depth steps up, it also helps the top players produce even more by breaking games open. Name a recent champ that didn't have a third or depth line that wasn't a story in their run? Parity is making depth absolutely CRUCIAL. Unless you've got Crosby and Malkin everyone needs to pull weight and the lower lines need to punch ABOVE weight. Heck even that pens team had a guy like perenial sub 40-pointer Fedotenko stepping up huge (and he did the same with the Lightning during their run).

They are consistently our best players on the ice. What more can you possibly ask of them before you call them leaders?

Personally if I have to put our playoff woes over the last half decate on someone it's on Niemi and getting him was 100% on DW. He got fished in BIGTIME on that Hawks run.

PS Perhaps you don't remember but heatley was a great playoff performer.

 

[Hangemhigh]

These are the most tired, off-the-mark arguments. What, other than appearing at or near the top of the scoring lists, or assisting others to do so, while taking on the tough defensive assignments, constitutes leading a team? That's about all JT does, and in our good years Patty did the same. Time and time again it's our DEPTH that fails to step up and become the crucial game-changers that every Cup champ REQUIRES. When the depth steps up, it also helps the top players produce even more by breaking games open. Name a recent champ that didn't have a third or depth line that wasn't a story in their run? Parity is making depth absolutely CRUCIAL. Unless you've got Crosby and Malkin everyone needs to pull weight and the lower lines need to punch ABOVE weight. Heck even that pens team had a guy like perenial sub 40-pointer Fedotenko stepping up huge (and he did the same with the Lightning during their run).

They are consistently our best players on the ice. What more can you possibly ask of them before you call them leaders?

Personally if I have to put our playoff woes over the last half decate on someone it's on Niemi and getting him was 100% on DW. He got fished in BIGTIME on that Hawks run.

PS Perhaps you don't remember but heatley was a great playoff performer.

0-18 on the power play isn't great leadership. The depth isn't on the power play.

The Sharks core is rotten and needs to change. They already changed the depth. Same choking results. The problem is the core.

Marleau doesn't use his body and plays too soft in the playoffs.

Thornton doesn't go to the net and he gets hacked on the wrists and targeted every series. The soft Sharks don't retaliate.

Heatley sucked in the playoffs. Maybe because he was slow and injured.

 

[BCShark]

0-18 on the power play isn't great leadership. The depth isn't on the power play.

The Sharks core is rotten and needs to change. They already changed the depth. Same choking results. The problem is the core.

Marleau doesn't use his body and plays too soft in the playoffs.

Thornton doesn't go to the net and he gets hacked on the wrists and targeted every series. The soft Sharks don't retaliate.

Heatley sucked in the playoffs. Maybe because he was slow and injured.

i agree, the thornton and marleau era winning one game in the WCF is embarrassing. the countless times throughout the years our leaders never caught fire or came through in tight games is enough for me to give up on the two.

plain and simple patty or joe dont want the game on their stick in double ot of the playoffs, two great complementary players but the two of them are too soft to lead to any greatness

 

[Pinkfloyd]

i agree, the thornton and marleau era winning one game in the WCF is embarrassing. the countless times throughout the years our leaders never caught fire or came through in tight games is enough for me to give up on the two.

plain and simple patty or joe dont want the game on their stick in double ot of the playoffs, two great complementary players but the two of them are too soft to lead to any greatness

Yet one of them is among the top of the list in playoff overtime goals is somehow not a guy that wants it on his stick.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Yet one of them is among the top of the list in playoff overtime goals is somehow not a guy that wants it on his stick.

I think that Marleau's ultimate problem is that he just was never that good. I remember SJ fans were always comparing Thornton/Marleau to Yzerman/Fedorov, Sakic/Forsberg, etc. Even today, it is easy to compare those guys like Kopitar/Carter and Toews/Kane.

But Marleau doesn't belong in that conversation...Thornton does, and then he has his other issues which make him a bad playoff player. Marleau is a great first-liner, a great complementary player..but the labels franchise-leader, superstar, etc. shouldn't have been used with him.

 

[OrrNumber4]

These are the most tired, off-the-mark arguments. What, other than appearing at or near the top of the scoring lists, or assisting others to do so, while taking on the tough defensive assignments, constitutes leading a team?

The bar for success in the NHL is very high. JT and PM's contemporaries around the league constantly and consistently have put together performances that JT and PM simply can't match.

That's about all JT does, and in our good years Patty did the same.

Except in the playoffs.

Time and time again it's our DEPTH that fails to step up and become the crucial game-changers that every Cup champ REQUIRES.

Most Cup champs have one or two players from the secondary/tertiary step it up during a playoff run. A Byfuglien, a Franzen, a Williams. But it is the top guys that drive the way.

Think about JT and Marleau (along with Burns, Boyle, Couture, and Pavelski) having 0 points in the final 4 games last year. Same for the year before. As as series progresses, JT and Marleau get worse...not better. Both players are barely .5ppg in games 4-7 of a series...that isn't being a crucial game-changer.

When the depth steps up, it also helps the top players produce even more by breaking games open. Name a recent champ that didn't have a third or depth line that wasn't a story in their run?

I see it as the other way around. When your top players step it up, it trickles down and gives your bottom-guys room to breathe.

I will concede that the Sharks haven't had good depth. But they haven't had good depth in the context of their top players also not performing. And the latter issue is so much more important than the former.

They are consistently our best players on the ice. What more can you possibly ask of them before you call them leaders?

Again...in the playoffs....are they? Have they consistently been the best players on the ice in a playoff run, in a series? That mantle has belonged to guys like Vinnie Damphousse, Joe Pavelski, Jeremy Roenick, James Sheppard, etc. several times.

 

[Barrie22]

The bar for success in the NHL is very high. JT and PM's contemporaries around the league constantly and consistently have put together performances that JT and PM simply can't match.



Except in the playoffs.



Most Cup champs have one or two players from the secondary/tertiary step it up during a playoff run. A Byfuglien, a Franzen, a Williams. But it is the top guys that drive the way.

Think about JT and Marleau (along with Burns, Boyle, Couture, and Pavelski) having 0 points in the final 4 games last year. Same for the year before. As as series progresses, JT and Marleau get worse...not better. Both players are barely .5ppg in games 4-7 of a series...that isn't being a crucial game-changer.



I see it as the other way around. When your top players step it up, it trickles down and gives your bottom-guys room to breathe.

I will concede that the Sharks haven't had good depth. But they haven't had good depth in the context of their top players also not performing. And the latter issue is so much more important than the former.



Again...in the playoffs....are they? Have they consistently been the best players on the ice in a playoff run, in a series? That mantle has belonged to guys like Vinnie Damphousse, Joe Pavelski, Jeremy Roenick, James Sheppard, etc. several times.

The fact that you used roenick as an example just throws out any credibility that you might have had going for you.

Roenick 6 points in 18 games as a shark. 4 of them came in 1 game. Which i am guessing where you are getting the he was the best player in a series from. 1 good game makes a good series now lol.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Well, that's how it works and how it is supposed to work. At the end of the day, the manager is responsible for the results of his workers. You can't simply give DW credit for being in the playoffs for consecutive years and then take none of the heat when they don't.

Absurd.

Everyone is responsible for their actions in this franchise.

If anything, and I have no idea what Doug receives in terms of remuneration, but when you have players getting $7m a year, that hierarchy argument is plenty flawed. How many businesses have the workers heavily being outpaid by their subordinates? That is not a sensible way of evaluating a hockey club ...as if it's a small manufacturer or bakers shop.

The pass that some of the players get in this franchise is embarrassing. Guys who have under performed this year need to be called out as much as the GM and head coach do. The over protection of their egos is crazy.

 

[Barrie22]

Absurd.

Everyone is responsible for their actions in this franchise.

If anything, and I have no idea what Doug receives in terms of remuneration, but when you have players getting $7m a year, that hierarchy argument is plenty flawed. How many businesses have the workers heavily being outpaid by their subordinates? That is not a sensible way of evaluating a hockey club ...as if it's a small manufacturer or bakers shop.

The pass that some of the players get in this franchise is embarrassing. Guys who have under performed this year need to be called out as much as the GM and head coach do. The over protection of their egos is crazy.

If you honestly think the players have been given a pass from the fans over the years then i think you might have been living under a rock for the past 10 years. If anything the fams have taken it out on the players more for the past 10 years then any one else. But after last years offseason and wilson having a mental breakdown the fans are starting to realize that it is wilsons turn to finally take the blunt of the blame.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

If you honestly think the players have been given a pass from the fans over the years then i think you might have been living under a rock for the past 10 years. If anything the fams have taken it out on the players more for the past 10 years then any one else. But after last years offseason and wilson having a mental breakdown the fans are starting to realize that it is wilsons turn to finally take the blunt of the blame.

My rock is plenty comfortable, thank you.

Blaming Ehrhoff or Wallin isn't the same as calling out our 'big stars'. If you think Thornton, Marleau and co don't get a pass, you're welcome under my rock too.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If you honestly think the players have been given a pass from the fans over the years then i think you might have been living under a rock for the past 10 years. If anything the fams have taken it out on the players more for the past 10 years then any one else. But after last years offseason and wilson having a mental breakdown the fans are starting to realize that it is wilsons turn to finally take the blunt of the blame.

By and large, I would have to disagree with you. It feels like JT and PM get the star treatment in San Jose...perhaps that changed for a time in the midst of the 2009 debacle, but otherwise, the top players have gotten a free pass.

Hell, most of the blogs seem to think that Mike Brown was the reason they lost to LA last year.

 

[OrrNumber4]

The fact that you used roenick as an example just throws out any credibility that you might have had going for you.

Roenick 6 points in 18 games as a shark. 4 of them came in 1 game. Which i am guessing where you are getting the he was the best player in a series from. 1 good game makes a good series now lol.

I'm remembering game 7 of the CGY series.

Still, nitpicking a possibly poor example does nothing to demean my overall point.

 

[Barrie22]

I'm remembering game 7 of the CGY series.

Still, nitpicking a possibly poor example does nothing to demean my overall point.

I can also nitpick the pavelski one also. Since he showed up for 1 series and then dissapeared for the other 2 series. He let thornton and marleau do the heavy lifting in the detroit series in which the team barely won in game 7 on the backs of marleau and thornton. But again 1 series makes a playoff run.

Maybe if pavelski actually showed up against detroit when they needed him. The team could of finished off detroit in 4 or 5 games. And it would of made it easier in the conference finals. But instead the team went into the finals limping and wounded.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Absurd.

Everyone is responsible for their actions in this franchise.

If anything, and I have no idea what Doug receives in terms of remuneration, but when you have players getting $7m a year, that hierarchy argument is plenty flawed. How many businesses have the workers heavily being outpaid by their subordinates? That is not a sensible way of evaluating a hockey club ...as if it's a small manufacturer or bakers shop.

The pass that some of the players get in this franchise is embarrassing. Guys who have under performed this year need to be called out as much as the GM and head coach do. The over protection of their egos is crazy.

Just because a manager is responsible for his workers' results doesn't mean those workers aren't also responsible. People need to stop interpreting responsibility as a one or the other thing. Everyone shares in it. I have never argued otherwise. And the difference between a GM's salary and the top player's salary doesn't mean much when the player can be shipped out at a moment's notice while the GM isn't and keeps getting paid when he gets fired until the term on his contract runs out or he gets another job. And they aren't heavily outpaid by their subordinates either.

There is not one single player that has gotten a pass. There is not one single coach or manager that has gotten a pass. And people need to stop acting as they do.

 

[Sharksrule04]

I'd agree that Burns was an up-and-coming guy (and might have gotten there had SJ not played games with him), but Boyle was always in the tier just below the elite d-men.

Meh strongly disagree. Who do you consider elite? Pronger? Niedermeyer? Chara? If so then yes I agree Boyle wasn't quite them due to their defensive games but if that is what you consider elite then you can't be mad a team hasn't acquired one, being that there have been maybe 4 D-men in that class for the past 20 years. Boyle was among the top tier of D-men in the league. He was one of the best PP QB's out there and offensive d-men and when first acquired wasn't horrible in his own end.

I guess I would consider Karlsson and Subban to be top-level D-men trending upwards. I don't think Burns ever in his career has come close, and Boyle was not quite as dynamic as either while being at best as good defensively.

LOL, not sure how you can say Karlsson and Subban are but Burns has "never come close". Karlsson and Subban are essentially Burns. Great great offensive D-men but very much lacking in their own end, more so Karlsson. Subban has improved defensively but is in no way good defensively. Karlsson is just as bad defensively as Burns.

Actually....no. Marleau and Thornton were not producing at a high level...in the playoffs. I've outlined several times why I think that is. But in summation, both players have repeatedly shown that they can't lead this team anywhere come the postseason. That they did so again in 2014 really shouldn't have been a surprise.

Meh just going to disagree here. Not going to get into that age old debate of playoff production from Thornton & Marleau. What I said was they were playing well when they signed the deal, and they were. They signed the deals during the regular season and were both producing very well.

Just because a player is desired doesn't make him good or a right fit. We know the mess Heatley turned into, for example. Alexander Daigle was probably incredibly desired...you wouldn't blame a GM for picking him? GMs aren't there to go along with established opinion; they are there to deliver results.

All the players I mentioned were good fits. Heatley was the pure sniper we need to add to Thornton's wing and he contibuted to the best line in the NHL for 1-2 seasons. He aged very quickly and couldn't contribute anymore but he was a great fit when acquired. Burns and Boyle were also great fits when acquired. We needed a rising potential #1 d-man to replace declining Boyle and that is who Burns was. Boyle was the much needed PP QB to replace the departed Brian Campbell.

I would argue that Boyle has been middling in the playoffs. Burns has been terrible in the playoffs. Thornton's playoff failures are well known.

You can't be serious! Boyle was one of our most consistent step up performers in the playoffs. 48 pts in 62 games is very good production. In both WCF runs he was among the leading scorers on the team. I disagree about Thornton as well, but I won't disagree on Burns disappearing in the playoffs.

You might need 20 guys producing, but not 20 guys producing equally. Look at any SC-finalist over the past decade+....save for maybe New York, it is the top players leading the way. You will be amazed how good the depth looks when the top players are out there driving the play.

Disagree here as well. Cup winning teams get strong production from 3rd and 4th lines, Sharks haven't had that. I'd argue Thornton had similar production to the top players of these cup winning teams when the Shark made the WCF. The difference is we didn't have a Justin Williams step up or a Bryan Bickell.

It isn't a matter of luck...it is a matter of execution.

That might be a key point of difference between you and I. I think that the Sharks have been bad. You, apparently, think they have been unlucky. To each his own, but a fairly irreconcilable situation.

I didn't mean luck in a matter of bounces here and there. I meant luck in the form of matchups. The Sharks have had their best teams in season when there were teams that they couldn't beat. The Blackhawks and Canucks in those WCF seasons were much stronger than any team in the west currently is. Those Kings teams we lost to were also very very strong teams, arguable better than most if not all in the west this year as well.

Also if you think the Sharks have been "bad" then I simply shouldn't discuss hockey with you because we will never see within the same universe of eye-to-eye. I understand you want Cups and Finals appearances but using the word "bad" to describe our teams of the past 6-7 years is just plain absurd. If being a top 7 or 8 team (some seasons better) in the NHL is bad then I really don't know what to tell you, and yes the Sharks have been a top 7/8 team in the NHL for the past 6-8 years taking out that season we lost to the Blues in the first round and of course this season. I don't think they've been unlucky in the grand scheme of things, but everyone knows winning a cup takes a little bit of luck. I am realistic, I don't think there are 28 "bad" teams every season, I understand that very good teams don't win cups and that is something I have accepted. Doesn't mean I'm going to go saying nonsense like "the Sharks have been bad". I sometimes wonder if people on these boards make extreme statements like that just to get a rise out of people. Haha, "Sharks have been bad"....there are 20ish teams in the league that wish they were as bad as the Sharks have been for the past 10 years.

 

[Sharksrule04]

Yet one of them is among the top of the list in playoff overtime goals is somehow not a guy that wants it on his stick.

Thank you!!! Maybe he was trying to pass the puck to the opposing goalie since he didn't want it on his stick and it just luckily went in the net.

i agree, the thornton and marleau era winning one game in the WCF is embarrassing. the countless times throughout the years our leaders never caught fire or came through in tight games is enough for me to give up on the two.

plain and simple patty or joe dont want the game on their stick in double ot of the playoffs, two great complementary players but the two of them are too soft to lead to any greatness

Just for some perspective:
Thornton in the WCF season 09-10 (15-3-9-12) (4 PP points)
Thornton in the WCF season 10-11 (18-3-14-17) (8 PP points)
Marleau in the WCF season 09-10 (14-8-5-13) (6 PP Points)
Marleau in the WCF season 10-11 (18-7-6-13) (5 PP Points)

Bruins leading scorer 10-11 Krejci (25-12-11-23) (only 4 PP points)
Kings leading scorer 11-12 Brown (20-8-12-20) (only 4 PP points)
Hawks leading scorer 12-13 Kane (23-9-10-19) (only 1 PP point)
Kings leading scorer 13-14 Kopitar (26-5-21-26) (7 PP points)

Is that production really different from the last 4 Stanley cup winners?

I can already predict the next statement from you guys "Marleau/Thornton only played well in certain games". I'm sure if you looked it up the top players didn't play well in losing games from any team.

0-18 on the power play isn't great leadership. The depth isn't on the power play.

The Sharks core is rotten and needs to change. They already changed the depth. Same choking results. The problem is the core.

Marleau doesn't use his body and plays too soft in the playoffs.

Thornton doesn't go to the net and he gets hacked on the wrists and targeted every series. The soft Sharks don't retaliate.

Heatley sucked in the playoffs. Maybe because he was slow and injured.

So winning cups is about retaliation? You don't need to use your body to put the puck in the net. Does every good player use their body? If your answer is yes, then you don't watch enough hockey. I will agree that Heatley was sub-par in the playoffs while in a Sharks uniform.

Also, when they changed that depth was it for the better? Did we get that Justin Williams who will contribute? Nope, we never did.

I think that Marleau's ultimate problem is that he just was never that good. I remember SJ fans were always comparing Thornton/Marleau to Yzerman/Fedorov, Sakic/Forsberg, etc. Even today, it is easy to compare those guys like Kopitar/Carter and Toews/Kane.

But Marleau doesn't belong in that conversation...Thornton does, and then he has his other issues which make him a bad playoff player. Marleau is a great first-liner, a great complementary player..but the labels franchise-leader, superstar, etc. shouldn't have been used with him.

I do agree here. The problem is people see Marleau's post-Thornton-acquisition numbers and compare him to other players in that production range. I don't think he is quite that level. He is the level right below, or was. Marleau also gets a bad reputation though from too many hockey fans who think the only point of hockey is to play phyiscal. Marleau is a very good player who plays well in 3 zones, and HAS done great things in the playoffs. People just seem to expect him and Thornton to win cups by themselves.

 

[stator]

No, I think Tmac saw pretty clearly that the "inmates were running the prison" so to speak. You could see about 2/3 of the way into the season that he wasn't sure what else to say or do with this squad anymore.

I think it's pretty damning and indicative of the real problem with this team underachieving lies squarely in the dressing room.

Bingo!

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

It's not all one of anything's fault. Coaching, gm and players all had a role in how this season played out.

It's clear that after talking to Doug that Todd knew the rebuild/retool was going to continue. With only 1 year on his contract he didn't want to coach a team that may or may not be good. Plus, no coach likes having their contract in the final year without another deal in place. This decision made the most sense for Todd, and I don't see it as an indictment of managing or the players.

 

[Le Rosbeef]

Bingo!

When a player tells the GM to 'shut up' - whether he was right or wrong to think it - that illustrates the above nicely.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Meh strongly disagree. Who do you consider elite? Pronger? Niedermeyer? Chara? If so then yes I agree Boyle wasn't quite them due to their defensive games but if that is what you consider elite then you can't be mad a team hasn't acquired one, being that there have been maybe 4 D-men in that class for the past 20 years. Boyle was among the top tier of D-men in the league. He was one of the best PP QB's out there and offensive d-men and when first acquired wasn't horrible in his own end.

During DW's time as GM, Chara, Niedermayer, Prongerx2, and Suter have all changed hands. Players like Subban, Karlsson, Weber, etc. were available through the draft.

The difference between success and failure is very small, and getting a player like the above here and there is critical to success. DW failed to do so.

LOL, not sure how you can say Karlsson and Subban are but Burns has "never come close". Karlsson and Subban are essentially Burns. Great great offensive D-men but very much lacking in their own end, more so Karlsson. Subban has improved defensively but is in no way good defensively. Karlsson is just as bad defensively as Burns.

Agree to disagree here. Karlsson and Subban are easily superior to Burns defensively.

Meh just going to disagree here. Not going to get into that age old debate of playoff production from Thornton & Marleau. What I said was they were playing well when they signed the deal, and they were. They signed the deals during the regular season and were both producing very well.

Sure, they were playing well in the regular season. But they had the history of poor playoff production behind them.

You can't be serious! Boyle was one of our most consistent step up performers in the playoffs. 48 pts in 62 games is very good production. In both WCF runs he was among the leading scorers on the team. I disagree about Thornton as well, but I won't disagree on Burns disappearing in the playoffs.

Yet Boyle was another one of those guys who often didn't step it up in critical moments. In 20-odd games 5-7 of a series, Boyle has around 10 points (IIRC). A net minus player, as well.

Disagree here as well. Cup winning teams get strong production from 3rd and 4th lines, Sharks haven't had that.

Not really. Teams are lucky to a goal/series from the fourth line, and more than 3-4 goals from the third line. The necessity of production from the third, and especially fourth, lines, is often exaggerated.

I'd argue Thornton had similar production to the top players of these cup winning teams when the Shark made the WCF. The difference is we didn't have a Justin Williams step up or a Bryan Bickell.

I would disagree with this. True, the rough PPG are the same, but other players score more goals, have more ES production, and have much better numbers in critical games (Toews and Kanes' production in big games is legendary...over ppg. Thornton isn't even at half that.)

I meant luck in the form of matchups. The Sharks have had their best teams in season when there were teams that they couldn't beat. The Blackhawks and Canucks in those WCF seasons were much stronger than any team in the west currently is. Those Kings teams we lost to were also very very strong teams, arguable better than most if not all in the west this year as well.

To me this is just excuses. The Sharks also had some easy matchups that they couldn't win. In any case, if you need ideal matchups to win the cup, you won't win it.

Also if you think the Sharks have been "bad" then I simply shouldn't discuss hockey with you because we will never see within the same universe of eye-to-eye.

"Bad" is a relative term. I do think they have been "bad" in the playoffs.

there are 20ish teams in the league that wish they were as bad as the Sharks have been for the past 10 years.

Going back to 2003-2004, there are 22 teams that have achieved more than the Sharks have (more than two wins in the CF).

If your standard for the Sharks is to be a top 7/8 team in the league, then I think your standard isn't good enough. Whether you want to call it "bad" or whatever....

 

[weastern bias]

Agree to disagree here. Karlsson and Subban are easily superior to Burns defensively.

Yeah, and it's not close either

Karlsson and Subban are like prime Boyle defensively; very mobile and involved in the play, so they sometimes get caught out of position

Burns is what the main board tries to paint Karlsson as, he's an actual 4th W with no D