For the Sharks to win the cup, you have to believe...

[USF Shark]

1) Joel Ward becomes Scott Thornton of the early 2000s.
2) Martin Jones turns into Arturs "the wall" Irbe.
3) Brett Burns becomes a plus defender in his own end to go along with 50 points.

 

[Painful Quandary]

For the Sharks to win the cup, you have to believe...

...the Sharks are not cursed. There is no curse, there was never any curse. That is crazy talk.

 

[ChompChomp]

I'm just thinking about getting to the SCF (i.e., getting out of the West). Just adding to the ones already listed:

1.) DeBoer doesn't get impatient with his players under 25, especially Hertl and Nieto, and lets them play through mistakes/slumps.

2.) Patrick Kane is out for the entire season and playoffs due to league suspension related to recent criminal accusations.

 

[Barrie22]

I'm just thinking about getting to the SCF (i.e., getting out of the West). Just adding to the ones already listed:

1.) DeBoer doesn't get impatient with his players under 25, especially Hertl and Nieto, and lets them play through mistakes/slumps.

2.) Patrick Kane is out for the entire season and playoffs due to league suspension related to recent criminal accusations.

Kane will play ever season game this season. I will almost guarantee that. Rape/sexual assault charges never seem to stick when it is a nobody vs celebrity. Obviously details are pretty dim right now, but there will need to be major evidence it actually happened for kane to be cleared.

 

[Boy Hedican]

Interesting that I notice less about the defensive needs this year than past ones, which includes me.

I believe the number one problem, and what kept the Sharks out of the playoffs was their mental fortitude and a lack of believing in themselves as winners. Adding Ward and Jones puts much of that mental fortitude back on the team and will rub off on the younger players. If the Sharks get a heathly Torres back, well, that just adds to it in spades.

The top two keys to success in this coming season are:

1- Martin Jones (and is #1 on most of the list here). As someone posted above, Martin needs to play as a top goalie for the season. This is not unreasonable since a 1st round draft pick was the trade. The question is whether he can handle this pressure.

2- Deboer who has a hot and cold record. Hopefully, we'll see his hot hand.

3- DW not making the same mistakes as last season.

Other keys, which I believe will be likely are Marleau, Hertl, and Culture. Culture has put up very good stats last season, but rather stealthy. We've add this discussion here already. But I believe the lack of recognition is due to his +/- ending up -6. With the defense changes, I expect Culture will wind up the season on the positive side.

Hertl has the time now to regain his full confidence with the knee. I believe we'll see better performance from Hertl this season. I think it is a question of how much, not whether.

A Marleau, like Hertl, has basically one direction... up (or out due to injury). I don't believe their performance will get worse, but only improve.

A team with productive Pavelski, Thornton, Melker, Marleau, Hertl, and Couture will have forward lines to be recon with.

So I am going to call it now.... Sharks are a playoff team. We will see them in the 1st round, and could reach the conference finals depending on the three keys above.

i disagree, culture was horrible last season. -37 imo

 

[OrrNumber4]

Interesting that I notice less about the defensive needs this year than past ones, which includes me.

I believe the number one problem, and what kept the Sharks out of the playoffs was their mental fortitude and a lack of believing in themselves as winners. Adding Ward and Jones puts much of that mental fortitude back on the team and will rub off on the younger players. If the Sharks get a heathly Torres back, well, that just adds to it in spades.

I think that many people, including many GMs, make the mistake of thinking/hoping that one or two insertions into the lineup will fix a team-wide cultural issue. This happened to the Sharks when they were perceived as being inexperienced and poor defensively. DW went out and got some veterans and defensively-minded forwards. Didn't change the fact that the other players were poor defensively.

The Sharks collapse easily. They need that calmness, that level-headedness. When they meet a challenge, they need to come up with a way through it or around it. Instead they tend to panic and do the wrong things with more vigor.

 

[hohosaregood]

I think that many people, including many GMs, make the mistake of thinking/hoping that one or two insertions into the lineup will fix a team-wide cultural issue. This happened to the Sharks when they were perceived as being inexperienced and poor defensively. DW went out and got some veterans and defensively-minded forwards. Didn't change the fact that the other players were poor defensively.

The Sharks collapse easily. They need that calmness, that level-headedness. When they meet a challenge, they need to come up with a way through it or around it. Instead they tend to panic and do the wrong things with more vigor.

Welp if that's the case, we all know the Sharks are already ****ed in the arse. Biggest *****cats in the league on this team.

 

[Mafoofoo]

I think that many people, including many GMs, make the mistake of thinking/hoping that one or two insertions into the lineup will fix a team-wide cultural issue. This happened to the Sharks when they were perceived as being inexperienced and poor defensively. DW went out and got some veterans and defensively-minded forwards. Didn't change the fact that the other players were poor defensively.

The Sharks collapse easily. They need that calmness, that level-headedness. When they meet a challenge, they need to come up with a way through it or around it. Instead they tend to panic and do the wrong things with more vigor.

Well we got Joel Ward and Paul Martin. Ward brings that soultrain vibe and Martin looks like the kind of guy who could watch someone get murdered and go on living his life happily without any negative effect.

So we're good.

 

[hohosaregood]

Well we got Joel Ward and Paul Martin. Ward brings that soultrain vibe and Martin looks like the kind of guy who could watch someone get murdered and go on living his life happily without any negative effect.

So we're good.

So you're telling me Martin won't be sticking up for his team mates when they get cheapshotted. I knew it was a bad deal from the start FIRE DW!

 

[Bizz]

Belief is for casuals. I smell a 5-cup Dynasty incoming.

 

[slocal]

Well we got Joel Ward and Paul Martin. Ward brings that soultrain vibe and Martin looks like the kind of guy who could watch someone get murdered and go on living his life happily without any negative effect.

So we're good.

We had plenty of that already with Jumbo's bro:

 

[Alwalys]

I think that many people, including many GMs, make the mistake of thinking/hoping that one or two insertions into the lineup will fix a team-wide cultural issue. This happened to the Sharks when they were perceived as being inexperienced and poor defensively. DW went out and got some veterans and defensively-minded forwards. Didn't change the fact that the other players were poor defensively.

The Sharks collapse easily. They need that calmness, that level-headedness. When they meet a challenge, they need to come up with a way through it or around it. Instead they tend to panic and do the wrong things with more vigor.

wow analysis that literally the opposite of the truth.

the Sharks have had one of the most committed and skilled 2-way rosters and systems in the league for half a decade now. in fact it's arguable that it was so defensively oriented that it caused problems.

The sharks don't collapse easily, that is a new development that came along with the youth movement. They have been regarded for a long time as a calm, experienced group when facing adversity. Anyone who has watched the games should have lost track by now the number of times the "no panic on the sharks bench" description was used. If anything the problem is NOT getting amped up for big games.

 

[Kcoyote3]

In the heart of the cards.

 

[DonskoiDonscored]

...in miracles

 

[OrrNumber4]

wow analysis that literally the opposite of the truth.

the Sharks have had one of the most committed and skilled 2-way rosters and systems in the league for half a decade now. in fact it's arguable that it was so defensively oriented that it caused problems.

I realize that for you, hockey didn't start until 2010. I was talking about the years shortly after the lockout, between 2006-2008, where the Sharks were considered defensively deficient and inexperienced.

Joe Thornton didn't make the leap to a truly good two-way player until the 2010 season. And the Sharks swapped in defensive stars like Couture and Pavelski.

The sharks don't collapse easily, that is a new development that came along with the youth movement.

So all those collapses (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014)...those were during the youth movement? The Sharks have been in a 10-year youth movement?

They have been regarded for a long time as a calm, experienced group when facing adversity.

Feh. Maybe by the blinded, most biased Sharks fans. By most people, and by most knowledgeable people, the Sharks have been known as a team that struggle to handles adversity.

Anyone who has watched the games should have lost track by now the number of times the "no panic on the sharks bench" description was used.

Who used that description? The Sharks's players themselves? What else are they going to say? I'd say that fans watching the games can see how the Sharks lost their **** during the tough times.

 

[Alwalys]

I realize that for you, hockey didn't start until 2010. I was talking about the years shortly after the lockout, between 2006-2008, where the Sharks were considered defensively deficient and inexperienced.

The **** are you talking about 2006-2008 for? That's ancient history unless you have the agenda you have.

Joe Thornton didn't make the leap to a truly good two-way player until the 2010 season. And the Sharks swapped in defensive stars like Couture and Pavelski.

Oh so in other words the team has had one of the best 2-way cores in the league for half a decade now?

So all those collapses (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014)...those were during the youth movement? The Sharks have been in a 10-year youth movement?

You calling final 4 berths collapses now?

Feh. Maybe by the blinded, most biased Sharks fans. By most people, and by most knowledgeable people, the Sharks have been known as a team that struggle to handles adversity.

Find one that said that. Should be easy to find an article about it or something, right? Oh, the articles usually say the opposite?

Who used that description? The Sharks's players themselves? What else are they going to say? I'd say that fans watching the games can see how the Sharks lost their **** during the tough times.

The people standing next to them getting paid to tell us what's going on on the bench have said this many, many times. The Sharks are considered a deep, playoff-experienced, veteran group.

And your agenda will never make it otherwise.

 

[hohosaregood]

Welp, playoff tinman talk is starting again.

 

[Mafoofoo]

I like it more when hoho and I are play fighting.

 

[PacificOceanPotion]

Everyone must play with an above 92 rating

 

[OrrNumber4]

The **** are you talking about 2006-2008 for? That's ancient history unless you have the agenda you have.

What was the context of the conversation? Why was 2006-2008 brought up?

It was brought up in the context of an example where a GM tried to fix a teamwide issue by adding one or two players that did not work. That example was paralleled to DW adding Martin and Ward supposedly fixing the Sharks's mental issues (as stator suggested).

Why would you misunderstand that? Either you have an agenda, or you are simply obtuse.

Oh so in other words the team has had one of the best 2-way cores in the league for half a decade now?

But their two-way play hasn't been an issue the past half-decade. Its been their offensive play, if anything. Their ability to score; their ability to solve tough defenses and great goaltenders.

Don't let that stop you from using a strawman argument.

You calling final 4 berths collapses now?

Not surprised that, again, you don't look at the context. The Sharks lost 4-1 against Vancouver. 4-1. They blew games 1 and 5, with a lead going into the third period. They came out supremely flat in game 2 and were manhandled. In game 4, they came out flat and quickly went down 4-0. Not to mention nearly getting reversed swept by Detroit in the previous round.

Your standard for achievement is too low. Making the final four is nothing special. More than 10% of the league does this every year.

Find one that said that. Should be easy to find an article about it or something, right? Oh, the articles usually say the opposite?

http://thescore.com/nhl/news/518000

If you really don't think there has been widespread discussion about the Sharks's inability to handle adversity, you've been living under a rock. Would certainly explain why you think that 2008 is "ancient history".

The people standing next to them getting paid to tell us what's going on on the bench have said this many, many times. The Sharks are considered a deep, playoff-experienced, veteran group.

Yes, the people getting paid by the people standing next to them are telling us that their team is focused and ready. And when someone said otherwise...he got fired.

The Sharks may be deep, experienced, and a veteran group. That does not automatically mean that they handle adversity well, that they are good under pressure, etc.

And your agenda will never make it otherwise.

Projection at its finest.

 

[T0uGh C0oki3]

1. DeBoer can fix our D and PK
2. Jones plays like a top-5 goalie (In the playoffs)
3. Our rookies and young players step up and have a breakout season.
4. Locker room problems can disappear overnight.
5. We do have a winning culture.
6. The "Martin-Burns" pairing becomes our alternative top pairing.
7. Marleau can rebound. (65-70 pts with great possession numbers)
8. DeBoer shows some patience with our young guns.
9. Torres is finally healthy, and plays like his usual self. (This = Amazing bottom-six depth)
10. Luck is on our side. (Puck luck, the ref, playoff match-ups, injuries, and DW)

 

[Painful Quandary]

But their two-way play hasn't been an issue the past half-decade. Its been their offensive play, if anything. Their ability to score; their ability to solve tough defenses and great goaltenders.

I think that speaks to the lack of depths some of the Sharks teams had in terms of 3rd/4th lines that could score. This coming season seems like it has the potential that the Sharks will have four scoring lines.

Also, sometime great teams run into hot goalies, and are defeated. It happens.

Not surprised that, again, you don't look at the context. The Sharks lost 4-1 against Vancouver. 4-1. They blew games 1 and 5, with a lead going into the third period. They came out supremely flat in game 2 and were manhandled. In game 4, they came out flat and quickly went down 4-0. Not to mention nearly getting reversed swept by Detroit in the previous round.

The Detroit series took a great toll on the team. Even though it was a close series, the Sharks should have handled them in 5; it was one of the few playoffs were there seemed to be some luck on the Sharks side, at least for the first two rounds.

Now the Vancouver series...from how I remember it, the main issue was the PK sucked. That was a huge issue with the jerkpuck Gillis Vancouver teams before the refs figured it out and stopped falling for the diving and Vingeaut's whining. There was also the issue that TMac threw away a game by running Ben Eager on the top line because he fell for Vancouver's jerkpuck strategy. Also, it didn't help that Torres injured Thornton early in that series, which also means that even if the Sharks went on to beat Vancouver, they would have lost to Boston.

 

[OrrNumber4]

I think that speaks to the lack of depths some of the Sharks teams had in terms of 3rd/4th lines that could score. This coming season seems like it has the potential that the Sharks will have four scoring lines.

Don't want to get into this again, but I believe that the belief that the Sharks's scoring issues lay with their bottom lines is a myth propagated by fans who find it hard to blame stars that have given so much regular-season success to the fans.

In truth, production and play from the depth players, both up front and on the backend, has been underwhelming. But the star players on the Sharks, by and large, are often very underwhelming on their own parts. They are soundly outplayed by their counterparts on the other team. Scoring-by-committee rarely, rarely works...since the 2000 season, the New York Rangers are the only team to make the finals while having less than 66% of their scoring come from their top-6 forwards and top-3 defensemen.

Also, sometime great teams run into hot goalies, and are defeated. It happens.

I think that truly great teams (and you have to be a great team to win a cup, almost always) find ways to overcome hot goalies.

And for the Sharks, it hasn't just happened once or twice. First it was Roloson, then Turco, then Hiller, then Niemi, then Elliot, then Quick x2...again and again and again. They even struggled against Osgood and Luongo. The only time the Sharks have been able to solve a hot goaltender was when they broke through on Craig Anderson.

The Chicago series in 2010 is a fantastic example of this. Every other team Chicago played managed to get to Niemi. The Sharks couldn't. They needed to take advantage of Chicago's offensive tempo, attack the net, get Niemi moving, and attack his weakness up high. Instead, the Sharks employed the same high-volume, slow-the-game-down, look-for-rebounds approach that they always used. Guys like Thornton still tried to surgically take apart a Chicago defense with precision passing; that failed miserably. No modification, no adaption. And when it failed, they responded by throwing more junk with greater vigor at Niemi.

In a seven-game series, players and teams have ample chance to adapt and figure out their opponents. The best players get better as a series progresses, as they get more comfortable and can flesh out their opponents. That skill is a necessity if you are going to win the cup. By and large, the Sharks's top players get worse as a series goes along; this is evidenced by their production.

The Detroit series took a great toll on the team. Even though it was a close series, the Sharks should have handled them in 5; it was one of the few playoffs were there seemed to be some luck on the Sharks side, at least for the first two rounds.

I want to address this notion that the Sharks are cursed; that they don't have luck.

I know it is a very popular assertion, and it seems to always pass muster as an acceptable excuse. But really, look at it logically. Do you really believe curses exist? If a team is habitually unlucky, and you don't believe in the supernatural, it probably means you just aren't seeing the underlying "real" factors that lead to the phenotype of "having bad luck".

Now the Vancouver series...from how I remember it, the main issue was the PK sucked. That was a huge issue with the jerkpuck Gillis Vancouver teams before the refs figured it out and stopped falling for the diving and Vingeaut's whining.

If you need the refs to win a game, then you don't deserve to win. IIRC, the PK was one of the worst in the league that year. Vancouver also had an awesome penalty. But then your game-plan has to involve not taking penalties and tailoring your PK to face Vancouver's PP. The Shark's PK was at, like, 60% that series. That is horrid.

I also look at the fact that the Sharks gave up so many leads and came out flat so many times in that series. Championship-caliber teams simply cannot do that.

Also, it didn't help that Torres injured Thornton early in that series, which also means that even if the Sharks went on to beat Vancouver, they would have lost to Boston.

Torres injured JT in game 4. Moreover, he played with a separated shoulder. Players have produced in the playoffs with similar injuries. Hell, some players have produced with much worse injuries.

 

[Painful Quandary]

Don't want to get into this again, but I believe that the belief that the Sharks's scoring issues lay with their bottom lines is a myth propagated by fans who find it hard to blame stars that have given so much regular-season success to the fans.

In truth, production and play from the depth players, both up front and on the backend, has been underwhelming. But the star players on the Sharks, by and large, are often very underwhelming on their own parts. They are soundly outplayed by their counterparts on the other team. Scoring-by-committee rarely, rarely works...since the 2000 season, the New York Rangers are the only team to make the finals while having less than 66% of their scoring come from their top-6 forwards and top-3 defensemen.

You are right that the stars have to produce, but lack of depth can hurt that. I remember TMac rolling three lines in the playoffs frequently because the the 4th line of grinders wasn't cutting it. After one or two rounds of running three lines, our top six was likely more banged up and gassed than our opposition.

I think that truly great teams (and you have to be a great team to win a cup, almost always) find ways to overcome hot goalies.

And for the Sharks, it hasn't just happened once or twice. First it was Roloson, then Turco, then Hiller, then Niemi, then Elliot, then Quick x2...again and again and again. They even struggled against Osgood and Luongo. The only time the Sharks have been able to solve a hot goaltender was when they broke through on Craig Anderson.

I think the team only broke through Anderson because that Avalanche team was a paper tiger. The team also did decently against Elliot (Colin freakin' White scored on him for God's sake), but that playoff series was doomed from the start due to a poor PK and lack of forward depth. I'm not going to go through each other team one by one, but I will say that they were decent to good to great, and there were plenty of other factors that could have changed history. What I will say is that the playoff year the Sharks have a good to great team and have a hot goalie (something that we have lack in all those years), watch out.

I want to address this notion that the Sharks are cursed; that they don't have luck.

I know it is a very popular assertion, and it seems to always pass muster as an acceptable excuse. But really, look at it logically. Do you really believe curses exist? If a team is habitually unlucky, and you don't believe in the supernatural, it probably means you just aren't seeing the underlying "real" factors that lead to the phenotype of "having bad luck".

I do believe in curses, but that is my personal opinion. I do also think that there are plenty of tangible factors that can explain each individual playoff failure, most of which the organization could have done something about if they better foresight. For example: The infamous stanchion goal was unlucky, but it was set up largely because the Sharks put themselves into an elimination game because the PK was awful, TMac was outcoached, and they were playing against a good team.

I think that is a pattern, there a flaw that DW should have corrected, but because it wasn't, it allows some bad luck to tip the balance between victory and defeat. I think there are plenty of anecdotes were a great teams that ran into bad luck, but because there wasn't that flaw, the bad luck did not spell their doom.

I also think that the Sharks haven't had a lucky break in the playoffs in a number of years, but they shouldn't have to rely on it.

If you need the refs to win a game, then you don't deserve to win. IIRC, the PK was one of the worst in the league that year. Vancouver also had an awesome penalty. But then your game-plan has to involve not taking penalties and tailoring your PK to face Vancouver's PP. The Shark's PK was at, like, 60% that series. That is horrid.

I think we can absolutely agree here. The PK was completely unacceptable that year, and was completely horrid in that series (Vancouver had a great PP and was built around special teams). I think the problem was that TMac was outcoached by AV. AV would constantly work the refs, TMac should have worked on the PK since it was obvious the Canucks were built around special teams. In fact, plenty of blame also falls on DW since the Sharks struggled against the Canucks during the regular season series, and it appears that it did not concern management.

I also look at the fact that the Sharks gave up so many leads and came out flat so many times in that series. Championship-caliber teams simply cannot do that.

I have to absolutely agree again. Not finishing teams off early leads to injuries and gassing your best players. I'm not sure if that is a player-leadership issue or a coaching issue, but it needs to get solved. The fact that it took over twenty years for the Sharks to complete a sweep really shows this problem.

Torres injured JT in game 4. Moreover, he played with a separated shoulder. Players have produced in the playoffs with similar injuries. Hell, some players have produced with much worse injuries.

The supporting cast was also battered, because as mentioned previously, they couldn't finish off Detroit in 5. I remember Clowe had a separated shoulder, Demers had a sprained ankle. At some point injuries matter, and pointing to a few anecdotes is of the opposite is the exception proving the rule. But as I said earlier, this type of thing occurs because the Sharks have an issue finishing teams off, and that speaks to leadership. That year's Sharks team could have at least make a potential Boston series interesting with a healthy Demers and Clowe, but Thornton being injured (I'm not convinced of a win with Thomas playing out of his mind that year).

 

[hohosaregood]

I'm pretty sure that players playing through separated shoulders almost always end up producing poorly.