GDT: Game #57 Philadelphia Flyers @ San Jose Sharks 3 Feb 2014 7:30 pm PST CSNCa

[Alwalys]

I wouldn't classify the Kings or Flyers as points we had no business losing. Both are good teams. Calgary and Edmonton sure but back-to-backs are not easy even against those teams and when they don't play with anything to lose, they're dangerous. They should have won the Edmonton game but they got a performance of a lifetime. Plus, it's not as if our team is that great right now. Half our forward are still 4th line plugs or AHL'ers and our blue line without Jason Demers right now is essentially nothing in terms of production.

The Kings and Flyers do not belong in the same sentence like that. The Kings are a good team, the Flyers are a bad team. We really did have no business losing to them and it showed on the ice ... even with us stinking the joint up, 4/5 of their goals were directly attributed to what the Sharks did. They generated almost no threat on their own.

The Flyers are one of the worst possession teams in the league and it shows. We should have won handily, even with our depleted roster.

 

[Negatively Positive]

Plus, do we really care? The Sharks are very likely going to make the playoffs. Is having the division so important? Not saying that home-ice advantage isn't desirable...but it is rarely the deciding factor.

I don't care about the Ducks. It's more about avoiding the Kings in the 1st round. Assuming the Kings get their **** together, they're likely gonna be the 3rd seed in the Pacific and the Sharks would have to go through the Kings and the Ducks. I'd rather get the division and let the Kings and Ducks beat each other up in the 1st round. I can see the Kings getting hot after the break and being a force in the playoffs again.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The Kings and Flyers do not belong in the same sentence like that. The Kings are a good team, the Flyers are a bad team. We really did have no business losing to them and it showed on the ice ... even with us stinking the joint up, 4/5 of their goals were directly attributed to what the Sharks did. They generated almost no threat on their own.

The Flyers are one of the worst possession teams in the league and it shows. We should have won handily, even with our depleted roster.

And yet they have found a way to be very close to a playoff spot. The Sharks are not some great team right now that they just have to show up to win. They're a very depleted team that is struggling to execute. To say a team in that position has no business losing to another team is ridiculously arrogant.

The Flyers have made a living being a counter team for a long time so it shouldn't come as a surprise that that's how they won yesterday.

 

[hockfan1991]

Didn't help that Niemi let in a few softies

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Didn't help that Niemi let in a few softies

Niemi didn't get helped out by the defense pairing of Irwin-Boyle either. Both have issues with gap control that led to a couple goals.

 

[hockfan1991]

I will give him a pass on the giroux goal even though it still looks pretty ugly. I was more thing the point shot that went straight through. It seems like a third of the time people shooting from the point neimi gets be cleanly constantly. He can't be screened that well all the time. I feel that he has a poor job locating it once it gets to the point. Also the other one from the poor angle yeah but he does need some help by the defense but I thought he should have that one too

 

[Pinkfloyd]

I will give him a pass on the giroux goal even though it still looks pretty ugly. I was more thing the point shot that went straight through. It seems like a third of the time people shooting from the point neimi gets be cleanly constantly. He can't be screened that well all the time. I feel that he has a poor job locating it once it gets to the point. Also the other one from the poor angle yeah but he does need some help by the defense but I thought he should have that one too

The goal they credited to Simmonds the blame can be shared by Nemo, Marleau, and Hannan. Marleau didn't catch Streit's movement, Hannan failed to block the shot when he was in position, and Niemi didn't pick up the puck and that's the issue you're bringing up which is a legitimate concern. He's losing pucks way too easily from point to point this year.

 

[magic school bus]

Didn't help that Niemi let in a few softies

He always lets in softies, but usually makes it up by stopping those impossible screen shots like the Streit goal.

 

[Timo Time]

Things I noticed while at the the game last night:
-We sucked.
-Havlat should not have been promoted to the 2nd line, his drop passes are unfathomable. (That goes for Joe lately too.)
-Sitting in between 10 Philly fans was torturous.
-Nieto was bright spot.
-Sharks quit after the 1st period.
-Sodas are are too expensive.

 

[AstroDan]

Sharks do not forecheck that much. So I would hesitate to put that on Boyle as it appears to be a team strategy. I would think Boyle would do much better in that department on a team with good forechecking from their forwards, and coaches willing to use it.

Maybe not so much last night, but do you really think SJ doesn't fore check much?
Ask pretty much, any team they've played this year, or in the last several, if SJ F.C's. SJ is big and they punish other teams with their fore checking. I can't believe I read that!
Go read some other teams GDTs of our games with them and see what others' think.

 

[stator]

Maybe not so much last night, but do you really think SJ doesn't fore check much?
Ask pretty much, any team they've played this year, or in the last several, if SJ F.C's. SJ is big and they punish other teams with their fore checking. I can't believe I read that!
Go read some other teams GDTs of our games with them and see what others' think.

Hell yes, they fall back into a defensive posture outside of the offensive zone too much. Reason why their opponents execute the transition is because the Sharks have fallen back, making the break out pass easier.

YOu and I are watching the same games?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Hell yes, they fall back into a defensive posture outside of the offensive zone too much. Reason why their opponents execute the transition is because the Sharks have fallen back, making the break out pass easier.

YOu and I are watching the same games?

They fall back when they have the lead but them falling back doesn't make the transition easier. It just changes where the difficulty is. A team sitting back clogs up the neutral zone with the idea of preventing passes while giving skating room in the other team's zone.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

So the Sharks don't forecheck much..could have sworn that 2nd goal was a direct result of forechecking.

 

[Alwalys]

The Flyers have made a living being a counter team for a long time so it shouldn't come as a surprise that that's how they won yesterday.

Only bad teams are counter teams. And "making a living" on it means the team is intrinsically bad. Good teams drive play.

If Niemi didn't give up any soft goals last night we win 2-1 despite playing arguably the worst game of the season with the most depleted lineup of the season. That tells you something.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Only bad teams are counter teams. And "making a living" on it means the team is intrinsically bad. Good teams drive play.

If Niemi didn't give up any soft goals last night we win 2-1 despite playing arguably the worst game of the season with the most depleted lineup of the season. That tells you something.

Good teams find ways to win games regardless of whether they win the possession numbers and drive play. There are a lot of reasons why they lost the game but not giving credit to the other team is just plain arrogant. To say the Sharks have no business losing games is ridiculously arrogant. The Sharks are not a perfect team and the team they have been icing lately is not even a good team. Saying that kind of team has no business losing games baffles my mind. They are a two line team at best. They get very little production from the back end. They get very little production from their bottom six. Their starting goalie is having an average season. They were for quite some time relying on four forwards to get the job done...now it's five with Wingels back. Their defensive game is streaky. A lot of this stuff is due to their poor health.

Winning 2-1 is not exactly the most sustainable model for winning hockey games...that's actually mostly luck-based. Either way, a team like the Sharks currently constructed are lucky to come out of games with wins because they aren't anywhere near as good as you think they are...and when Thornton has a poor game like he did or if Marleau, Pavelski, Burns, or Wingels are off their game, it's going to be difficult to overcome when they get no support elsewhere.

 

[hohosaregood]

Good teams find ways to win games regardless of whether they win the possession numbers and drive play. There are a lot of reasons why they lost the game but not giving credit to the other team is just plain arrogant. To say the Sharks have no business losing games is ridiculously arrogant. The Sharks are not a perfect team and the team they have been icing lately is not even a good team. Saying that kind of team has no business losing games baffles my mind. They are a two line team at best. They get very little production from the back end. They get very little production from their bottom six. Their starting goalie is having an average season. They were for quite some time relying on four forwards to get the job done...now it's five with Wingels back. Their defensive game is streaky. A lot of this stuff is due to their poor health.

Winning 2-1 is not exactly the most sustainable model for winning hockey games...that's actually mostly luck-based. Either way, a team like the Sharks currently constructed are lucky to come out of games with wins because they aren't anywhere near as good as you think they are...and when Thornton has a poor game like he did or if Marleau, Pavelski, Burns, or Wingels are off their game, it's going to be difficult to overcome when they get no support elsewhere.

Yea I'd agree with this. Last game, it was a 2-2.5 line team with one good d pair. No way in hell were they in a good position to win that game.

 

[Alwalys]

Good teams find ways to win games regardless of whether they win the possession numbers and drive play. There are a lot of reasons why they lost the game but not giving credit to the other team is just plain arrogant. To say the Sharks have no business losing games is ridiculously arrogant. The Sharks are not a perfect team and the team they have been icing lately is not even a good team. Saying that kind of team has no business losing games baffles my mind. They are a two line team at best. They get very little production from the back end. They get very little production from their bottom six. Their starting goalie is having an average season. They were for quite some time relying on four forwards to get the job done...now it's five with Wingels back. Their defensive game is streaky. A lot of this stuff is due to their poor health.

This might apply ... if you didn't watch the game and don't follow hockey. They played a god-awful game, arguably the worst game of the season. Nonstop unforced errors almost start to finish. Philly manufactured only one goal despite that.

Winning 2-1 is not exactly the most sustainable model for winning hockey games...that's actually mostly luck-based. Either way, a team like the Sharks currently constructed are lucky to come out of games with wins because they aren't anywhere near as good as you think they are...and when Thornton has a poor game like he did or if Marleau, Pavelski, Burns, or Wingels are off their game, it's going to be difficult to overcome when they get no support elsewhere.

Sustainability has nothing to do with anything. Philly is a terrible team, near the bottom 5 on 5 and one of the most penalized ... that is a recipe for total suck. The Sharks are several orders of magnitude better, both personnel and system. Even with our injuries, we still have Thornton, Burns, Pavelski, Marleau, Vlasic and Braun on this team. On Philly, the only player they have that is that level is Giroux.

They flat out had no business losing this game, let alone being blown out in it.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

This might apply ... if you didn't watch the game and don't follow hockey. They played a god-awful game, arguably the worst game of the season. Nonstop unforced errors almost start to finish. Philly manufactured only one goal despite that.



Sustainability has nothing to do with anything. Philly is a terrible team, near the bottom 5 on 5 and one of the most penalized ... that is a recipe for total suck. The Sharks are several orders of magnitude better, both personnel and system.

They flat out had no business losing this game, let alone being blown out in it.

First of all...not a bright idea to go with the if your opinion is different than mine, you don't watch games or follow hockey angle.

Secondly, you pretty much screwed yourself in this argument. If the Sharks are this great team that just had a crappy game and a bad team took advantage of that then you should come to the conclusion that they're not as good as you think they are. Looking back at this run they've had, they've had streaks of good play, streaks of bad play, and streaks of inconsistencies from game to game.

Finally, if sustainability has nothing to do with it and then you talk about driving play which is just cliche for being a possession team which is a simple way of saying the most sustainable way to win games is to have the puck, don't you sort of contradict yourself there? And if it doesn't then any team beating any other team is a possibility and thus one should never say at all when it comes to the NHL that a team has no business losing to some other team. Again, it's ridiculously arrogant when involving a sport that has a crapton of parity and is pretty much luck-based at this point.

 

[Alwalys]

First of all...not a bright idea to go with the if your opinion is different than mine, you don't watch games or follow hockey angle.

Secondly, you pretty much screwed yourself in this argument. If the Sharks are this great team that just had a crappy game and a bad team took advantage of that then you should come to the conclusion that they're not as good as you think they are. Looking back at this run they've had, they've had streaks of good play, streaks of bad play, and streaks of inconsistencies from game to game.

Finally, if sustainability has nothing to do with it and then you talk about driving play which is just cliche for being a possession team which is a simple way of saying the most sustainable way to win games is to have the puck, don't you sort of contradict yourself there? And if it doesn't then any team beating any other team is a possibility and thus one should never say at all when it comes to the NHL that a team has no business losing to some other team. Again, it's ridiculously arrogant when involving a sport that has a crapton of parity and is pretty much luck-based at this point.

Oh so you're going to go with every team can beat every other team on any given night...

Look everyone who watched that game should have realized the Sharks played WAY below their capability and made horrendous plays all night long. Everyone who watched should also know how little Philly actually threatened, and that they scored most of those goals on non-chances or gift-wrapped errors.

They had no business losing that game, there's really no way around that. But if it bothers you so much to say they should have WON, then we can go with they had no business not even being competitive in that game. Any honest observer should have seen the same.

It is just not objective in any way whatsoever to suggest this team is not capable of a better level of play on an every-game basis. It's not the rookies and plugs playing poorly!

 

[SpaceCoastShark]

I've been in Mexico and missed this game, but saw the highlights on TSN. Was it all Niemi, or did the rest of the team stink it up too?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Oh so you're going to go with every team can beat every other team on any given night...

Look everyone who watched that game should have realized the Sharks played WAY below their capability and made horrendous plays all night long. Everyone who watched should also know how little Philly actually threatened, and that they scored most of those goals on non-chances or gift-wrapped errors.

They had no business losing that game, there's really no way around that. But if it bothers you so much to say they should have WON, then we can go with they had no business not even being competitive in that game. Any honest observer should have seen the same.

It is just not objective in any way whatsoever to suggest this team is not capable of a better level of play on an every-game basis. It's not the rookies and plugs playing poorly!

The meat of your post is nothing but sour grapes. The last bit you had is what I'm going to respond to. To achieve a better level of play on an every-game basis requires depth...depth they don't have right now. You can't rely on your top two lines to win you games on a consistent basis. That's not how hockey works at the NHL level these days.

You're right it's not the rookies and plugs playing poorly. They're just not contributing offensively. And neither is the blue line...right now, a ridiculously large amount of their offense comes from the top two lines. And expecting those guys to win you games on a consistent basis is unreasonable. The entire point of having real depth is so that you can compensate for when your top guys have bad nights because it will happen. Them not being able to overcome that sort of adversity speaks to how good the team really is right now with what they have...and it's not as good as you think they are.

The heart of the matter is this...the Sharks, right now, simply do not have the depth to win on a consistent basis. It's not that the plugs and rooks are playing poorly...it's that they're just not that good in the first place and with them in the lineup, they're not a great team or even a good team...they're an average team in this league with what they have going for them now.

 

[Alwalys]

The meat of your post is nothing but sour grapes. The last bit you had is what I'm going to respond to. To achieve a better level of play on an every-game basis requires depth...depth they don't have right now. You can't rely on your top two lines to win you games on a consistent basis. That's not how hockey works at the NHL level these days.

The top lines are capable of better play every game regardless of depth. And with a team a poor as Philly, a decent game from the top lines is enough to win. That and the goalie not taking a gigantic dump in the crease.

You're not making a relevant point. That performance was borderline embarrassing.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

The top lines are capable of better play every game regardless of depth. And with a team a poor as Philly, a decent game from the top lines is enough to win. That and the goalie not taking a gigantic dump in the crease.

You're not making a relevant point. That performance was borderline embarrassing.

The top part is where you're wrong. The top guys are not robots. They are going to have crappy games now and then. That's why you have depth to overcome that and win consistently. And maybe it is and maybe it isn't good enough to beat a team when they play well but the fact remains that they're not going to all the time...it's impossible.

The thing you don't seem to get is that the Sharks aren't nearly as good as you think they are and the Flyers aren't nearly as bad as you think they are. If you think exactly as you are putting out there yet the results obviously don't line up to that way of thinking, maybe you ought to revisit your thought process on this because it obviously isn't working out very well for you.

 

[Alwalys]

The top part is where you're wrong. The top guys are not robots. They are going to have crappy games now and then. That's why you have depth to overcome that and win consistently. And maybe it is and maybe it isn't good enough to beat a team when they play well but the fact remains that they're not going to all the time...it's impossible.

We have elite player depth. As I said earlier, we iced 4-6 elite players vs 1 for Philly. Some can have crappy games and we STILL have multiple times the elite talent. This wasn't a run of the mill off game, this was a disaster game, as mentioned by multiple sources including myself, one of the worst games of the season. That's the only way Philly blows out this team at home.

The thing you don't seem to get is that the Sharks aren't nearly as good as you think they are and the Flyers aren't nearly as bad as you think they are. If you think exactly as you are putting out there yet the results obviously don't line up to that way of thinking, maybe you ought to revisit your thought process on this because it obviously isn't working out very well for you.

The results back up what I said in every possible way. We are head and shoulders above philly, even with the injuries, in counting stats, record, advanced stats, EVERY WAY.

Philly sucks. We had no business losing to them. End of story.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

We have elite player depth. As I said earlier, we iced 4-6 elite players vs 1 for Philly. Some can have crappy games and we STILL have multiple times the elite talent. This wasn't a run of the mill off game, this was a disaster game, as mentioned by multiple sources including myself, one of the worst games of the season. That's the only way Philly blows out this team at home.



The results back up what I said in every possible way. We are head and shoulders above philly, even with the injuries, in counting stats, record, advanced stats, EVERY WAY.

Philly sucks. We had no business losing to them. End of story.

Your usage of the word elite is loose and certainly has a double standard to it. And the second part is simply incorrect. You're obviously not trying to have a rational conversation about this so I'm done with you on this. Every way? Give me a break.