Is Doug Wilson in over his head?

[Juxtaposer]

And 2009 (Boyle, Lukowich, Blake, Vlasic, Ehrhoff, Murray, Semenov)
And 2010 (Boyle, Murray, Blake, Vlasic, Demers, Huskins, Wallin)
And 2011 (Boyle, Murray, Vlasic, White, Demers, Wallin, Huskins)
And 2013 (Boyle, Irwin, Vlasic, Braun, Stuart, Demers, Hannan)

Don't forget that while players like Stuart, Hannan, and Wallin were vilified during the regular season, they were not at all the problem during the playoffs.

Stuart, besides Niemi, is the #1 reason we lost to the Kings this year.

 

[FSS]

IMO, if your top players can drive the play, space is opened up for the bottom players. Not the other way around.

In the regular season, yes...but not the playoffs, the reverse is true. It's too easy for a defensive minded team like LA to sick Doughty on our top line & dog (like they did vs. Thornton), and shut him down in the playoffs, when there is no pressure or fear created by lines 3 & 4. The matchups that set that up, happen first from lines 3 & 4, forcing the other team to spread out the D, rather than just focusing on the top lines. Our 3rd line was not good at all vs. LA, but a lot of those guys got switched back & forth from the 3rd line to 1st line. Pavelski looked hurt to me, Hertl was just coming back...I'll give them a pass. Wingels was outmatched & ourplayed (and I love him). Burns was absolutely invisible the entire playoffs. The only line that I consistently thought brought it vs. LA was the #12/#39/#83 line...everyone else's effort & fire was subpar. The key in that series was more on our D though, I do agree that was one of the best 3rd lines we've had, they just picked a bad time to play poorly. After Vlasic went down, our lack of depth was exposed, we generated zero offense or clean breakouts, and the gong show of Stuart & Boyle was on full display. The best move we have made this season was trading Stuart, and not even considering bringing back Boyle. Now we have to address who to replace them with, and I still a LH PMD is priority #1. Also replace Burns move back to D with a solid winger.

Out 3rd line vs. Vancouver was the main difference in that series. Torres and Lappy had our heads on a swivel all the time, and Torres seperated #19's shoulder. Ditto for other previous series as well. We need a 3rd line that sets the tone from puck drop to whistle blow, and I did think the Wingles/Pavelski/Torres line was going to be it, and if we had escaped Round 1 I beleive they would have woken up vs. Anaheim...but once Vlasic went down, so did our plan, and our ability to hide Stuart & Boyle.

 

[FSS]

I would put more emphasis on the depth of the blue line over the 3rd and 4th lines. I agree that at least the 3rd line is critical for playoff success but not as much as depth on the blue line and that has been the downfall for this team in DW's tenure that has not been addressed properly except for one year...2008.

Agreed on this completely, and this is a little of rehashing another response I just gave...but we had no depth at D. Vlasic allowed us to hide how bad Stuart & Boyle were. Once he got hurt, our lack of depth was exposed, and the series was over.

I thought the 3rd line we had for this last playoff run was the best 3rd line we've ever had (which is why I was so damn excited for this playoffs), but they just picked a bad time to be cold & underperform. The shuffling of players from 1st to 3rd line & back didn't help matters either.

Priority #1 for me is the Defense this offseason. Moving Burns back to D is the right move, for both defense & how bad he was at F in the playoffs. We still need a LH PMD, and that has to be addressed ASAP, and I'm guessing it happens via trade or an offer on a RFA.

 

[DystopianTierney]

So, the Sharks had a great third line this year. They had a good third line last year. They had a great third line in 2011 vs. Vancouver.

In any case, for the most part, the depth fails in the context of the top players failing as well. It isn't like Marleau/Thornton/Boyle are playing lights out and Mike Brown is the reason the team is losing. Regardless of matchups and zone starts and what not, the Sharks's top players largely tend to lose their matchups. It is Nabakov failing to make a clutch save. It is top guns failing to convert on the PP. It is Thornton failing to get around tight-checking. It is Marleau failing to solve a hot goaltender.

Reliant on PP scoring...all winners get key scoring from their PP. The Sharks don't. Regarding contributions from the bottom lines...look, those guys can chip in a goal here and there. But scoring-by-committee rarely works (the Rangers run nonwithstanding). Tommy Wingels isn't going to score at a 41-goal pace on the third line. Mike Brown isn't going to have a PPG series.

IMO, if your top players can drive the play, space is opened up for the bottom players. Not the other way around.

Agree. Sheppard, Wingels, Hertl, Torres, Brown, and Desi gave the team more than enough depth scoring in the 7 games played. It was the absence of Burns, Thornton, and Couture on the boxscore that cost the team.

I would put more emphasis on the depth of the blue line over the 3rd and 4th lines. I agree that at least the 3rd line is critical for playoff success but not as much as depth on the blue line and that has been the downfall for this team in DW's tenure that has not been addressed properly except for one year...2008.

This also. Didn't help that Demers went to **** when we needed him most.

Stuart, besides Niemi, is the #1 reason we lost to the Kings this year.

Well, he is gone..... So dump Niemi = perfect record against the Kings next season?

Stuart was bad, but not #1 reason bad. We needed one more W...... No goals out of our Top 6 Premier players is the #1 reason we lost (4 in a row...) . Stuart and Niemi can share #2.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

And 2009 (Boyle, Lukowich, Blake, Vlasic, Ehrhoff, Murray, Semenov)
And 2010 (Boyle, Murray, Blake, Vlasic, Demers, Huskins, Wallin)
And 2011 (Boyle, Murray, Vlasic, White, Demers, Wallin, Huskins)
And 2013 (Boyle, Irwin, Vlasic, Braun, Stuart, Demers, Hannan)

Don't forget that while players like Stuart, Hannan, and Wallin were vilified during the regular season, they were not at all the problem during the playoffs.

2008 was in reference to the team that played in 2008-09. Every team thereafter that you list out has had a fatal flaw on the back end that was costing them or would have costed them. They were not good enough when they got rid of Ehrhoff and didn't replace his skills. In certain years, it absolutely was the reason why they lost. This was especially true against the Canucks, the Hawks, and the Blues. Ever since they got rid of Ehrhoff, one of the key elements that is in every team's gameplan against the Sharks is to attack the left side of their defense due to their lack of depth in general and especially their puck-movement skills were not there.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Stuart was bad, but not #1 reason bad. We needed one more W...... No goals out of our Top 6 Premier players is the #1 reason we lost (4 in a row...) . Stuart and Niemi can share #2.

The issue isn't necessarily with Stuart the individual. It's Stuart playing the role he did. Filling a top four d-man role with someone of Stuart's skills without someone exceptional as his partner is a recipe for disaster. And that kind of answer for that spot is a recurring theme over the years since Ehrhoff was dumped. The issue the past few years has been that they've lost balance with regards to skills. Puck-movers have been on the right side and defensive d-men have been on the left side. That has to change.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Stuart, besides Niemi, is the #1 reason we lost to the Kings this year.

Which is why I did not inclue "2014". And no, I don't think he was the #1 reason at all.

2008 was in reference to the team that played in 2008-09. Every team thereafter that you list out has had a fatal flaw on the back end that was costing them or would have costed them.

Would have cost(ed) them? What does that even mean? Are you saying that if the Sharks had advanced, then the blueline would have been an issue?

Isn't that just reinforcing my point that the Sharks's failures to advance go beyond the depth issues?

They were not good enough when they got rid of Ehrhoff and didn't replace his skills. In certain years, it absolutely was the reason why they lost. This was especially true against the Canucks, the Hawks, and the Blues.

I didn't include the Blues, although I would argue that hanging that loss solely on the defense issues iss silly.

Against the Canucks, it was an inability to score at ES/solve Luongo, to shut down the Canucks PK, shut down the Sedins, etc. Luongo and the Sedins had their best performances against that SJ team.

On the backend, Huskins and Wallin weren't the problem vs. Vancouver. In fact, I'd argue that Boyle, with his partner Murray, were dominated against their matchip. That is what cost the team.

Same in 2010. Blaming the defense for the reason we lost against Chicago is revisionism. Nabakov was a sieve, the Sharks couldn't solve Niemi, and Chicago's forwards simply outclassed SJ's. It didn't help that their defense was better than SJ's...but that was only part of the problem. And I'd argue that the gap between Boyle-Murray vs. Keith-Seabrook, and Blake-Vlasic vs. Campbell-Byfuglien were much bigger reasons than the gap between Huskins-Wallin and Sopel-Hammer...

Ever since they got rid of Ehrhoff, one of the key elements that is in every team's gameplan against the Sharks is to attack the left side of their defense due to their lack of depth in general and especially their puck-movement skills were not there.

Yeah, not something I've observed, at all. At least not a consistent strategy employed against the Sharks. I think you're a little guilty of saying "because it fits my argument, it must be what happened".

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Would have cost(ed) them? What does that even mean? Are you saying that if the Sharks had advanced, then the blueline would have been an issue?

Isn't that just reinforcing my point that the Sharks's failures to advance go beyond the depth issues?



I didn't include the Blues, although I would argue that hanging that loss solely on the defense issues iss silly.

Against the Canucks, it was an inability to score at ES/solve Luongo, to shut down the Canucks PK, shut down the Sedins, etc. Luongo and the Sedins had their best performances against that SJ team.

On the backend, Huskins and Wallin weren't the problem vs. Vancouver. In fact, I'd argue that Boyle, with his partner Murray, were dominated against their matchip. That is what cost the team.

Same in 2010. Blaming the defense for the reason we lost against Chicago is revisionism. Nabakov was a sieve, the Sharks couldn't solve Niemi, and Chicago's forwards simply outclassed SJ's. It didn't help that their defense was better than SJ's...but that was only part of the problem. And I'd argue that the gap between Boyle-Murray vs. Keith-Seabrook, and Blake-Vlasic vs. Campbell-Byfuglien were much bigger reasons than the gap between Huskins-Wallin and Sopel-Hammer...



Yeah, not something I've observed, at all. At least not a consistent strategy employed against the Sharks. I think you're a little guilty of saying "because it fits my argument, it must be what happened".

To the first part, it potentially costing them means that against a different matchup that it likely becomes an issue. I've never said that it doesn't go beyond the depth but it is a required element for success in the playoffs.

The big reason why they lost to the Blues was because the defense couldn't handle the Blues forecheck and a lot of that was because their puck movement was inept on the left side. The same applies to the Canucks and I believed it was even mentioned as part of their plan somewhere on their side, I'll have to look that up. But Murray getting dominated in their matchup is exactly what I'm talking about as part of the problem. Vlasic had the same problems for a long time with handling the puck under pressure in his own zone. Teams have made it a focus when they gameplan against the Sharks for the playoffs. Huskins, Wallin, White, and everyone else that they've tried to use as well in that spot were part of the same problem. Big time as well against the Hawks.

Just because the goalie performance is not up to par doesn't mean the other things were good enough as it was. Turnovers in their own zone have always been a killer for this team and guess where it stems from?

If it's not something you have observed, you might want to go back and rewatch those games a little more carefully because it absolutely is there and has been there for a while now.

 

[SJeasy]

Yeah, not something I've observed, at all. At least not a consistent strategy employed against the Sharks. I think you're a little guilty of saying "because it fits my argument, it must be what happened".

You are doing the same with Boyle. The Sharks PP fell off two years ago and took a nosedive this past season. Boyle's 5on5 play has been in a tailspin for two years. Expecting him to bounce back after a "few" bad games is a joke. That is a classic decline. It fit your argument that to say that a few bad games or recovery from concussion was an excuse. He was falling before the concussion and Demers was outplaying his PP over that short span of "uninjured" games (small sample).

Your second issue is of vets. All winners, have surprise step ups. Rarely is it a vet. It is usually someone like Toffoli, Pearson, Marchand, etc. A player whose production is dismissed as marginal in the regular season but who steps up in the playoffs. A complete philosophy of "wheelchairs and walkers" will produce playoff losers because you don't have a chance for those surprise step ups. Many times, those step ups become solid top 6/top 4 NHL players because of their initial playoff performance.

Irie,
You want roles but it is not defense in the playoffs. Particularly this last year, playoff scoring increased. There is a difference in the playoffs and generally scoring goes down (~5%). However, that is seeing the forest and not the trees. The lack of PPs has a concomitant drop in production. The actual overall drop for scoring can be attributed to that lack of PPs and then some. Even strength scoring goes up marginally and it is noteworthy that first line players have about a 10% drop while it is the secondary players who make up for that 10% drop. After long observation, it is apparent that the playoffs put more of a premium on generating odd-mans and that is where you get your bump in lower line scoring. More, riskier plays from the lower lines. Pure grinders don't participate in those odd-man opportunities and playoff teams with pure grinders on the lower lines lose. You need skill on the lower lines to win in the playoffs.

 

[OrrNumber4]

You are doing the same with Boyle. The Sharks PP fell off two years ago and took a nosedive this past season. Boyle's 5on5 play has been in a tailspin for two years. Expecting him to bounce back after a "few" bad games is a joke. That is a classic decline. It fit your argument that to say that a few bad games or recovery from concussion was an excuse. He was falling before the concussion and Demers was outplaying his PP over that short span of "uninjured" games (small sample).

Disagree about Boyle's play. Yes, he was bad this year. But I thought it was the concussion, something he seemed to be recovering from in the least 8-10 games of the year.

The Sharks's powerplay was still 7th in 2013....

[Mod]

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Disagree about Boyle's play. Yes, he was bad this year. But I thought it was the concussion, something he seemed to be recovering from in the least 8-10 games of the year.

The Sharks's powerplay was still 7th in 2013....

When I see a good player suddenly start playing poorly after getting rocked in the head by a violent hit, I think that the hit caused the poor play.

[Mod] Besides, Boyle didn't suddenly start playing poorly. He was playing poorly before this past season at even strength.

 

[Sleepy]

Stuart was bad, but not #1 reason bad. We needed one more W...... No goals out of our Top 6 Premier players is the #1 reason we lost (4 in a row...) . Stuart and Niemi can share #2.

I'd put Stuart's inability to play defense, recover a puck, make a breakout pass, or do anything remotely productive as part of the reason the Top 6 failed to score. In "blame" tier:

1) Top 6/Boyle/Stuart poor play + Powerplay Fail
2) Vlasic Injury + Lack of defensive Depth + TM icing Torres/Stuart
3) Niemi + the roster spot abortions that are Havlat/Burish/Kennedy


I think if you change any of the items in Tier 1, Sharks pull out a series win.
If you change some of the issues in Tier 2, games 4-7 are closer and Sharks probably pull out a series win. Vlasic injury is only in Tier 2 since it was towards the end of the series and not the beginning.
If you change the items in Tier 3, it's a slight help but not enough to change the outcome of any one game IMO.

 

[SC2008]

Stuart, besides Niemi, is the #1 reason we lost to the Kings this year.

Damn.

2009 - Best Sharks blueline ever. Help get us the Prez.
2014 - Best Sharks frontline ever. Most Sharks goals scored in a round ever.

Ironically, both bounced from the 1st Round. Gotta find a way to have both peaking at the same time. Not worried about goaltending. You can win with an Osgood, Ward, Niemi, Fleury or Crawford these days.

 

[Alwalys]

Not worried about goaltending. You can win with an Osgood, Ward, Niemi, Fleury or Crawford these days.

One of these is not the like the others, well maybe two. Niemi and Fleury put up average numbers but were bailed out by world class offenses. The rest put up extremely strong numbers in their Cup years.

 

[SC2008]

One of these is not the like the others, well maybe two. Niemi and Fleury put up average numbers but were bailed out by world class offenses. The rest put up extremely strong numbers in their Cup years.

My point is that you can ride an above average goalie to the finals if you have a top D and forwards.

Heck, if you look at the runner ups since '06 you have teams riding Roloson, Leighton, Boucher, Emery to the finals.

 

[Alwalys]

My point is that you can ride an above average goalie to the finals if you have a top D and forwards.

Heck, if you look at the runner ups since '06 you have teams riding Roloson, Leighton, Boucher, Emery to the finals.

They actually have to be an above average goalie though, Niemi in the playoffs is below average so far in his career and does not look to have the chops to be better.