Well I have watched at least 95% (maybe even 100%) of the games that Dillon has played in his entire NHL career so I'd consider myself fairly well versed on him. Ultimately my opinion is that he is a 2nd pairing D on a lottery team and a 3rd pairing D on a playoff team. Maybe a #4 at best on a good team but only with the right partner. Burns is definitely not the right partner.
GDT: We're in Brooklyn Now for Game 5. 4:30 PDT
- Thread starter hohosaregood
- Start date
lsx
Registered User
It's sad really, I've wanted to see Stalock succeed so much and yet the bad games outnumber the good.
Gilligans Island
Registered User
hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,557
- 912
I like Stalock a lot, but that was just terrible. It wasn't completely his fault of course, but plain and simple Jones would not have let in 6. I'm betting 2 tops as 4 of those goals were very stoppable.
Really disappointing game all around. I am also just about as big of a fan of Dillon's as WB is of Burns, he's crap and I wish we still had Demers
Really disappointing game all around. I am also just about as big of a fan of Dillon's as WB is of Burns, he's crap and I wish we still had Demers
Sorry if this has already been mentioned,
But what's the go with Ben Smith? Only 4.50 min is ice time, and didn't get a shift in the 3rd?
But what's the go with Ben Smith? Only 4.50 min is ice time, and didn't get a shift in the 3rd?
slocal
Dude...what?
hockeyball
Registered User
- Nov 10, 2007
- 21,557
- 912
Ah right. Didn't watch the game, but follow Smiths progress where I can. Poor bastard. Hopefully it's not to bad.
SactoShark
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I agree, but they're gonna have to win a few of these types of game to be at the top. And they are going to have to win a few with Stalock.
Top teams will lose these types of games as well. It's nothing to be concerned about even though people will make way too much of Stalock's performance when that was easily the worst defensive performance by the team to date.
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today
This road trip could make or break us. Bookend B2B's.
Fri Nov 13, 2015 Sharks Red Wings
Sat Nov 14, 2015 Sharks Sabres
Tue Nov 17, 2015 Sharks Bruins
Thu Nov 19, 2015 Sharks Flyers
Sat Nov 21, 2015 Sharks Penguins
Sun Nov 22, 2015 Sharks Blue Jackets
Anomie2029
Registered User
Stalock had an awful game. No ifs or buts about it. He let in some awful goals, whilst I offense still produced 3 goals.
Burns and Dillon both had poor games. It's neither one bringing the other down - they just do not pair up well together. Burns plays better with Martin, and Dillon had been performing pretty well with Tennyson. It just shows our D-depth is still an issue that we need to rectify IMO.
I liked what I saw from Goldobin. Showed some good vision and play. I wouldn't mind seeing him stay on that line when Donskoi is back, with may Donskoi going onto the 3rd line.
Back to Back game against a team that should go pretty far in the East missing Couture, Martin, and Donskoi. I'm not too concerned - unless we put out regular poor performances.
Burns and Dillon both had poor games. It's neither one bringing the other down - they just do not pair up well together. Burns plays better with Martin, and Dillon had been performing pretty well with Tennyson. It just shows our D-depth is still an issue that we need to rectify IMO.
I liked what I saw from Goldobin. Showed some good vision and play. I wouldn't mind seeing him stay on that line when Donskoi is back, with may Donskoi going onto the 3rd line.
Back to Back game against a team that should go pretty far in the East missing Couture, Martin, and Donskoi. I'm not too concerned - unless we put out regular poor performances.
I felt that same way as you but welcome to one of the whacky aspects of the NHL. You'd think with gambling, the NHL would be more concise like the NFL and MLB.
Burns had the most TOI in both b2b games. Let's hope there is some better balancing by the coaches in those upcoming b2b games.
No doubt, but I always believed that Stalock was over-hyped here. I was hoping that some of Martin's polish would wear off on Stalock, but it looks like it didn't. I have to wonder what Stalock was doing, not watching and learning from Martin?
Stalock is a flopping fish, and not a predator shark, using an analogy from the sea. Quite the opposite of Martin.
I did like Goldobin as well, but I am more undecided on whether he should stay or not. I watched one of the Barracuda games and wonder whether stay there would do Goldobin any good, or I must have watched an aberration of a game.
One thing I noticed in this game was that the Sharks were taking the impact of the hits more than giving. Plus, their FO wins were bad. So that suggested they were not rested from the previous night's game at all. Sharks were too flat in the physical game.
Looking back, I agree with another poster that DeBoer should have put Stalock in for the Devils game instead, or played Martin for both.
DW needs to start planning some backup goalie action because if Martin is injured for a lengthy time, Sharks will miss the playoffs with Stalock in the net (and return a good 1st round pick to Boston).
Last edited:
T0uGh C0oki3
Goodbye Jumbo Joe
- Dec 19, 2014
- 3,863
- 100
This game shows Paul Martin is (almost) just as important as Vlasic.
And yeah, as much as I love Stalock, we need to talk about that backup role.
And yeah, as much as I love Stalock, we need to talk about that backup role.
Last edited:
Yes, but it is hard to say. Four of the goals were on Stalock completely including the empty netter (would not have been an empty net if not for the three other goals on Stalock).
Game would have been 3-2, Sharks win.
Taking his helmet off like that shows Stalock does not understand the rules of the NHL. Something he has no excuse for at this point.
19sharks19
Registered User
Agree on both. Luving Martin being added to the lineup. GREAT addition.
On Stalock; bummer of a game via Stalock. Stalock of 2014/2015 = 2015/2016 = should go another route in the back up role. No doubts. Shoulda made a move for Tokarski when Montreal put him on waivers. BIG step up over Stalock.
Terrible game by Stalock. Especially pulling his mask instead of tracking the puck.
He needs confidence and he will be OK.
He needs confidence and he will be OK.
Hold the Pickles
Registered User
If two were, three were (ENG)--I know you said completely, but 2 softies (or one softy and one stooge goal) led to having to pull the goalie that early and maybe even psychologically having less gas in the tank to boot.
One softy can make a big difference. From there, it can be geometrically worse for each softy.
I watched the highlights before coming to read this the thread, which left me with the impression that while Stalock did not play well, he was more a victim of bad luck (goals 1,2, and 5) and bad team defense than his bad play. The first goal as seeing eye shot, the second likely resulted from him having his bell wrung by the shot that immediately preceded it (at least I am hoping), the third resulted from a give-away behind the net by Burns and Thornton not picking up his man coming from behind the net/potentially questionable rebound control by Stalock, the fourth resulted from Dillon quitting on the puck carrier and Burns covering the guy on the far side rather than the puck carrier/unfortunate ramp off Stalock's stick, and the fifth was a great shot from a prime scoring area using the d-man as a screen.
You'd love to see him steal a few of those, but there really were no Niemi-esque softies IMO.
You'd love to see him steal a few of those, but there really were no Niemi-esque softies IMO.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Game 2 PWHL WALTER CUP - Minnesota @ Boston - Boston leads series 1-0Wagers: 2Staked: $460.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - ASSINIBOIA RACE 1 - WinnipegWagers: 1Staked: $10,000.00Event closes- Updated:
-