What does it takes to win the Cup?

[Swervin81]

Intangibles are just that. You can't quantify them because they don't exist within the realm of statistical quantification.

 

[WantonAbandon]

The Sharks just need to will the puck in the net with Telekinesis

 

[SC2008]

Whether or not the LA Kings will hoist the Cup these next few weeks remain to be seen, however, after watching their historic comeback versus the Sharks, and dispatching with the Ducks and Hawks, all in 7 game series, I've sadly reached the conclusion that the Sharks will NEVER win a Cup without a major change in team culture.

There was an old man I met at a game that once told me, "Hockey is the only major sport that grit, effort, and sheer determination can overcome skill.". I didn't know that I believed him then, and still have some doubt about that theory, but after seeing how some of our past seasons went and the eventual Cup winners, I can only come to the conclusion that the Sharks don't have a Cup and will never have one until they make a real concerted effort to take on the attitude that of ripping an opponent's heart out and showing it to them, meaning playing with the determination like their very lives depended on it. The Kings this year have shown their will during their playoff run, and my question is - does anyone realistically expect the Sharks to show the heart, grit, and determination necessary to come back from an 0-3 deficit had the coin been flipped? Sadly no, at least from what I see.

Has this team had the skill and talent to win the Cup? No doubt. But that alone does not make Stanley Cup Champions. Sounds stupid, but the Sharks need a killer instinct, like finishing a team when they're up 3-0, period. It absolutely kills me to see the team we had on the ropes about to lift another Cup.

Don't fire your GM before his time. Same people calling for Wilson's head wanted Lombardi out of here.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Don't fire your GM before his time. Same people calling for Wilson's head wanted Lombardi out of here.

Just because Lombardi won in LA doesn't mean he would have won here. A lot of the times, those GM's don't actually look themselves in the mirror until they get axed.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Just because Lombardi won in LA doesn't mean he would have won here. A lot of the times, those GM's don't actually look themselves in the mirror until they get axed.

Exactly.

Lombardi learned a lot of things from his time here. He has openly talked about how he has changed the way he manages assets, for example.

While I can definitely understand just jettisoning the core of this group, I can understand the argument for letting go of Wilson and TMac along with Thornton and Marleau.

 

[vilpertti]

Also regarding Lombardi, times were different. The team had an internal salary cap while the league didn't. UFA ages were different, RFA rules were different.

He did a good job as the GM of the team back then, I didn't feel like he should've been fired but I also felt like they should get Dave Nonis as a replacement =I

Wilson's been a very good GM for the team, he keeps them competitive and finds gems from drafts even though the most valuable picks have often been traded away. He also operates in a completely different environment than what Lombardi operated in.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

What Stalock equals remains to be seen. The only thing that is known is the Sharks really like him.

Well, yeah, I was just applying your logic.

I'm afraid the truth lies closer to needing both.

You need skill and execution to get the job done, yes. You need also need the 'will' with players rolling up their sleeves and getting the dirty jobs done when the time calls for it.

Execution is affected by luck too, but generally speaking, the Sharks have plenty of the former. Sadly, I am not sure if we have enough of the latter to last 16 games.

Not sure I exactly agree with that, but I don't know for sure. I just have a hard time thinking the Kings won because they wanted it more.

 

[jurisdoctor]

For those of you who have disagreed with my notion that the Sharks just didn't have the requisite will to win the Cup, please try and find a replay somewhere of Game 5 against the Kings. This was their chance at home to finish the series (among many), but they got manhandled by the Kings and they just didn't care. One didn't even have to be a hockey fan or know any hockey rules to have noticed that they played a lackluster game. And you know what that's attributable to? Pure will. (Or lack thereof.)

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For those of you who have disagreed with my notion that the Sharks just didn't have the requisite will to win the Cup, please try and find a replay somewhere of Game 5 against the Kings. This was their chance at home to finish the series (among many), but they got manhandled by the Kings and they just didn't care. One didn't even have to be a hockey fan or know any hockey rules to have noticed that they played a lackluster game. And you know what that's attributable to? Pure will. (Or lack thereof.)

Lots of ridiculousness in this post. To say that they didn't care is just pure conjecture and nothing based on anything but bias. You can have all the want in the world but it doesn't mean you're going to have it every night nor does it mean that you can beat a team that just might be better than you. They played a lackluster game for various reasons and it's not even remotely close to all will like you want to believe.

 

[jurisdoctor]

Lots of ridiculousness in this post. To say that they didn't care is just pure conjecture and nothing based on anything but bias. You can have all the want in the world but it doesn't mean you're going to have it every night nor does it mean that you can beat a team that just might be better than you. They played a lackluster game for various reasons and it's not even remotely close to all will like you want to believe.

For various reasons? And in your opinion, what reasons were those?

And as for my "conjecture" and "bias", sure...I'm not denying that you can't quantify "will" or "heart", but it makes for good (and not any less valid) conversation and debate. Who said that everything in sports debate/discussion had to be quantifiable? We're just talking here, not trying to solve calculus equations.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

For various reasons? And in your opinion, what reasons were those?

And as for my "conjecture" and "bias", sure...I'm not denying that you can't quantify "will" or "heart", but it makes for good (and not any less valid) conversation and debate. Who said that everything in sports debate/discussion had to be quantifiable? We're just talking here, not trying to solve calculus equations.

Yes but we're talking hockey and you're trying to dive into psychological issues among a group of human beings. It's every bit as difficult to get a grasp on it and it's never as simple as they didn't want it bad enough. It's a lazy explanation that is never accurate.

 

[jurisdoctor]

Yes but we're talking hockey and you're trying to dive into psychological issues among a group of human beings. It's every bit as difficult to get a grasp on it and it's never as simple as they didn't want it bad enough. It's a lazy explanation that is never accurate.

Well, I'd have to disagree with you on two points. First, I'm basing my statements not on pure "conjecture", but my observations and own personal experience with being a season ticket holder for many years and having played various sports at a competitive level. You have every right to disagree with my observations and/or conclusions, however, I'd like to hear why as you still haven't answered my inquiry as to why you thought they lost Game 5 vs the Kings.

Second, sometimes it is just as simple as "they didn't want it bad enough", so I'd have to disagree with you when you say that it's NEVER accurate because I believe, sometimes it is. People can analyze and overanalyze the CORSI, Fenwick %, etc. all they'd like but sometimes, especially in hockey, it can be and is, about pure will and desire to varying degrees to which we can agree to disagree, but again, I'd like to know why just for discussion's sake, vis-a-vis e.g., Game 5.

 

[OrrNumber4]

If you attempt to climb Mount Everest with your bare hands, it doesn't matter how hard you work. Heck, you can work a lot harder than someone with all the proper tools, and achieve a lot less.

One point that has been made about locker room culture that I think is very interesting. If you look at the Kings, in general, new players integrate really well. Mitchell, Gaborik, Carter, etc. stepped in with no problems. Even their rookies, like Pearson and Toffoli seemed to produce as-expected-or-better right off the drop.

The Sharks, on the other hand, haven't really had that. Players like Winnik, Moen, Guerin...didn't really click. Its obviously been up-and-down with rookies; Carle, Wingels, Goc, Demers, Setoguchi, Mitchell, etc. all went through long periods of struggle. In previous years, DW has planned his roster expecting young players to step it up; very rarely do they do so.

Is it that LA is picking the right players, or that they have an environment that is conducive to getting players to shape up quickly?

 

[Pinkfloyd]

Well, I'd have to disagree with you on two points. First, I'm basing my statements not on pure "conjecture", but my observations and own personal experience with being a season ticket holder for many years and having played various sports at a competitive level. You have every right to disagree with my observations and/or conclusions, however, I'd like to hear why as you still haven't answered my inquiry as to why you thought they lost Game 5 vs the Kings.

Second, sometimes it is just as simple as "they didn't want it bad enough", so I'd have to disagree with you when you say that it's NEVER accurate because I believe, sometimes it is. People can analyze and overanalyze the CORSI, Fenwick %, etc. all they'd like but sometimes, especially in hockey, it can be and is, about pure will and desire to varying degrees to which we can agree to disagree, but again, I'd like to know why just for discussion's sake, vis-a-vis e.g., Game 5.

Your observations and personal experience still lead to using conjecture for your conclusions. We all do that because we don't have all the information.

In hockey, it comes down to who executes more plays than the other. Wanting it and 50 cents still won't buy you a cup of coffee. You can have all the will and desire in the world but that doesn't mean the legs and hands and brain will cooperate.

Game 5 was a lot of things that have nothing to do with desire or will. The first goal happened because of a poor defensive effort by Sheppard. They lost Vlasic after 15 minutes in the first. Their goalie was their goalie which means he isn't that good. Their depth beyond Vlasic on the left side wasn't good either...and it got to the point that any mistake or any rush against could not be competently defended more often than not and you could flip a coin on whether the goalie was going to make the save.

It's certainly possible that they came into the game tentatively but I don't believe that that changes their will or desire level. It just wasn't smart of them to do that. I don't believe that fear or panic changes your will or desire...it just made them do dumb things. The will and desire is still there but their head wasn't in the game after they started losing and they would make mistakes.

 

[Dicdonya]

Will doesn't beat skill. But will+skill beats skill.

Also luck is bs. Everything that happens in the entire universe could be said to be luck. There is no doubt luck involved in the NHL. However controlling the luck is what great teams do, and why certain teams seem to always have it. Not a single cup winner I can remember didn't deserve the cup based on their play, and merely "lucked" into a cup.

Using luck as a crutch for a teams success or failure is pointless, and a cop-out.

 

[Man in the Mirror]

2006 - lost 4 straight to edmonton
2010 - lost 4 straight to chicago
2012 - lost 4 straight to st. louis
2014 - lost 4 straight to L.A.

our group needs to be more resilient

 

[spintheblackcircle]

Justin Williams

 

[SactoShark]

Jonze Kopitoews

 

[The Nemesis]

2006 - lost 4 straight to edmonton
2010 - lost 4 straight to chicago
2012 - lost 4 straight to st. louis
2014 - lost 4 straight to L.A.

our group needs to be more resilient

Large chunks of the current team weren't here in 06 or even 2010

 

[DarrylshutzSydor]

Will doesn't beat skill. But will+skill beats skill.

I think this was the point of the thread, and if so, then LA certainly proved it. Warriors, up and down that lineup.

 

[Alwalys]

Health