Not sure what you're trying to say here... Your statement makes little sense. Are you talking about the series when the Sharks upset the Blues? That team was incredibly lucky to win. Great coaching and a very disciplined team. Not sure what your talking about injuries but that team was no were near as talented as most of the teams of the last decade. It took so much out of that team that they went on to lose the first 3 games of the next round. It was awesome that they pulled that off but that team had no business winning that series. The Blues imploded and Pronger let Lowry and the other forwards get under his skin and he took a bunch of undisciplined penalties.
Who are the Untouchable Sharks?
- Thread starter TreeLane
- Start date
I meant last year as in 2019, and yea, that team would not have got that far, but they stood up for each other and could match nastiness with nastiness. I still remember the goal from center ice, the blues penalty box overflowing, and Nolan being surrounded by blues and he managed to punch each one in turn.
Just that is what current version is missing, (I hate to say it) general toughness. We do have a few that can hit and grind, and it is hard to find players that could do that with out being defensive liabilities or offensive black holes. I just did not see the same level of clearing the crease, and more importantly, having each others back. (not that you want stupid penalties, at least not in the playoffs)
Anyway, if headshots and the like are not called and the ref's do "game managment" then maybe its better to be initiating vs complaining.
The NHL was very different back then. You really can't compare the 2 eras. 2019? You mean when they made it to the conference finals? That team was plenty tough and would make that old team look like a junior team. Last years team just didn't play cheap. Sharks tried adding cheap shot artists (Torres) and it still back fired. Injury luck is the only thing I would like to have from that team that upset the Blues. Jeez they had a mostly washed up Lowry playing on the first line. That team had no right winning that series. As evidenced the next year when they played again and the Blues boat raced them.
they got Torres after he had too many suspensions, and I still don't like his hit on Milan Michálek, they need young, fast, skilled upcoming pests to be effective, but I bet none are available, and even if they are the sharks seem to discourage that type of player
Good grief.... No, they don't need pests. They need to address their forward depth (add at least 1 legit top 6 RW) and their goaltending. If they can somehow add an elite center that would be very helpful but it's not really necessary if they can address the scoring depth somehow. Pests don't win hockey games. Skilled hockey players do.
yea, skilled hockey players do win games,
So are you saying that I should not be worried about last years playoffs, that it was a unique situation?
So are you saying that I should not be worried about last years playoffs, that it was a unique situation?
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
The Blues didn't win the Cup by employing pests - a large part of their strategy was hitting to injure, removing the skill from the other team. The refs won't call everything in the playoffs so if you do so much that they can't keep up, it works to your advantage. Even they had skill players of course, but they knew who to target and how to do so (especially Karlsson in the WCF).
Levie
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2011
- 14,577
- 4,250
Nothing. Unless you are trying to argue that Boston and Dallas didn't have pests either? Which is flat out wrong.
Pavelski2112
Bold as Boognish
Ultimately the better solution is to get faster. Can't beat up what you can't catch. Trying to fight a war of attrition in an already tough West is a dangerous proposition if you want to make it out of the conference.
Groo
Registered User
Levie
Registered User
- Mar 15, 2011
- 14,577
- 4,250
There sharks couldn't do anything. There were too many lucky calls that go way too much media attention (vegas 5 minute, colorado offsides, meier's hand pass). The refs in the Blues series were intent to swallow their whistles and not be another statistic. The previous refs were kicked out of the playoffs. Doesn't matter if the Sharks had dirty players, they would have been penalized and the Blues wouldn't be.
If the Sharks had pests do you think that would have helped them not get hurt against the blues? Or Pavs not get hurt against Vegas? I don't. The Blues played that way the whole playoffs. Many teams that win the cup play on the edge. The Sharks had plenty of years where they had good injury luck. The last 2 seasons they haven't had any injury luck. So like I said, fix the depth, the goaltending and hope some of these glass players don't break for a season they'll be fine.
Speed, Size, and skill. A willingness to hit always helps. It all starts with defensive structure though.
Hard to disagree with this especially when the Blues put a puck into the netting and ended up with a PP right after that basically turned the series.
Burns is a league leading 1st line defenseman. The return of trading him would be better, and the preferable route, imo.
Plus, Burns as a M-NTC. If I remember correctly, he has to be protected if he decides not to go (potentially) to Seattle. Jones, with a NMC, has to be protected too. Bummer.
The only players that have no move clauses that have to be protected are karlsson and vlasic.
AaronDellForPrez
RF Modulator
Pavelski leaving the sharks for a year, getting a cup, then coming back the next season would be epic.
Good grief no thanks. Time to move on. Too small, too slow, and age won't let him battle thru it anymore. He's good where he is. That team is good enough to carry him so he can chip in at key moments.
Nolan11
Registered User
- Mar 5, 2013
- 3,236
- 334
It's difficult. Having bigger bodied players helps, but you need them to be better conditioned. Core strength helps prevent many injuries. Marleau marathon man is part genetics, part his personal drive to stay in peak shape.
More, if we have a few crease clearers that can lean back when the other team plays a punishing game, we could hold up better. Wear the other team down as much as they try to rub us out. This is not fighting, it's being able to match physicality when needed.
Trading Burns now is not a bad idea TBH
All depends on what his three team trade list is. If his teams are Pacific division teams, we just can't do it. We'd have little leverage and little incentive to do it. If it's something like Dallas, Toronto, and Minnesota then maybe they can leverage the other team's needs into a good deal but I don't see DW being interested and I don't think Burns will decline to such a point that it's not manageable to keep him until it's done. I get that it's until he's 40 but I think he has it in him to be a productive player through that point enough to be okay with the deal.
Will burns be a 70-80 point defenseman like he is now, when the contract ends. Most likely not, and if he still is i hope the sharks sign him to another 8 year deal for the same price.
But even if he declines and becomes a 30-40/50 point defenseman at the end of that contract the salary will still be worth it.
But even if he declines and becomes a 30-40/50 point defenseman at the end of that contract the salary will still be worth it.
The three years he's already put under his belt on this contract, he'd have to drop pretty hard right now in order for it to no longer be worth it with the salaries of premier offensive d-men going up and up.
