Why did the Sharks 2006-2019 not win a cup?

[Offtheboard412]

Considering the two goals the Sharks had taken away in game two and the fact that the network kept showing the cup with Crosby's name on it. I would say Uncle Gary had a lot to do with it.

Sharks were dominated for long stretches that series. It was a miracle they won game 5. The only thing that kept that series close was the Penguins inability to finish chances those playoffs.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

There are a lot of good points in the thread, but I think it ultimately comes down to seeing those Sharks teams NOT in a vacuum.

You could argue "your best need to be your best", but I would amend that to, "your best need to be better than their best." As others have pointed out, here are the teams that the Sharks lost to, sometimes embarrassingly so, sometimes in heartbreakingly close ways:
- Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, and an amazing supporting cast
- Getzlaf, Perry, Pronger, Niedermayer, Giguere
- Toews, Kane, Keith x3
- Kopitar, Quick, Doughty (arguably the Sharks should have been able to match up here, and did some years, but notably not the reverse sweep)
- Vancouver (should have been able to match up here, and did a few years)
- Crosby, Malkin, Letang, and an amazing 3rd line (which was the real series difference in 2016).
- Mackinnon, Makar, Landeskog, Rantanen (we actually beat them in 2019).

Yes, Thornton and Marleau didn't score PPG+ in the playoffs... but they still often played pretty well and pretty dominantly. The Sharks didn't always have a great supporting cast/depth in the 3rd D pair or 4th line, and yes, the goaltending sometimes wasn't good enough. But sometimes it was, and sometimes the depth was there.

Ultimately, Thornton and Marleau and Pavs and Couture were all very good, but they were never world-leading and often were up against players who were. That's probably factor #1. After that, we probably never had the true #1 D that you need (until Burns came into his own) and that's one reason why we ended up overpaying for Karlsson. After that, it was probably the depth. Last, it was probably the goaltending, only some of those years.

Couture was elite in the playoffs for the most part. Always played with that bite/edge you need in the playoffs. Never felt that Thornton or Marleau played with that same bite/edge. Clowe did but he was nowhere near that level of player of course.

 

[Hockeyville USA]

Didn’t follow the Sharks much during this era but I was aware they were always a consistent good team during this time frame. What gives though and why only 1 finals appearance to show for it? I know obvious answer is being chokers but why? How did they keep the same GM this long when most teams would have canned their management being this good in regular seasons with high expectations but no cup to show for it in 13 years. I always thought the Sharks were the mini dynasty(kings,hawks,pens) that never was.

I always believe that if they held onto Brad Boyes (acquired in the Nolan trade) instead of flipping him in the Jeff Jillson/Curtis Brown 3-way deal, the Sharks win a Cup. Boyes was very good for awhile, certainly much better than washed up depth guy Curtis Brown.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Because Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau were bad in the playoffs and choked nearly every year.
Pavelski and Couture were usually good in the playoffs. Especially Couture. Sometimes other guys were bad or the depth wasn't great. Marleau and Thornton consistently choked and under performed.

 

[The Macho King]

Joe Thornton is a historically terrible playoff performer relative to his caliber. Like - probably the worst of the expansion era? Biggest comparable is probably Dionne but Dionne just had a dogshit team around him so he gets a *bit* more of a pass?

 

[coooldude]

Because Joe Thornton and Patrick Marleau were bad in the playoffs and choked nearly every year.
Pavelski and Couture were usually good in the playoffs. Especially Couture. Sometimes other guys were bad or the depth wasn't great. Marleau and Thornton consistently choked and under performed.

Joe Thornton is a historically terrible playoff performer relative to his caliber. Like - probably the worst of the expansion era? Biggest comparable is probably Dionne but Dionne just had a dogshit team around him so he gets a *bit* more of a pass?

Last two posts are just parroting the talking heads media with no data.

The depth and the goaltending were often the problem. Thornton and Marleau had some bad series and some very strong series. Many of the teams they lost to ended up winning multiple cups because they were historically good teams and even more world-class than Thornton and Marleau.

You can get beaten without being a choker. Unless you're a talking head parroting what everyone else is saying.

 

[The Macho King]

Last two posts are just parroting the talking heads media with no data.

The depth and the goaltending were often the problem. Thornton and Marleau had some bad series and some very strong series. Many of the teams they lost to ended up winning multiple cups because they were historically good teams and even more world-class than Thornton and Marleau.

You can get beaten without being a choker. Unless you're a talking head parroting what everyone else is saying.

He has a massive delta between his regular season performance and postseason numbers. Sometimes the talking heads are right. Thornton is the worst playoff performer of his generation.

 

[coooldude]

Thornton is the worst playoff performer of his generation.

Great soundbite! *of his generation*, real ring to it. What stats back that up? Did you watch every game? Where's the analysis? In what series did Thornton specifically let the Sharks down, by himself, by choking with a really low points for #? How about the series when he had great stats but they still lost -- what does that say about Thornton, that he should have had even more points in those series? And what about the years when he wasn't even the top line center, was it still his fault? What about the series where goals against or xGA were really poor - Thornton's points differential there, too?

Of course, if we continue on the trend, you'll just say, "yeah, it's that simple." But of course, it's not. It just makes it feel a lot better if the world is simple and reducible.

I already said my piece earlier in the thread for what happened, and far more intelligent posts have been made about the topic in the first 3 pages than "Thornton Bad, Choker, Big points problem in playoffs." Hopefully others read those and get a deeper picture of what happened.

 

[The Macho King]

Great soundbite! *of his generation*, real ring to it. What stats back that up? Did you watch every game? Where's the analysis? In what series did Thornton specifically let the Sharks down, by himself, by choking with a really low points for #? How about the series when he had great stats but they still lost -- what does that say about Thornton, that he should have had even more points in those series? And what about the years when he wasn't even the top line center, was it still his fault? What about the series where goals against or xGA were really poor - Thornton's points differential there, too?

Of course, if we continue on the trend, you'll just say, "yeah, it's that simple." But of course, it's not. It just makes it feel a lot better if the world is simple and reducible.

I already said my piece earlier in the thread for what happened, and far more intelligent posts have been made about the topic in the first 3 pages than "Thornton Bad, Choker, Big points problem in playoffs." Hopefully others read those and get a deeper picture of what happened.

Hey Joe - it's okay man at least you were good for a funny soundbite here and there.

 

[Gorskyontario]

Last two posts are just parroting the talking heads media with no data.

The depth and the goaltending were often the problem. Thornton and Marleau had some bad series and some very strong series. Many of the teams they lost to ended up winning multiple cups because they were historically good teams and even more world-class than Thornton and Marleau.

You can get beaten without being a choker. Unless you're a talking head parroting what everyone else is saying.

Marleau and Thornton were career losers and Couture carried them as best he could for 15 years.

 

[DRW895]

Thornton had the more or less similar playoff numbers like Stamkos. Should we critisize him and thumb up to other guy just beacause TBL teammates were mor clutch?

 

[jigglysquishy]

You can look at the season-by-season of Thornton during his run on the Sharks

Season	Regular Season	Playoff	Notes
2005-06	125 points 130 point on Sharks 1st in NHL in PPG 1st in NHL in points	Round 1: 4 points in 5 games (tied for 4th on Sharks), 0 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP	Hart Trophy, 125+ point player, into sub PPG player in both rounds. Outplayed by Marleau in both rounds A disappointing performance for the best offensive player in the world
2006-07	114 points 2nd in NHL in points 2nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 5 games (tied for 1st on Sharks, 0 goals), 6 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (1st on Sharks by 2 points), 4 EVP	Still offensively dominant in regular season, he had the best playoffs of his career so far. He was the Sharks best player against Detroit. Marleau put up 0 points in 6 games
2007-08	96 points 5th in the NHL in points 9th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 7 points in 7 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP Round 2: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks), 2 EVP, 0 goals	First year the Sharks are really good. Good first round. Awful second round, but the whole team played terrible against the Stars. Marleau with 2 points in 6 games in Round 2
2008-09	86 points 11th in NHL in points 13th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 6 games, first on Sharks (3 EVP)	The President's Trophy Sharks get upset in the first round. No Shark has a good series. Marleau only 3 points in 5 games
2009-10	89 points 8th in NHL in points 12th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 6 games (3 EVP, -4). Tied for 7th on Sharks in points. Pavelski dominant 8 points in 6 games Round 2: 8 points in 5 games (first on Sharks) Round 3: 1 point in 4 game sweep (-5)	Sharks won the Western Conference that year. Thornton had a great round 2, but stunk in round 3 and was middling in round 1
2010-11	70 points 25th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 2nd on Sharks in points behind Marleau	Round 1: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks, 5 EVP) Round 2: 6 points in 7 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks, team worst -3 Round 3: 6 points in 5 games (2nd on Sharks)	Nothing great this year, but was steady through 3 rounds while other players had ups and downs.
2011-12	77 points 13th in NHL in points 19th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 5 games, leading the Sharks	A good series. Marleau and Pavelski combine for 0 points in 5 games
2012-13	40 points 30th in NHL in points 32nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 4 games, 3rd on Sharks Round 2: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 1st on Sharks	Good first round. Whole team including Thornton stunk against the Kings. Pavelski, Marleau, Thornton combine for 1 goal in 7 games.
2013-14	76 points 13th in NHL in points 20th in NHL in PPG	3 points in 7 games, tied for 7th on Sharks. Team worst -6	All around bad round. Marleau had 7 points, Pavelski 6
2014-15	65 points 28th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 3rd on Sharks behind Pavelski and Couture	Did not qualify
2015-16	82 points 4th in NHL in points 7th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 5 games (tied for 6th on Sharks) Round 2: 8 points in 7 games (2nd on Sharks) Round 3: 7 points in 6 games (tied 2nd on Sharks) SC Finals: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 4th on team)	Good in rounds 2 and 3. Not good in rounds 1 and 2. Couture had an outstanding playoffs, but Thornton only finished 4th on his team in points. Marleau was poor in general.
2016-17	50 points 4th on Sharks	2 points in 4 games, hurt in other 2	Nothing positive to write about, but he was injured
2017-18	36 points in 47 games 9th on Sharks (4th in PPG)	Missed playoffs to injury
2018-19	51 points in 73 games 8th on Sharks (8th in PPG)	Round 1: 4 points in 6 games (missed 1), tied for 5th on Sharks Round 2: 2 points in 7 games Round 3: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 3rd on Sharks	I can't fault him here because he was old. It wasn't his team anymore

All in all, Thornton played 25 playoff series for the Sharks.

6 times he lead the team in points
15 times was top 3 in points

If you focus on his prime (2006-2008) where the Sharks were a strong team.

30 points in 35 games.
Marleau: 28 points in 35 games

302 points in 222 regular season games
Marleau: 212 points in 237 regular season games

Player	Regular Season 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Playoffs 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Change
Joe Thornton	26 G 85 A 111 P	12 G 59 A 71 P	- 40 P (-36%)
Patrick Marleau	29 G 44 A 73 P	37 G 28 A 65 P	- 8 P (-11%)

I can't blame him for the whatevers in the mid 2010s when he was in his 30s.

But that three year run where he finished 1st in the NHL in regular season points, and 0.01 behind Crosby for 1st in PPG. He just plain underperformed in the playoffs.

Thornton had the more or less similar playoff numbers like Stamkos. Should we critisize him and thumb up to other guy just beacause TBL teammates were mor clutch?

Stamkos is absolutely criticized as a playoff performer here.

 

[MadLuke]

those years were san jose’s realistic window and their finishing move was dany heatley (for the affordable price of michalek and cheechoo’s corpse). but unfortunately he was dany heatley and in two runs to the conference finals he scored a combined five playoff goals.

It is rare for such question to actually have an answer, Cheechoo leg injury-Heatley never turning the corner back for just a season.

And it is not an excuse, there a reason they were able to get him for Michalek and a cap dump, it was not a secret that he was not elite anymore despite the good looking number or a big playoff gamer.

But it was not a crazy bet for the price and written like that versus the final piece of the winners (Recchi/Weight-Pronger-Hossa-Kessel-those well put Kings piece, Horton) he was lacking versus potential/expectation.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Thornton and Stamkos were drafted over 10 years apart. Thornton can be the worst playoff player of his generation and Stamkos can be the worst of his. There's plenty of darts to go around...

 

[The Macho King]

Thornton had the more or less similar playoff numbers like Stamkos. Should we critisize him and thumb up to other guy just beacause TBL teammates were mor clutch?

Hey I'm a Lightning fan.

Go through my post history. Stamkos f***ing sucks in the playoffs - if he were still our best player we would have never had the postseason success we've had. It's absolutely a significant mark against him, but it's going to get papered over because Tampa won 2 Cups and has been to two more Finals.

 

[MadLuke]

Stamkos is absolutely criticized as a playoff performer here.

Imagine just how big of a legacy that guy would have with a Patrick Kane type of playoff play on the teams he had the chance to play on... 650 goals player with 3 cups has a main guy, a smythe, etc...

 

[The Macho King]

Imagine just how big of a legacy that guy would have with a Patrick Kane type of playoff play on the teams he had the chance to play on... 650 goals player with 3 cups has a main guy, a smythe, etc...

If Stamkos showed up in the playoffs he'd be a top 100 player.

It's just become so much more stark with Kucherov and Point being so f***ing clutch.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Thornton had the more or less similar playoff numbers like Stamkos. Should we critisize him and thumb up to other guy just beacause TBL teammates were mor clutch?

Has anyone ever unironically praised Stamkos's playoff performances?

 

[OrrNumber4]

You can look at the season-by-season of Thornton during his run on the Sharks

Season	Regular Season	Playoff	Notes
2005-06	125 points 130 point on Sharks 1st in NHL in PPG 1st in NHL in points	Round 1: 4 points in 5 games (tied for 4th on Sharks), 0 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP	Hart Trophy, 125+ point player, into sub PPG player in both rounds. Outplayed by Marleau in both rounds A disappointing performance for the best offensive player in the world
2006-07	114 points 2nd in NHL in points 2nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 5 games (tied for 1st on Sharks, 0 goals), 6 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (1st on Sharks by 2 points), 4 EVP	Still offensively dominant in regular season, he had the best playoffs of his career so far. He was the Sharks best player against Detroit. Marleau put up 0 points in 6 games
2007-08	96 points 5th in the NHL in points 9th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 7 points in 7 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP Round 2: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks), 2 EVP, 0 goals	First year the Sharks are really good. Good first round. Awful second round, but the whole team played terrible against the Stars. Marleau with 2 points in 6 games in Round 2
2008-09	86 points 11th in NHL in points 13th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 6 games, first on Sharks (3 EVP)	The President's Trophy Sharks get upset in the first round. No Shark has a good series. Marleau only 3 points in 5 games
2009-10	89 points 8th in NHL in points 12th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 6 games (3 EVP, -4). Tied for 7th on Sharks in points. Pavelski dominant 8 points in 6 games Round 2: 8 points in 5 games (first on Sharks) Round 3: 1 point in 4 game sweep (-5)	Sharks won the Western Conference that year. Thornton had a great round 2, but stunk in round 3 and was middling in round 1
2010-11	70 points 25th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 2nd on Sharks in points behind Marleau	Round 1: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks, 5 EVP) Round 2: 6 points in 7 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks, team worst -3 Round 3: 6 points in 5 games (2nd on Sharks)	Nothing great this year, but was steady through 3 rounds while other players had ups and downs.
2011-12	77 points 13th in NHL in points 19th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 5 games, leading the Sharks	A good series. Marleau and Pavelski combine for 0 points in 5 games
2012-13	40 points 30th in NHL in points 32nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 4 games, 3rd on Sharks Round 2: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 1st on Sharks	Good first round. Whole team including Thornton stunk against the Kings. Pavelski, Marleau, Thornton combine for 1 goal in 7 games.
2013-14	76 points 13th in NHL in points 20th in NHL in PPG	3 points in 7 games, tied for 7th on Sharks. Team worst -6	All around bad round. Marleau had 7 points, Pavelski 6
2014-15	65 points 28th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 3rd on Sharks behind Pavelski and Couture	Did not qualify
2015-16	82 points 4th in NHL in points 7th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 5 games (tied for 6th on Sharks) Round 2: 8 points in 7 games (2nd on Sharks) Round 3: 7 points in 6 games (tied 2nd on Sharks) SC Finals: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 4th on team)	Good in rounds 2 and 3. Not good in rounds 1 and 2. Couture had an outstanding playoffs, but Thornton only finished 4th on his team in points. Marleau was poor in general.
2016-17	50 points 4th on Sharks	2 points in 4 games, hurt in other 2	Nothing positive to write about, but he was injured
2017-18	36 points in 47 games 9th on Sharks (4th in PPG)	Missed playoffs to injury
2018-19	51 points in 73 games 8th on Sharks (8th in PPG)	Round 1: 4 points in 6 games (missed 1), tied for 5th on Sharks Round 2: 2 points in 7 games Round 3: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 3rd on Sharks	I can't fault him here because he was old. It wasn't his team anymore

All in all, Thornton played 25 playoff series for the Sharks.

6 times he lead the team in points
15 times was top 3 in points

If you focus on his prime (2006-2008) where the Sharks were a strong team.

30 points in 35 games.
Marleau: 28 points in 35 games

302 points in 222 regular season games
Marleau: 212 points in 237 regular season games

Player	Regular Season 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Playoffs 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Change
Joe Thornton	26 G 85 A 111 P	12 G 59 A 71 P	- 40 P (-36%)
Patrick Marleau	29 G 44 A 73 P	37 G 28 A 65 P	- 8 P (-11%)

I can't blame him for the whatevers in the mid 2010s when he was in his 30s.

But that three year run where he finished 1st in the NHL in regular season points, and 0.01 behind Crosby for 1st in PPG. He just plain underperformed in the playoffs.


Stamkos is absolutely criticized as a playoff performer here.

This is a good breakdown, but even then you're missing some specifics. For example, in 2009 4 of Thornton's 5 points came in garbage time.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Has anyone ever unironically praised Stamkos's playoff performances?

Yeah, some of the stat watchers have for that one run where he was like the 5th or 6th best player on the Lightning...unfortunately, there's a few people out there...

 

[OrrNumber4]

I already said my piece earlier in the thread for what happened, and far more intelligent posts have been made about the topic in the first 3 pages than "Thornton Bad, Choker, Big points problem in playoffs." Hopefully others read those and get a deeper picture of what happened.

Ultimately, Thornton and Marleau and Pavs and Couture were all very good, but they were never world-leading and often were up against players who were. That's probably factor #1.

So Thornton wasn't a world-leading player...

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

So Thornton wasn't a world-leading player...

not in the playoffs

from 2001 to 2016:

regular season: 1.08 PPG (1233 pts in 1150 games), +207
playoffs: 0.80 PPG (112 pts in 139 games), -26

That's good for a 26% drop off.

In addition, Thornton has never been over 1.00 PPG in the playoffs and only 2x in 19 playoff appearances has he hit 1.00 PPG

 

[OrrNumber4]

not in the playoffs

from 2001 to 2016:

regular season: 1.08 PPG (1233 pts in 1150 games), +207
playoffs: 0.80 PPG (112 pts in 139 games), -26

That's good for a 26% drop off.

In addition, Thornton has never been over 1.00 PPG in the playoffs and only 2x in 19 playoff appearances has he hit 1.00 PPG

I agree with you, just pointing out a contradiction by @coooldude

 

[jigglysquishy]

All stars are expected to suffer in playoffs. Games are tighter. Fewer powerplays. No awful teams. But they should still look like stars.

Thornton in 2006 and 2007 regular seasons looked fantastic. Confident on the puck. Quick. He was the prototypical chess player out there. He seemed to force people to stay back for fear of the pass and gave himself space.

Not that I was watching a ton of Sharks games in the playoffs. But he never had that confidence.

 

[WarriorofTime]

You can look at the season-by-season of Thornton during his run on the Sharks

Season	Regular Season	Playoff	Notes
2005-06	125 points 130 point on Sharks 1st in NHL in PPG 1st in NHL in points	Round 1: 4 points in 5 games (tied for 4th on Sharks), 0 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP	Hart Trophy, 125+ point player, into sub PPG player in both rounds. Outplayed by Marleau in both rounds A disappointing performance for the best offensive player in the world
2006-07	114 points 2nd in NHL in points 2nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 5 games (tied for 1st on Sharks, 0 goals), 6 EVP Round 2: 5 points in 6 games (1st on Sharks by 2 points), 4 EVP	Still offensively dominant in regular season, he had the best playoffs of his career so far. He was the Sharks best player against Detroit. Marleau put up 0 points in 6 games
2007-08	96 points 5th in the NHL in points 9th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 7 points in 7 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks), 4 EVP Round 2: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks), 2 EVP, 0 goals	First year the Sharks are really good. Good first round. Awful second round, but the whole team played terrible against the Stars. Marleau with 2 points in 6 games in Round 2
2008-09	86 points 11th in NHL in points 13th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 6 games, first on Sharks (3 EVP)	The President's Trophy Sharks get upset in the first round. No Shark has a good series. Marleau only 3 points in 5 games
2009-10	89 points 8th in NHL in points 12th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 6 games (3 EVP, -4). Tied for 7th on Sharks in points. Pavelski dominant 8 points in 6 games Round 2: 8 points in 5 games (first on Sharks) Round 3: 1 point in 4 game sweep (-5)	Sharks won the Western Conference that year. Thornton had a great round 2, but stunk in round 3 and was middling in round 1
2010-11	70 points 25th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 2nd on Sharks in points behind Marleau	Round 1: 5 points in 6 games (tied for 2nd on Sharks, 5 EVP) Round 2: 6 points in 7 games (tied for 3rd on Sharks, team worst -3 Round 3: 6 points in 5 games (2nd on Sharks)	Nothing great this year, but was steady through 3 rounds while other players had ups and downs.
2011-12	77 points 13th in NHL in points 19th in NHL in PPG	5 points in 5 games, leading the Sharks	A good series. Marleau and Pavelski combine for 0 points in 5 games
2012-13	40 points 30th in NHL in points 32nd in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 6 points in 4 games, 3rd on Sharks Round 2: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 1st on Sharks	Good first round. Whole team including Thornton stunk against the Kings. Pavelski, Marleau, Thornton combine for 1 goal in 7 games.
2013-14	76 points 13th in NHL in points 20th in NHL in PPG	3 points in 7 games, tied for 7th on Sharks. Team worst -6	All around bad round. Marleau had 7 points, Pavelski 6
2014-15	65 points 28th in NHL in points 30th in NHL in PPG 3rd on Sharks behind Pavelski and Couture	Did not qualify
2015-16	82 points 4th in NHL in points 7th in NHL in PPG	Round 1: 3 points in 5 games (tied for 6th on Sharks) Round 2: 8 points in 7 games (2nd on Sharks) Round 3: 7 points in 6 games (tied 2nd on Sharks) SC Finals: 3 points in 6 games (tied for 4th on team)	Good in rounds 2 and 3. Not good in rounds 1 and 2. Couture had an outstanding playoffs, but Thornton only finished 4th on his team in points. Marleau was poor in general.
2016-17	50 points 4th on Sharks	2 points in 4 games, hurt in other 2	Nothing positive to write about, but he was injured
2017-18	36 points in 47 games 9th on Sharks (4th in PPG)	Missed playoffs to injury
2018-19	51 points in 73 games 8th on Sharks (8th in PPG)	Round 1: 4 points in 6 games (missed 1), tied for 5th on Sharks Round 2: 2 points in 7 games Round 3: 4 points in 6 games, tied for 3rd on Sharks	I can't fault him here because he was old. It wasn't his team anymore

All in all, Thornton played 25 playoff series for the Sharks.

6 times he lead the team in points
15 times was top 3 in points

If you focus on his prime (2006-2008) where the Sharks were a strong team.

30 points in 35 games.
Marleau: 28 points in 35 games

302 points in 222 regular season games
Marleau: 212 points in 237 regular season games

Player	Regular Season 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Playoffs 82 game pace (2006-2008)	Change
Joe Thornton	26 G 85 A 111 P	12 G 59 A 71 P	- 40 P (-36%)
Patrick Marleau	29 G 44 A 73 P	37 G 28 A 65 P	- 8 P (-11%)

Kick that out to include 2008-09 and 2009-10 in there. The Sharks were a great team (117 and 113 points). Thornton 29 and 30. 5th in All Star voting in 2009 and 2010. 2009 isn't that bad a Series in a vacuum, but still, that's not stepping up and getting it done. 2010 was a terrible Western Conference Finals in particular. Combined -14 in 21 games. Can't have that.