View Single Post
Old
02-18-2013, 11:56 AM
  #46
Trojan35
Registered User
 
Trojan35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,511
vCash: 500
Because Sharks fans are used to less talented, overachievers like the teams of Irbe and Nabby's first year.

Now the Sharks are more talented, but do not overachieve. I would argue against the idea they underachieve or choke (choke vs Anaheim yes, that's the exception). But for some reason fans think you can apply the same principals that allow a lesser team to achieve to a talented team and get the same results. That's simply not how it works.

You can have a scrappy, balanced, overachieving team like the Sharks of old or today's Nashville. But if you apply that same philosophy to a talented team it has disastrous results. Take a look at Washington and what changing Boudreau's system did to that franchise. It would have similar results if Babcock tried to implement that in Detroit, or Bylsma in Pitt, etc.

The Sharks now have above average top line talent, average 2nd line talent, and terrible 3rd/4th line talent. They have average top line d-talent, and very good/above average 2nd line/3rd line talent. They have average goaltending and average coaching.

When I look at it that way, it's an average team that probably makes it on experience and gets bounced in the 1st round by a decidedly more complete and consistent team. And that's assuming they fix what's so broken right now with the Sharks, because the play for the first 14 games of the season is well below average even if they escaped with a few more points than they deserved.

So what's to whine about?

Trojan35 is offline   Reply With Quote