HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > San Jose Sharks
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Game #26 Sharks vs Kings 7:30PM CSNCA KFOX "It's a me, Marileau!"

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 12:52 PM
  #926
Chubbs
Toasty
 
Chubbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,023
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
Clowe looked fine last night but if you were to put someone up on the 2nd line it'd be Sheppard. Hes good with the puck and could set up Pavs and Marleau. Wingels adds speed to.the 3rd line and puck retrieval.
I agree that Sheppard could potentially be a good slot-in for the second line, but I don't want to take Sheppard off that third line because I think he's the glue holding it together. Clowe benefited from playing against weaker competition, but it was Sheppard who was making things work IMO. Put both of them together and have them play a good possession game. Put only Clowe with anyone else in our bottom six and it'll likely be a defensive nightmare.

Clowe Gomez Burish/Handzus would lead the league in giveaways and negative corsi.

Chubbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 12:54 PM
  #927
TealTownUSA
Registered User
 
TealTownUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: 415
Country: United States
Posts: 1,105
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshrky27 View Post
Nobody is saying the Kings would just roll over and die.... But like you said, when the Sharks go into prevent mode it always becomes a hair raising event. Too many times this seems to backfire.

I never understood why teams in any sport switch to prevent D near the end of the game. The defense was working just fine for the whole game, why change it...
i don't get why it happens in every sport. remember the niners were up 31-3 on the patriots this past season? then played zone, no blitz and brady picked us apart...

sharks never stick to what works cuz our coach has a itchy trigger finger to change almost instantly.

TealTownUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:04 PM
  #928
Chubbs
Toasty
 
Chubbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 3,023
vCash: 500
I don't see how the players could collectively change their style of play pretty much right after the commercial time-out without the coaches telling them to do so.

TMac was saying how he didn't like them turtling at the end of the game, but it was probably his idea. Maybe he didn't outright say "nobody play offense anymore", but he probably suggested "make only safe plays and just chip it out every time" which is essentially the same thing.

Chubbs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:05 PM
  #929
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 374
Burns looked incredible last night.

He has one of the longest reaches I have ever seen. Defensemen think they can get around him coming out of their zone but that reach gets in the way.

Could Burns be a legit 1st line forward?

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 01:46 PM
  #930
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 30,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TealTownUSA View Post
i don't get why it happens in every sport. remember the niners were up 31-3 on the patriots this past season? then played zone, no blitz and brady picked us apart...

sharks never stick to what works cuz our coach has a itchy trigger finger to change almost instantly.
The Bruins did it against the Caps in the 2nd period and blew a 3 goal lead. Bruins also did it against the Pens All teams do it. The Sharks stopped skating and they almost paid for it. Blame it on the system or whatever else you want. When the Sharks don't move their feet and play a soft east/west game..they lose. Can't play fast when you're standing still.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 02:02 PM
  #931
sjshark91
Registered User
 
sjshark91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Country:
Posts: 23,652
vCash: 2810
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
Burns looked incredible last night.

He has one of the longest reaches I have ever seen. Defensemen think they can get around him coming out of their zone but that reach gets in the way.

Could Burns be a legit 1st line forward?
He was a legit 1st line forward until Minn made him a legit top pair Dman.

sjshark91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 02:22 PM
  #932
lsx
Registered User
 
lsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 2,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
Could Burns be a legit 1st line forward?
You're looking at it the wrong way, almost all offensive defensemen would make legit top line forwards, it's the fact they have the skill set to also play defense effectively that makes them special and sought after. It's easier to find a good wing than it is to find a defensively responsible offensive defenseman.

lsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 02:49 PM
  #933
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshark91 View Post
He was a legit 1st line forward until Minn made him a legit top pair Dman.
He is quickly making me a believer that he can transition back and add actually be more valuable to this team as a forward.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lsx View Post
You're looking at it the wrong way, almost all offensive defensemen would make legit top line forwards, it's the fact they have the skill set to also play defense effectively that makes them special and sought after. It's easier to find a good wing than it is to find a defensively responsible offensive defenseman.
Normally that's true, but look at this Sharks roster. Demers was a healthy scratch last night. They do not need any more defensemen right now.

They need offense badly, and Burns has provided just about all the offense in the past 2 games.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 02:59 PM
  #934
Linkster
LTIR'ed off
 
Linkster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Coastal Sharkifornia
Country: United States
Posts: 5,226
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
Could Burns be a legit 1st line forward?
TMac's Magic 8-Ball line combo generator says...

--- You may rely on it! ---

Linkster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 03:05 PM
  #935
lsx
Registered User
 
lsx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sonoma County, CA
Posts: 2,945
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
Normally that's true, but look at this Sharks roster. Demers was a healthy scratch last night. They do not need any more defensemen right now.

They need offense badly, and Burns has provided just about all the offense in the past 2 games.
You missed the point. He asked if Burns would make a legit first line forward, and I explained why he would, but why he's more sought after as a offensive defenseman.

SJ's problems are largely due to not having offense from the defense, so yes, he absolutely is important to us on the blue line, especially now. This team has serious trouble breaking out effectively and crossing completely into the offensive zone when anyone other than Boyle carries the puck up the ice. You're ignoring what an important role the defense plays in creating offensive chances, and in that regard we absolutely need Demers and Burns on the blue line.

Demers sitting is a different issue, and one of the reasons why the offense from the defense has been lacking.

lsx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:03 PM
  #936
Phu
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 6,774
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
but the question is, is he a 5.5 million dollar forward....
His skillset is clearly worth that or more, but he's far more valuable as a D-man.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sjshrky27 View Post
Nobody is saying the Kings would just roll over and die.... But like you said, when the Sharks go into prevent mode it always becomes a hair raising event. Too many times this seems to backfire.

I never understood why teams in any sport switch to prevent D near the end of the game. The defense was working just fine for the whole game, why change it...
For one thing, because the opponent changes their offense to press harder and commit less to defense, so you might get hemmed in regardless, and a counterattack strategy makes some sense. Also with a big lead late it gives you a chance to deploy your lower liners more, who also tend to get hemmed in more, especially since the other team will be playing their top liners more.

That said I'm not a fan of prevent either.

Phu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:06 PM
  #937
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 30,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by juantimer View Post
His skillset is clearly worth that or more, but he's far more valuable as a D-man.



For one thing, because the opponent changes their offense to press harder and commit less to defense, so you might get hemmed in regardless, and a counterattack strategy makes some sense. Also with a big lead late it gives you a chance to deploy your lower liners more, who also tend to get hemmed in more, especially since the other team will be playing their top liners more.

That said I'm not a fan of prevent either.
Darryl definetly ran with Kopitar, Brown, Carter and Richards with all his lines until the end of the game.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:11 PM
  #938
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by lsx View Post
You missed the point. He asked if Burns would make a legit first line forward, and I explained why he would, but why he's more sought after as a offensive defenseman.

SJ's problems are largely due to not having offense from the defense, so yes, he absolutely is important to us on the blue line, especially now. This team has serious trouble breaking out effectively and crossing completely into the offensive zone when anyone other than Boyle carries the puck up the ice. You're ignoring what an important role the defense plays in creating offensive chances, and in that regard we absolutely need Demers and Burns on the blue line.

Demers sitting is a different issue, and one of the reasons why the offense from the defense has been lacking.
I get your point, I just disagree with it. I don't think the Sharks defense is why they are 28th in the league in scoring.

What you are talking about is all "in theory". If it was so easy to find a offensive wing then why hasn't DW gone and done that? Why did they resort to putting Burns up at forward?

It's because they have a clear lack of forward talent, and an abundance of defensive talent.

Havlat, Clowe, and almost the entire bottom 6 have been awful this year when it comes to offensive production. They need to make up for it somehow. They are constantly scratching quality defensive players, and even still had Demers scratched last night.

If these past two games are a true indication of his offensive potential then the Sharks would have a higher net points total with Burns at forward and Demers on defense, than with both on defense.


Last edited by Wedontneedroads: 03-15-2013 at 04:19 PM.
Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:24 PM
  #939
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
I get your point, I just disagree with it. I don't think the Sharks defense is why they are 28th in the league in scoring.

What you are talking about is all "in theory". If it was so easy to find a offensive wing then why hasn't DW gone and done that? Why did they resort to putting Burns up at forward?

It's because they have a clear lack of forward talent, and an abundance of defensive talent.

Havlat, Clowe, and almost the entire bottom 6 have been awful this year when it comes to offensive production. They need to make up for it somehow. They are constantly scratching quality defensive players, and even still had Demers scratched last night.

If these past two games are a true indication of his offensive potential then the Sharks would have a higher net points total with Burns at forward and Demers on defense, than with both on defense.
It's because they don't understand how to solve the problem the right way so they are doing things like this. I explained how to solve the problem the right way in the other thread. They don't need better forwards (besides maybe Clowe), they need to use the ones they have properly.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:46 PM
  #940
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,879
vCash: 374
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
It's because they don't understand how to solve the problem the right way so they are doing things like this. I explained how to solve the problem the right way in the other thread. They don't need better forwards (besides maybe Clowe), they need to use the ones they have properly.
Now the bolded I can agree with.

I don't agree that Clowe is the only issue though. I have been very disappointed with Handzus, Burrish, Clowe, Havlat; all of which were supposed to have a positive impact on this team. 17 points after 26 games should be Clowe and Havlat's stat lines alone. That's all 4 combined.

Trust me I completely get the point that an offensively skilled defenseman is more valuable than most 1st line, and all second line wingers.

The point I'm considering (not even trying to make since it's only been 2 games) is that such basic logic does not apply to the Sharks current situation, and Burns may in fact be more valuable to THIS team as a forward.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 04:54 PM
  #941
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wedontneedroads View Post
Now the bolded I can agree with.

I don't agree that Clowe is the only issue though. I have been very disappointed with Handzus, Burrish, Clowe, Havlat; all of which were supposed to have a positive impact on this team. 17 points after 26 games should be Clowe and Havlat's stat lines alone. That's all 4 combined.

Trust me I completely get the point that an offensively skilled defenseman is more valuable than most 1st line, and all second line wingers.

The point I'm considering (not even trying to make since it's only been 2 games) is that such basic logic does not apply to the Sharks current situation, and Burns may in fact be more valuable to THIS team as a forward.
I'm not to worried about Havlat, he's shown to have a huge positive impact when he's 100% and the team is playing well. I suspect we'll see a much improved situation with him tomorrow on. Burish is worthless, but he's a 4th liner so whatever, at least he kills penalties well. Handzus, as a 4th line center, isn't a big deal. Sheppard panned out thankfully so it's not a huge concern either.

Clowe's the only guy I have zero hope for. Even if he turns it around it doesnt matter because we should still trade him. Handzus is gone after this year anyway.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:03 PM
  #942
Kegsey
#joeMONEY
 
Kegsey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,845
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Is Havlat?
Droppin' bombs

Kegsey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:11 PM
  #943
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I'm not to worried about Havlat, he's shown to have a huge positive impact when he's 100% and the team is playing well. I suspect we'll see a much improved situation with him tomorrow on. Burish is worthless, but he's a 4th liner so whatever, at least he kills penalties well. Handzus, as a 4th line center, isn't a big deal. Sheppard panned out thankfully so it's not a huge concern either.

Clowe's the only guy I have zero hope for. Even if he turns it around it doesnt matter because we should still trade him. Handzus is gone after this year anyway.
but if they turn it around and leave Burns in the top six I like the Idea of Clowe on the third line.

Cloew Gommez Sheppard?

Wingles Zeus DJ/Burish

Thats not a bad bottom six if Sheppard can find some offense. Hes starting to get chances and Clowe will get opportunities from Gomez

*I would still trade him and Murray though....

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 05:23 PM
  #944
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 17,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
but if they turn it around and leave Burns in the top six I like the Idea of Clowe on the third line.

Cloew Gommez Sheppard?

Wingles Zeus DJ/Burish

Thats not a bad bottom six if Sheppard can find some offense. Hes starting to get chances and Clowe will get opportunities from Gomez

*I would still trade him and Murray though....
Yah, Wingels deserves to be on the 3rd line a lot more than Clowe frankly. He hits harder, more often, recovers the puck better, etc.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:05 PM
  #945
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 30,057
vCash: 500
You guys are over thinking..just like the Sharks do when they struggle. When this team skates and is physically and just play hockey so to speak...they are a pretty good team. They get into trouble when they stand still and try moving the puck instead of going forward like Hedican has been saying. I'm not saying thats the only reason they will improve or win games because they still need to execute cleaner in all 3 zones and find some bottom six offense. I'm encouraged by recent performances that they are finally getting it. Last night all 4 lines had zone time and great chances. The defense were active and pinching. They attacked as a 5 man unit. Encouraging signs. The key is sustaining this type of play. Look at what happened when they went away from it last night. This isn't the best Sharks team in TMac's era..its probably the worst but as sports go...you don't need the best team...just the right team. Lets go boys. End rambling.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 06:54 PM
  #946
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
You guys are over thinking..just like the Sharks do when they struggle. When this team skates and is physically and just play hockey so to speak...they are a pretty good team. They get into trouble when they stand still and try moving the puck instead of going forward like Hedican has been saying. I'm not saying thats the only reason they will improve or win games because they still need to execute cleaner in all 3 zones and find some bottom six offense. I'm encouraged by recent performances that they are finally getting it. Last night all 4 lines had zone time and great chances. The defense were active and pinching. They attacked as a 5 man unit. Encouraging signs. The key is sustaining this type of play. Look at what happened when they went away from it last night. This isn't the best Sharks team in TMac's era..its probably the worst but as sports go...you don't need the best team...just the right team. Lets go boys. End rambling.
Something was said for sure in regards to our D getting in the play more last night. At one point both Murray and Stuart were down low in the cycle, that's straight up nuts. I also noticed a lot of Boyle and Irwin down low too. It worked so I hope they keep it up.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:00 PM
  #947
Tkachuk4MVP
22 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 9,206
vCash: 500
Fear the Fin's statistical analysis of the game:


http://www.fearthefin.com/2013/3/15/...y-the-numbers#



Some good stuff in there. As evidenced by the eyeball test, Burns' was great, and Murray and Stuart were god-awful (Pavs too for that matter).

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:04 PM
  #948
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 26,351
vCash: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Fear the Fin's statistical analysis of the game:


http://www.fearthefin.com/2013/3/15/...y-the-numbers#



Some good stuff in there. As evidenced by the eyeball test, Burns' was great, and Murray and Stuart were god-awful (Pavs too for that matter).
The Murray-Stuart pairing is literally the worst pairing that you could create from the Sharks D. I hate it so much.

Also, wtf is up with Pavs.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:09 PM
  #949
DuckEatinShark
GET ALL THE PPs!!!!
 
DuckEatinShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: San Jose
Posts: 5,397
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tkachuk4MVP View Post
Fear the Fin's statistical analysis of the game:


http://www.fearthefin.com/2013/3/15/...y-the-numbers#



Some good stuff in there. As evidenced by the eyeball test, Burns' was great, and Murray and Stuart were god-awful (Pavs too for that matter).
It was one of the few underwhelming games by Stuart all year. He's been rock-solid for us.

And what the hell is wrong with Pavelski? Is he ALSO playing through an undisclosed injury like Havlat and Clowe?

DuckEatinShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 07:21 PM
  #950
Gene Parmesan
Ice up, son.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 30,057
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheJuxtaposer View Post
The Murray-Stuart pairing is literally the worst pairing that you could create from the Sharks D. I hate it so much.

Also, wtf is up with Pavs.
I was wondering if hes fully healed from that knee sprain he got in the KHL.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.