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

Sharks lose to the Ducks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-20-2012, 12:18 PM
  #151
WineShark
HFBoards Sponsor
 
WineShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Napa Valley, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 7,042
vCash: 500
Rabble rabble. There I feel better.

__________________
WineShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 12:24 PM
  #152
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,923
vCash: 500
The radical shifts in lines helped us lose the posession game by a large extent i think.

Thought greiss did extremely well in that situation, the defense was floundering all game and he made some really big stops.

Niemi was average, a lot of the posters here rightly questioned him starting 11 in a row. its a positive that greiss can come out having not played in 11 games and do so well.

if people are expecting the kings to do the same thing to us they are mistaken. we work very well against the type of system the kings employ i think.

do0glas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 12:36 PM
  #153
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
The radical shifts in lines helped us lose the posession game by a large extent i think.
The lines were shuffled because the Sharks were playing like crap, not the other way around.

They didn't have an answer for the Ducks' top line so McLellan changed things around to try and find one.

But of course it's really because he's a complete idiot and loves nothing more than destroying "chemistry," that completely indefinable but oh-so-important phenomenon that drives the success of hockey teams. Clearly these players are so incompetent that playing with a different center destroys any hope of them actually trying.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 12:49 PM
  #154
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
The lines were shuffled because the Sharks were playing like crap, not the other way around.

They didn't have an answer for the Ducks' top line so McLellan changed things around to try and find one.

But of course it's really because he's a complete idiot and loves nothing more than destroying "chemistry," that completely indefinable but oh-so-important phenomenon that drives the success of hockey teams. Clearly these players are so incompetent that playing with a different center destroys any hope of them actually trying.
did you really think putting ferriero up there, or desjardins would help us keep the puck longer? or shifting to a one man forecheck for whatever reason?

we didnt play bad in the offensive zone long enough for him to justify going crazy with the lines.

do0glas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 12:55 PM
  #155
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
did you really think putting ferriero up there, or desjardins would help us keep the puck longer? or shifting to a one man forecheck for whatever reason?

we didnt play bad in the offensive zone long enough for him to justify going crazy with the lines.
You do realize that forwards have responsibilities outside of the offensive zone? And that the Thornton line was being throttled by the Perry line for most of the first period?

You're right that they didn't play bad in the offensive zone long enough before the line shuffling...because they didn't play in the offensive zone at all.

Couture (who's sucked for a while now) and Thornton were awful against Getzlaf/Perry so McLellan decided to use Marleau and Pavs against that line instead. It didn't yield results but that's smart coaching and, yes, it through the rest of the lineup into disarray but it's not like they were getting anything done before that.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 01:14 PM
  #156
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by irbelikewall View Post
But...they were bad bounces. There is nothing incorrect about that statement.
You're familiar with the old adage 'the harder I work the luckier I get', right?

Hockey is a game of odd bounces. Better teams put the puck in places to get those bounces. Lesser teams can't even create the opportunity to get those bounces. The Sharks are not creating enough of these opportunities and, even when they do, are not working hard enough as a unit to capitalize on them. Work harder, get luckier.

Stickmata is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 01:32 PM
  #157
Wedontneedroads
Registered User
 
Wedontneedroads's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 2,960
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stickmata View Post
You're familiar with the old adage 'the harder I work the luckier I get', right?

Hockey is a game of odd bounces. Better teams put the puck in places to get those bounces. Lesser teams can't even create the opportunity to get those bounces. The Sharks are not creating enough of these opportunities and, even when they do, are not working hard enough as a unit to capitalize on them. Work harder, get luckier.
I am familiar with it, I just don't think it is an accurate statement.

Just because you work hard doesn't mean you are going to get luckier. More times than not you are rewarded for your hard work, but I don't believe that's luck.

I thought the Sharks outplayed the Ducks for the better part of the 1st period, and then withered away as the period and the game went on. I was by no means saying the Ducks won the game because they were lucky. They had some incredibly dominating shifts in that game. It was just unfortunate the way those goals happened. Especially the Murray blocked shot right back to Palmieri the shift after the Sharks cut the lead to 1.

What's most frustrating to me is how the top line for the Ducks has dominated the Sharks for quite some time now going back to 2009. For whatever reason they just can't figure our Perry, Getzlaf, Ryan.

Wedontneedroads is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 01:59 PM
  #158
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
You do realize that forwards have responsibilities outside of the offensive zone? And that the Thornton line was being throttled by the Perry line for most of the first period?

You're right that they didn't play bad in the offensive zone long enough before the line shuffling...because they didn't play in the offensive zone at all.

Couture (who's sucked for a while now) and Thornton were awful against Getzlaf/Perry so McLellan decided to use Marleau and Pavs against that line instead. It didn't yield results but that's smart coaching and, yes, it through the rest of the lineup into disarray but it's not like they were getting anything done before that.
changing the lines wont make them play defense better. and it didnt help them score more either. lazy backchecking isnt fixed by having different line mates.

not attacking the puck and staying in position isnt changed by having different line mates.

perry/getzlaf? they combined for one goal, and it was a fluke. we were struggling against ****ing bonino/palmieri/ryan. we lost the offensive possession game because we couldnt hold on to the puck or make simple breakout passes. the line changes do nothing to fix that.

do0glas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:12 PM
  #159
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
changing the lines wont make them play defense better. and it didnt help them score more either. lazy backchecking isnt fixed by having different line mates.

not attacking the puck and staying in position isnt changed by having different line mates.

perry/getzlaf? they combined for one goal, and it was a fluke. we were struggling against ****ing bonino/palmieri/ryan. we lost the offensive possession game because we couldnt hold on to the puck or make simple breakout passes. the line changes do nothing to fix that.
It's not about playing defense better or backchecking. It's about getting a matchup that works. Couture/Thornton/Pavelski were brutal against the Getzlaf/Perry line so McLellan's hand was forced and he decided to pair Marleau and Pavs to go up against that line instead.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:17 PM
  #160
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
It's not about playing defense better or backchecking. It's about getting a matchup that works. Couture/Thornton/Pavelski were brutal against the Getzlaf/Perry line so McLellan's hand was forced and he decided to pair Marleau and Pavs to go up against that line instead.
All that is doing is admitting Mcfail still hasnt learned how to do matchups properly

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:21 PM
  #161
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by one2gamble View Post
All that is doing is admitting Mcfail still hasnt learned how to do matchups properly
Um, Thornton and Pavelski have been amazing going against top lines all season along. They crapped the bed last night. It happens. McLellan was smart enough to notice it immediately and rework the lineup to find a more optimal matchup that could drive possession against the Getzlaf line rather than get their ***** handed to them. Didn't happen but at that point the onus is on the players.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:22 PM
  #162
one2gamble
Registered User
 
one2gamble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 6,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Um, Thornton and Pavelski have been amazing going against top lines all season along. They crapped the bed last night. It happens. McLellan was smart enough to notice it immediately and rework the lineup to find a more optimal matchup that could drive possession against the Getzlaf line rather than get their ***** handed to them. Didn't happen but at that point the onus is on the players.
they have NEVER been amazing goign against the Ducks top line. Ever.

one2gamble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:24 PM
  #163
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
It's not about playing defense better or backchecking. It's about getting a matchup that works. Couture/Thornton/Pavelski were brutal against the Getzlaf/Perry line so McLellan's hand was forced and he decided to pair Marleau and Pavs to go up against that line instead.
team defense was shambolic, it wasnt a matter of match ups at all. couture/thornton would normally be able to shutdown anyone. the other players werent doing any better. weve played them what 4 times this year? tmac didnt know what works against them?

do0glas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:33 PM
  #164
Maxo187
Stay Frosty
 
Maxo187's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 415
Posts: 5,737
vCash: 500
I'm glad Havlat has looked good since his return, we need him now more than ever.

Maxo187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 02:42 PM
  #165
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,923
vCash: 500
agreed on havlat, he looks really confident out there.

do0glas is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 03:39 PM
  #166
Lebanezer
Registered User
 
Lebanezer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New York
Country: Lebanon
Posts: 3,084
vCash: 500
Havlat is awesome. I still can't believe that given the last 2 games he wasn't one of the players out for the final 1:30 of the game. I hate McLellan for many reasons but his dependence on the guys he's known since his first season in SJ is ridiculous.

Lebanezer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:08 PM
  #167
209
Registered User
 
209's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 1,309
vCash: 500
I havent read anything on this or the game thread and even though Havlat as looked good. The reason Corey Perry got that goal is because Havlat floated back to his left. All Havlat had to do was turn (head on a swivel) to his right to see Perry coming and he could have gotten his stick in before Perry's. One fan's opinion of course. That could have had the koala not wanting Havlat on the ice at the end...

209 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:14 PM
  #168
SactoShark
💤
 
SactoShark's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 10,561
vCash: 3000
Quote:
Originally Posted by 209 View Post
I havent read anything on this or the game thread and even though Havlat as looked good. The reason Corey Perry got that goal is because Havlat floated back to his left. All Havlat had to do was turn (head on a swivel) to his right to see Perry coming and he could have gotten his stick in before Perry's. One fan's opinion of course. That could have had the koala not wanting Havlat on the ice at the end...
Both Vlasic and Havlat completely quit on the play. Perry skated right through both of them and buried it. Pathetic effort.

SactoShark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 05:56 PM
  #169
5H4RK5
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,753
vCash: 500
We play the Ducks and Kings. We have to win this one against the Kings to stay in the hunt. We have to seize the opportunity. Games are running out.

5H4RK5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 07:06 PM
  #170
dwood16
Registered User
 
dwood16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: L.A.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Guys!!!

..at least 3 of the Ducks goals were all luck. Very unlucky in that game.

dwood16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 07:19 PM
  #171
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by dwood16 View Post
Guys!!!

..at least 3 of the Ducks goals were all luck. Very unlucky in that game.


I hope your being sarcastic... We had a lot bigger issues than luck in that game.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 08:20 PM
  #172
Mafoofoo
Jawesome
 
Mafoofoo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 13,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post


I hope your being sarcastic... We had a lot bigger issues than luck in that game.
Man at this point sarcasm and jokes are all that's keeping us from going even crazier than we already are.

Mafoofoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 08:40 PM
  #173
Pinkfloyd
Registered User
 
Pinkfloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Roseville
Country: United States
Posts: 38,561
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mafoofoo View Post
Man at this point sarcasm and jokes are all that's keeping us from going even crazier than we already are.
The ironic thing is that it's the sarcastic comments that makes people crazy...unless of course they are properly labeled with the sarcasm emote. haha

Pinkfloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-20-2012, 09:04 PM
  #174
dwood16
Registered User
 
dwood16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: L.A.
Country: United States
Posts: 1,865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post


I hope your being sarcastic... We had a lot bigger issues than luck in that game.
No, no sarcasm. They had some terrible luck that game.

Keep in mind, that I never use the luck excuse and think this was the one exception this year. They have had horrible luck of late but could have overcame it most of the time.

dwood16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-21-2012, 12:52 AM
  #175
Stickmata
Registered User
 
Stickmata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 1,489
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by irbelikewall View Post
I am familiar with it, I just don't think it is an accurate statement.

Just because you work hard doesn't mean you are going to get luckier. More times than not you are rewarded for your hard work, but I don't believe that's luck.
I don't think you really understand the meaning of that old adage. BTW, your last sentence above made my point. It's not luck, good or bad. It's hard work, and the lack thereof. Bad bounces are not the result of bad luck.

Stickmata is offline   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 07:15 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.