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

Fire Wilson and McLellan?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-30-2012, 05:38 AM
  #26
Gene Parmesan
Spider 2 Y Banana.
 
Gene Parmesan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: California
Country: United States
Posts: 46,868
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
I'm saying if Couture isn't a franchise player Wilson should've traded him for Nash, and if Wilson thinks he is a franchise player he shouldn't have traded his bff for spare parts...

As for your my comment towards your avatar that had nothing to do with your knowledge of anything, though I was most certainly being condescending, that was bush league and I'm sorry...my apologies...
Couture makes way less than Nash and plays better two way game. Is Nash a better goal scorer? absolutely but he makes 7.8 million dollars a year. That would crush what little depth this team has.

Gene Parmesan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 05:54 AM
  #27
RAF
Registered User
 
RAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gene Parmesan View Post
Couture makes way less than Nash and plays better two way game. Is Nash a better goal scorer? absolutely but he makes 7.8 million dollars a year. That would crush what little depth this team has.
Every team that plays the Blue Jackets knows Rick Nash is far and away their best player and has to key on stopping him. Couture may have more points but he is the Sharks 2ND LINE CENTER.

Rick Nash is no slouch.

RAF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 06:26 AM
  #28
WTFetus
Moderator
Marlov
 
WTFetus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: San Francisco
Country: United States
Posts: 12,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
When your best friend gets traded to Colorado suddenly this rock, this thing that makes you happy and helps your play is taken away and you devote energy to getting it back that takes away from your job.
McGinn and Couture aren't best friends though. They are close friends because they both played for the 67s. Derek Joslin was also their close friend, but their play didn't falter when he was traded.
Couture was also going cold before McGinn was traded and had a bit of a hot stretch later in March (when McGinn was already gone).

WTFetus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 07:18 AM
  #29
LeeIFBB
Teflon Doug
 
LeeIFBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Tanning Bed
Posts: 1,639
vCash: 500
Couture needs to grow up a bit.

LeeIFBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 07:24 AM
  #30
SFtoBoston
Left Heart In SF
 
SFtoBoston's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: San Francisco/Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 1,735
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
Ughhhhhhh...yeah, I'm sure McGinn getting traded has nothing to do with our most consistent player going into a funk right after the trade. Besides, it's not like Couture was a prolific goal scorer on the road anyway...
Couture needs to grow up and be a big boy now. Boo hoo my friend left! Deal with it. This is the NHL, not Pee Wee.

SFtoBoston is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 07:50 AM
  #31
oyster
Registered User
 
oyster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
Ughhhhhhh...yeah, I'm sure McGinn getting traded has nothing to do with our most consistent player going into a funk right after the trade. Besides, it's not like Couture was a prolific goal scorer on the road anyway...
Sorry, I gotta correct you here. Couture has absolutely scored more on the road than at home.

Last season 22 of his 32 goals came on the road. This season 18 of his 30 goals have been scored on the road. In the first half of this season he was scoring more goals away than at home, but his production at home has picked up since. For whatever reason, he scores more on the road than at home.

oyster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 07:55 AM
  #32
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,686
vCash: 500
Did DW just sign a contract extension prior to this year?

edit:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-thoughts.html

"The San Jose Sharks do not discuss front office moves, but hearing Doug Wilson signed a five-year contract extension at some point this season. "

So this was during the 10-11 season. So Wilson has at least 4 more years on his deal. Would the Sharks eat the multiple millions?

__________________
Devil inside, devil inside, every single one of us, the devil inside.

Last edited by spintheblackcircle: 03-30-2012 at 08:00 AM.
spintheblackcircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 08:19 AM
  #33
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
Did DW just sign a contract extension prior to this year?

edit:

http://www.cbc.ca/sports/blogs/ellio...-thoughts.html

"The San Jose Sharks do not discuss front office moves, but hearing Doug Wilson signed a five-year contract extension at some point this season. "

So this was during the 10-11 season. So Wilson has at least 4 more years on his deal. Would the Sharks eat the multiple millions?
I highly doubt it, and other than hiring McLellan I don't blame him for the current situation too much. I wouldn't fire DW, you are not going to find a better GM most likely to replace him with.

That said, Couture is a BETTER PLAYER RIGHT NOW than Rick Nash. Nash is a TERRIBLE value for his contract, and if you guys are frustrated at Patty's streakiness and floating, wait till you get a load of Nash.

If DW had traded Couture for Nash (or god forbid Couture +) I would be calling for his head. It would be easily the STUPIDEST thing he could do and totally sabotage the future of this team. You build around high value players like Couture, you don't trade them

What this team needs is confidence in it's system, it doesn't have that because it's system is terrible. Get a new coach, with a new system, and start fresh. I personally would trade a few players in the off season, but I would rather keep the entire team sans McLellan than keep McLellan and blow up the team.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 09:25 AM
  #34
Nighthock
**** the Kings...
 
Nighthock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Reno, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 16,207
vCash: 500
Fire McLellan and his cronies and replace them with an actual NHL coaching staff

I'm willing to give DW another year

Nighthock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 09:30 AM
  #35
Tkachuk4MVP
24 Years of Fail
 
Tkachuk4MVP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 10,523
vCash: 500
Was this thread really necessary? There's a fire DW thread right below it, and we already have a fire TM thread as well.

Tkachuk4MVP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 10:38 AM
  #36
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,928
vCash: 500
if anything its better because somehow its all about couture?

in an organization like the sharks they focus on continuity whenever possible. one bad regular season isnt going to get a coach fired. the first thing you will see is staff changes under the head coach.

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 10:41 AM
  #37
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today!
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 39,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
I highly doubt it, and other than hiring McLellan I don't blame him for the current situation too much. I wouldn't fire DW, you are not going to find a better GM most likely to replace him with.

That said, Couture is a BETTER PLAYER RIGHT NOW than Rick Nash. Nash is a TERRIBLE value for his contract, and if you guys are frustrated at Patty's streakiness and floating, wait till you get a load of Nash.

If DW had traded Couture for Nash (or god forbid Couture +) I would be calling for his head. It would be easily the STUPIDEST thing he could do and totally sabotage the future of this team. You build around high value players like Couture, you don't trade them

What this team needs is confidence in it's system, it doesn't have that because it's system is terrible. Get a new coach, with a new system, and start fresh. I personally would trade a few players in the off season, but I would rather keep the entire team sans McLellan than keep McLellan and blow up the team.
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a coach that took us to the WCF's twice is a failure. Nobody was beating the Hawks and we bareley had a shot at beating the Nucks, but it certainly wasn't coaching that cost us that series. As I've posted before, we entered PO's in 2009 against Ducks as banged up as we were in the the Nucks series. That was also his first year with the team. We were first in the conference at the All-Star break.

So why exactly was hiring Todd a mistake?

__________________

Well, that was another in a long series of regrettable life choices
Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 10:44 AM
  #38
Gilligans Island
Registered User
 
Gilligans Island's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: SF/Bay Area
Posts: 9,328
vCash: 500
If our media have any balls, one of the questions I'd want Wilson and McLellan to ask - and hold accountable - is why wasn't Yawney replaced with a qualified assistant instead of a cronie?

Gilligans Island is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 10:56 AM
  #39
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a coach that took us to the WCF's twice is a failure. Nobody was beating the Hawks and we bareley had a shot at beating the Nucks, but it certainly wasn't coaching that cost us that series. As I've posted before, we entered PO's in 2009 against Ducks as banged up as we were in the the Nucks series. That was also his first year with the team. We were first in the conference at the All-Star break.

So why exactly was hiring Todd a mistake?
Because clearly it's McLellan's fault the Sharks have a 7% shooting percentage at 5-on-5. It can't be bad luck - there's no such thing as luck, Obi-Wan said that himself and when has he ever steered anyone wrong? This team is full of chokers and McLellan is the chokiest of them all - the fact that he has the best winning percentage of any active coach is just evidence of how big of a choker he is. He was also personally responsible for shipping out Ginner after he gave TMac a concussion and we all know losing Jamie "1 goal in 50 games last season" McGinn is the reason the Sharks playoff hopes were destroyed.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:06 AM
  #40
RAF
Registered User
 
RAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by oyster View Post
Sorry, I gotta correct you here. Couture has absolutely scored more on the road than at home.

Last season 22 of his 32 goals came on the road. This season 18 of his 30 goals have been scored on the road. In the first half of this season he was scoring more goals away than at home, but his production at home has picked up since. For whatever reason, he scores more on the road than at home.
I was being sarcastic.

RAF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:07 AM
  #41
hockeyball
Registered User
 
hockeyball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 19,280
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a coach that took us to the WCF's twice is a failure. Nobody was beating the Hawks and we bareley had a shot at beating the Nucks, but it certainly wasn't coaching that cost us that series. As I've posted before, we entered PO's in 2009 against Ducks as banged up as we were in the the Nucks series. That was also his first year with the team. We were first in the conference at the All-Star break.

So why exactly was hiring Todd a mistake?
We got to the WCF because we had a hell of a roster that worked their ***** off because they were desperate. Once we faced competition where pure talent and hard work were not enough to win the game, we ran into a wall. Yes, we were absolutely out-coached, as we consistently are against top teams.

This season, the Sharks look worn out, their confidence is shot, and I don't really blame them.

Answer this question, do you truly believe there isn't a coach in the league right now that could have gotten this team into the playoffs with this roster?

Do you actually believe almost the entire roster is down in production because of bad luck?

Do you believe our PK sucks because of bad luck?

Is it the players fault that they have no idea how to defeat the trap? One of the most basic principles in hockey strategy.

It's not like i've wavered in this opinion. I've been pretty adamant about it win or lose most of the season. I've said the Sharks trip to the WCF's being credit to TMac is wrong for some time, he simply was a good enough coach to not drag them down, but he certainly didn't pull them up.

Am I right? I don't know, it's nearly impossible to truly quantify something like this. Am I basing this on nothing? No, I've absolutely put a lot of thought into this, analyzed the strategy, looked at statistics, and this is the conclusion I have come to.

I absolutely think this is the most talented roster the Sharks have ever iced and they are probably going to miss the playoffs. The only thing I can contribute that kind of utter failure to is coaching first and foremost. Fix that, and then you can start analyzing individual players. Until you have a system that works though, and a team playing with confidence, you don't have a stable enough base to stand on from which to judge the players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Because clearly it's McLellan's fault the Sharks have a 7% shooting percentage at 5-on-5. It can't be bad luck - there's no such thing as luck, Obi-Wan said that himself and when has he ever steered anyone wrong? This team is full of chokers and McLellan is the chokiest of them all - the fact that he has the best winning percentage of any active coach is just evidence of how big of a choker he is. He was also personally responsible for shipping out Ginner after he gave TMac a concussion and we all know losing Jamie "1 goal in 50 games last season" McGinn is the reason the Sharks playoff hopes were destroyed.
Give me a break...

We just blew an ENTIRE season. You can't be unlucky for that long, it's absurd. There is a reason the Sharks are shooting 7%, and it's not luck.

hockeyball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:08 AM
  #42
OrrNumber4
Registered User
 
OrrNumber4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Country: Switzerland
Posts: 7,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Because clearly it's McLellan's fault the Sharks have a 7% shooting percentage at 5-on-5. It can't be bad luck - there's no such thing as luck, Obi-Wan said that himself and when has he ever steered anyone wrong? This team is full of chokers and McLellan is the chokiest of them all - the fact that he has the best winning percentage of any active coach is just evidence of how big of a choker he is. He was also personally responsible for shipping out Ginner after he gave TMac a concussion and we all know losing Jamie "1 goal in 50 games last season" McGinn is the reason the Sharks playoff hopes were destroyed.
Who's fault is it then the the Sharks have a 7% shooting percentage at even strength? Are you going to say it is just bad luck since shot quality doesn't exist?

It would be interesting to see, from a statistical perspective, the consistency of this team. There is some merit to the argument that TMac's strategy works incredbily well against some teams (Colorado, Detroit), but poorly against others (St. Louis, Anaheim). And then it might be a personnel issue, becasue TMac may not have the types of players who can beat certain teams.

Ultimately, the failing may be due to the the Sharks's mantra that you stick with what worked. But perhaps in an evolving game, something that has worked for 2+ years CAN suddenly stop working....

OrrNumber4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:11 AM
  #43
RAF
Registered User
 
RAF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Purgatory
Posts: 204
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
I'm still waiting for you to explain how a coach that took us to the WCF's twice is a failure. Nobody was beating the Hawks and we bareley had a shot at beating the Nucks, but it certainly wasn't coaching that cost us that series. As I've posted before, we entered PO's in 2009 against Ducks as banged up as we were in the the Nucks series. That was also his first year with the team. We were first in the conference at the All-Star break.

So why exactly was hiring Todd a mistake?
That's a hell of a revisionist history you got going there. I especially like your reasoning for the opening round loss to the Ducks. That's some nice work.

RAF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:11 AM
  #44
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAF View Post
I was being sarcastic.
Let's just pretend this entire thread was sarcastic so I can have some of my limited faith in humanity restored.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
Give me a break...

We just blew an ENTIRE season. You can't be unlucky for that long, it's absurd. There is a reason the Sharks are shooting 7%, and it's not luck.
Again people fail to comprehend the degree to which luck influences outcomes in sports and life. Even over a full 82-game season, shooting percentage is 61% luck, 39% skill. And really the Sharks blew half a season not an entire one.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:16 AM
  #45
do0glas
Registered User
 
do0glas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 6,928
vCash: 500
yea shooting wide is luck inherent.

playing dump and chase against a goalie who almost played the puck every time it was back there is luck.

refusing to battle in front of the net unless your name is pavelski is luck.

not saying mclellan should be fired, but this luck thing is just the most ridiculous crap.

its not that luck doesnt exist...but sheesh

do0glas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:18 AM
  #46
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Les Wynan View Post
Even over a full 82-game season, shooting percentage is 61% luck, 39% skill. .
What you left out was: "this isn't fact. this is one guys opinion".

spintheblackcircle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:20 AM
  #47
Led Zappa
Tomorrow Today!
 
Led Zappa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Country: Scotland
Posts: 39,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hockeyball View Post
We got to the WCF because we had a hell of a roster that worked their ***** off because they were desperate. Once we faced competition where pure talent and hard work were not enough to win the game, we ran into a wall. Yes, we were absolutely out-coached, as we consistently are against top teams.

This season, the Sharks look worn out, their confidence is shot, and I don't really blame them.
So you believe that with a better coach we would have beaten the Hawks and the Nucks?

Quote:
Answer this question, do you truly believe there isn't a coach in the league right now that could have gotten this team into the playoffs with this roster?
Maybe. I don't know and neither do you. Anything is possible.

Quote:
Do you actually believe almost the entire roster is down in production because of bad luck?
Not entirely. I think a terrible road trip, which included bad luck and a lot of injuries started it.

Quote:
Do you believe our PK sucks because of bad luck?
Our PK was doing excellent after the tweaks. You can say he waited to long, but coaches aren't perfect and there could be legitimate reasons why they tried that system as long as they did. They were still in good shape in the standings employing it.

Quote:
Is it the players fault that they have no idea how to defeat the trap? One of the most basic principles in hockey strategy.
Possible. They had plenty of chances yesterday. They didn't finish them. And they've beaten it before. The smells of execution more than system to me.

Quote:
It's not like i've wavered in this opinion. I've been pretty adamant about it win or lose most of the season. I've said the Sharks trip to the WCF's being credit to TMac is wrong for some time, he simply was a good enough coach to not drag them down, but he certainly didn't pull them up.
Again, you have no proof of this. Pure conjecture. We weren't beating the Hawks and we were likely going to lose against the Nucks regardless of injuries.

Quote:
Am I right? I don't know, it's nearly impossible to truly quantify something like this. Am I basing this on nothing? No, I've absolutely put a lot of thought into this, analyzed the strategy, looked at statistics, and this is the conclusion I have come to.

I absolutely think this is the most talented roster the Sharks have ever iced and they are probably going to miss the playoffs. The only thing I can contribute that kind of utter failure to is coaching first and foremost. Fix that, and then you can start analyzing individual players. Until you have a system that works though, and a team playing with confidence, you don't have a stable enough base to stand on from which to judge the players.
And there it is. Your confirmation bias. You thought this was a great team entering the year, unlike me, and therefore it must be the coach.

Led Zappa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:21 AM
  #48
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by do0glas View Post
yea shooting wide is luck inherent.

playing dump and chase against a goalie who almost played the puck every time it was back there is luck.

refusing to battle in front of the net unless your name is pavelski is luck.

not saying mclellan should be fired, but this luck thing is just the most ridiculous crap.

its not that luck doesnt exist...but sheesh
Yes, obviously I've always maintained that net-front battles are the part of hockey influenced most significantly by luck.

Shooting percentage is overwhelmingly driven by luck, even over an entire season, and shooting percentage is the only reason the Sharks are struggling to make the playoffs. That's all I've ever said and I've even provided a crapton of evidence to support that. No one has bothered to present any evidence counter to it.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:22 AM
  #49
Les Wynan*
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 1,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpinTheBlackCircle View Post
What you left out was: "this isn't fact. this is one guys opinion".
Did you read the article, including the methodology? There's very little in the way of opinion anywhere in that piece.

Les Wynan* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2012, 11:23 AM
  #50
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,686
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zappa View Post
Nobody was beating the Hawks
2 1-goal games
1 1-goal game with an empty netter than made it a 2 goal game
1 2-goal game

....The best team won? You're sure? Despite the Sharks having home ice?

spintheblackcircle 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 11:38 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.