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

Never winning the cup with this core...

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2012, 11:22 PM
  #26
TheJuxtaposer
#Shorks
 
TheJuxtaposer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Diego, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 28,641
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
What? I'd argue that Burns is the fastest skater on the team.
Agree.

TheJuxtaposer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 02:13 AM
  #27
hohosaregood
Drunken Snacking
 
hohosaregood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 7,644
vCash: 500
We have a quite a few pretty fast players but somehow I never thought of them being "explosive". I'm probably wrong but somehow I never see what I would describe as quick acceleration. Although I thought Braun was pretty quick when he would carry the puck into the zone.

hohosaregood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 02:55 AM
  #28
murdock1116
Registered User
 
murdock1116's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,551
vCash: 500
Burns, Braun, Marleau, Havlat are the fastest players on the Sharks.

Then you have Mitchell, Winnik, Wingels, Moore, Galiardi, Couture, Boyle, Thornton, Vlasic, Demers, Desjardins in the "fast enough" category. (Some of these guys you could argue should be in the above category but I only want to consider people who play with great speed and skill; *cough* mitchell *cough*)

Murray, White, Clowe, Pavelski, Handzus, Winchester are in the "slow" category.

This core could win a stanley cup, but its really more a matter of the stars aligning with the surrounding teammates. Do your aging veterans have enough left in the tank to chip in to the teams success? have the young prospects matured enough to contribute to the team winning even if they are no where near their full potential.

Seems like Murray and Handzus don't have anything left. And Galiardi and Mitchell just dont get it yet.

Moore is just bad.

If we can lose those pieces and find some other Wingels/McGinn's/Desjardins to fill, we'll be in a position to win it all.

murdock1116 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 03:16 AM
  #29
Slurms McKenzie
Wam wam wazzle!
 
Slurms McKenzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: San Jose
Country: Taiwan
Posts: 593
vCash: 500
could always go for the "pittsburgh model" =p. it worked for chicago.

Slurms McKenzie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 04:47 PM
  #30
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTFetus View Post
What? I'd argue that Burns is the fastest skater on the team.
Totally agree, there was one goal this year where he steamed from the D zone all the way to the goal line bypassing 2-3 opponents simply with speed and dumped a back pass to cooch for a score, at that point it was painfully obvious how fast he is.

I think our team is realatively fast, obviously not the fastest, but fast enough minus a couple players, but its the system we use thats slow, there is no reason to bust into the O zone full speed ahead since we play such a perimeter offensive game, we almost never have an immediate attack on the net when entering the zone, we just go in, either drop pass to the next forward or chip and chase behind the net and try to set up shop.

There was a game where drew was talking about how cooch got to the net for a screen/rebound just moments before the shot got there and it worked out a lot better than just setting up shop in front of the net so the D can setup as well and crush you while you are just standing in the crease.

Unfortunately our slow perimeter game means that sending one guy to the net means he has to stay there for a good 5-6 seconds before we finally get a shot in his direction which leads to way more blocked shots due to the D men already being right in front of the net, plus our screen, and our forward is getting beaten to smithereens whiles hes waiting for the shot, leaving far less chance he is actally capable to get a rebound or tip.

In other words sending someone to the net is almost futile if shots arent arriving quickly thereafter. Also it would be amazing if the sharks could actually enter the zone with TWO or more forwards already moving at close to full speed with one heading to the net and the other trying to make one move and getting a quick shot off. If the shot gets rebounded off along the boards we are in the zone and can attack it, otherwise the shot either goes in, gets tipped, maybe blocked or straight up saved and we have an O zone faceoff instead of just dumping it in and hoping we get to it and can make a play on it before the D, or drop passing it and THEN dumping it in or having it turned over, or at best having no forward momentum and having to try to get good position from way up at the point which leads to more odd man rushes etc.

I just dont think our system is a fast system, its a possesion system which is not fast, but quick. So having a bunch of fast players wont help if the main goal is do great board work and not use the middle of the ice for anything but point shots.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 05:05 PM
  #31
SJeasy
Registered User
 
SJeasy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: San Jose
Country: United States
Posts: 12,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicdonya View Post
I just dont think our system is a fast system, its a possesion system which is not fast, but quick. So having a bunch of fast players wont help if the main goal is do great board work and not use the middle of the ice for anything but point shots.
Yup. And the top scoring teams have some transition play, with even Detroit adding a stretch game. The object of any system is to get an outnumbered (unobstructed) shot on the goalie. Detroit has a system that gets 2on1's low off the cycle. And they only use Holmstrom in his net front role on PP and in end game situations. They aren't sitting him in front much 5on5. My take is that the Sharks have to use speed or speed of play to get more opportunities off the rush. Off the rush, is the easiest way to create those outnumbered opportunities. IMO, the Sharks forego the easy way too much in the interest of possession. It isn't that they have to change entirely; it is that they have to add to and vary their game. IMO, the Sharks are second only to Detroit in scoring off the cycle. It used to look good with the PP and good cycle combined but wasn't quite there, being masked by the huge PP. A little slippage and the lack of transition scoring is very prominent.

SJeasy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 05:10 PM
  #32
Dicdonya
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: San Jose
Posts: 767
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJeasy View Post
Yup. And the top scoring teams have some transition play, with even Detroit adding a stretch game. The object of any system is to get an outnumbered (unobstructed) shot on the goalie. Detroit has a system that gets 2on1's low off the cycle. And they only use Holmstrom in his net front role on PP and in end game situations. They aren't sitting him in front much 5on5. My take is that the Sharks have to use speed or speed of play to get more opportunities off the rush. Off the rush, is the easiest way to create those outnumbered opportunities. IMO, the Sharks forego the easy way too much in the interest of possession. It isn't that they have to change entirely; it is that they have to add to and vary their game. IMO, the Sharks are second only to Detroit in scoring off the cycle. It used to look good with the PP and good cycle combined but wasn't quite there, being masked by the huge PP. A little slippage and the lack of transition scoring is very prominent.
Entirely agree. It really just seems that our system has become too routine and therefore very easy to gameplan stopping it and our players abilities suffer because of it.

Dicdonya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2012, 06:59 PM
  #33
Phu
Registered User
 
Phu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,869
vCash: 500
Keep things in perspective though, our gameplan was not really stopped this season, the Blues are one of the few teams that could bottle it up. We shelled most teams most nights, and we were particularly good 5 on 5 and on the PP.

Phu 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 11:05 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.