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

GameNight Thread: SJ Sharks vs. NJ Devils - Nov. 5th, 2003

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-06-2003, 04:53 AM
  #26
Kevin Wey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Gonchar: Washington might as well fold if they trade Gonchar for spare parts and prospects. As for their goaltending, Charpentier and Stana aren't too bad. In fact, Stana may actually finally be developing into an NHL backup after some success in the AHL. He's one of Slovakia's top young goalies, well, top goalies period with Lasak and Rybar. But Stana's the only one in North America right now. (Well, maybe Lasak is back in North America since his deal with Omsk fell through)

Gonchar is awesome, it'd take a lot to get him: like Brad Stuart and something else probably. Plus, it's difficult to know how much Gonchar could really help a team like San Jose, where the forwards can't finish. No Swedish, we need more finish. If they'd accept McLaren and Fahey for Gonchar, that'd be nice. Even McLaren, Fahey, and another lesser player would be totally acceptable to me.

Kevin Wey is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:00 AM
  #27
SpinTheBlackCircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
SpinTheBlackCircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,179
vCash: 500
You can't stop me...you can only hope to contain me.

I am very worried that Rat will not get back to being the player he was 2-3 years ago. That second goal, was just brutal. Two Devils in front of the net....not only does he not tie up either one of them, he screens Nabby so that he can't see the shot clearly. You could see Nabby was REALLY frustrated after that one.

Frankly, and as much as it pains me since I was a really big fan of his when he was still a whipping boy, I think now may be the time the Sharks should think about dealing him. With him and McLaren out there, we basically have two of the same player, and that isn't a great thing right now.

The downside being with Stuart so injury prone, can the Sharks make that trade with the risks involved? I really like Davison and what he brings to the table. I am pleasantly surprised with him. Has Preissing or Ehrhoff done enough to warrant that faith yet? I don't know.

SpinTheBlackCircle is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 05:44 AM
  #28
MarleuFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild GM
You can't stop me...you can only hope to contain me.

I am very worried that Rat will not get back to being the player he was 2-3 years ago. That second goal, was just brutal. Two Devils in front of the net....not only does he not tie up either one of them, he screens Nabby so that he can't see the shot clearly. You could see Nabby was REALLY frustrated after that one.

Frankly, and as much as it pains me since I was a really big fan of his when he was still a whipping boy, I think now may be the time the Sharks should think about dealing him. With him and McLaren out there, we basically have two of the same player, and that isn't a great thing right now.

The downside being with Stuart so injury prone, can the Sharks make that trade with the risks involved? I really like Davison and what he brings to the table. I am pleasantly surprised with him. Has Preissing or Ehrhoff done enough to warrant that faith yet? I don't know.

My thought on Rathje:
It seems that Rathje was so good 2-3 years ago because Sutter's system had been in place for 2-3 years already and he got used to the consistency of it and gained confidence that way.

Now there is a new coach and a new system. He may be one of the guys getting used to it still. And somehow that makes sence. Rat did take a while to develop in the beginnng and who knows - maybe he just needed time and consistency.

He is not getting old. He is going through a bad stretch. He deserves patence.

MarleuFan is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 07:40 AM
  #29
IronMosher
Registered User
 
IronMosher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South San Jose
Posts: 664
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to IronMosher
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockeycrazed07
I think it's another thing, though, to note that SJ was playing for one point, not two. This is another not-so-good sign from SJ. Now on a 4-game point-scoring streak at 1-0-2-1. Hardly enough to scare anybody.

On the other hand, it's on the road, and has already passed a number of our projections. I said 4 or 5, so no more points for SJ this trip! :p

~Crazed.
I totally agree with the first paragraph. People are happy with a point, but according to my math, a point per game will only give you 82 points, which will not get any team into the playoffs excepts possibly in the Southeast division. People need to quit their chirpy optimism when it comes to getting a point. WE LOST. We don't even deserve a point. The only people that should be congratulated for doing well despite a loss are the handicapped in the Special Olympics because they actually achieved something.

IronMosher is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 07:58 AM
  #30
MarleuFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMosher
I totally agree with the first paragraph. People are happy with a point, but according to my math, a point per game will only give you 82 points, which will not get any team into the playoffs excepts possibly in the Southeast division. People need to quit their chirpy optimism when it comes to getting a point. WE LOST. We don't even deserve a point. The only people that should be congratulated for doing well despite a loss are the handicapped in the Special Olympics because they actually achieved something.

I really disagree. This point is not just a point. It is a point against a very good team on the road in the midst of a long road trip.

Any by the way, many people would have loved the Sharks to go .500 on this road trip and the Devils were one of the teams the Sharks were projected to lose against.

If they get at least a ponint in Boston today and beat struggling Washington, this road trip will be one point above .500

MarleuFan is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 08:59 AM
  #31
ModestoFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: And the fascination never ends...
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ModestoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by IronMosher
I totally agree with the first paragraph. People are happy with a point, but according to my math, a point per game will only give you 82 points, which will not get any team into the playoffs excepts possibly in the Southeast division. People need to quit their chirpy optimism when it comes to getting a point. WE LOST. We don't even deserve a point. The only people that should be congratulated for doing well despite a loss are the handicapped in the Special Olympics because they actually achieved something.
Iron,

I see you logic in this but I tend to lean the other way. I personally would do away with OTL points, but as the game stand right now, 1 point is 1 point. If we are going to the playoffs as I predicted (no flames please), then these points in games like last night are going to eventually decide it all.

As for our effort, I'll focus on the positive and say we battled a superior team with a superior system. Nabby bailed us out last night and allowed us to get the point. Thornton scored late, allowing us to get the point. So even though we didn't win, 1 point is 1 point.

I hope SJ feels good about last night, you can't win them all (they should know at 2-5-5-1). Also, the only problem with getting ties instead of wins comes at the playoff hunt, when overall wins is the first deciding tie-break.


ModestoFan is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 11:37 AM
  #32
zeus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Gilroy
Posts: 105
vCash: 500
I keep reading that it is important to go for the win in OT when we are playing an Eastern Conference team since we are assured of a point anyway. If that is the case, why with less than a minute to go in OT did we have Smith and Ekman on the ice when NJ scored? I love Smitty for his upscale play, but the last I looked, he is the only Shark without a single point this year. Does this make sense to anyone?

zeus is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 11:45 AM
  #33
ModestoFan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: And the fascination never ends...
Posts: 670
vCash: 500
Send a message via Yahoo to ModestoFan
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeus
I keep reading that it is important to go for the win in OT when we are playing an Eastern Conference team since we are assured of a point anyway. If that is the case, why with less than a minute to go in OT did we have Smith and Ekman on the ice when NJ scored? I love Smitty for his upscale play, but the last I looked, he is the only Shark without a single point this year. Does this make sense to anyone?
In all regards those 2 are exaclty who should be on the ice. Nils has played fantastic and both he and smith have great speed and good shots. if you watched Nils in OT vs. TB you'd know he's as dangerous as any shark. As for Smith, not only is he due, but his hustle and work ethic have been unparalleled since he came back from being a consistent scratch.

Unfortunately, our failure to clear the zone 3 times and a serious mental oops by Ekman, caused the goal. We got 1 point, and we played a good game against a much better team.

ModestoFan is offline  
Old
11-06-2003, 12:55 PM
  #34
mage23
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,413
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to mage23 Send a message via AIM to mage23 Send a message via MSN to mage23 Send a message via Yahoo to mage23
Quote:
Originally Posted by ModestoFan
In all regards those 2 are exaclty who should be on the ice. Nils has played fantastic and both he and smith have great speed and good shots. if you watched Nils in OT vs. TB you'd know he's as dangerous as any shark. As for Smith, not only is he due, but his hustle and work ethic have been unparalleled since he came back from being a consistent scratch.

Unfortunately, our failure to clear the zone 3 times and a serious mental oops by Ekman, caused the goal. We got 1 point, and we played a good game against a much better team.
Not to mention that Smith and Ekman had the puck in the NJ zone early in the shift too -- and had fairly decent puck control, if I remember correctly. So when they got trapped in their zone, it was made worse because they were at the end of a long shift.

I can see the original point that someone like Marleau/McCauley/Damphousse should have been out there... but if I recall correctly, there hadn't been any stoppages in OT, and Wilson was throwing out some "fresh" legs, if you will.

mage23 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 09:15 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.