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

Pathetic!!!

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-18-2004, 12:10 AM
  #1
glennzky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: East Bay
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Pathetic!!!

The Sharks woes are self inflicted once again. Game 2's first period all over again. I'm sure the idiots at ESPN were raving about the Flames when the Sharks were killing themselves. The Shrks are the better team but aren't playing like it. I expected a better job from Ron Wilson. We all knew how the Flames were going to play but you wouldn't know it by the way the Sharks are approaching home games. Home ice advantage? Ha! it's like playing the game rock-paper-scissors, knowing ahead of time the other guy is going to play scissors and you still choose paper!

They played last night and play again on Wednesday. Why the hell is Wilson playing Nabokov in the third period down 3-0 with no chance of a comback cosidering how badly they were playing? He should have rested Nabokov and protected him from a possible injury.

The Curtis Brown trade has been a bust so far. No offensive production to speak of, one of the worst +/- on the team and hes' been horrible on faceoffs. I'd bench his unproductive butt and play Goc.

I'm tired of the Sharks making Kiprusoff look good. How many open nets can you miss? How many times can you shoot a goalie in the 6 hole (that's his chest for those of you who don't play)?

Anybody want my game 7 tickets if this Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde team wins game 6? I'm not being suckered into wasting my time driving to another home game this round. I'm tired of watching bad hockey. I've seen too much of it here over the years.

glennzky is offline  
Old
05-18-2004, 01:28 AM
  #2
The Mannschaft
Registered User
 
The Mannschaft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 307
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to The Mannschaft Send a message via AIM to The Mannschaft Send a message via MSN to The Mannschaft
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennzky
Anybody want my game 7 tickets if this Dr. Jeckyll/Mr. Hyde team wins game 6? I'm not being suckered into wasting my time driving to another home game this round. I'm tired of watching bad hockey. I've seen too much of it here over the years.
I would gladly take the game 7 tickets. Even if the Sharks did lose a game 7 it would be nice to see the awarding of the trophies afterward.

The Mannschaft is offline  
Old
05-18-2004, 12:56 PM
  #3
X-SHARKIE
Registered User
 
X-SHARKIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Janesville Wisconsin
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to X-SHARKIE
I would take those tickets in a heart beat and fly down to see that game.
SO we had a bad game 6….It appears to me you just jumped on the Sharks bandwagon because of the wins? IDK…I don’t blame you for being upset though…. I’ll glady pm you my address then make a two day drive down to SJ to see game 7 ohhhh what a day that would be.

X-SHARKIE is offline  
Old
05-18-2004, 02:21 PM
  #4
glennzky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: East Bay
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
No, I haven't ever "jumped on the Sharks bandwagon". I've had Sharks season tickets since the first season. I've watched my share of bad hockey over the years and find I don't have the stomach for it anymore. I'm not happy when they play a bad game and happen to win either. I'm more of a hockey fan in general than specifically a Sharks fan. They just happen to be the team closest to home. Previous to the Sharks it was the Kings that I followed and the Seals before them. There is no excuse for the way the Sharks have played at home 3 games in this series (yes, game 1 was bad too and not just because they lost). If they don't want to put in the effort to play, then I don't want to put in the effort to attend. I'll be selling the tickets to game seven to save my sanity. Anybody interested can pm me and I'll give them details.

glennzky is offline  
Old
05-18-2004, 02:45 PM
  #5
AvengerK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cal Poly, the good 1
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AvengerK
Quote:
Originally Posted by glennzky
No, I haven't ever "jumped on the Sharks bandwagon". I've had Sharks season tickets since the first season. I've watched my share of bad hockey over the years and find I don't have the stomach for it anymore. I'm not happy when they play a bad game and happen to win either. I'm more of a hockey fan in general than specifically a Sharks fan. They just happen to be the team closest to home. Previous to the Sharks it was the Kings that I followed and the Seals before them. There is no excuse for the way the Sharks have played at home 3 games in this series (yes, game 1 was bad too and not just because they lost). If they don't want to put in the effort to play, then I don't want to put in the effort to attend. I'll be selling the tickets to game seven to save my sanity. Anybody interested can pm me and I'll give them details.
Exactly. I'm a Sharks fan, but it's hard to like your team when they don't make an effort.

AvengerK is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 02:03 AM
  #6
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 X-SHARKIE
I would take those tickets in a heart beat and fly down to see that game.
SO we had a bad game 6….It appears to me you just jumped on the Sharks bandwagon because of the wins? IDK…I don’t blame you for being upset though…. I’ll glady pm you my address then make a two day drive down to SJ to see game 7 ohhhh what a day that would be.
Just for the record, the Sharks had a bad Game 5... here's to them having a good Game 6.

mage23 is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 02:16 AM
  #7
AvengerK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Cal Poly, the good 1
Posts: 1,880
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to AvengerK
I really wish Marleau would play with more intensity. I don't care how if he doesn't say a word to the media or to his teammates to get them fired up. I just want to see him play at a high tempo out on the ice. I want to see him blazing down the ice with his amazing speed, knocking everyone out of the way because we all know he's 220 lbs and very strong on the skates. I want to see him fighting towards the net every shift.

AvengerK is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 01:22 PM
  #8
Baron Von Shark
Registered User
 
Baron Von Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
I'm with Glenzky and Avenger...the Sharks will feel my wrath if they bury themselves again.

Baron Von Shark is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 01:25 PM
  #9
Kevin Wey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Marleau: He may not be intense, but he his finishing checks consistently. His offense has dried up some, but that's classic Marleau. What is nice though is that he's checking: providing something at least. Checking more than Thornton even, who's past his prime, his two-to-three year prime.

Rathje's not intense either, but he's the Shark defenseman I'm happiest with. Aside from some blunders (not entirely his fault either) against Colorado, he's been the best. I'm not happy with McLaren after last game's tantrum that caused a two-on-one against Stuart. I give Stuart only 25% of the blame on that play. (And I'm not really happy with Stuart, but that play wasn't his fault.) I'm lukewarm at best on Hannan and Marshall. I'm reasonably happy with Davison, granted my expectations of him are a bit lower.

I find myself wondering why Toskala isn't playing a lot of the time. I'm going to offer that Toskala is more consistent than Nabokov, and Toskala's high end isn't that far from Nabby's. I'd get a real kick out of things if Schaefer makes a strong charge for a San Jose spot. It just better not be Toskala getting traded, like how Kiprusoff got traded. I'd like to believe Wilson tried shopping Nabby first but nobody wanted an expensive goalie at the time in trade, so Kiprusoff had to go. And I wanted the Finnish platoon long before Kiprusoff had this season. Nabby's good, but Miikka is his equal and costs a ton less, which could be used on an upgrade at center on the first line. (Something I consistently harp on )

Throw me a Yashin or even a UFA Zhamnov to pair with Marleau on the left wing and Korky on the right. (I wanted San Jose to acquire Zhamnov, let alone now that he's a UFA. Marleau has no business at center given his faceoff inefficiency. The most fun is picturing what Korolyuk could achieve with Yashin as his center. Korky can help keep a boot to Yashin's behind just in case too ) Korolyuk is San Jose's best forward right now. No surprise given just a little room under Wilson and the added confidence. Now he kills penalties! I love it.

Kevin Wey is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 02:26 PM
  #10
Baron Von Shark
Registered User
 
Baron Von Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Talk about beating a dead horse. Why does everything with KW and Crazed say have to turn into a , "I wish we kept Kipper!" lovefest?! I've bitten my lip till now. Ride Miika's piece all you want...but please shut up already. We've listened. We've heard. We've understood. Get it?

Baron Von Shark is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 02:51 PM
  #11
Hockeycrazed07
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Buena Vista, VA
Posts: 2,361
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via AIM to Hockeycrazed07 Send a message via Yahoo to Hockeycrazed07
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Shark
Talk about beating a dead horse. Why does everything with KW and Crazed say have to turn into a , "I wish we kept Kipper!" lovefest?! I've bitten my lip till now. Ride Miika's piece all you want...but please shut up already. We've listened. We've heard. We've understood. Get it?
I've rarely been talking this playoff series for just that reason. If you think everything I write is about Kipper, then you don't read what I write, and you need to "get it" just as bad as any of us. Besides, why limit it to me and KW? Why not add Patty to that mix? Because he's been jocking Kipper as much as the two of us have been. None of us do it with everything. We state facts, which is that we'd have liked to have kept Kipper. Others here state facts that they're happy that SJ kept Nabby. Why not jump on them? Why do you limit it to us?

~Crazed.

Hockeycrazed07 is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 04:16 PM
  #12
Baron Von Shark
Registered User
 
Baron Von Shark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: CA
Posts: 3,274
vCash: 500
Because Patty does NOT beat the dead horse. He does not bring it up all the damn time, even when a topic does not pertain to the subject. Never before have you seen me mention this, especially not in threads regarding the goalie situation. You all vouched for Kipper. We get it. He's doing great. I can't and won't deny that. But bringing up the "Hey, I remember what I said?" bit gets real immature, real fast. Are you trying to rub it in? I mean, what else could it be? We all know you guys suggested keeping him b/c you guys say it over and over again. So what is your objective by beating the dead horse? To rub it in? I hope not, because that's awfully childish. It's just as bad as Cyclops not admitting that Kipper is a good tender...

Baron Von Shark is offline  
Old
05-19-2004, 04:28 PM
  #13
glennzky
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: East Bay
Posts: 616
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Shark
Because Patty does NOT beat the dead horse. He does not bring it up all the damn time, even when a topic does not pertain to the subject. Never before have you seen me mention this, especially not in threads regarding the goalie situation. You all vouched for Kipper. We get it. He's doing great. I can't and won't deny that. But bringing up the "Hey, I remember what I said?" bit gets real immature, real fast. Are you trying to rub it in? I mean, what else could it be? We all know you guys suggested keeping him b/c you guys say it over and over again. So what is your objective by beating the dead horse? To rub it in? I hope not, because that's awfully childish. It's just as bad as Cyclops not admitting that Kipper is a good tender...
Amen

glennzky is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 02:47 AM
  #14
Calgary Ben
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Sharks played bad theory

Before the Vancouver series the talk was all how Calgary didn't have a chance against Vancouver. When Calgary beat Vancouver all the talk on the Vancouver boards were how Vancouver was better than Calgary, they just were playing bad, they should have beat Calgary. The Vancouver boards said how Calgary was going to get destroyed by Detroit in 4 games. After Calgary beat Detroit, the talk on the Detroit boards were how Detroit had played so poorly, they were the better team and should have won and if they just played bad, didn't want it enough. They also said Calgary didn't have a chance against the Sharks, they would get destroyed. Now that they beat the Sharks we are hearing how the Sharks didn't play well, they are the better team etc. etc.. I think the truth of the matter is that Calgary is a better team than they are being given credit for. I don't think 3 division champions would all suddenly quit playing when they came against Calgary. They all played well until they met Calgary. That tells me that it isn't Vancouver, Detroit and San Jose playing badly but Calgary shutting these teams down.

Calgary Ben is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 06:59 AM
  #15
Cyclops II*
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 7,109
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Von Shark
Because Patty does NOT beat the dead horse. He does not bring it up all the damn time, even when a topic does not pertain to the subject. Never before have you seen me mention this, especially not in threads regarding the goalie situation. You all vouched for Kipper. We get it. He's doing great. I can't and won't deny that. But bringing up the "Hey, I remember what I said?" bit gets real immature, real fast. Are you trying to rub it in? I mean, what else could it be? We all know you guys suggested keeping him b/c you guys say it over and over again. So what is your objective by beating the dead horse? To rub it in? I hope not, because that's awfully childish. It's just as bad as Cyclops not admitting that Kipper is a good tender...
I don't remember ever saying anything about Kiprusoff's ability. I ranked the goaltenders in the West 1. Nabokov 2. Toskala 3. Kiprusoff on a thread on the Detroit board.
I have said that Calgary is a nothing team. A nothing team WITH a goalie thanks to Doug Wilson.

Without Kiprusoff they wouldn't have made the playoffs.

Cyclops II* is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 07:23 AM
  #16
HuskyFlames
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops II
I don't remember ever saying anything about Kiprusoff's ability. I ranked the goaltenders in the West 1. Nabokov 2. Toskala 3. Kiprusoff on a thread on the Detroit board.
I have said that Calgary is a nothing team. A nothing team WITH a goalie thanks to Doug Wilson.

Without Kiprusoff they wouldn't have made the playoffs.
Wow you are STILL BLIND. Kipper played decent BUt 20 players beat SJ, it was a TEAM GAME. Did Kipper score goals to win games? He made some saves but in the last 2 games SJ hasn't been that great offensively and Kipper hasn't worked that hard. Your a noob for not giving the Flames the credit they deserve as a team and an even bigger noob for your hockey knowledge.

HuskyFlames is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 11:06 AM
  #17
Kevin Wey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Des Moines
Posts: 1,927
vCash: 500
Good God all I said was I hope Toskala doesn't end up odd man out if Schaefer ends up NHL caliber next season. Miikka ended up odd-man out. I totally understood at the time why Miikka was the one to go and am glad he's out of San Jose getting a chance. But I don't want Toskala traded out of San Jose at this time and I wish Vesa had gotten more action in the playoffs. Nabby was fantastic the first two rounds, but against Calgary he decided he wanted to do his best Patrick Roy impersonation and dink with the puck, in a lax fashion.

I'm not up for the other Finn to be traded because of Nabokov.

What I am up for is San Jose signing Alexei Zhamnov. Dooooooo iiiiiiiiiiit!

Kevin Wey is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 03:15 PM
  #18
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 Patrick - Flames Fan
Wow you are STILL BLIND. Kipper played decent BUt 20 players beat SJ, it was a TEAM GAME. Did Kipper score goals to win games? He made some saves but in the last 2 games SJ hasn't been that great offensively and Kipper hasn't worked that hard. Your a noob for not giving the Flames the credit they deserve as a team and an even bigger noob for your hockey knowledge.
Patrick,

I hate to say it, but you are correct. SJ played well in 3 games, but unfortunately couldn't oversome the won strength of Calgary....Team determination.

Watching the last game was a real testiment to the "pack" mentality of Calgary. We played hard in the third, but not hard enough. SJ made mistakes, that cost us goals, but that is about Calgary finishing those chances. SJ didn't do that, otherwise we'd be awaiting game 7.

Anyway, many of us SJ fans feel our team kinda crapped out in games 5/6 (or atleast I do....). I don't want to take anything away from the Flames at all, but in reflecting, I hope the SJ coaching staff realizes what exactly took place.

We had an awesome season, and a great playoff run....but you don't get anything for coming in 2nd at the end.

WTG Sharks....there is always next year...hopefully.

And Kevin....if we sign Zhamnov, who gets moved out...assuming the roster stays pretty much as is considering our top 6?

ModestoFan is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 03:51 PM
  #19
chriss_co
Registered User
 
chriss_co's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: CALGARY
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,769
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary Ben
Before the Vancouver series the talk was all how Calgary didn't have a chance against Vancouver. When Calgary beat Vancouver all the talk on the Vancouver boards were how Vancouver was better than Calgary, they just were playing bad, they should have beat Calgary. The Vancouver boards said how Calgary was going to get destroyed by Detroit in 4 games. After Calgary beat Detroit, the talk on the Detroit boards were how Detroit had played so poorly, they were the better team and should have won and if they just played bad, didn't want it enough. They also said Calgary didn't have a chance against the Sharks, they would get destroyed. Now that they beat the Sharks we are hearing how the Sharks didn't play well, they are the better team etc. etc.. I think the truth of the matter is that Calgary is a better team than they are being given credit for. I don't think 3 division champions would all suddenly quit playing when they came against Calgary. They all played well until they met Calgary. That tells me that it isn't Vancouver, Detroit and San Jose playing badly but Calgary shutting these teams down.
I couldn't have said it any other way...

when do peeps starting commending the play of the flames rather than a lack of intensity by their own team?

i think intensity starts with respect.. vancouver and detroit (especially detroit) did not legitimately respect us as formidable foes prior to the series.. this led to the flames winning..

san jose kinda wavered in and out.. because they were similar in style but with obviously better depth, peeps thought san jose would run us over... i think san jose respected us as opponents because of the similarities.. like i said prior to game 1, these teams are so similar, it comes down to which team has more character and which teams makes the least amount of mistakes

how many oddman opportunities did u see the flames give up compared to the sharks?

anyhoo, great series SJ

chriss_co is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 04:20 PM
  #20
Los Tiburones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,734
vCash: 500
Calgary won, that means they were the better team for those 6 games. Over the course of 82 games, the Sharks were the better team. I, for one, expected the Sharks to win. In the games I watched, Calgary simply out-competed the Sharks. When they got chances, they buried them. Over the course of an 82 game season, I bet that the Flames don't bury as high a percentage of those chances. I think my view is probably pretty representative of Nucks, Red Wing, and Sharks fans. I mean every team makes 4 to 10 mistakes every game. I think the Sharks gave up at most 1 or 2 more mistakes each game, but the Sharks didn't cash in on nearly as high of a percentage as Calgary. One could say that is all Kipper's doing, some of it could be, but I really don't think all of it can be accounted for that way. The Sharks as the more highly talented team should have been able to use fewer chances to get the same number of goals.

Chew on this: What has been the fate of Anaheim and Carolina, which are only two of the most recent teams to reach the SC Final surprisingly and then rocket down the standings the next year.

I'm not being a bitter Sharks fan, I'm just saying what I think will honestly happen to Calgary next year. I'm happy the Sharks took the 2d round pick for next year.

Los Tiburones is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 04:41 PM
  #21
X-SHARKIE
Registered User
 
X-SHARKIE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Janesville Wisconsin
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to X-SHARKIE
I sure hope Calgary bombs next year, unlikely though, So that draft pick is high high high.

X-SHARKIE is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 04:43 PM
  #22
Calgary Ben
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 5
vCash: 500
Idea that Sharks are better than Flames

I keep hearing how much better Sharks were than the Flames in the regular season. Take a look at their records. In the regular season Sharks won 43 games, Flames won 42 games. Not much difference at all.

Calgary Ben is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 05:13 PM
  #23
spintheblackcircle
Global Moderator
s'all good, man.
 
spintheblackcircle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 37,430
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Los Tiburones
Chew on this: What has been the fate of Anaheim and Carolina, which are only two of the most recent teams to reach the SC Final surprisingly and then rocket down the standings the next year.
You talking about San Jose or Calgary because let's face it, you would have made a LOT of money saying either of these teams would be in the WCF.

Both these teams could make the WCF next year. They could also miss the playoffs.

Welcome to the NHL

spintheblackcircle is online now  
Old
05-20-2004, 05:21 PM
  #24
Los Tiburones
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calgary Ben
I keep hearing how much better Sharks were than the Flames in the regular season. Take a look at their records. In the regular season Sharks won 43 games, Flames won 42 games. Not much difference at all.
Yeah I heard the ESPN guys say this like 80 times. The argument still doesn't work for the Red Wings... also, the Sharks pythagorean standing (see Neyer on ESPN baseball) would have been significantly better, esp if you account for overtime losses. So... point made, point that I don't consider valid. I like Sabremetrics, and I think this one of the places where you can apply the same theories to hockey.

Los Tiburones is offline  
Old
05-20-2004, 05:57 PM
  #25
Patty Ice
Best in the World
 
Patty Ice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: OxNard
Country: Northern Ireland
Posts: 10,635
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Patty Ice Send a message via MSN to Patty Ice
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops II
I have said that Calgary is a nothing team. A nothing team WITH a goalie thanks to Doug Wilson.
Nothing teams do NOT go to the Stanley Cup Finals...bottomline.

__________________
Patty Ice 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 07:31 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.