NVGolfingBear;842311496 said:

---

There is a mental aspect required in any playoff environment - golf(yes, there is!), basketball, hockey. For some reason the minnows have never really had a consistent supply of it.

I believe that comes down to the GM getting right players and letting the coach do his thing. Therefore, I agree, the GM has to go and possibly the coach also. Too long a history of flopping in the playoffs.

---

Definitely. The Kings and their coach are a case in point. Those are some great competitors.

More than any other game I think that hockey depends on team dynamics because-very simply-your stars are only playing 1/3 of the game so unlike the NBA two or three guys by themselves won't win you anything-see Crosby and Malkin. The best teams-Chicago, Boston, LA-build teams for the playoffs where the style of play is so dramatically different. Physical play, goaltending, defense, special teams. Keep the score close and rely on the little things-who wins the scrums in the corners and front of the net, who makes plays, who wins face offs, who kills penalties, who fore- and back checks better, who gives up the puck less-to give you an edge. In that game last night the Sharks had all the opportunities in the world, just not the players.

A few recent teams come to mind who couldn't get it done in postseason: Atlanta Braves, A's since 2000, all but one of Peyton's teams, Vancouver Canucks ...It happens and you can't figure why. This year's Sharks. Easy. Power Play. Believe it was 0-6 this game. 0-last 14 PP's. Ugly stuff there. And, if Sharks don't win that 50/50 OT game, they lose quietly in six. Kings showed how they have best defense in league last 4 games.

Sharks on power play remind me of a golfer lining up a shot from behind a tree...pacing off distance to th tree...getting a wind reading...basically taking forever to shoot. The Kings on the other hand just get the puck to the crease and frquently had easy "chip ins".

rathokan;842311604 said:

---

---

Lol

FrankBear21;842311525 said:

---

I disagree. I think this was the last straw.

---

Depends on the sort of owner they have.. Either they want to win at all costs (Cuban, Al Davis before senility set in) or they are like Wolff/Fisher and just care about making $ (A's $ off of revenue sharing). The A's and Sharks seem to be built to do well in the regular season but not in the playoffs.

Don't fret too much Shark fans, maybe after 40 or 50 years of constant failure your team will finally break through and win a title or two. Then you can parade around like you were always good and the past doesn't exist too. Just give it time.

OldBlue1999;842311660 said:

---

Don't fret too much Shark fans, maybe after 40 or 50 years of constant failure your team will finally break through and win a title or two. Then you can parade around like you were always good and the past doesn't exist too. Just give it time.

---

plus you'll get to hear fans of other teams whine like pussies about your success!

OldBlue1999;842311660 said:

---

Don't fret too much Shark fans, maybe after 40 or 50 years of constant failure your team will finally break through and win a title or two. Then you can parade around like you were always good and the past doesn't exist too. Just give it time.

---

Sound like a Kings fan speaking from experience. It only took you guys 45 years. So it will only be around 22 more years before our time in the spotlight. At least I'm in it for the long haul lol

high calibear;842311666 said:

---

plus you'll get to hear fans of other teams whine like pussies about your success!

---

Yeah it'll be great, you can incessantly bring up the teams your team spent decades living in the shadows of in transparent attempts to convince yourselves you're finally as good as they are, yet delude yourself that they're obsessed with you! You can even rewrite history in your own mind and pretend everyone in the Bay Area loves your team, not just right then because they finally had a modicum of success, but because the city where they play is inherently superior. It'll be a hoot!

OldBlue1999;842311671 said:

---

Yeah it'll be great, you can incessantly bring up the teams your team spent decades living in the shadows of in transparent attempts to convince yourselves you're finally as good as they are, yet delude yourself that they're obsessed with you! You can even rewrite history in your own mind and pretend everyone in the Bay Area loves your team, not just right then because they finally had a modicum of success, but because the city where they play is inherently superior. It'll be a hoot!

---

Are you referring to pretty much every Giants' fan?

The ironic thing is that the current GM/coach combo worked for the sharks not that long ago I'm pretty sure

Anyways it probably takes only a small change. The year the kings won the cup they started atrociously. Sutter replaced Murray as coach and they traded Johnson for Carter and the rest is history. I doubt the Sharks need to blow it all up. There is probably just one small piece that's off. Course figuring that part out....

OK I don't know much about hockey but I know what I see and I saw just horrible defense. And I've seen it in the past too, going back over years.

1) Defensive positioning horrible--many times, with the puck in the zone, the entire area in fron of the net going all the way back to the blue line was open.

2) Defensive teamwork horrible--Many times defensive players were bunched up around the puck and pinned against the boards.

3) Defensive pursuit horrible--Many times the Shark defender would simply skate alongside the King player with the puck, vainly trying to screen him. Where was the attack. When I use the term horrible, I am not using it lightly

4) Defensive control of the puck horrible-- When defensive players obtained control, they quickly lost it by poor passing, poor stick work and other unforced errors.

5) Defensive clearing of the zone horrible--Many attempts to clear the zone were aimless and were easily blocked before hand.

6) Defensive speed horrible-- Most times Kings players had little difficulty simply skating around Shark defenders that had position on them.

Many of these mistakes resulted in goals or simply wore down Niemi by forcing him to endure repeated shots.

I started tracking this years ago when I was trying to understand how the Sharks goalie's disintegrate in the post season so often.

I think what happens with the Sharks is that their defenders get too beat up and by the end of the series they are flat out gassed.

Their is something wrong with the coaching philosophy. They need to change out their defenders more often or something. They were on the ice too long.

I realize that Vlassic was out via injury but the problem was happening when he was still playing and like I said it goes back years.

Basically I don't think the defensive coaching/personnel is getting it done. That is where the shake-up needs to happen.

If you think I'm making this up, just watch the majority of game 7. Also look at the contrast when the Kings are on defense. It is completely different in all the areas mentioned above. Part of why Quick is good is because he has good defense in front of him. The Sharks can keep aquiring great goalies from other teams but they are not going to solve their playoff issues until they really upgrade their defensive philosophy.

That's what the franchise has been saying for 10 years. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result...

SigOtherIsATrojan;842311838 said:

---

Are you referring to pretty much every Giants' fan?

---

I would say he's talking about LA Kings fans, but he mentioned the Bay Area.

SigOtherIsATrojan;842311838 said:

---

Are you referring to pretty much every Giants' fan?

---

Every fan base fits this description

Well the Kings are going to win another Cup now. Unbelievable.

They are the furd of the NHL - an amazing team that their dozens of fans don't deserve.

510Bear;842321221 said:

---

Well the Kings are going to win another Cup now. Unbelievable.

They are the furd of the NHL - an amazing team that their dozens of fans don't deserve.

---

Dude, do you have any clue? Staples is well attended for their games.

GO KINGS GO lemme guess you are a minnows fan?

[URL=.html][/URL]

Oops, I said it twice. Still true though. Driving around LA today I saw absolutely no sign a game 7 was going on.

510Bear;842321251 said:

---

Oops, I said it twice. Still true though. Driving around LA today I saw absolutely no sign a game 7 was going on.

---

I don't know. I was driving on i5 a week or so ago, just entering Anaheim, and I saw a huge billboard with a roasted duck on it. Thought that was pretty cool. I don't see any such billboards like that around San Jose.

that was a helluva series. i'm still not sure which is the better team. The Blackhawks are a great team. it seemed like the Kings were gassed from playing so many games... you could see by the loss of command in the neutral zone, turn of fortunes on the power play and penalty killing, and going from owning the face-offs to losing them. I have no idea how the hell they got it done, but that was amazing. three road game 7's in a row... and Justin Williams with two more points in a game 7. Both goaltenders had their hands full w/ weird pucks going in... fitting that it should end on a lucky shot. Felt bad for the hawks players for it to end like that, but i'm ecstatic.

Go Kings!

That was an amazing Game 7. Kings man, I wish our Bears have this kind of heart. Down 3-0 in round 1. Losing 3 in a row in round 2 only to win game 7. Down 3-1 in game two v. Blackhawks in Chicago and winning going away. Winning a third game 7 on the road. Neither side deserved to lose. Kings just know how to get it done. They came out of nowhere two seasons ago (like halfway through the season) to get this way. Maybe our beloved football team can follow in this path.

Rath the kings were clearly gassed. I'm actually shocked they won the way they skated. Kopitar looked like he had no legs. Doughty looked slow.

Chicago though looked kinda tight most of the game. In the end it sorta evened out and frankly Martinez goal in the OT was luck.

GREAT series!! Hopefully the Kings get their legs back and can get some by the rangers goalie. That guy is tough

moonpod;842321234 said:

---

Dude, do you have any clue? Staples is well attended for their games.

GO KINGS GO lemme guess you are a minnows fan?

[URL=.html][/URL]

---

Is that GO KINGS GO chant still screeched by Roseanne Barr? That alone is enough for me to have utter disdain for the kings.

rathokan;842321257 said:

---

that was a helluva series. i'm still not sure which is the better team. The Blackhawks are a great team. it seemed like the Kings were gassed from playing so many games... you could see by the loss of command in the neutral zone, turn of fortunes on the power play and penalty killing, and going from owning the face-offs to losing them. I have no idea how the hell they got it done, but that was amazing. three road game 7's in a row... and Justin Williams with two more points in a game 7. Both goaltenders had their hands full w/ weird pucks going in... fitting that it should end on a lucky shot. Felt bad for the hawks players for it to end like that, but i'm ecstatic.

Go Kings!

---

I don't follow hockey closely, but it does seem to me like the Kings seem to follow a pattern of looking like they're dead, and then seeming to ALWAYS get the lucky bounce in front of their opponent's goal to pull it out.

Part of this seems to be by design, as the Kings have a style of just continuing to attack, attack, attack, throw the puck at the net and see what happens (again, based on what I can tell from the little hockey I watch). Having Jonathan Quick as a goalie might also enable them to play this style, as he can clean up any mistakes on the defensive end that might result from this hyper-aggressive style. So they get more weird bounces because they are creating more.

On the other hand, they do also seem VERY lucky. For example, the game last night, where they scored the tying and winning goals because of weird bounces off a Blackhawk defender. That can't have been the plan on either of those goals, just a fortunate result.

sycasey;842321296 said:

---

I don't follow hockey closely, but it does seem to me like the Kings seem to follow a pattern of looking like they're dead, and then seeming to ALWAYS get the lucky bounce in front of their opponent's goal to pull it out.

Part of this seems to be by design, as the Kings have a style of just continuing to attack, attack, attack, throw the puck at the net and see what happens (again, based on what I can tell from the little hockey I watch). Having Jonathan Quick as a goalie might also enable them to play this style, as he can clean up any mistakes on the defensive end that might result from this hyper-aggressive style. So they get more weird bounces because they are creating more.

On the other hand, they do also seem VERY lucky. For example, the game last night, where they scored the tying and winning goals because of weird bounces off a Blackhawk defender. That can't have been the plan on either of those goals, just a fortunate result.

---

This I will give you that A LOT of the goals scored by BOTH teams last night were lucky. The best "shot" was the low angle goal the hawks scored in the 1st, but then you can say that was pretty weak sauce by Quick.

A LOT of hockey goals are scored though by shooting at the outside and cleaning up the junk. The goalies in general are too good to score on otherwise and breakaways and backside D breakdowns are too infrequent. Screened shots and cleaning up loose pucks is the bread and butter, and it happens more when you grind down the other team (like LA does).

Chicago frankly IS a better skating team than LA, but with solid goalie play and if you keep grinding....you make your own luck.

moonpod;842321303 said:

---

This I will give you that A LOT of the goals scored by BOTH teams last night were lucky.

---

True, and also seems to be true of a lot of NHL games.

Honestly, this is part of why I have a hard time getting too invested in hockey. The playoffs feel like a random number generator sometimes; there is little rhyme or reason to who wins. I'm sure that quality wins out in the regular season, so the good teams are in the playoffs and the bad teams aren't, but after that it feels like a big crapshoot.

On the other hand, you could argue that this makes the postseason more exciting.

C6Bear;842321287 said:

---

Is that GO KINGS GO chant still screeched by Roseanne Barr? That alone is enough for me to have utter disdain for the kings.

---

Yah we don't like that. But we do like it when Cartman does it:

KoreAmBear;842321327 said:

---

Yah we don't like that. But we do like it when Cartman does it:

---

Love me some cartman

I hate this thread.

sycasey;842321307 said:

---

True, and also seems to be true of a lot of NHL games.

Honestly, this is part of why I have a hard time getting too invested in hockey. The playoffs feel like a random number generator sometimes; there is little rhyme or reason to who wins. I'm sure that quality wins out in the regular season, so the good teams are in the playoffs and the bad teams aren't, but after that it feels like a big crapshoot.

On the other hand, you could argue that this makes the postseason more exciting.

---

There's also a lot of talk about how what it takes to win a lot of games in the regular season is different from what it takes to win in the playoffs, and even that some teams seem to be built for the former (Sharks) while others are built for the latter (Kings).

Someone will have to explain that one.....not sure I get it.

I think teams tend to "tighten up" and play less "wide open" hockey in the playoffs. So the teams that "skate better" (Chicago. San Jose) don't necessarily do as well in the playoffs vs a team with a bunch of grinders and a solid goalie and that plays opportunistic offense (LA)

510Bear;842321353 said:

---

There's also a lot of talk about how what it takes to win a lot of games in the regular season is different from what it takes to win in the playoffs, and even that some teams seem to be built for the former (Sharks) while others are built for the latter (Kings).

Someone will have to explain that one.....not sure I get it.

---

People do say these things, but at the same time they have those theories about baseball, and there are always plenty of examples to disprove the claim. That's another sport where the playoff results tend to feel pretty random (but there are fewer playoff teams and a longer regular season, so the champion is less likely to be flukey).

So I don't know. I can see the idea that the Kings play a more playoff-friendly style, but then again the Blackhawks would seem to have a similar style to the Sharks, and they won the Stanley Cup last year.

510Bear;842321353 said:

---

There's also a lot of talk about how what it takes to win a lot of games in the regular season is different from what it takes to win in the playoffs, and even that some teams seem to be built for the former (Sharks) while others are built for the latter (Kings).

Someone will have to explain that one.....not sure I get it.

---

Playoffs are much more physical but less penalties are called. This favors tougher, more relentless teams, ones that can wear down the opposition. Depth is much more important because the playoffs are a war of attrition. Goaltending is better because you are only seeing number ones and the best rise to the occasion. (The biggest surprise about the Hawks and Kings was how average the goalies were both with save % under 90). Match ups and coaching and special teams are more important because you are playing three to four lines and two to three sets of D over multiple games against the same team. Normally all this favors teams with strong backlines, exceptional goal tending and physical teams that can forecheck and pressure the opposition. Most of these games are usually decided by breaks, opportunism and mistakes

GB54;842321368 said:

---

Playoffs are much more physical but less penalties are called. This favors tougher, more relentless teams, ones that can wear down the opposition. Depth is much more important because the playoffs are a war of attrition. Goaltending is better because you are only seeing number ones and the best rise to the occasion. (The biggest surprise about the Hawks and Kings was how average the goalies were both with save % under 90). Match ups and coaching and special teams are more important because you are playing three to four lines and two to three sets of D over multiple games against the same team. Normally all this favors teams with strong backlines, exceptional goal tending and physical teams that can forecheck and pressure the opposition. Most of these games are usually decided by breaks, opportunism and mistakes

---

Also the Kings win a great percentage of the face-offs. Yes, forechecking by grinders like Williams, Stoll and Brown really is key. Getting a finisher like Gaborik at the trade deadline was also big for the Kings, who were not scoring goals until the playoffs.