Does(Has) the core lack(ed) grit?

[Dicdonya]

Fighting is also illegal...which is why a 5 minute penalty is handed out for it. Doesn't meant it shouldn't be done at times.

What Boyle did, IMO, shows something about his character. His willingness to engage physically, the seriousness with which he takes his game, etc.

Geez just stop already. A slew foot has never helped a team win, it serves no purpose in the game. It's shows stupidity not toughness. What Boyle did simply shows that he let his emotions win over a more reasonable punishment like scoring a goal.

Clowe going on ape-ish tirades never helps and has a higher likelyhood of hurting the team. Thornton dropping the gloves is the same. Grit is useless in the way you are quantifying it.

 

[West Coast Bias*]

When Thornton can score 160+ points, then he can be as soft as a piece of toilet paper.

Your logic has taken a horrible turn for the worse. Never mind that "grit" is the worst buzzword in hockey, Thornton fights much more than the average first liner. If you think he's "as soft of a piece of toilet paper", you've deluded yourself and need to fundamentally change the way you think about the sport.

 

[Juxtaposer]

This thread took a turn for the worse while I was taking my Physics final.

Grit=dirty plays. You must love Raffi Torres.

 

[Fistfullofbeer]

The only reason this came up is because we are sucking ass on the ice. Our team is plenty tough. If they were up in the standings like CHI or ANA this topic would have never come up.

 

[Juxtaposer]

The only reason this came up is because we are sucking ass on the ice. Our team is plenty tough. If they were up in the standings like CHI or ANA this topic would have never come up.

Losing teams compensate with grit, and then become even worse because they've replaced good players with goons. Hopefully we don't become one of those types of losing teams.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Gretzky and Lidstrom were the two that came to mind immediately. But again, since 'grit' is such a meaningless term I'm sure you can find some way to define it that fits those two.

I've already explained Gretzky.

No, Lidstrom doesn't have it. But then again, not every player HAS to have it. I just think you need some guys in your core that have it. IT seems like the other teams do. The Sharks don't have enough of them, which is my point.

 

[OrrNumber4]

Losing teams compensate with grit, and then become even worse because they've replaced good players with goons. Hopefully we don't become one of those types of losing teams.

Not really. Losing teams like the Jackets and Islanders aren't exactly known for their grit and toughness.

It seems like a majority of the top teams in the league have some of these qualities in their players.

 

[hohosaregood]

I don't understand what you're trying to get at.

Also Islanders have definitely gooned it up for a while. There's even a wiki page about it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguins%E2%80%93Islanders_brawl

 

[OrrNumber4]

This thread took a turn for the worse while I was taking my Physics final.

Grit=dirty plays. You must love Raffi Torres.

Its not exactly that. As you said, it is a little undefinable. And I love how everyone is turning grit/sandpaper into simply grit.

This kind of sandpaper is IMO beneficial to a player's game. When someone gives you a chop to the ankles, what do you do? Do you let your enforcer handle it? Do you take the 2 minute penalty and tell your enforcer to back off? Or do you get mad and hack him back?

Are you willing to be a hated player? Are you willing to ostracize potential future teammates? Are you willing to physically hurt others? Are you willing to accept personal blowback from the other team? Are you willing to be a target for other players?

In that situation, you have some guys who go "its just a game". Some who go "its not my style," etc. Having too many of those guys on that team just isn't a good idea.

I know, I know, all of you people are going to say that it strategically the right move to take the power play. But sometimes, I think a lot of players hide behind that; the real reason is that they don't like getting involved in that manner. Ideally, you'd want a guy who knows when he has to cool it (playoff game and the team has a PP) and when he can let loose (next year, first game against the opponent).

Part of it may be a compete factor issue. Players that get pissed when someone slew-foots them also gets pissed when they lose. There's a similarity in the mindset. How many of use get frustrated at Joe Thornton's minimizations?

Mike Grier's parting words from years ago are ringing in my head. So are the comments made from Mcsorely in his most recent interview....this team is too content....

I can also admit that Thornton can be a little tough, at times. But I think that is something that has developed in his game, for the better. And, given his size, he HAS to do more.

Perhaps I didn't state it well in the first post.

 

[Pinkfloyd]

There are more important things that contribute to winning than grit. Even with that, grit or sandpaper is a necessary element to the game but not in the sense of going out and walking the line of dirty and clean with your hitting. That doesn't matter. The only grit/sandpaper that matters is whether you're willing to take a hit to make a play. Anything else is a luxury in my eyes.

I don't know how anyone can think this team or anyone in it is content with mediocrity and losing. Their problem is system-based which is predicated on low-risk or no-risk plays.

 

[Barrie22]

Its not exactly that. As you said, it is a little undefinable. And I love how everyone is turning grit/sandpaper into simply grit.

This kind of sandpaper is IMO beneficial to a player's game. When someone gives you a chop to the ankles, what do you do? Do you let your enforcer handle it? Do you take the 2 minute penalty and tell your enforcer to back off? Or do you get mad and hack him back?

Are you willing to be a hated player? Are you willing to ostracize potential future teammates? Are you willing to physically hurt others? Are you willing to accept personal blowback from the other team? Are you willing to be a target for other players?

In that situation, you have some guys who go "its just a game". Some who go "its not my style," etc. Having too many of those guys on that team just isn't a good idea.

I know, I know, all of you people are going to say that it strategically the right move to take the power play. But sometimes, I think a lot of players hide behind that; the real reason is that they don't like getting involved in that manner. Ideally, you'd want a guy who knows when he has to cool it (playoff game and the team has a PP) and when he can let loose (next year, first game against the opponent).

Part of it may be a compete factor issue. Players that get pissed when someone slew-foots them also gets pissed when they lose. There's a similarity in the mindset. How many of use get frustrated at Joe Thornton's minimizations?

Mike Grier's parting words from years ago are ringing in my head. So are the comments made from Mcsorely in his most recent interview....this team is too content....

I can also admit that Thornton can be a little tough, at times. But I think that is something that has developed in his game, for the better. And, given his size, he HAS to do more.

Perhaps I didn't state it well in the first post.

it did not develope in his game just recently, can you just stop talking about things you do not know anything about my freaking god.

thornton his entire career has had that angry joe side, which he would let out a lot more then needed when he was younger.

he might of went a year or 2 without having or showing any signs of angry joe but that was very short lived.

 

[Juxtaposer]

it did not develope in his game just recently, can you just stop talking about things you do not know anything about my freaking god.

thornton his entire career has had that angry joe side, which he would let out a lot more then needed when he was younger.

he might of went a year or 2 without having or showing any signs of angry joe but that was very short lived.

It's funny, those two years without a sighting from Angry Joe? The two best seasons of Joe's tenure with the Sharks. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Coily]

This thread took a turn for the worse while I was taking my Physics final.

Grit=dirty plays. You must love Raffi Torres.

Torres can't play here we have a no.37 that does nothing already.

 

[EastBayShark]

There is definitely a difference between a gritty player and a goon.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Torres can't play here we have a no.37 that does nothing already.

Zing!

 

[NWShark*]

No. They did best with Heatley and Seto because they had 7 top 6 forwards. Depth wins championships. As far as "grit" goes..the team doesn't lack it..You've got plenty of gritty foot soldiers and guys like Hamilton, Nieto and Hertl and Kuraly who all play "gritty" games but have some skill along with it. This team needs scoring depth.

This. Bingo. Go ahead and close the thread. The rest will be pages and pages of needless typing.

 

[hockeyball]

I've already explained Gretzky.

No, Lidstrom doesn't have it. But then again, not every player HAS to have it. I just think you need some guys in your core that have it. IT seems like the other teams do. The Sharks don't have enough of them, which is my point.

So, ok, let me try to reconcile this again. NOW when faced with a player who was clearly not 'grity' (neither was Gretzy, he wasn't grity in the slightest, but not worth arguing) and was a great player it's 'not all players have to be grity'.

So by what measure do we not have enough 'grit'? Would a team full of lidstroms not win a cup? I'm pretty sure they would.

Grit is meaningless in the context of winning. It's an attribute, just like any other, that CAN be a good thing when used properly but certainly isn't required or even necessarily good depending on the player.

 

[OrrNumber4]

So, ok, let me try to reconcile this again. NOW when faced with a player who was clearly not 'grity' (neither was Gretzy, he wasn't grity in the slightest, but not worth arguing) and was a great player it's 'not all players have to be grity'.

So by what measure do we not have enough 'grit'? Would a team full of lidstroms not win a cup? I'm pretty sure they would.

Grit is meaningless in the context of winning. It's an attribute, just like any other, that CAN be a good thing when used properly but certainly isn't required or even necessarily good depending on the player.

No, I don't think a team full of Lidstrom's could win a cup.

Bolded: Isn't this contradictory? How can grit be meaningless in the context of winning, yet still be a good thing?

I think like how just like you can't win a cup with a core of purely offensive guys, or purely defensive guys, or pure playmakers, or pure goalscoreres, etc. you need some grit/sandpaper in the core. The best teams can beat you multiple ways, ergo, the best teams have many ways to beat you.

 

[hockeyball]

No, I don't think a team full of Lidstrom's could win a cup.

Bolded: Isn't this contradictory? How can grit be meaningless in the context of winning, yet still be a good thing?

I think like how just like you can't win a cup with a core of purely offensive guys, or purely defensive guys, or pure playmakers, or pure goalscoreres, etc. you need some grit/sandpaper in the core. The best teams can beat you multiple ways, ergo, the best teams have many ways to beat you.

As in, grit is not an essential component to winning, especially on an individual basis, that is provable.

Look, i'm not going to argue semantics forever here. Grit and Heart are overated concepts that are totally unquantifiable and are often leapt to as solutions when better answers cannot be found. It's a pointless conversation because everyone has different meanings for the words and in the end you could site many players who lacked either, or both, and won a cup, or multiple cups.

 

[lsx]

Grit is beating a guy up after he takes a ridiculous dive.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/109404

 

[TealTownUSA]

Grit is beating a guy up after he takes a ridiculous dive.

http://www.hockeyfights.com/fights/109404

lol, didn't notice it but in a comment it said brassard speared boyle after the dump in. he was right. no wonder boyle was pissed.

 

[SJeasy]

Not really. Losing teams like the Jackets and Islanders aren't exactly known for their grit and toughness.

It seems like a majority of the top teams in the league have some of these qualities in their players.

On the Jackets, Bull. Their lower two lines have always been full of sandpaper to the neglect of other skills. And it shows. Their announcers have always played up physical play. They always tilted towards big/slow/physical on the blueline. Please. And yes, losing teams always pull out the grit card, especially their announcers. They can't win because they don't have enough skill, but they certainly can punish. Even the Isles loaded up their lower lines with 3 players on the bench at one point that would clearly be classified as AHL enforcers.

Advice. Don't buy the hype on grit, they are selling adrenaline to the junkies. The vicarious thrill. I buy into the teams that sell winning and the real ingredients that go into it, coaching, skill, team play, etc. I get my thrill from watching the process of mixing the real ingredients.

 

[domon]

Burns don't take **** from nobody.

 

[Mafoofoo]

Gretzky actually had quite a bit of sandpaper to his game...he just solely relied on stick slashes and hacks instead of elbows and hitting.

Gretzky did that because everyone knew if you so much as touched a strand of his hair you'd get beaten half to death. Same thing with Clarke during the broadstreet bully days.

 

[Sleepy]

Most top team cores don't have grit: Pens (malkin is just a little grittier than Thornton), Hawks, Boston (a little lucic?), Vancouver (none), Detroit (none), etc. So this question is weird.

A similar question would be "Do our 4th liners lack top-tier scoring ability?" Yes, but who cares?

Other team's aren't cheapshotting Couture/Marleau/Thornton/Pavelski--they're not hurt or injured or impeded from doing what they do best. No one needs to play the Sharks tough/dirty because the Sharks can't score, so the Sharks don't need to worry about grit right now. Most teams employ grit to protect their star players, very few employ it in their star-core to generate scoring chances. The only one that pops to mind right now is Perry in Anaheim.

The Sharks system is broke. That needs to be fixed first.