GDT: Game 9: Sharks @ Vegas 7pm NBCSCA

[weastern bias]

For the most part the difference between top lines and bottom lines is offensive ability. Top lines are who scores, bottom line does the dirty work. Right now we’re throwing out 3 checking lines (for lack of a better word) which means we should theoretically be better than giving up on average close to 5 goals a game. We’ve also played (and lost) to teams that have more or less the same talent. The other bottom feeders that made us look absolutely silly. I didn’t expect the offense to be potent by any means but the defensive structure even with the vets brought in should be far, FAR better than this.

Ironically, for all the flack they get, Ruuta and Mario are somehow the only positive +- players on the team.

Literally no team in the league has as little talent as we do, even the Chicago/Anaheim/Montreal/Columbus tier of teams at least already have prospects that have graduated to being legitimate roster players, ours are all still marinating

It's not reasonable to expect bottom 6 quality checking lines to hold elite scorers off the board, their job is to hold serve against other depth players, not to replace nonexistent 1st liners

I thought the same thing, except I've changed my mind, or actually William Eklund changed it. This kid has great acceleration and is a powerful skater. Coach is just not piecing anything together.

I love Eklund and really think he's becoming a promising player, but at this moment he is not a 1st line play-driver, he's a supplemental player in that role at best, which is also important, but he should not be relied on to push pace against elite competition

 

[coooldude]

Could you shed some details on the Sharks’ breakout strategy? My untrained eye test sees that as one of big reasons they couldn’t shift the momentum mid game. They don’t get much movement from supporting forwards exiting the zone, on both structures and unstructured breakouts. Seems like they’re trying to spread the ice and stretch a pass out to a wing past the red line.

Is this something that we need to do due to personnel?

That's exactly what I'm seeing. When it's Thrun/Thompson or Ceci/Walman, you can see the breakout system. On a turnover, they have the two wings fly the zone to try to stretch the opponent's forecheck and either give space for the C's breakout curl at the dots, or a stretch pass, typically to a tip into the zone for "200 foot hockey," or a controlled zone entry. If the forecheck is weak (usually because of a line change by opponent), they'll take the time to setup behind the net and run a typical breakout. We absolutely are trying to play this type of "north-south hockey" getting through the NZ quickly and getting it deep, and then crash and bang for a turnover and puck possession in the OZ. The advanced stats show this is kind of working, kind of, certainly for our skill level it's working okay.

The downside is that if the other team's D are mobile, big, and/or decent at handling the puck, this looks like a lot of getting the puck deep in their zone and then the other team breaks out and gets back into our zone, or a turnoverc in the NZ, or just NZ battles but not a lot of threat in their zone.

And when it's Ferraro and Rutta on the ice, then the system looks like last year - either turn it over in our own zone and get stuck on a 2 minute shift, or try to bang it high and hard off the glass and it gets held in, or collected in the NZ and the line change is difficult and the shift continues, or it's an icing and the shift continues.

 

[exchequer]

Last year we tied the all time record for losses to start a season at 11, we're 2 games away from matching that mark and 3 away from breaking it outright, it's not unreasonable to be concerned

would be a shame if we didn't break the record this year.

this year's team is way worse than last year's.

 

[Barrie22]

We are the first team in nhl history to lose 9 straight games to start a season in back to back years.

 

[exchequer]

I guess the advanced stats say otherwise, but I have to laugh when I see comments saying this team is better than last year's team, when looking at the biggest stat of all, they are about on par as last years team.

for reals. and it's the same people who thought henry thrun was the next marc eduard vlasic.

 

[Lebanezer]

for reals. and it's the same people who thought henry thrun was the next marc eduard vlasic.

I think they meant the current version of Vlasic.

 

[coooldude]

I guess the advanced stats say otherwise, but I have to laugh when I see comments saying this team is better than last year's team, when looking at the biggest stat of all, they are about on par as last years team. They are still being outshot, outplayed, and they haven't won a game yet. Heck, they have a -21 goal differential and going into last night they didn't get an even strength goal in 3 consecutive games. Yeah they have been hamstrung by injuries, but I'm really hoping they win a game or two by Thanksgiving. October is almost over and they have maybe 2 chances (Ruling out the Kings game) to make that happen.

The team sucks. I've said that over and over again. But the fact is we are slightly better than last year, by points for and by advanced stats. Is it a big difference? No. Am I trying to be positive? No.

for reals. and it's the same people who thought henry thrun was the next marc eduard vlasic.

No need to create straw men to feel smarter. We're lucky if Thrun (or any of our team aside from Eklund and Smith) are part of our first playoff appearance in 2028 or later. But you can also see that this team is slightly less terrible than last year. This doesn't make me or anyone else a pollyanna, and if you think it does, I suggest you learn how to think with a bit more nuance.

 

[SJSharksfan39]

The team sucks. I've said that over and over again. But the fact is we are slightly better than last year, by points for and by advanced stats. Is it a big difference? No. Am I trying to be positive? No.

How are we better than last year?

 

[coooldude]

How are we better than last year?

You specifically stated you were laughing at the advanced stats posts (one of which was me). In addition, we have two OT losses through 9 games versus one OT loss through 11 games last year. In addition we have I think 3 EN goals against this year which makes the goal differential *slightly* less offensive.

Facts are facts on the points. It's not a big difference but it is a difference. The team is slightly better than last year. It's still a terrible team. This is unsurprising, or should be.

 

[TheBeard]

How are we better than last year?

On paper they should be a better team. Ceci and Wallman are better than any d-man we put out there last year. Toffoli is a better player than any forward we had last year. Goodrow would have been on PP1 last year. Hell Gunner and Wennberg probably would have seen time on PP1.

 

[weastern bias]

On paper they should be a better team. Ceci and Wallman are better than any d-man we put out there last year. Toffoli is a better player than any forward we had last year. Goodrow would have been on PP1 last year. Hell Gunner and Wennberg probably would have seen time on PP1.

Every player you listed is a support piece who can make a good team better, none of them are the kind of foundational pieces who can make a bad team good, THAT is what we are still missing and why we are still so bad

 

[TheBeard]

Every player you listed is a support piece who can make a good team better, none of them are the kind of foundational pieces who can make a bad team good, THAT is what we are still missing and why we are still so bad

No they’re not foundational pieces but they’re pieces that were not part of the awful team last year. Whether it’s their inclusion or the “addition by subtraction” of removing the true dead weight from last year, either way the team should be… less awful than last year but frankly, they’re not. Maybe it’s a chemistry issue. Maybe a “so many new pieces” issue. Of course we were still going to be bad. I’m not refuting that. But so far the moves made in the offseason have resulted in a team that’s gone sideways.

 

[weastern bias]

No they’re not foundational pieces but they’re pieces that were not part of the awful team last year. Whether it’s their inclusion or the “addition by subtraction” of removing the true dead weight from last year, either way the team should be… less awful than last year but frankly, they’re not. Maybe it’s a chemistry issue. Maybe a “so many new pieces” issue. Of course we were still going to be bad. I’m not refuting that. But so far the moves made in the offseason have resulted in a team that’s gone sideways.

What I'm saying is the players who we added/removed don't matter because the main issue is still present, this is a team with no foundational pieces on the roster

You can remove the worst players from last year's team and replace them with improvements at their positions and it doesn't make any difference if the replacements don't include any top-of-lineup players, which they didn't, so of course we're every bit as bad, expecting otherwise doesn't make sense

 

[Saskatoon]

On paper they should be a better team. Ceci and Wallman are better than any d-man we put out there last year. Toffoli is a better player than any forward we had last year. Goodrow would have been on PP1 last year. Hell Gunner and Wennberg probably would have seen time on PP1.

Is Toffoli better than Hertl?