Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Missouri Survives Scare, Louisville And Marquette Roll

Todd McLellan - One Year Older, One Year Wiser

I'll admit, this time last year I had my of questions about Todd McLellan and the Sharks' chances to ever compete for the Cup under his reign.

These doubts, I felt, were justified. Since the lockout, the Sharks never looked as weak in a playoff series loss as they did against the Ducks. We blamed Hiller, Pronger and Getzlaf. We blamed Nabokov, Thornton and Pavelski. We blamed Todd McLellan and his staff for not having a good game plan till it was too late. In my mind, McLellan was the most to blame. If Sharks fired Ron Wilson for being unable to take the team past the second round since the lockout, shouldn't we have been concerned that under McLellan the Sharks took it one step further and lost in the first round? Worse, they lost to a team that was within one missed penalty shot from missing the playoffs altogether.

But last season erased my doubts. I still feel the same way I felt a year ago about that most painful playoff loss to our biggest rival. But it was what lessons McLellan learned from it and how he changed his approach that has me believing he is the right man for this job at this time. During last season, he improved the Sharks in the following 5 areas. 

1. Rebounding After Losses. Remember that dreaded feeling after Game 1 of the Colorado Avalanche series? The Sharks didn't play well, as it all ended with a strange goal in the last two minutes. We all thought, "please, not again" thinking back to how lost the Sharks looked against the Ducks the year before. What was even more frightening was the trap that Joe Sacco designed to limit the chances the Sharks had in that game. More than anything else, Sacco had a better game plan. But McLellan was not as concerned and he went back to the video room to come up with answers to avoid the trap. After the heroics of Game 2, and the strangest playoffs game in recent history Game 3 (cough, Dan Boyle, cough), McLellan designed a way to break the trap. The Sharks found a way to overcome and advance to the next round. As much as we love crediting Joe Pavelski as the main hero in that series, Todd McLellan's plan was just as important. 

2. Peaking at the Right Time. The NHL season is long and hard. Playoffs come after playing 82 games in seven months. On top of that, Sharks travel more than most teams in the NHL. The season before, I had my questions about how McLellan handled the season's workload. The team came out firing on all cylinders and was close to reaching the record for most wins to start a season. Then came the injuries, and the team started to slide. They slid so far that going into the playoffs, we all had serious doubts about how they'd play. This was not the case this year. McLellan knew how to manage his players - whether it was Rob Blake taking time off, or Scott Nichol and Manny Malhotra looking fresh and rested in the playoffs. Generally speaking, the team was in a much better position mentally and physically going into the playoffs. They played so well in the final two weeks of the regular season that we couldn't wait till playoffs. Neither could the team - and it showed. They played a desperate kind of hockey because they knew the moment arrived. McLellan trained them well on when to feel desperate. 

Star-divide

3. Matching Lines. We all had our concerns about how McLellan would handle the top stars, especially with the arrival of Dany Heatley. I'd get irritated every time the top line of Marleau-Heatley-Thornton was broken, or Setoguchi was thrown on the 3rd or 4th line. And yet when we look at it long term, McLellan did a much better job with line combinations this year. In the playoffs, he knew exactly what to do when the top line wasn't producing, or when the 2nd line started to disappear. He also handled the match-ups better, lining up the right players against the opposition. No one in the game does this better than the master mind of the historical win of Canada over Russia, Mike Babcock. Yet, it was McLellan who knew exactly how to neutralize Detroit's main weapons. In the end, the pupil handled that aspect better than his master. 

4. Managing Injuries. Poor injury recovery was perhaps the biggest reason why the Sharks looked so lost against Anaheim in the playoffs a year ago. Once the playoffs started, some players, like Mike Grier or Ryane Clowe, were rushed to the roster from an injury reserve at the expense of younger players who were contributing earlier.  As a result, they didn't look confident and contributed very little. This year, players took their time to fully recover from injury, even if it meant that Joe Thornton had to be sidelined for the first time in years. We can still argue about whether Dany Heatley should have missed more than one game when he became injured against Colorado Avalanche. But while he might have lost his "sniper's aim" (only two goals in 14 games), he was still contributing in assists. Heatley finished with more assists in the playoffs than Joe Thornton or Joe Pavelski. Again, McLellan knew that Heatley was needed and used him in the right role. 

5. Keeping the Team Focused on the Right Goal. The year before, the team wanted to win the President's Cup. This year, there was no such goal. As worried as we were when the Sharks were on the longest losing streak of the last five years in March, the team remained calm. As they came out of the slump, they started playing the best hockey of the season. They didn't try to win the overall no. 1 seed, or even the Western Conference title. The goal was to advance in the playoffs. 

While we can still count last season as a failure because the ultimate goal of winning the Stanley Cup was not achieved, the growth of Todd McLellan was one of the most positive outcomes that happened to the Sharks last year. To me his contribution to the team's success in the first two rounds of the playoffs were as big as were those of Joe Pavelski and Joe Thornton. Going into this next season, coaching is the least of our concerns in San Jose. 

At last. 

Comment 75 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

I had the same concerns in the back of my mind after Anaheim.

He was outcoached in that series, and it had me a bit worried. But just like you, I believe in Todd McLellan now, too.

(In other words, I agree completely and I’m contributing nothing to this conversation.)

Shameless radio show plug. Also, here's my twitter.
"The last time I made a video in a hotel room…..very different than this." – Drew Remenda
Proud founder of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by jwizzle241 on Aug 10, 2010 3:15 AM PDT reply actions  

Haha that's exactly what i thought after reading the article.

Great article, I totally agree, and I have nothing useful to add lol.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 5:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

Well said

I believe in Todd McLellan too, for many reasons.

1) He has done things during his tenure with the team that no other coach in franchise history has done.
2) Sure Ron Wilson got us there once, but Wilson was totally declining and proved the extent of his potential, while McLellan’s ideas are all about PROGRESS and overcoming whatever challenges come our way.
3) He has established a strong connection with the team, going beyond professional bonds(because from what I can tell, many head coaches in pro sports just have a professional bond with their players) and believing in the players, and he’s gotten them to believe in the coaching staff as well.
4) Every action he has taken whether it’s changing who wears the “C” or mixing up the lines a little to better the players and the team has always been for the good of the team and to move closer to the mission we do strongly desire to accomplish.
5) He was developed by one of the top coaches of the league today, Mike Babcock. Babcock taught him what it takes to make it to the Cup, and what must be done to get past the challenges in the way. And in his head coaching career, McLellan did something that does not happen often; he defeated his former master in 5 games.
6) He has worked with junior players, minor league players, and assisted with full pros before coming to our team. He knows the changes they go through and what they must do in order to fullfill their dreams of the greatest kind of glory in sports.

by zack007attack on Aug 11, 2010 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

I have to say I liked the adjustments the Sharks made when it was made obvious the Avalanche were playing the trap. The Pens and Caps decided to stick to their game plan rather than adapt when the Habs did the same thing and we all know how that turned out.

by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 11, 2010 2:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Patty

I’d argue one of his greatest accomplishments is helping players flourish under his leadership. Marleau looked like he was one of those dogs in Tijuana people cross the street to kick until Coach Todd rolled up. Now The Captain (F-you, he’s still the man) was arguably the number 2 forward at the beginning of free agency this year.

'It's amazing the clarity that comes with psychotic jealousy.'

by Aero72 on Aug 10, 2010 7:54 AM PDT reply actions  

Excellent point. Marleau turned into a different player under McLellan. His nice salary raise this season is fully justified, although I do wish his contract included 10 years at minimum salary in his 40s.

Same with Murray – a whole new player in McLellan’s system.

Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.

by Ivano M on Aug 10, 2010 8:23 AM PDT up reply actions  

+2

High sticking, tripping, slashing, spearing, charging, hooking, fighting, unsportsmanlike conduct, interference, roughing… everything else is just figure skating.
- Anonymous

"My hope is that we put him (Couture) on a line with Seto and CloweThen you get the Coochy-Goochy-Clowe line." - Cerise

by mssjsclowie29 on Aug 11, 2010 11:34 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Anaheim series wasn’t McClellan, it was the players. Ron Wilson had similar problems in the playoffs in series where the Sharks should have won. Either they struggled to win, but eventually did, like vs Calgary, or they flat out blew a series lead like vs Edmonton or Detroit. Plus, the Ducks were just a terrible matchup for the Sharks that year. They were red hot, and had a team with a great mix of talent, grit, proven playoff performers, and had a hot goalie. Hot goalie, + having a great defense was pretty hard to compete with, even with a team as talented as the Sharks.

I think he is a great coach. He’s always shown he has a good sense of when to push the right buttons to motivate his team, when to juggle lines and he’s got a really good head on his shoulders. He doesn’t overreact to things either because he obviously learned a lot when coaching under Babcock in Detroit.

by Hobbes2d on Aug 10, 2010 9:03 AM PDT reply actions  

I don’t think he’s trying to lay all the blame for the Ducks series on McLellan. The players certainly share that burden. But McLellan made some rookie mistakes his first year as a head coach and he obviously improved this past year. Hopefully his improvement continues as does our success.

Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by PNK on Aug 10, 2010 9:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t blame McLellan for his rookie mistakes, because there have been very few times in history where a rookie head coach of any pro sports team has lead their players to a championship. You have to give them time to develop and shine.

Look at all the progress he made, from losing in the first round because of being outcoached and his players being outplayed; to outcoaching a rookie who was in his shoes last year and then defeating his former mentor. To me, that shows a lot of progress, which is what his philosophies put a lot of emphasis on, aside from overcoming.

by zack007attack on Aug 11, 2010 12:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

The Anaheim series wasn’t McClellan, it was the players.

I tend to disagree with that. Matchups were bad all series long. Also, the team did not come out prepared to win Game 2 which is always crucial.

Same is true of Russia-Canada game. It wasn’t all Nabokov or Ovechkin’s fault. Babcock possibly came up with the greatest one-game gameplan of his career for that one. I don’t think we’ll ever see a game again where Datsyuk, Malkin, Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Radulov all disappear in the same game.

Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.

by Ivano M on Aug 10, 2010 9:14 AM PDT up reply actions  

It didn’t help that the Russian coach was terribad.

by BruinsSelectSeguin on Aug 11, 2010 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m a little sad that you were so down on him after only one season. McLellan had never been a head coach in the NHL before. He was bound to get outcoached at some point in his first run through the playoffs. Sucks that it happened in the first round of the playoffs after a President’s trophy to our hated rivals from the South…but it is what it is. I wasn’t worried. I liked McL’s work ethic and figured he’d figure his shit out sooner rather than later.

And he did. Yes, it is very encouraging that he is, in fact, learning and adapting as a head coach. But, I would expect nothing less. He was hired because he is a smart hockey man. I would have been much more surprised if he learned nothing from the 09 disaster.

Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.

by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 9:51 AM PDT reply actions  

This is a great article and basically a perfect summary about how I feel about McLellan at this point. Right now I’m looking back at last season and wondering what he’ll learn from it and push forward into the new one. I don’t know that I can reasonably expect his learning curve to be as dramatic as it was from his first year to the second, but that doesn’t stop me from imagining him coming away with some serious gold from the loss last season that might be the thing to get the team over the next hump.

by Auth0r on Aug 10, 2010 10:05 AM PDT reply actions  

So true

I was wondering about if McLellan was an upgrade over Wilson last year, but he’s been a great coach this year.

Waiting for the cup in San Jose

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Aug 10, 2010 10:15 AM PDT reply actions  

It feels great having a coach that we all feel like we can trust, and who we know can get the most out of our guys. I’m really excited to see players improvements this year.

Churning and burning, they yearn for the cup.

Twitter! rmorse05

by sharks in oc on Aug 10, 2010 10:38 AM PDT reply actions  

I've been on the record as critical of McLellan

My main concerns were that it seemed sometimes he had little control over some of the veteran and core players.

Joe was going to be Joe, Patty was going to be Patty and Nabby was going to dictate his own starts. If that’s the case, what message does it send to the Joe Pavelskis, the Devon Setoguchis and the Ryane Clowes of the team? In the case of the later two, they are bright young stars who sometimes lack consistency, and might need a strong coaching figure to keep them on track.

I think their performance against Colorado and Detroit speaks very highly for what McLellan probably ultimately accomplished with them. Additionally, the change of tactics against both of those teams (cross ice dump against Colorado and emphasis on high shot blocks against Detroit) proved he could get his team to buy into a new game plan.

My remaining concern was ice-time management. Against Chicago, and to a lesser extent in previous rounds, too much ice time was given to players who weren’t doing enough with it. HTML was playing 20 minutes a game. I don’t believe a single one of those players was a + against Chicago. Dan Boyle’s struggles with increasing ice time have already been documented. It’s disconcerting that the deepest team in franchise history essentially ran 2 lines and 2 D-pairings against the eventual Stanley Cup champions.

All in all, I give McLellan a passing grade. I have no special attachment to him, but I can’t say he’s actively a problem either, nor do I know of any candidates not already employed by another NHL team that would be an upgrade.

They're not getting this kind of coverage at "Hockey Night In Canada" folks! - Randy Hahn

by ElvisVF101 on Aug 10, 2010 11:34 AM PDT reply actions  

My remaining concern was ice-time management. Against Chicago, and to a lesser extent in previous rounds, too much ice time was given to players who weren’t doing enough with it. HTML was playing 20 minutes a game. I don’t believe a single one of those players was a + against Chicago. Dan Boyle’s struggles with increasing ice time have already been documented. It’s disconcerting that the deepest team in franchise history essentially ran 2 lines and 2 D-pairings against the eventual Stanley Cup champions.

Agree. Given the extent of the injuries that Heatley had, I was almost dumbfounded that we were continuing to play him against the Blackhawks.

Ok, I get the “let me back in, coach,” thing, but to paraphrase what you’re saying above, the coach has to manage the players when the testosterone takes over from the brain.

I do think Tmac is doing well, though. His first year was acclimation,l and I really can’t complain about a President’s Trophy. Add to that the deeper push we made this year, he’s doing pretty good, IMO.

This ear will really be the test, though. Massive changes at the net, need for stronger D, and player development will be big items this season.

"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey

by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

We have to think of the alternatives here. Like I said, he should have benched Heatley earlier.

But against the Blackhawks – what do you do when you bench Heatley? Insert Vesce in the lineup?

Fear the Fin - where Russians are underappreciated.

by Ivano M on Aug 10, 2010 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Benching Heatley might be bold

But just balancing ice time down the lineup would have been preferable. Heatley playing 20 MINUTES ON A TORN GROIN seems excessive. The likes of Pavelski’s line, or heck, even Couture’s line picking up some ice team seems like it might not have been the end of the world, especially in the two games at home.

They're not getting this kind of coverage at "Hockey Night In Canada" folks! - Randy Hahn

by ElvisVF101 on Aug 10, 2010 12:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

I blame Heatley more than Mclellan.

You KNOW Mclellan wouldn’t have played Heatley unless Heatley said he was good to go. After the series loss the media even asked Heatley if he’s been playing injured and his response was a short response saying something like, ’i’m fine, i’m healthy’. I’m sure Mclellan knew the truth but I guarantee Heatley looked Tmac in the eyes and told him he was totally fine and ready to play playoff hockey.

If there’s a fault of Mclellans it might be that he trusts the players to much and lets players make too many choices for themselves, but i don’t see that as such a bad thing as long as he holds players responsible when they say something and don’t back it up.

Maybe that’s a small part of the reason why Nabby’s gone. Tmac let Nabby dictate his starts trusting that Nabby knew himself better than Mclellan did. I guarantee Mclellan talked to Nabby many times about taking more games off so that he’s better rested going into the playoffs, but i’m sure Nabby insisted otherwise and in the end it may have cost us a Stanley cup win. Had Nabby listened to T-Mac and we still lost the same way, maybe Mclellan and DW would be thinking ‘alright if he’s willing to take a pay cut then we should give him another shot and let him do it his way this time.’

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think people have made too big a deal about Nabby dictating his own starts. I don’t think that played any role in his departure. it was just time for something new and we needed the cap relief.

Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by PNK on Aug 10, 2010 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Obviously it’s not the whole reason Nabby is gone but maybe if they didn’t let Nabby dictate his starts they might’ve felt like they screwed with Nabby’s play/rhythm and maybe they would’ve given him another shot to do it his way assuming that he’d be willing to take a pay cut; or maybe we would have a Stanley cup right now! lol

Did DW even try to get Nabby to play for under 3 million?

I dunno, none of that matters that this point i guess.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

IMO

It was more the problem with Capspace and the Defensive issues that DW is still trying to fix with the added space.

I hated seeing Nabby go, but I get that we couldn’t afford him and tightening up the hole we have on the back end without killing the scoring depth we have right now.

I think he’s been pretty vocal about wanting to stay, but it looks like it came down to what it always does….$$$.

"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey

by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 2:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

It did sound like Nabby really wanted to stay in San Jose which makes me think he was probably willing to take a healthy pay cut. I wonder if DW even tried to get Nabby to sign for 3 mill or less. Maybe Nabby dictacting his starts and then putting up a less than stellar performance was a factor in whether DW would even try to resign Nabby at a cheaper price.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 2:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Considering he went to the KHL and got more than he was making this year, I doubt it.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t see how that factors in really. Pretty much every russian NHLer could go to the NHL and make alot more than they make in the NHL.

Nabby may have been willing to take a pay cut to stay in San Jose, but he wasn’t offered a contract with the Sharks so he had to look elsewhere, and the KHL was paying a lot better than any of the teams in the NHL so he went there. He probably thought, ‘if i have to move somewhere and play for a team that probably isn’t going to win a stanley cup, i might as well go back to my home country, especially since they’re offering the most money.’

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 2:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

If he was willing to take less to play on a good NHL team why didn’t he stick around more than a couple weeks to try and land a job? Turco did, they would have paid him big bucks to play in the KHL as well, they don’t only pay Russians there (though it is preferred).

Nabokov got paid, I don’t see how this is a one way street. If he was so inclined to work in SJ for peanuts then why didn’t he pursue it?

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 3:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

Exacty.

 If he was willing to make what nitty is making now, I think DW would have resigned him. He stated he had a desire to remain in San Jose but all that could mean is he was just willing to negotiate with San Jose and not sign with another team when July 1st hit.

"Hes like a Sweedish Bear" -Randy Hahn 4/8/10

Dont boo your team!

by Krishna on Aug 10, 2010 3:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

I dont think we can go and assume what the conversations might have been. Sticking around to see what might have happen isn’t always the smart thing to do either. Nabby has been vocal in saying he wished he could have stayed, but the Sharks have not been vocal in saying they wished they could have worked it out for him to say. Not to say that wasn’t the case, but I’m just not willing to paint either with a bad brush. It is what is it.

Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

by Angy on Aug 10, 2010 6:28 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m not saying it’s his fault, though I think it’s fair to say that he wanted what he felt he was worth to at least any other team in the NHL and wasn’t willing to work for peanuts to stay here.

Who knows what conversations Management and Nabokov had. I recall PJ at Sharkspage posting a rumor that they were thinking about keeping him. If he heard it from as many people as he said he did then it’s likely discussions of some kind took place.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 7:58 PM PDT up reply actions  

I'll wager

The team doctor told them both exactly what the situation was, how it would effect Heatley and Heatley said he’d play through the pain and McLellan felt he could contribute (and did).

Sure, he was slow as a mule out there, but he was still better than putting Zalewski or Ferriero in.

I don’t like that we overplayed Nabby during the season, but our losses didn’t strike me as him being too tired. He played well, even in the Chicago series, well, for the most part.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Well Nabby definitely didn’t look nearly as good as he did early on in the season.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions  

I recall Nabby having a slow start to the season, some amazing stretches in November (?) and then essentially going from hot to cold and back again like he always does.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 2:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

I recall him generally playing pretty damn amazing up until the Olympics.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 2:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think the rest between Redwings and Blackhawks was just too long.

"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey

by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 2:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

That, and the Hawks were the better, hungrier team. I can see how the first game might show some rust, but we got outplayed four games straight.

Even if some of the time we were barely outplayed. Barely losing is still losing.

by ievans on Aug 10, 2010 3:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't think hunger has anything to do with it.

The Hawks were the better team and had much more depth/help on the back end than we did. I think the Sharks were just as hungry if not hungrier than the Hawks to get to the SCF.

Don't let the name deceive you, I'm not just a Sharks fan but a Lakers, 49ers, Angels, Giants (and to a lesser extent) Capitals, and Titans fan.

by SharksFanEst.1994 on Aug 10, 2010 4:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

The proof is in the pudding, as they say. The games I watched, the Hawks just wanted it more. If you don’t like the term “hungrier,” that’s fine. The Sharks wanted to win too, but let leads slip away, couldn’t score when they needed to, etc.

by ievans on Aug 10, 2010 5:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

Some of us just aren't a fan of that particular kind of branding.

More grit, more heart, more hunger… whatever. They played better, coming up with reasons beyond that is just humanity trying to find order in chaos.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 5:40 PM PDT up reply actions  

Never said anything about grit or heart. I’m not particularly swayed by those arguments either.

You could say that the Hawks executed better than the Sharks, or whatever term of art you’d like. Fact is, they beat us, 4 in a row, and the Sharks never really looked like they could win that series. shrug

by ievans on Aug 10, 2010 5:47 PM PDT up reply actions  

I’m pretty sure the Sharks wanted to win just as much as Chicago did…Chicago was just the better team. Desire or hunger wasn’t the issue.

Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.

by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 10, 2010 8:04 PM PDT up reply actions  

I agree. I feel the Sharks showed more hunger overall this year than in years past including the WCF. The Sharks seemed faster and hungrier than normal. Hunger wasn’t the issue, beating Detroit made them play harder and gave them a boost IMO

by pooponastick on Aug 11, 2010 1:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

HUNGRY HUNGRY HIPPOS!

Sorry, I was just reading all these comments and the word Hunger or Hungry appears like 10 times.

Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by PNK on Aug 11, 2010 7:45 AM PDT up reply actions  

It’s getting really abstract here, and I’m not sure it’s worth really arguing over. Y’all seem really upset by the term “hungrier,” so I withdraw it.

The Sharks were very hungry, ravenous even. They had an insatiable appetite. Then they lost. Yay?

by ievans on Aug 11, 2010 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

I’m just tired of people using intangibles to explain why the Sharks lost. “Hungrier” doesn’t mean anything to me, and checking through behindthenet.ca I don’t seem to see a hungrier stat.

If it’s not measurable then I’m going to call it bullshit. That’s just me though.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 11, 2010 9:04 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly.

They got outplayed, plain and simple.

Don't let the name deceive you, I'm not just a Sharks fan but a Lakers, 49ers, Angels, Giants (and to a lesser extent) Capitals, and Titans fan.

by SharksFanEst.1994 on Aug 11, 2010 12:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Pretty much.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 11, 2010 12:32 PM PDT up reply actions  

But they got outplayed because they weren’t hungry enough. Chicago played better because they had more grit and determination and just wanted it more. They’re playing better is a direct result of their higher levels of desire.

I have it on good authority that the Chicago Blackhawks were taking illegal grit supplements and anabolic hungroids. Cheaters.

Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by PNK on Aug 11, 2010 12:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

Please guys. I said “That, and the Hawks were the better, hungrier team.” That’s it.

Jesus.

by ievans on Aug 11, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

hungrier

That’s a buzzword…and one consistanly used by the media and the haters to describe the Sharks and their supposed lack of will to win in the playoffs. Its one of the few words thats bound to cause a mini uproar around here.

Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.

by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 11, 2010 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions  

+1.

Using hunger/heart/grit is bound to get a few folks worked up, including myself. Sorry if I took it too far.

Don't let the name deceive you, I'm not just a Sharks fan but a Lakers, 49ers, Angels, Giants (and to a lesser extent) Capitals, and Titans fan.

by SharksFanEst.1994 on Aug 11, 2010 1:49 PM PDT up reply actions  

Apparently.

Parsing a single word, the secondary adjective in a sentence that (to me) is irrefutably true (they beat us, rather easily), and flipping the fuck out is just weird.

Does it make you all feel better to think that the Sharks couldn’t execute, couldn’t skate with or contain the Hawks forwards, or break through their defense and goalie, or keep any leads we had, but really, really wanted to?

Is the summer over yet?

by ievans on Aug 11, 2010 1:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Does it make you all feel better to think that the Sharks couldn’t execute, couldn’t skate with or contain the Hawks forwards, or break through their defense and goalie, or keep any leads we had, but really, really wanted to?

I think this is better than saying/thinking the Sharks didn’t win because they weren’t hungry enough. The Sharks couldn’t execute their gameplan against the Hawks, they couldn’t skate with their forwards, and we couldn’t keep our leads. Because the Hawks were the better team, and matched up with us really well. It happens. Now the Sharks are working this offseason (we hope) to help plug those holes. The will was there, the skill was not quite there.

Also, I don’t think anyone flipped the fuck out…but people will defend this team to the death…kinda been conditioned to after the schelacking this team takes in the hockey world year after year.

Z!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tweet Tweet.

by ZeroIndulgence on Aug 11, 2010 3:34 PM PDT up reply actions  

I wasn’t really criticizing your analysis, I was just commenting on how silly things were starting to sound.

So basically I have nothing of substance to add to this conversation.

If you guys want I could make a few more Milton Bradley themed jokes. Like maybe on McLellan’s Stratego or the Risks he takes or maybe how he dealt with Colorado playing the (Mouse) Trap…

Proud member of the "Bring Back Semenov" Club

by PNK on Aug 11, 2010 9:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah

And, I’m think that injury MIGHT impact Heatley next year. If McLellan knew this, he shouldn’t have played him excessively. I think Pavelski’s line should have played some more. Or Couture. Either way, you can’t risk a star point per game first line world class sniper getting hurt that badly.
BUT, it seems like McLellan HAS improved as a coach from last year, without doubt

Waiting for the cup in San Jose

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Aug 11, 2010 10:57 AM PDT up reply actions  

I don’t think you pull Heatley because you think the injury may effect the following regular season. It’s the playoffs, those are what matter most. If it was that dangerous that it could end his playing career the doctors wouldn’t have OK’ed him to play.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 11, 2010 11:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

I didn't said PULL him

I said reduce his playing time.
But you do make a point.

Waiting for the cup in San Jose

I never forget a face, but in your case, I'd be glad to make an exception-Groucho Marx

by sanjosesharksfan on Aug 11, 2010 3:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Rolling 4 lines...

…while you’re behind or in a tight game is the Darryl Sutter Special. [Ask Mike Chen about seeing Ron Sutter or Todd Harvey hoping over the wall with less than 2 minutes to play and the Sharks trailing by a goal.]

If we were able to carry play for significant stretches, with a good goal cushion, well yeah, McLellan would have rolled his lines. As it was, we never had a comfortable lead, when we had a lead at all. In that situation, you gotta go with the guys who can get you another goal, right?

by ievans on Aug 10, 2010 3:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Why would you bench Heatley?

The guy was 2nd on the team in points despite a torn groin. Sure, he wasn’t at 100%, but he was still miles above who would fill in for him.

Ice time management would have been better, but I think McLellan is just bad in general at time management when playing from behind.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 10, 2010 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Just his presence on the ice is probably a big factor. He’s a threat, even if he doesn’t look 100% he’s still a threat that the other team needs to worry about when matching lines and covering players.

by Khaaz on Aug 10, 2010 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, I know. We didn't have many (if any) options.

"Never start a fight, but ALWAYS finish it."
Bleeding teal since 1997
Donate Blood + Play Hockey

by Noctro on Aug 10, 2010 12:49 PM PDT reply actions  

I like McClellan, he has some very good taste when it comes to his ties

Every day is just a little worse than the previous, that means every day is the worst day of my life.

by shooting4life on Aug 10, 2010 2:34 PM PDT reply actions  

Ultimately, the jury is still out on him

I think he has been able to manage the lines effectively and help players recover more efficiently from injury as Ivano points out in his article. However, I do think the Sharks looked a little lost in the first couple games versus Colorado before finally finding the grove and rolling over an aging and more vulnerable Red Wings team.

However, he was able to regroup the troops after the ridiculous effort they put out versus Anaheim last year and make a valiant push deeper into the playoffs where they eventually lost to the Goliath that I had to hear about incessantly for 9 months. God, I hate that song and those bandwagoners.

Anyways, point being, the next two seasons will form my opinion on Todd as a coach. If he can give us a Cup appearance, I’ll consider it the next big glass ceiling we’ve finally need to break. But if we regress or stagnate, then I do have to wonder what it is going to take to get the Sharks to finally jump the playoff shark here.

Waiting for the June when the 'San Jose Sharks' become the 'Stanley Cup Sharks.'

by SharkFanInHawkCountry on Aug 10, 2010 8:15 PM PDT reply actions  

Hey Ivano

Somehow, I just now learned that ALL OF RUSSIA IS ON FIRE. Peat fires that burn for years? Radioactive forest fires?

Yikes. I hope all your friends and family are doing ok.

by ievans on Aug 11, 2010 8:35 AM PDT reply actions  

Can't we all just chalk the SJ/Chi series to depth?

I feel like the top forwards for both the sharks and hawks did their jobs in the playoffs in terms of production, leadership, etc if you look at the entire playoffs. Obviously focusing in on specific series you can see guys fade at times but overall I always felt like we were near even in terms of our top 6. Chicago’s stars were a little faster while ours were a little bigger. However, in terms of depth Chicago was just amazing, their 3rd and 4th lines destroyed ours, and if you just rely on your top 2 lines the entire playoffs you are going to wear your team down, like Carolina did in 08/09. It’s just that f*cking hard to win the Cup, because even when you lock down an impressive top 6 you still need to get a bunch of role players together to play above their contracts. We need more guys like Nichol, who bled teal all playoffs long.

by Haie on Aug 13, 2010 1:34 PM PDT reply actions  

I keep saying this, nobody believes me but Zero.

"Douglas Murray is a humongous human being." – Drew Remenda

by Evilducks on Aug 13, 2010 1:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I believe you too

just cause I didn’t say it doesn’t mean I don’t believe it. I didn’t quite say it was depth but I said they were just better. Depth is probably a more appropriate word for it.

High sticking, tripping, slashing, spearing, charging, hooking, fighting, unsportsmanlike conduct, interference, roughing… everything else is just figure skating.
- Anonymous

"My hope is that we put him (Couture) on a line with Seto and CloweThen you get the Coochy-Goochy-Clowe line." - Cerise

by mssjsclowie29 on Aug 13, 2010 1:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Meh, not to beat a dead horse

Chicago had depth. So did we. We CHOSE not to use it. HTML playing 20 minutes a night? When we had home ice? That seems bad.

Also, I know the “hunger” thing gets people riled up, but I’m not sure how else to describe Chicago’s first goal of Game 2. Patty and Heater are 2 on 1, and the last Blackhawk back falls on his ass, and still gets the puck. The send it up ice for a 2 on 3, and Chicago scores.

Chicago was deeper, more skilled, more disciplined, hungrier, luckier, whatever. They won that game. They won 4 straight. The won 7 of 8 against us this past season. They won the Cup. We’re still trying to figure out how it went south so fast, and we’ve been doing that for too many post-seasons straight. Something’s clearly missing.

They're not getting this kind of coverage at "Hockey Night In Canada" folks! - Randy Hahn

by ElvisVF101 on Aug 13, 2010 4:27 PM PDT up reply actions  

where's idunno's gif?

;)

High sticking, tripping, slashing, spearing, charging, hooking, fighting, unsportsmanlike conduct, interference, roughing… everything else is just figure skating.
- Anonymous

"My hope is that we put him (Couture) on a line with Seto and CloweThen you get the Coochy-Goochy-Clowe line." - Cerise

by mssjsclowie29 on Aug 13, 2010 4:50 PM PDT up reply actions  

It’s obvious that Chicagos depth was the biggest reason we got beat. Joe Thornton played 30 freaking minutes in game 2 or 3 (i forget now) while Toews averaged 17 – 22 minutes or so. They had us beat in forward depth AND defensive depth.

by Khaaz on Aug 14, 2010 5:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

uh hello … only a few are disagreeing so only Zero agrees with you? tsk!!

As I’ve also been pointing out to friends, altho we may have ended the season with more points, Chicago had more wins (okay one more, but still more). Just getting to the west conf was a thrill and I wouldn’t have missed that moment for anything – even knowing how it turned out.

Ever get the feeling we are on a collision course with reality?
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security" -- Benjamin Franklin

by Angy on Aug 14, 2010 5:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

The Official SB Nation blog of the San Jose Sharks.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Thank you

Recent FanPosts

Sharkslogotail_small
Sharkstistics - February 2012
297235_228875923843877_197693266962143_697284_1857293148_n_small
Defending the Blue Line Needs Your Vote
Small
What would you give for Jeff Carter
Snapshot_of_me_1_small
Hypothetical: If the Coyotes had to move...
Small
Selling 2 Club Level seats for tomorrow's game vs Columbus and others
Pavs2_small
All-Stars Skill Competition Open Thread
P257268-san_jose-opening_ceremonies_of_san_jose_sharks_game_small
Ryane Clowe Trade Rumors
Sharkslogotail_small
NHL Magic Numbers, Tragic Numbers, & Potential Points Standings - 2011-12 Running Charts
Hidey-fern_small
NHL Draft

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Managing Editor

Photo_388_small Mr. Plank

Editor

Slappy_small Matthew_Taylor

Authors

Pavs2_small idunno723

Poseypavelski_small mymclife

Shark_trek_small jwizzle241

Ovechkin-russia-080518-584_small Ivano M

Shfe_small Jon Allred

Bender-smoking_small The Neutral

Moderators

2296_s_small Nael M.

Mikey_small ElvisVF101

Z_small ZeroIndulgence

313483_2054510893373_1562580382_31984672_1965025_n_small James Brady