Grypho

Oh, then by all means compare. Vote or come to a conclusion, and let the question be settled once and for all. The difference between comparing coaches and players should be obvious, since the players are the only ones with 99%+ control over the game, and the sheer number of specific stats for each player makes their caliber differences far more obvious. Coaches can coach different teams, but only in different years. And every coach has a different chemistry with its team. I'm not saying you can't compare coaches. Obviously you can. I'm saying that it's all going to be almost completely subjective. You won't have any way of separating, or knowing for sure, which successes and/or failures were more attributable to the coaches, vs. the players, the team captain, other teams, or even other factors. Those are built-in complications. How do you deal with them to get a reliable metric that any disinterested observer could agree on?

I don't see how that question can even be answered. They are both absolutely amazing coaches in my estimation. The only way to know which one is better would be to have one coach a team for a year, then GO BACK IN TIME and place the other coach at the helm of the exact same team. And even then, it is only going to tell you who was better for that year, and for that team. Otherwise, it's all speculative nonsense, and truly apples to oranges. Even a win history does not guarantee that one coach was better than the other. Great coaches can be saddled with s***ty players and teams, just as s***ty coaches can be gifted with great players and teams. It happens. Hey, give me nothing but full houses against Doyle's consistent trips, and watch just how "great" I am against him as a coach of the hands I was dealt. But then again, I don't think the Wings' performance in this series relative to the last one was the fault of the players OR the coach anyway, and I don't think line changes could have done anything to address what I thought was the real problem.

Go back and read what I wrote, as I expressly argued the opposite. It was a Wings fan that implied that this was a case of being "passive" (mental, therefore under your control, or deliberate), as opposed to lethargic (physical, as in a limitation completely apart from anything mental). It was a Wings fan who implied that lethargy was really 'passiveness', as if there was a lack of decision or commitment on the Wings' parts (overall) to play their best. I don't ever, EVER assume such a thing, and I would never even imply it, let alone say such a thing outright. By "what happened" (in the Game) I am referring only to physical performance levels (speed, stamina, aggression, sustaining capacity, etc.,) relative to the opponent, and also relative to the Wings themselves, as compared to the Wings we saw in the series against Phoenix. Forget what you think I implied, because I am clarifying that now, for the record. Again. In other words, I am talking only about what everyone else saw, and described in different ways, regardless of their conclusions about why it "happened". There were fans in the GDT who talked about the insult of the Wings pouring it on only at the end, for the last 5 mins. of the game. That somehow showed them that the Wings really did "have it in them" the whole time, but didn't "decide" to bring it on until the end. I absolutely disagree. I saw it as a nothing more than fast, 120% energy sprint at the end of a marathon, where you literally pour EVERY LAST THING you have left into the final stretch. What fans don't see, because the game is over, is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING LEFT after you do that! IF the Wings had done that, say, in the second period, or any time prior to the last five minutes, they would have had nothing leftover, and as a result of that hypothetical stupidity, they would have opened up a shooting gallery for the Sharks - for which they would have had nothing left to defend with.

That's true, which made me think afterward that it was the reason for the call, but the official penalty was for roughing on Howard.

+1, that was hilarious. Predicting specific outcomes is not my thing, and while I'm obviously pulling for the Sharks, I do favor the Wings chances in this game. If the Sharks lose this game, the foundation for that loss will have been laid firmly in the first period. As such, I fully expect the Wings to exit the starting gate with sparks flying from their skates, doing everything humanly possible to turn the Sharks offense into a spastic, panicked, and disoriented defense - peppering Niemi, as early and often as possible, for an early score and maximum offensive momentum. That's my biggest dread, and if it reflects on the score board, the thing that will definitely take much of the crowd out of the game. I'm not superstitious, so if it's any consolation to anyone, I'll be the Sharks fan that touches the octopus. :octo:

Sheesh, for the last time I am not talking about the score or even the outcome of the game! I am talking about what MOST people saw as apparent lethargy, and lack of sustained speed and aggression on the part of the Wings in Game 1. ONLY! I thought the extended layover was the primary factor involved. If you saw it differently, or have a different reason for it, fine. But that is the only thing was addressing. And it wasn't me being melodramatic, by the way. It was Babcock who said after the game that the Wings gave the Sharks defense the night off. The only word he didn't use was 'most'.

Quick and dirty morph animation test (Pav to Rooney) - click to view.

Not bad!

Since '94, baby! The Sharks "Power Play Chomp", while not nearly as bizarre as killing and gleefully throwing real, once-live, dead mascots of one's team onto the ice, is actually a mystic ritual, taught to us, legend has it, by a Gypsy shaman who promised us that if we did this during a playoff series, we could ward off and eventually eliminate all evil wings and wheels. It worked in 1994, and we have used it ever since. If the Sharks ever decide to finally pay the Gypsy for the Chomp, he would show them the rituals needed to actually capture a Cup. So far I haven't received any checks, so I'm holding out. I mean, he's holding out.

It's confirmed. Rinne is an mutant alien shape-shifter. Part fish, part eel, part bat, part Grey, with just enough human DNA to make him passable as one. On another note, is it abnormal or sick of me to really, truly want to take a machete and cut off the hands of Nuck fans (or any team's fans) who think it's just a nifty-neato-deeto part of the game to bang on the ******* glass? I really want to go all Phantom on those fans, and drop 2 ton chandeliers on their heads from the rafter beams.

You mean like morph him into Wayne Rooney, the master of DiverCity himself? lol, that would be funny, but are there enough Wings fans who know Man.U. and would get the connection? EDIT: My Brit/Manc friend in China said simply, "Do it and I'll slit your throat, mate, howzat?" Touchy touchy!

I can see that. My only question is that if 9 days rest helped Mule and Z to heal, but was that at the expense of the entire team's playoff capacity as a whole? (And I don't mean that as a rhetorical question.) Let's look at two extremes for a second. Somewhere between one day off and one month off there are two extremes that are detrimental to any team's playoff capacity. A single day's rest after a grueling series could be absolutely disastrous for any team. Likewise, an entire month off would not just be "somewhat detrimental", but downright disastrous. I think you would be hard pressed to find an athlete from any endurance sport who would argue that to the contrary. For example, my nephew is an MMA fighter. If he goes three days without training or fighting, he thinks he's screwed for at least a week. So I am really only asking a three part question, one that I think is universal, and not specific to any team, but to average NHL players in general: How little is too little rest, at one end, and how much is too much rest at the other? Then, somewhere between those two points, what is the optimal window? That's it. It may not be easy to answer, but that does not mean there aren't any specific answers to be had, because we could at least qualitatively identify the extremes. Many fans described the Wings' Game 1 play using different synonyms for "lethargic" (implying physical limitations), while twice now in this thread that same play was referred to as "passive", which implies a mental state, obviously meant to infer that it was a kind of deliberateness on the parts of the players, and therefore within their control -- like a strategic move, of sorts ("Trying more to 'weather the storm' than increase our lead."). It didn't look that way to me, but if that is true, then I find that very sad for the Wings. If that is true, then Babcock has every reason to be angry at the majority of players on the team (all but, what, three?) for not "deciding" to flip that [purely mental] switch, and for essentially giving the Sharks' defense most of the night off!

Why? For the same reason, I suppose, that we still have umpires for pitches in baseball. It would be far, far more precise to have lasers tracking the strike box, down to the angstrom, rather than a blind-as-a-bat ump who can call a pitch wrong by two balls width. I think it's the human element. And even the added controversy over human flaws, and even biases, perceived or real; things that give everyone something to shout about. Which, of course, draws a crowd and keeps it drawn, which in turn draws in more money. "If bleeds it leads" will always be the mantra of the mainstream media, and sports like ice hockey aren't that far off. The NHL can cut down on deliberate head shots. Then again, deliberate head shots only produce injuries, but otherwise aren't a spectacular expectation. But it will be long time before exhales when the NHL does away with fighting altogether. The NHL doubled the number of refs on the ice, but I wouldn't look for any significant changes to the system itself any time soon. Not unless it can be shown, and they can be convinced, that it will equate to more money.

Can't disagree there.

Oh yeah? If rust was a factor that "kept the Sharks in game", then it also certainly helped them to dictate majority puck possession time, as well as a nearly 2:1 ratio of shots on net. Had that not happened, the Wings would have had more shots on net, and a much higher probability of scoring more goals (given the closeness of the score despite all of that) -- which, in turn, could have made ALL bad calls, funny bounces, and even OT, complete non-factors, and non-issues.

I don't know what "we guys" do over at LGS, since I was just invited to join two days ago. LGW is my favorite NHL site, and my favorite haunt in the post season. As for the point of the thread, it wasn't all that subtle, and some, who don't reckon things with your particular mindset, do care. You may not agree, or see the point yourself, but if you don't have anything to add to that, you could always just ignore it.

Struck my funny bone. I was looking at that version of the Sharks logo, and thought, "Oh crap, it looks just like it's starting to execute a perfect jackknife or swan dive!"

OK, true to my word... Is that something along the lines of what you were looking for?

The Wings aggression level was all but non-existent. No mojo! If I was a nutritionist for the Wings, I would order all the players to take a Zinc supplement, and eat nothing but foods high in Zinc, like oysters, liver, seafood, poultry, and nuts. Get those testosterone levels back up QUICK!

Anything to get their energy up. All of them. Does Red Bull really give you Wings? Fine. Drink it. Coffee? Electroshock? How about a little adrenaline for each player?

I would love to see a graph of the actual testosterone levels (the actual medical "mojo" numbers) for every player on each team; starting the night of the last series-winning game victory, and continuing on through their rest periods, leading all the way up to last night. Bet there's a trend there. A few other tests would be interesting, but I'll bet there's never even been a controlled study. There was nothing I could find on a cursory search through the literature.

Homer fans all around the league love to beat the playoff war tom-tom, as they play up their own team's strengths, recent brilliances, wins, or past laurels, etc., while generally minimizing or dismissing the strengths of opposing teams and playing up their weaknesses. It's understandable, but there is no shortage of this on the message boards. For all team sports. The other team's weaknesses are what we all focus on, in hopes that our own team can exploit them for a win. These weaknesses are no secret to the coaches and players of opposing teams. Whether they can exploit them or not is another question entirely. From a Shark's fan perspective, however, I would like to freely talk about what I consider MY OWN team's weaknesses - NOT THEIR STRENGTHS - and the strategies that could be employed by other teams that could exploit them. Furthermore, I won't follow up any mention of a Sharks weakness with some kind of "....but if they do such-and-so, all bets are off and they'll really cream those guys." The focus here is on weaknesses ONLY. Not strengths. I was wondering if some Wings fans might be willing to do the same with regard to the Wings in this thread. If a Wings fan wants to chime in with what s/he perceives are the Sharks' weaknesses, that's fine. But what I'd rather see, and what I'm really looking for, are what Wings fans think are the WINGS' weaknesses. Play devil's advocate here with me, and be a strategist for the opposing team. Don't tell me how to beat the other team, tell me what it takes to beat your team. I'll do likewise. Taking the lead, the following are my concerns about the Sharks, and my strategy for beating them: Often slow to start. There is an old saying that you can't win a hockey game in the first period, but you can definitely lose one in that same time. The Sharks like to ramp up their game over 60 minutes, as they "feel" their opponents out in the first few minutes of the game. The are a textbook example, generally speaking, of how an early jump, or goal scored against a team vastly improves the opposing team's odds (to something like 80%) of taking momentum away and ultimately winning the game. Any team playing the Sharks MUST bolt out the starting gate, fully on fire, all guns blazing with a very fast, very smart offense, crashing the net as many times as possible. They don't even have to be good scoring chances. They just have to make the Sharks players' butts pucker, and take the wind out of their offensive sails, which may not even be fully deployed. Most importantly to an early jump on the Sharks is rapid, relentless, FAST individual scrambling for each and every puck possession as if lives depended on it. It is very rare game that the Sharks will do this at their ultimate capacity in the first period, and the quickest way to know that the Sharks are not ramped up or amped up is seen in how many pucks are within a few feet of them on another player's tape that they won't lunge for. When the Sharks are worried or frazzled defensively, they will be much more likely to make blind passes and bad passes, easily giving back puck control, even in their own zone. It is like they are so relieved to finally get possession of the puck, or to have cleared it into the neutral zone, that they think (momentarily) that the battle is over, and tend to take their foot off the gas. They aren't thinking about shifting from defense to a smart offense, especially if they are tired and in need of a line change. I can't count the number of times I've sarcastically yelled, "Great, now you have the puck. Now go ahead and pass the damned thing right to the opposing team's player in the neutral zone. After all, it is their turn, you know. Fair is fair." Only to have EXACTLY that happen. Lack of offense/defense balance, and poor penalty kill. The Sharks have focused so much on their offensive power, depth and PP execution that their penalty kill is absolutely abysmal. This puts additional and unnecessary pressure on the goalie. I think the thought was that if we had a good enough net minder, we could allocate more defensive resources to offensive scoring chances. The Hawks didn't do that with Niemi, who was untested, and the team rallied around him. They helped him by scoring and generally keeping the puck away from him in the first place, which helped to make him look good. While the Sharks have improved their ability to scramble defensively in their own zone (when they want to), their PK is something they have struggled with all year, and it showed in the last series. Weak PK is not a problem for an extremely disciplined team that takes no penalties, but that's not the Sharks. They can be emotionally rattled, and will draw stupid penalties. And it does cost them, more often than not. NiemiI love Niemi, and I am glad we got him, but I don't see him as a panacea for winning a Cup, and I don't see him as a Patrick Roy. Not yet. I think for a goalie to be truly great, they must behave internally almost like machines, with a near pathological inability to feel guilt. Niemi's confidence and ability soars when he's given a scoring buffer by the offense, and even higher when players rally defensively around him in our zone. But I think Niemi's conscience is his own worst enemy. If Niemi lets in a soft goal, or is responsible for a goal by making a bad pass, failing to smother when he had the chance, or other bad decision which results in a goal against, he becomes so self-conscious about it that he is unable to put it immediately past him, and his game can quickly go right into the toilet as a result (as seen many times). A pretty, well executed goal won't rattle Niemi the way a soft goal, or lucky bounce can. For Niemi, any goal he'd "like to have back" might dull his responsiveness, and turn him to putty. If I was McClellan, and I saw Niemi rattled in ANY WAY by a very soft goal, I would consider pulling him right away. If, however, I saw Niemi make a dumb mistake that resulted in a goal for which he was directly responsible, there would be no "consider" to it. He would be pulled immediately. And I would tell him exactly the reason why in advance. The fact this has not happened, and will not happen (McClellan won't pull a net minder until he has f***ed up three goals), is another weakness that can be exploited. The Sharks like to lean too far forward offensively. To get good offensive opportunities against the Sharks, defense must be impeccable. It cannot be left up to the net minder alone. If the Sharks are too greedy for a goal, they will lose their defensive balance, as seen with defense that moves forward or away from the points. Good, solid, defensive cycling, and awareness of the defensive positions at all time, can easily catch the Sharks off guard, which will create enough offensive scoring opportunities to make a difference. More as I think of it. Thoughts? Any other Sharks fans care to chime in and add to that, and would any Wings fans care/dare to coach the Sharks against the Wings? Could be fun, you know!

Post was deleted by OP (creating new thread instead)