Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
I dont need to be sold. The guy disapears every post season. If it was one or two or even three seasons Id cut him some slack....but this who he is. Captain invisible.pk500 wrote: Thornton doesn't put up anywhere near the points per game in the playoffs that he does in the regular season. That's not a simpleton's observation -- it's a fact.
The sad part is that as I mentioned in an earlier post, this Rangers's team does need that piece of crap s**t Avery to do his thing. Caps are too good of a team to be gone in 5 but it'll still be tough to come back all the way to dethroned the King of the East Lundqvist.XXXIV wrote:Still half a game but so far its been totally dominated by the Caps...They have even solved Lundvquist for at least half of one night.fletcher21 wrote:Boo Rangers.. Guess they'll have to end it next game
Ya...but it would be great to see it go back to DC for a game 7.10spro wrote:The sad part is that as I mentioned in an earlier post, this Rangers's team does need that piece of crap s**t Avery to do his thing. Caps are too good of a team to be gone in 5 but it'll still be tough to come back all the way to dethroned the King of the East Lundvist.XXXIV wrote:Still half a game but so far its been totally dominated by the Caps...They have even solved Lundvquist for at least half of one night.fletcher21 wrote:Boo Rangers.. Guess they'll have to end it next game
Absolutely. If they keep playing like this, anything is possible.XXXIV wrote:Ya...but it would be great to see it go back to DC for a game 7.10spro wrote:The sad part is that as I mentioned in an earlier post, this Rangers's team does need that piece of crap s**t Avery to do his thing. Caps are too good of a team to be gone in 5 but it'll still be tough to come back all the way to dethroned the King of the East Lundvist.XXXIV wrote: Still half a game but so far its been totally dominated by the Caps...They have even solved Lundvquist for at least half of one night.
I understand Thornton's role plenty well. It's to pass first. But you act like the guy is the second coming of Craig Janney, that all he does is pass. He had 25 goals this season. He has zero in four games this season. He's not producing.toonarmy wrote:A couple points in response to your points. First, you must be missing my point about Thornton's lack of production in the playoffs. I have watched a ton of Sharks games this year, and Joe's point totals are very much dependent on the performance of his linemates. His role is much more about passing than making goals. If you have seen the playoff games then you should have observed that his linemates are not putting the puck in the net when Joe gets it to them. You cannot possibly say it is Joe's fault when the other guys cannot score goals when he gets it to them. Perhaps you do not understand Thornton's role too well.
No, I'm more of a Western Conference guy. But one of the reasons for that balance is, well, balance. If Thornton was on the Bruins, do you honestly think that balance would remain? They would just have eight 20-goal scorers, turn into the 1984-85 Edmonton Oilers? I highly doubt it.toonarmy wrote:Second, regarding Thornton in Boston, have you watched this year's Bruins much? They have seven players with 20 goals or more. There would be more than enough opportunities for both of their lines.
Malkin and Crosby score plenty because they are relied on more heavily to score and put up points. Boston is more balanced, and adding Thornton wouldn't enhance that balance.toonarmy wrote:You do realize that Malkin and Crosby usually are not on the same line on the 5 on 5, right? Seems to me both guys score plenty, and their team scoring is not as balanced as that of Boston. I am not sure how redundancy comes into play, as you state, since both men would play on different lines at center, and also both players have different styles at the center position.
Wow. Well, regarding Thornton, I cannot really discuss this with you since you are having problems grasping the concept that his linemates miss the net in the playoffs more than during the regular season. I am still not seeing how that is Joe's fault.pk500 wrote:I understand Thornton's role plenty well. It's to pass first. But you act like the guy is the second coming of Craig Janney, that all he does is pass. He had 25 goals this season. He has zero in four games this season. He's not producing.toonarmy wrote:A couple points in response to your points. First, you must be missing my point about Thornton's lack of production in the playoffs. I have watched a ton of Sharks games this year, and Joe's point totals are very much dependent on the performance of his linemates. His role is much more about passing than making goals. If you have seen the playoff games then you should have observed that his linemates are not putting the puck in the net when Joe gets it to them. You cannot possibly say it is Joe's fault when the other guys cannot score goals when he gets it to them. Perhaps you do not understand Thornton's role too well.
No, I'm more of a Western Conference guy. But one of the reasons for that balance is, well, balance. If Thornton was on the Bruins, do you honestly think that balance would remain? They would just have eight 20-goal scorers, turn into the 1984-85 Edmonton Oilers? I highly doubt it.toonarmy wrote:Second, regarding Thornton in Boston, have you watched this year's Bruins much? They have seven players with 20 goals or more. There would be more than enough opportunities for both of their lines.
Malkin and Crosby score plenty because they are relied on more heavily to score and put up points. Boston is more balanced, and adding Thornton wouldn't enhance that balance.toonarmy wrote:You do realize that Malkin and Crosby usually are not on the same line on the 5 on 5, right? Seems to me both guys score plenty, and their team scoring is not as balanced as that of Boston. I am not sure how redundancy comes into play, as you state, since both men would play on different lines at center, and also both players have different styles at the center position.
Again, just look at Calgary. It was similar to Pittsburgh in that it relied heavily on Iginla and Cammalleri to put up big points. And when Jokinen arrived at the deadline, Cammalleri slumped. The chemistry of the team changed, for the worse.
Edmonton figured the arrival of Erik Cole this year would jump-start its offense. Cole never was a good fit. He was back in Carolina at the deadline.
Hossa was a perfect fit for Detroit because that team needed a sniper. Bingo -- Hossa is one of the league's elite goal scorers.
This isn't fantasy league. You can't just plug in guys and always maintain the same level of statistical output.
And explain to me how Savard and Thornton play differently? Both are pass first, shoot second players and great passers, although Savard did shoot much more than Thornton during the regular season.
It's very convenient to blame poor-shooting wingers for a center's lack of production. Funny, Gretzky somehow found a way to get his wingers to score. So did Yzerman, Mario, Brad Richards. Hank Zetterberg did a damn fine job of it last season. The clutch players produce, adapt their games to fit situations.
I would have no quarrel with you if this was an anomaly for Thornton. But it's not. He disappears every year in the playoffs. Guess his wingers mysteriously go in the tank at the same time, too, every year.
I really wish Thornton would have a great postseason because it's the only thing missing from his resume, along with a Cup. Thornton holding the Conn Smythe Trophy after grasping the Cup would be the best way to eliminate the deserved reputation for postseason futility that has dogged him. He's a great regular-season player and seems to be a really good guy; I would like to see him kick ass in the playoffs.
Take care,
PK
So the problem is they're missing open nets? How you can absolve Thornton is astonishing, especially since this is a repeated pattern throughout his career, not a 2008-09 anomaly.toonarmy wrote:Wow. Well, regarding Thornton, I cannot really discuss this with you since you are having problems grasping the concept that his linemates miss the net in the playoffs more than during the regular season. I am still not seeing how that is Joe's fault.
So you think Savard, Bergeron or Krejci would put up similar points after moving down the depth chart at least one line? Interesting theory. I also think it's nuts.toonarmy wrote:As for balance with the Bruins, your argument makes zero sense. Watch the current Bruins wingers and then tell me the team would not thrive with Thornton on the first or second line.
Because Hossa is a VERY different player from Crosby or Malkin. He's a scorer. He's also a wing and filled a need for both Pittsburgh and Detroit. A slick-passing center is not a need for Boston, which is why adding Thornton wouldn't have the positive impact you think.toonarmy wrote:And as for Hossa, what happened when he was with the Pens? Sure did not seem to disrupt things, as Sid and Geno's scoring was very good with Hossa on the team, despite people wondering what would happen when he came to the Pens.
The argument never was that Boston has a need for a slick passing center. All I said is that Boston would be awesome with Thornton in this year's lineup. I said that to point out that Thornton would do fine in the playoffs with a team that also performed behind him. You are off on a tangent. Just to respond to your side points -- I am sure there would be plenty of scoring to go around with Thornton (one of the league's top men i points every year) in the lineup somewhere. The Bruins find a way to score regardless of who is in the lineup or who is injured.pk500 wrote:So the problem is they're missing open nets? How you can absolve Thornton is astonishing, especially since this is a repeated pattern throughout his career, not a 2008-09 anomaly.toonarmy wrote:Wow. Well, regarding Thornton, I cannot really discuss this with you since you are having problems grasping the concept that his linemates miss the net in the playoffs more than during the regular season. I am still not seeing how that is Joe's fault.
So you think Savard, Bergeron or Krejci would put up similar points with second-, third- or fourth-line wingers? Interesting theory. I also think it's nuts.toonarmy wrote:As for balance with the Bruins, your argument makes zero sense. Watch the current Bruins wingers and then tell me the team would not thrive with Thornton on the first or second line.
Because Hossa is a VERY different player from Crosby or Malkin. He's a scorer. He's also a wing and filled a need for both Pittsburgh and Detroit. A slick-passing center is not a need for Boston, which is why adding Thornton wouldn't have the positive impact you think.toonarmy wrote:And as for Hossa, what happened when he was with the Pens? Sure did not seem to disrupt things, as Sid and Geno's scoring was very good with Hossa on the team, despite people wondering what would happen when he came to the Pens.
Yeah, he'd score his share of points, but from whom are you going to slice minutes? Yelle, certainly. But if you think Savard is going to score as many points with Recchi and Kobasew as his wings instead of Lucic and Kessel, you're high. Something tells me Krejci wouldn't have quite the output with Axelsson and Shawn Thornton on the wings, either.
Take care,
PK
And this is where I think you're WAY off track. Joe Thornton never has done fine in the playoffs. Is it the team's fault every time? Why does every team he plays for deliver in the regular season but flop in the playoffs?toonarmy wrote:The argument never was that Boston has a need for a slick passing center. All I said is that Boston would be awesome with Thornton in this year's lineup. I said that to point out that Thornton would do fine in the playoffs with a team that also performed behind him.
So who's fault is it, then? I know Marleau is playing like sh*t, and he is just as much to blame. Cheechoo isn't exactly lighting it up, either.toonarmy wrote:As for the whole silly Thornton disappears in the playoffs issue, again, Joe cannot control his linemates not scoring when he feeds them the puck. He also does not play on every line that is stinking things up. He also is not the goalie that does not do as well in the playoffs as compared to the regular season. I suppose Thornton slips some "play like crap" pills into all those players' drinks before each playoff game, eh? Or could it be that the team as a whole has not been built around a good playoff model? Or could it be that teams focus on Joe because they can cheat toward him a little since they have figured out that other players on the team choke in the playoffs? Argue all you want about this, and I know its the popular pedestrian view, but the fact is when you watch the team play it's apparent that Joe is not the main issue.
I know that stats and realize Thornton's stats are lacking in the playoffs. My point is that it is overly simplistic to just say this one guy is at fault for the team's underperformance in the playoffs. Do you honestly think this guy with so much talent simply loses his skill come playoff time? Or that he somehow does not have enough desire to try hard enough? That is ridiculous if the answer is yes to either question. Hockey is possibly the greatest TEAM sport there is. Before casting blame at Thornton people might want to look at the specific teams he has played for and the lack of performance of everyone on those teams, as well as how opposing teams have matched up with Thornton's teams. The raw stats are undeniable, but you have to look a little deeper in order to see an accurate picture. Just using someone as a whipping boy is shortsighted and ignorant.pk500 wrote:And this is where I think you're WAY off track. Joe Thornton never has done fine in the playoffs. Is it the team's fault every time? Why does every team he plays for deliver in the regular season but flop in the playoffs?toonarmy wrote:The argument never was that Boston has a need for a slick passing center. All I said is that Boston would be awesome with Thornton in this year's lineup. I said that to point out that Thornton would do fine in the playoffs with a team that also performed behind him.
Again, how you can absolve this guy of every bit of poor postseason performance is mind-boggling. The career numbers don't lie -- the guy puts up more than 30 percent fewer points in the postseason than the regular season.
Now look at Messier. He averaged 1.07 points per game in the regular season during his career. He averaged 1.25 points per game in the postseason. Guess it was all because of his teammates producing, or maybe Mess laid out some sweet dressing room bonus payments to top producers.
So who's fault is it, then? I know Marleau is playing like sh*t, and he is just as much to blame. Cheechoo isn't exactly lighting it up, either.toonarmy wrote:As for the whole silly Thornton disappears in the playoffs issue, again, Joe cannot control his linemates not scoring when he feeds them the puck. He also does not play on every line that is stinking things up. He also is not the goalie that does not do as well in the playoffs as compared to the regular season. I suppose Thornton slips some "play like crap" pills into all those players' drinks before each playoff game, eh? Or could it be that the team as a whole has not been built around a good playoff model? Or could it be that teams focus on Joe because they can cheat toward him a little since they have figured out that other players on the team choke in the playoffs? Argue all you want about this, and I know its the popular pedestrian view, but the fact is when you watch the team play it's apparent that Joe is not the main issue.
But how can you account for Thornton's sub-par production during the postseason throughout his career? Conventional wisdom says most players lose about 10 percent of their scoring in the postseason due to tighter checking, more physical play, etc. Thornton has lost more than 30 percent of his scoring prowess during the playoffs in his career.
Again, how can you absolve him? Has it been his linemates' fault every season?
And there's more to the game than points. How do you explain how Thornton is +114 for his career in the regular season but -13 during the postseason? He has played about 11 times as many regular-season games, so you can prorate that regular-season plus/minus to about +10 to compare it to his playoff rating. But that's still a difference of -23. Did his linemates play sh*tty defense around him only in the playoffs?
Thornton also is -4 so far in this series. Only Rob Blake is worse on the Sharks at -5. That's Thornton's linemates' fault, too?
I just don't understand your complete absolution of this guy. Of course, the albatross should not rest only on his shoulders. But you act like this guy walks on water in the postseason, when that's clearly not the case.
Are you related to Thornton, by chance?
Take care,
PK
Fell free to delve into the stats to back up your point, as PK and others have done to back up theirs. If you honestly believe that your view is correct, against the prevalent view on this board and in the greater hockey watching community, the onus is on you to proof us wrong. Don't expect us to prove it for you.toonarmy wrote:The raw stats are undeniable, but you have to look a little deeper in order to see an accurate picture. Just using someone as a whipping boy is shortsighted and ignorant.
I agree with Bob McKenzie's assessment. This guy just needs to step it up for the playoffs and that leisurely pass to R. Getzlaf summarized Joe's play so far. By he's not the only one, as a captain I think P. Marleau is as guilty and ineffective so far in the playoffs. But as the Caps, I still think SJ has something left in the tank and those two guys need to lead the rest of the team.Gangrel wrote:TSN is having their own Joe debate.........
http://watch.tsn.ca/nhl/clip165385#clip165385
If you bother reading my posts on this matter you would see that my point is that the stats do not tell the full story. No duh, the stats of Joe are not great, I have acknowledged that. The stats are why people flip out and scream around about Joe's so-called lack of performance. I have no onus to prove anyone wrong simply because I do not hold the majority view, that is silly. I think my several posts on the matter spell out why I think the prevailing view is wrong. Try reading next before posting.EZSnappin wrote:Fell free to delve into the stats to back up your point, as PK and others have done to back up theirs. If you honestly believe that your view is correct, against the prevalent view on this board and in the greater hockey watching community, the onus is on you to proof us wrong. Don't expect us to prove it for you.toonarmy wrote:The raw stats are undeniable, but you have to look a little deeper in order to see an accurate picture. Just using someone as a whipping boy is shortsighted and ignorant.
