Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 2:44:29 GMT -5
i think uve got a case of homerism, thornton is the sharks, hes completely dominant and the only reason they did so well actually the sharks didnt turn it around right when thornton got there. They were average. The biggest turnaround in the last month in a half was when Toskala was in net. Yes he got a lot of support but i think he only lost like 2 or 3 games in march. I think the use of the words "only reason" are pretty loosely used. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Apr 19, 2006 6:41:50 GMT -5
i think uve got a case of homerism, thornton is the sharks, hes completely dominant and the only reason they did so well actually the sharks didnt turn it around right when thornton got there. They were average. The biggest turnaround in the last month in a half was when Toskala was in net. Yes he got a lot of support but i think he only lost like 2 or 3 games in march. I think the use of the words "only reason" are pretty loosely used. The Sharks were more than 25 games above .500 with Thornton in the line up. 2 under without him. |
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Apr 19, 2006 7:45:12 GMT -5
^^
I never understand that argument. I heard a guy on TSN yap about the same thing.
at the start of the year, the Sharks were considered a contender for the cup. They struggled, so they traded a few good players for one better one. When they did that, they were performing like they were expected to by the prognosticators at the start of the year.
The Rangers, on the other hand, were nowhere near the playoffs on anyones playoff list at the start of the year. Jaromir J is the man. To think the Hart belongs to a guy that cant even pot 30 goals compared to a guy that has 50 something with just a couple less total points is a travesty. Goals are way more quantitative than assists
Jagr means everything to his team. Thornton is the MVP of his team but the argument he made them a contender is bull duty..they were that at the start of the season
|
|
|
|
Post by Preds on Apr 19, 2006 13:21:35 GMT -5
I agree completely with BJ.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Apr 19, 2006 14:04:23 GMT -5
me too ... on the Thornton stuff anyway. Marleau should get recognition in SJ, too, not just Big Joe.
Kipper should get equal mention with Jagr, IMO.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 14:58:51 GMT -5
actually the sharks didnt turn it around right when thornton got there. They were average. The biggest turnaround in the last month in a half was when Toskala was in net. Yes he got a lot of support but i think he only lost like 2 or 3 games in march. I think the use of the words "only reason" are pretty loosely used. The Sharks were more than 25 games above .500 with Thornton in the line up. 2 under without him. why don't you find the stat for when toskala was in the lineup. |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Apr 19, 2006 15:31:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Apr 19, 2006 15:38:28 GMT -5
^^ I never understand that argument. I heard a guy on TSN yap about the same thing. at the start of the year, the Sharks were considered a contender for the cup. They struggled, so they traded a few good players for one better one. When they did that, they were performing like they were expected to by the prognosticators at the start of the year. The Rangers, on the other hand, were nowhere near the playoffs on anyones playoff list at the start of the year. Jaromir J is the man. To think the Hart belongs to a guy that cant even pot 30 goals compared to a guy that has 50 something with just a couple less total points is a travesty. Goals are way more quantitative than assists Jagr means everything to his team. Thornton is the MVP of his team but the argument he made them a contender is bull duty..they were that at the start of the season What does it matter if the Sharks were supposed to be great off the bat? They weren't. If they didn't trade for Thornton they would have been a bottom 10 team and Cheechoo a 25-30 goal scorer. Lundqvist was the big reason for the rangers turn around not Jagr. The rangers haven't had goaltending like that since Richter. They struggled huge after the olympics when Lundqvist was fatigued and then he got hurt. Jagr was in the line up was the team was in the tanks. The Sharks never hit a bad patch after they traded for Thornton. They were 36-15 with him. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2006 15:53:24 GMT -5
Jagr deserves the Hart take off the Joey T glasses. Jagr Thornton Lundqvist Kipper The oxy moron is that Jagr or Lundqvist could win it but Jagr deserves it more. He is the entire Rangers offense (I don't care how well Nylander or Straka have done he is their offense). Thornton has been absolutely amazing but Cheechoo obviously stepped up his level of play as well. Jagr is a one man wrecking ball (speaking as someone who has probably seen him more than anyone else  ). |
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Apr 19, 2006 16:10:02 GMT -5
He is the entire Rangers offense No he wasn't. The rangers had a lot of secondary scoring. Jagr, Nylander, Straka, Rucinsky, Sykora and Prucha. Thornton, Cheechoo, Marleau, Ekman and that's it. Thornton has been absolutely amazing but Cheechoo obviously stepped up his level of play as well. Cheechoo had 7 goals in his first 20 games without Thornton. He scored 49 in 62 post Joe. He stepped it up but it took a Thornton to do it. |
|
|
|
Post by thrashers on Apr 19, 2006 23:12:40 GMT -5
San Jose was supposed to win their division but stunk early on. They were 8-12 and somethin before Thornton showed up and had lost 9 in a row. Thornton turned that team around and turned an average 2nd liner into the Rocket winner. He had more assists than every player but 8 had points. Ding, ding, ding. Thornton = Hart It doesn't matter what San Jose and NYR were SUPPOSED to do. It matters that when Thornton got there, they turned into a completely different team. Jagr may be the Rangers offense, but Thornton is the Sharks offense (even though I would argue that Jagr isn't their offense). Hell, let's just give the Hart to AO and call it a day  |
|
|
|
Post by Jackets Oilers on Apr 20, 2006 7:52:38 GMT -5
Wally and I will never agree on this. Every time we argue we bring up the same points.
Another piece of evidence to me is the fact that Thornton got traded. Boston obviously thought he wasnt worth his paycheque. I dont think the MVP of the league should be a player that got traded for being a cancer to his team. Lets not forget his crappy attitude he had in Boston.
|
|
|
|
Post by FlyersGM on Apr 20, 2006 8:22:37 GMT -5
I don't think he was a cancer ... just not enough output for the Bruins' coin. We know how cheap Jacobs is.
I don't have a problem with him being traded ... I just think Jagr and Kipper were better. One can say it should go to Thornton b/c of what he did for Cheechoo, but the Rags' secondary scorers got where they are, for the most part, b/c of Jagr or the attention given to him. Yes, Lundqvist was great, but the Rangers came out of nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by thrashers on Apr 20, 2006 12:55:04 GMT -5
I have a problem giving the Hart to someone based on a team's expectations before the season even starts. That's why I don't buy the argument that you should give it to Jagr just because the Rangers were supposed to suck. No one knows what any team is gonna do, especially after the lockout.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chicago and Montreal on Apr 20, 2006 15:15:51 GMT -5
Another piece of evidence to me is the fact that Thornton got traded. Boston obviously thought he wasnt worth his paycheque. I dont think the MVP of the league should be a player that got traded for being a cancer to his team. Lets not forget his crappy attitude he had in Boston. We all know the Bruins are cheap. They ship out all their high priced players sooner rather than later. That's the way they run things in Boston. They just shipped out the wrong superstar this time. Thornton wasn't a cancer in Boston nor did he have a bad attitude. You just hate him cause you misread his words in an interview he gave 18 months ago. |
|
).