true, jumbo joe played with bruised ribs in 2004 against the habs and the bruins lost.  but habs captain saku koivu was playing with cracked ribs, was coughing up blood between periods, and led the league in scoring in the 1st round that year.

Posted by hector on 04/29/09 at 08:36 PM ET

Oh, injuries are ever an excuse, but it does help explain if someone falls off the map completely. It also depends on how the particular injury affects a critical part of their game. For example, a knee injury might not have slowed down a guy like Luc Robitaille the way it derailed Pavel Bure’s career.

A good chunk of Marleau’s game is based on speed, so when you take that away, he comes back down to earth. I’m just saying spread the blame around at the underachieving 2/3/4 lines and failed penalty kill rather than zero in just on Marleau for his supposed lack of “leadership”.

Posted by Mike Chen on 04/29/09 at 08:40 PM ET

I was listening to the Drew Remenda show on the drive home from work and he was defending Thornton in a similar way. Not an injury defense but a “what about MIchalek? Nabokov? Pavelski?” defence.

The whole team failed in this run and I think the 2nd line should take a lot of the heat (though certainly not all of it) But as it stands, people look to the stars of the team to step up, they didn’t and that’s all people see.

It’s funny that when a team wins, it’s a team effort. When they fail, we look for scapegoats. I admit even I’m scapegoating Jumbo Joe to a certain degree. I guess it’s just human nature?

Posted by Shane from Saskatoon on 04/29/09 at 09:31 PM ET

The whole team failed in this run and I think the 2nd line should take a lot of the heat (though certainly not all of it) But as it stands, people look to the stars of the team to step up, they didn’t and that’s all people see.

And how many times have we heard that when a team wins, it’s because a second/third line step up BECAUSE the defense focuses on shutting down the stars?

Posted by Mike Chen on 04/29/09 at 10:17 PM ET

Nope, this isn’t the first time Marleau has been useless in the playoffs, injury or no injury. It’s time for the Sharks to move on.

Steve Yzerman played on knees far worse off a number of times in the playoffs and was way more effective both in his actual game, and obviously in his leadership. Marleau and Thornton both just seem to lack that quality that Yzerman and Messier had to inspire teammates and coaches, and to inject the team with energy, passion, drive, and heart.

Posted by Nathan from Jonny Ericsson's ice cream truck on 04/30/09 at 07:19 AM ET

I don’t necessarily think it’s fair to hold Marleau to expectations set by someone like Yzerman.  That said, he did disappoint, again, has a history of doing so- and let’s not forget the potention block he JUMPED over against Dallas last year.  He’s not the guy that’s going to lift his (admittedly sublime) game to a new level in the playoffs and is, in fact, going to react negatively to the increased attention he’s given.

The best case scenario for the Sharks would be to add enough depth they could roll three lines.  That’s the only way they’re going to get by a team like the Ducks that can take one line and completely neutralize it.

Unless you’ve got someone who just can’t be shut down, secondary scoring is of prime importance when facing a team with great defense.  And the West has a bunch of those great defense teams, whereas the league as a whole does not have many of those unstoppable players.

Posted by shanetx on 04/30/09 at 01:07 PM ET

Agree. The Pavelski/Clowe/Michalek line carried the team when injuries bogged them down in February/March. They were a no-show against Anaheim.

Posted by Mike Chen on 04/30/09 at 01:09 PM ET

To understand the best case scenario for a Marleau and Thornton led team, look at the ‘99 Stars.  Hatcher was their captain but Modano was the leader on that team in much the same way that Marleau is (though there obviously was no equivalent to Thornton or to the Star’s Hull and Belfour was, then, a vastly superior goalie to Nabokov now, ditto to the Hatcher/Matvichuk/Zubov/Sydor defense).

Secondary scoring (Niewy) and veteran grit (their “Dirty old man” line) is what carried that team in that series.

The two superstars for SJ aren’t going to lift their game- you need someone else who will, and then they can just be themselves and draw attention or, if it shifts to the other guys, capitalize on decent matchups. 

You know, now that I think about it, another great Modano parallel- post-hatcher, he captained the stars but was convinced to resign and pass it on to Morrow because Mo’ is clearly not captain material.  Maybe someone can convince Marleau to do the same?  Less pressure on him, maybe he’ll perform better.  Honestly, it can’t hurt.

Posted by shanetx on 04/30/09 at 01:53 PM ET

If you’re going by parallels, Stars management wanted to give it to Morrow not only to take the pressure off Modano, but also to acknowledge Morrow was the future of the team. If that was the case, the C goes to Pavelski.

If you were stripping Marleau of the C, I think the more sensible decision would be to give it to Boyle.

Posted by Mike Chen on 04/30/09 at 02:15 PM ET

Yeah, I’m not too focused on why it went to Morrow as I’m not as aware of the Sharks as I was that Stars team (it’s the closest to me so I get to see them play the most and my mother is a huge fan)- Morrow hadn’t fully emerged yet, then.  I don’t know that the Sharks should try to uncover someone like that but I do feel they should have a captain who can and will be more effective than Marleau who just shouldn’t wear a C.  Boyle works.  Hell, Roenik works.

Posted by shanetx on 04/30/09 at 02:34 PM ET