HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   Talking about garbage media... (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=165898)

Albi 08-24-2005 04:20 PM

Talking about garbage media...
 
Take a look at this report and what this idiot wrote about the Kings.

Being Buccigross I'd be worried...Duhatschek may steal under his nose the coveted "Worst hockey writer Prize"

Reaper45 08-24-2005 04:22 PM

Yeah I read that crap on another board already. That guy is about as much of a homer as you could possibly be.

Mindcircus 08-24-2005 04:51 PM

He mentions Val Bure but a guy named Frolov is inexplicably absent. And the Ducks are 5?! Poor read...

Laie 08-24-2005 04:55 PM

You read that and you wonder if this guy even watched the Kings last time they were playing. I'm getting tired of the line that we lost 2 key forwards Alison and Deadmarsh. They missed the whole seasons so they are not players we are going to miss they have been gone for 2 years.

kingsfan25 08-24-2005 05:00 PM

It appears that many people can't seem to see past the off-ice antics of JR and realize that the guy is a very good player.


This guy makes it sound like Palffy, Allison and Deadmarsh left at the end of the last season, leaving the shattered remains of a team in their wake when, in fact, Deadmarsh and Allison haven't been a part of this team for a long time. The Kings have moved on long since they became non-factors. The team itself has changed and not just during this off-season. This guy and guys like him cannot seem to get past the fact that the powerful LAPD line has disbanded. But the truth of the matter is that this team, is equal to, if not better than the one that included Deadmarsh, Allison and Palffy. That team, as exciting as it was, was by and large a single-source offense. This year's squad, while not sporting the star-studded first line, has a much more valuable asset in offensive depth. Guys like Cammalleri, Brown are now prepared to step in and become factors in the NHL. The D, at this point is looking more solid than last year. The goaltending? Yeah, its a question mark. But that notwithstanding, I feel that this team is very well positioned to compete and grow into a tougher competitor. And they did not need to acquire Allison Palffy and Deadmarsh clones to do it.

ILuvLA 08-24-2005 05:08 PM

It's all subjective and just another biased writer. Probably the only reason they ranked the quacks as high as he did was because of Burke. The funny thing (if there is one) is that a lot of "well informed" quack fans think that the article means that they are ranked 5th.

David A. Rainer 08-24-2005 05:40 PM

Whatever. He makes valid points, but I don't think anything he says is sufficient to warrant placing them in the "bad" category nor does he say anything to support why he did. So whatever. Not very well argued if you ask me.

McSorley 33 08-24-2005 06:08 PM

Yeah, dry statement. We have a good team, so who cares. :eek:


:kings

Face Wash 08-24-2005 06:11 PM

He's entitled to his opinion... The Kings will go as far as their kids can take them. It's true, but I wouldn't call them "Ugly". In fact judging from the guy's own picture..... I'm wondering what his wife was thinkin'... :D

danaluvsthekings 08-24-2005 08:57 PM

I think some of you people missed this:
Quote:

The NHL free-agent signing frenzy has mostly abated. With training camps just around the corner, ERIC DUHATSCHEK offers his take on who won and who lost in the most interesting player sweepstakes in NHL history. The analysis will be updated weekly at globeandmail.com
It's based on what teams did this offseason. LA didn't sign huge big names other than Demitra.

Although you're right that people need to get over the loss of Allison and Deadmarsh, they hadnt been contributing for a year and a half.

Captain Ron 08-24-2005 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danaluvsthekings


It's based on what teams did this offseason. LA didn't sign huge big names other than Demitra.

Are you saying Valeri Bure wasn't a big huge name? :shakehead

swo2k1 08-24-2005 09:19 PM

Its hard to rank LA in the good category, there are lots of questions surronding the LA Kings right now. You've lost your best player in Ziggy Palffy. Your number one goaltender Garon has played 24 games in the NHL in his career. Your back up is an even bigger question mark.

You gave decent money to Craig Conroy who wasn't very effective in Calgary during most of the 03-04 season (8 goals) and was basically non existant in the Cup Finals (2 points), not to mention he is 34.

You bring in JR, who has tremendous heart but is still going to be 36 in January and of course there is questions with any player who is getting on in age.

Val Bure has the potential to return to form but he hasn't had a big season really since his last year in Calgary. So it'll be interesting to see how he responds.

Not to mention there will be a lot of young players rounding out your roster. Players who haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet so its tough to say if they'll be able to handle the challenge.

Maybe LA should be ranked higher, maybe not. The only thing that I think is for sure, is that LA has a lot of questions right now. And we'll see how the Kings answer them starting Oct. 5th.

Captain Ron 08-24-2005 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swo2k1

You gave decent money to Craig Conroy who wasn't very effective in Calgary during most of the 03-04 season (8 goals) and was basically non existant in the Cup Finals (2 points), not to mention he is 34.


Am I mistaken or wasn't Conroy 5th in scoring in the playoffs? Only 5 points behind teammate Iginla and 1 more point than LeCavalier?

Albi 08-25-2005 01:04 AM

But the most funny part is the comment on Stumpel.
Check the Panthers review.

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

McSorley 33 08-25-2005 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swo2k1
Its hard to rank LA in the good category, there are lots of questions surronding the LA Kings right now. You've lost your best player in Ziggy Palffy. Your number one goaltender Garon has played 24 games in the NHL in his career. Your back up is an even bigger question mark.

You gave decent money to Craig Conroy who wasn't very effective in Calgary during most of the 03-04 season (8 goals) and was basically non existant in the Cup Finals (2 points), not to mention he is 34.

You bring in JR, who has tremendous heart but is still going to be 36 in January and of course there is questions with any player who is getting on in age.

Val Bure has the potential to return to form but he hasn't had a big season really since his last year in Calgary. So it'll be interesting to see how he responds.

Not to mention there will be a lot of young players rounding out your roster. Players who haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet so its tough to say if they'll be able to handle the challenge.

Maybe LA should be ranked higher, maybe not. The only thing that I think is for sure, is that LA has a lot of questions right now. And we'll see how the Kings answer them starting Oct. 5th.


Either way, it's exciting to be a KIngs fan now. We have alot of " I don't knows", but the chance for a great team is their. Exciting none the less!


:kings

swo2k1 08-25-2005 02:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by McSorley 33
Either way, it's exciting to be a KIngs fan now. We have alot of " I don't knows", but the chance for a great team is their. Exciting none the less!

I agree 100%. The Kings will be an exciting team, and I hope that they do have a great season. It certainly is an exciting time for Kings fans, pretty much an exciting time to be an NHL fan period. But lots of "I don't know's". It'll all be sorted out, soon enough, but it will be an interesting season.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spongebob
Am I mistaken or wasn't Conroy 5th in scoring in the playoffs? Only 5 points behind teammate Iginla and 1 more point than LeCavalier?

Conroy can bring it, but there had been some problems with consistency. He had a good playoffs, but wasn't a factor (atleast on the score sheet) in the finals (1g, 1a). I like Conroy, and hope he has a good run in LA.


I wasn't trying to bash the Kings, only trying to, point out some potential question marks as possible reasoning for the low ranking in the Globe and Mail article.

Albi 08-25-2005 02:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swo2k1
Its hard to rank LA in the good category, there are lots of questions surronding the LA Kings right now. You've lost your best player in Ziggy Palffy. Your number one goaltender Garon has played 24 games in the NHL in his career. Your back up is an even bigger question mark.

You gave decent money to Craig Conroy who wasn't very effective in Calgary during most of the 03-04 season (8 goals) and was basically non existant in the Cup Finals (2 points), not to mention he is 34.

You bring in JR, who has tremendous heart but is still going to be 36 in January and of course there is questions with any player who is getting on in age.

Val Bure has the potential to return to form but he hasn't had a big season really since his last year in Calgary. So it'll be interesting to see how he responds.

Not to mention there will be a lot of young players rounding out your roster. Players who haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet so its tough to say if they'll be able to handle the challenge.

Maybe LA should be ranked higher, maybe not. The only thing that I think is for sure, is that LA has a lot of questions right now. And we'll see how the Kings answer them starting Oct. 5th.

Yeah, that's true, we have a lot of questions to answer but are we the only ones?
This is one of the worst hockey report I've ever read, it's just BS.

Duhatschek rates the Falmes @ #1 and I can agree with that.

But Edmonton #2? Come on...they traded for Pronger and Peca, good moves, ok...but has this jerk taken a look at the Oilers 3rd & 4th lines? And what about that offensive super skilled monster, Shawn Horcoff, centering the 2nd? Sure the Cup already belongs to the Oilers...the Ducks picked up Niedermayer but they have an offense who lacks depth and talent, and you can't count on Getzlaf and Perry, at least not yet, they still have to play their first NHL game for God's sake...and Giguere must rebound after an awful season. Chicago at 6th? Yeah, they overpaid for Khabibulin and acquired a solid DMan in Keith Aucoin. And then? Oh yeah, Martin Lapointe, a point per game power forward...who's the Hawks #1 center? Arnarson, Bell or Calder? Pretty scary...for Hawks fans.

As I said before, the comment about Stumpel is hands down the article's gem:
He (Keenan) signed some proven leaders -- Joe Nieuwendyk, Gary Roberts and Martin Gelinas -- and one proven point-a-game man, Josef Stumpel, to supplement a roster that has a bona-fide star in goal, Roberto Luongo, an emerging star on the blueline, Jay Bouwmeester, and an underrated star at centre, Olli Jokinen.

Jeez, this guy must be smoking some stuff I'd dream about...
And it's better to stop here, I've already spoken enough about this retarded.

Swo2k1, every team has issues at this point of the season, every team in the league. I just don't see the Kings among the ones with the biggest problems.

Ah, I was forgetting...Conroy was non existant in the Finals, right?
But what he did in the previous rounds? He was instrumental for the Flames playoff run, scoring clutch goals against Red Wings and Sharks and piling up points. Also Lecavalier had just 2 pts in the Finals (assists only), does it mean he sucks?
It's true we lost a big player in Ziggy and Garon is unproven, but this team is a HUGE upgarde over the team which took the ice for the last game of the 2003-04 season.

Vito 08-25-2005 02:51 AM

There is no way Kings should have been ranked so low. Taylor made good moves given player availability and budget. Demitra signing alone could have earned him top-5 spot. Surely, we could have gotten Heatly if we had Hossa to trade for him. :shakehead Lets be realistic.

He also overrated some teams like Edmonton who got Pronger and Peca but left their offensive problems totally without attention.

Yea, what a quack.

Captain Ron 08-25-2005 03:01 AM

I always kind of laugh at publications that try to predict seasons or how good teams are. Because at the end of the season a team that was predicted to be a for sure playoff team is in last place and a team that was predicted to tank is tops in there division. I just view these things like tabloids......pointless babble with some mild entertainment. :)

Mindcircus 08-25-2005 03:21 AM

...
 
Well the Blues lose Pronger and Demitra but are ranked ahead of us. We lose Palffy but replace him with Demitra and we suck ***. I'm not saying it's a totally fair trade off but it's not like we were left with some huge hole. And i guarantee we finish ahead of the Blues this year.

swo2k1 08-25-2005 03:30 AM

Albi, your assessment of his article is pretty fair. Some teams do seem to be just thrown in there at random. I didn't agree with the Edmonton, Anaheim or Chicago rankings either.

lol @ Stumpel :dunno: not sure what he was smoking there.


Its pretty hard to judge what teams will do during the course of the season before a single puck is dropped.

And yeah lots of teams do have question marks, especially at this point in the offseason. I was trying to play devil's advocate in trying to explain my theories on LA's rankings. But in doing so, I've now been forced to look at their moves more, and I'd have to agree they should have been higher. Garon is still a huge question mark for me, he'll have to prove himself before I consider LA to be a bonafide playoff team. But I do like the mix of experience and youth.

Oh yeah... and neither Conroy nor Lecavalier suck... the biggest problem with Conroy only have 2 points, is that the Flames scoring wasn't deep enough to allow that to happen. Lecavalier had his two points, but guys like Richards, St. Louis, Stillman, Fedetenko and Modin were there to pick up the slack. Calgary had Iginla, Conroy, Gelinas and it fell off drastically after that.

The Flames needed more production out of Conroy, and that was my only theory on that. He was depended on too much, which I think was a little above what he is capable of. If Conroy is put into a secondary scoring role, and played as the 2nd line centre he'll have a good season and should be able to put up 20-25 goals.

I guess I shouldn't say that Conroy wasn't effective, because he was a good player for Calgary. And many fans were sad to see him leave. He just didn't put up the numbers that some expected out of him in 03-04 so it'll be interesting to see how he rebounds.

PRMan 08-25-2005 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swo2k1
Its hard to rank LA in the good category, there are lots of questions surronding the LA Kings right now. You've lost your best player in Ziggy Palffy. Your number one goaltender Garon has played 24 games in the NHL in his career. Your back up is an even bigger question mark.

You gave decent money to Craig Conroy who wasn't very effective in Calgary during most of the 03-04 season (8 goals) and was basically non existant in the Cup Finals (2 points), not to mention he is 34.

You bring in JR, who has tremendous heart but is still going to be 36 in January and of course there is questions with any player who is getting on in age.

Val Bure has the potential to return to form but he hasn't had a big season really since his last year in Calgary. So it'll be interesting to see how he responds.

Not to mention there will be a lot of young players rounding out your roster. Players who haven't had the chance to prove themselves yet so its tough to say if they'll be able to handle the challenge.

Maybe LA should be ranked higher, maybe not. The only thing that I think is for sure, is that LA has a lot of questions right now. And we'll see how the Kings answer them starting Oct. 5th.

We lost our best player Palffy and replaced him with his younger Slovakian clone Demitra, whom you forgot in your review.

Albi 08-25-2005 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by swo2k1
Albi, your assessment of his article is pretty fair. Some teams do seem to be just thrown in there at random. I didn't agree with the Edmonton, Anaheim or Chicago rankings either.

lol @ Stumpel :dunno: not sure what he was smoking there.


Its pretty hard to judge what teams will do during the course of the season before a single puck is dropped.

And yeah lots of teams do have question marks, especially at this point in the offseason. I was trying to play devil's advocate in trying to explain my theories on LA's rankings. But in doing so, I've now been forced to look at their moves more, and I'd have to agree they should have been higher. Garon is still a huge question mark for me, he'll have to prove himself before I consider LA to be a bonafide playoff team. But I do like the mix of experience and youth.

Oh yeah... and neither Conroy nor Lecavalier suck... the biggest problem with Conroy only have 2 points, is that the Flames scoring wasn't deep enough to allow that to happen. Lecavalier had his two points, but guys like Richards, St. Louis, Stillman, Fedetenko and Modin were there to pick up the slack. Calgary had Iginla, Conroy, Gelinas and it fell off drastically after that.

The Flames needed more production out of Conroy, and that was my only theory on that. He was depended on too much, which I think was a little above what he is capable of. If Conroy is put into a secondary scoring role, and played as the 2nd line centre he'll have a good season and should be able to put up 20-25 goals.

I guess I shouldn't say that Conroy wasn't effective, because he was a good player for Calgary. And many fans were sad to see him leave. He just didn't put up the numbers that some expected out of him in 03-04 so it'll be interesting to see how he rebounds.

Fair enough buddy :)

guzmania 08-25-2005 09:09 AM

Also, who do you think Tampa set it's D dogs on? The number one line, right? Can't do that against the Kings as they are set this year. Three lines that can bring some. One of those lines is going up against the opponents loser line. The other lines will be concentrating on D rather than O too. That could be a good situation. Line matching seems to be something Murray has a proclivity for. Don't count on us being in the bottom half of the league just yet.

Seachd 08-25-2005 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vito
He also overrated some teams like Edmonton who got Pronger and Peca but left their offensive problems totally without attention.

What offensive problems did the Oilers have?


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:49 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.