Curious injury theory
I have posted a few times my theory that the reason we are the most injured team in the history of the game is due to Andys system. I will add again why I think that way and wondered if any of my un poisened pen mates would wear the scarlet letter and respond to me on it.
I believe, of late and after reading and readin until my eyes lolly'd up, that Murray's system and style of coaching is largely responsible for the reason that we are the most injured team in the history of the game.
Here is why. I have been watching us like most of you and seen that we NEVER finish a check. We play a speed transition game and when you finish a check it takes you out of the play and away from the chance to move up and be a part of the offence. We tend to be one of the top offences in the league and out defence are always the top as a team so I feel supported in that theory.
I also have found that we are coached NOT to respond to other teams emotionally when they cheap shot our top lads or for that matter, any other time. It makes sense on paper because it will give you the shot at the PP if you just stand there and take it and the other team gets the penalty. Here is why I find it a massive mistake. (other than the obvious theory that I feel it is a big part of our injury troubles) When we let the other team man handle us and never respond (except for when players like Avery "loose it' and do what most players around the league want to do and actually will do when that nonsense happens) it gives the other team the upper hand. It gives them the confidence of knowing naught will come of it.
Hmany times have you heard others say how "frustrating" we are to play against because we never get bent and never go out of our system? Allot if you ask me and that is all well and good, but, it also gives the other team the green light, fearing no retaliation, to run, hack and cheap shot our players. The opposition plays us hard and physical and do so at every shot they get. After awhile, our lads start playing NOT to get hit and when that happens, you stop playing aggressive and you get injured.
So, while it helps us have the fastest transition game and the best scoring defence in the game, it is costing us players. We don't play any sort of a physical game and I feel that it is akin to footbals prevent defence. It makes the other team carry the play to you and when that happens you are always on the defence and you can't win if you aren't trying to win. I love Andy and his system but, I feel it is great for the playoffs and not so great for the regular season in that it leaves our lads open to being often injured and if you are too banged up to make the playoffs then being good if you get there isn't going to help you at all.
Anyone have any thoughts to my insane ramblings?
It's an interesting theory, but the problem is that the Kings are suffering some strange injuries.
Deadmarsh gets kneed in the head from Craig Johnson, how do you prevent that?
Allison gets kneed by an opponent and comes back to soon and starts taking more hits and sufferes multiple "whiplash" injuries. His injury is up for debate. He just doesn't "feel" right.
Palffy gets hit by the puck on the bench, Andy's system at fault? Now he gets his stick yanked by Simpson and has his shoulder pulled out.
Norton gets his wrist cut by a skate, how can you blame the "system"?
Aulin gets hurt in a fight.
Cechmanek skates to play the puck and gets plowed into.
Dustin Brown gets knocked off balance and falls back on his ankle.
Hlinka breaks his finger at practice.
Armstrong gets hit by a shot and breaks a finger.
It's always nice to blame the coach, but I don't remember these problems his first three years. Only the last two.
Good points. Maybe it is an effect that happens as a result of them constantly being on the recieving end of hits and never on the giving end. In Aulins case, maybe if we were w tougher team he wouldn't have fought.
The Roman one supports the theory.
The Brown one does as well.
Simpson on Palffy may or may not have happened if we had a team that played a style that were prown to sticking up for its talented players instead of one that never does.
Maybe Simpson decides NOT to pull that move if he knew he would either endanger one of his own talented team mates or get his head caved in for pulling the stunt.
On the time thing well, the first year Andy were setting his players and system up. The second year there were injuries as well but who is going to say anything as there are always injuries. It is the continuous effect and injuries that I am talking too.
The injuries you pointed out do show one or two that are abominations but, it also supports the theory as well. I also would point out that you aren't showing the entire list of injuries to our players and how they have happened. That would certainly point in favor of my theory.
How does Cechmanek's injury prove your theory? He was out of his crease, doing what Cechmanek does. How is that the fault of the system? Any system, unless you're talking about the neurons and chemicals inside Cechmanek's brain.
Hockey is a contact sport. Having team toughness, or the greatest tough guy of all time, won't prevent injury.
How would a tough guy had prevented Simpson from tugging on Palffy's stick? How? If he had hit Palffy in the back into the boards from 5 feet out, you have a point. He gave Palffy a tug. If the Kings need team toughness to protect themselves from a tug, then they need new players, not new fighters.
Allison's first injury would not have been prevented. That was an injury during the play.
Deadmarsh got hit in Toronto, and then hit by his own teammate in practice.
Concussions are going to happen. They've always happened. Some are more serious than others. Just because they're a big story now(not just with the Kings, but league wide), doesn't mean they never happened before, even in the good old days of bench clearing brawls. They just didn't know what a concussion was back then.
Brown got hit, then got hurt after the fall. That's hockey. I don't know how a fighter stops hitting.
Aulin got hurt in the first rookie game, BEFORE pre-season even started. It was a freakin' rookie game. There's no reason that should happen. Aulin didn't even fight if I remember. He went to grab the guy off Cammalleri, or something to that affect, and fell on his shoulder. 99 times out of 100 during any game you watch, that doesn't happen. It was a complete fluke.
Everyone can look for reasons to what's happened over the last 2 years. Blame the coach, the system, the trainer, whatever. Maybe one or two of the injuries can be blamed by the injury prone factor. In terms of Deadmarsh and Miller. But before last season, they both played 70+ games that year.
I'm not sure why anyone would want to blame someone or something for such a rash of injuries that nobody can control. Look what Sydor said. Look at the nature of the injuries. They're just injuries. They all happen to be happening at the same time, to so many people, but they're just injuries. Big guys, small guys, fast guys, slow guys, it doesn't matter. What system do you want them to play exactly? There are only so many, and they're all basically the same. It's hockey. People are going to get hurt. Unfortunately it's hurt the Kings tremendously, but there's no use in looking for a reason for it, because there is none. That's just how it goes.
I have to agree with them Punchy, sometimes s... happens. It's hard to fault any one thing for this luck. In anything luck plays a huge roll and no one can really define luck, it's either good or bad. We have bad luck, the worst kind of all luck, but maybe we're getting it ALL out of our system and we'll start to get good luck. If not, we should be called the LA Charlie Browns.
I feel that some of you are missing my point. I am talking about a system that has our players not finish thier checks in order to keep an offencive flow and give us a quick transition game. NOT TALKING ABOUT GOONING. Just to make it clear. By the way, physical play ISN'T the same as fighting.
Checking teams that play a simmilar system to ours like the Devils, the Blues, the Wild all manage to play (with the exception of the Blues who, are being criticized by thier fans for not playing as tough this season as last and are also suffering injury troubles) a trap style of game AND manage to finish thier checks and play with a physical edge and win and score at the same time.
They play a patient game like we do BUT when they check, they tend to take the physical game (again, not talking about fighting mate, talking about finishing your hits and doing more than just clogging passing lanes) to thier opponents AND still play well.
They also win thier share of games.
I find it odd that some of you think I am saying that Andy is a bad coach. I am not at all and if you read my thread and all of the other posts that I have written, I have said that it is hard for me to say anything bad about him, it is his current system that I am being critical of. There is a significant difference.
I will comment on the Roman injury in that, if you read my post again, you will see that it is questioning our TEAM defence and lack of physical play. IF our TEAM were to be playing a style that sent a message to our opponents then MAYBE they wouldn't have run into him. Same goes with Palffy.
By the way, not meant to be pissy mate but you really should read my post *and then* respond to it. Your replies *kingsfan7284* seem to say to me that you either didn't read the post or simply didn't understand any of what I had said.
No worries mate. I am hard to grasp but you really should read it again, you are so far off on your response that I am not sure if I should reply to it.
Every team has its fair share of bad luck injuries (Deader and the ever wonderful CJ for example) I am not covering that. I am covering the part where we are leading the league in injuries and that I feel that it is because we play a soft, lack of contact perimiter style of thinking mans game of hockey where scoring, patients and transition speed are the top priority and are not doing the rest of what it takes to play well and healthy in a game as physical as hockey and in that, we are sending the message that it is alright to run our players without worry of retaliation and that we are never going to wear our opponents out by hitting them and that we will never slow them down by making them have to recover from being putt on thier butts etc. NOT saying we need to fight everyone or we will get hurt.
I am theorizing by the way (not saying I totally believe it but more of wondering out loud and looking for responses than saying that I believe it whole heartedly) that if we were to add checking and an edge or toughness to our game like the Devils, like the Blues, like the Wild etc that we *MIGHT* see less injuries for any of the reasons mentioned and we *MIGHT* be a more successful team as well. Might.
Theory. Just what I have been tossing around.
Oh, and also kingsfan 7824, I have to take on with you on another thing. These boards are where we are supposed to talk to eachother about what we feel might or might not be happening. It IS good to question things. It IS alright to try and find a reason for a rash of injuries that a, have never happened to any team in the history of the game in the manner it is happening to us over the past two (some might argue plus) years and b, are happening to our own team where we, its fans are posting about.
To me mate, I think its healthy to talk about it. If it isn't then should we just sit around saying "oh well, this is bloody awful, ho hum, now what shall we talk about?" See what I mean? I am just saying that this is the place to question things and us lot are the folks to talk with each other about it with.
I also have wondered if our style might have something to do with our current captain. Now, before it gets bent into an "I hate Matty" thread that isn't what I am saying. He is top drawer and a brilliant stay at home defencemen. I were wondering, although with less actual play to back it up on, how much the character and persona of a teams captain has to do with the way the team plays. Matty is allot of things but agressive and physical aren't two of the words I would use to describe his style of play. Smart, hard working, relentless are how I see his style and I certainly don't see our lads as quitting (even though some of us fans seem to have said we will) and they all work hard enough, but, as to that edge and physical style we seem to at best play that bit in short and less than frequent spurts. Like Matty we play the same style as a team on general as he does his position. This abject though came to me while reading that he had sat Avery down and had a chat with him about the lad talking out of turn. I know its his job to do things like that but it had me back a mo, I thought "I wonder how much of an influence Matty or any captians personality has to do with the style his team plays".
So, just another theory to go along with the other one. Theory, idea, thought, speculation wondering, not a statement of what I believe to be a fact. Just a harmless little thought I had.
Straka limping to the dressing room... :mad: :eek: :dunno:
This can't be happening.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 AM.|
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.