HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   Los Angeles Kings (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=42)
-   -   News Article: Los Angeles Kings Season Preview (Yahoo Sports) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=818848)

johnjm22 09-14-2010 01:01 PM

Los Angeles Kings Season Preview (Yahoo Sports)
 
Quote:

Last Season (46-27-9; 84 points; 3rd in Pacific, 6th in the Conference)

Pegged to be a future Stanley Cup contender, the Los Angeles Kings took the first small step in that direction with a sixth-place finish in the Western Conference and their first playoff appearance since the 2001-02 season.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puc...urn=nhl-269417

JBernierFan 09-14-2010 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnjm22 (Post 27774008)

He needs to correct the point total to 101, but I believe Gann already corrected him on Twitter. Other than that, solid article.

FootKnight 09-14-2010 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBernierFan (Post 27774090)
He needs to correct the point total to 101, but I believe Gann already corrected him on Twitter. Other than that, solid article.

Yeah, it's been updated.

Also, nice picture he chose; I laughed.

Orenji 09-14-2010 01:15 PM

Quote:

2010-11 Preseason Report Card:

Forwards: B+
Defense: B
Goaltending: B+
Special Teams:
Coaching: B+
Management: A
Wait, what.

Our forwards are better than our defense? Our defense is a B+/A while I think our forwards are more of a B-.

Capn Brown 09-14-2010 01:27 PM

Quote:

Forwards: B+
Defense: B
Goaltending: B+
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: B+
Management: A

It's a conspiracy!!! Dean has it rigged so that he gets the best grade!!! :naughty:

The Hegemony Consul 09-14-2010 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orenji (Post 27774175)
Wait, what.

Our forwards are better than our defense? Our defense is a B+/A while I think our forwards are more of a B-.


Agreed; plus, he stated that Ponikarovsky will "replace Alexander Frolov," yet had just previously stated what a boon Ponikarovsky could be to the top-line (where IIRC Frolov spent precious little time last year)...

DIEHARD the King fan 09-14-2010 01:58 PM

Nice try P-Daddy. But the offense on this team is simply not of the caliber that our defense is.

He has us as a final four team. One can dream, and pray, I guess.

Hatter 09-14-2010 02:09 PM

Lulz at our forwards being better than our D.

Then again once Mitchell sustains a season ending concussion in game 3 and Johnson shows that the end of last year was a fluke.......

JT Dutch* 09-14-2010 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Comedy Hockey Writer
2010-11 Preseason Report Card:

Forwards: B+
Defense: B
Goaltending: B+
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: B+
Management: A

... Yep, those grades for forwards, goaltending, coaching, and management are pretty hilarious.

Live in the Now 09-14-2010 02:19 PM

They are fairly off. Our best area of the team is defense but it gets the second lowest grade. Okay.

Telos 09-14-2010 02:28 PM

LoL, I came here to point out the grades and such but it seems as that has already been thoroughly discussed. One other thing that caught my eye was that he felt that Poni was brought in for Kopitar's benefit... I mean we do what we must; but if that is the case, we are surely in trouble...

DaAnimal 09-14-2010 03:05 PM

pretty comical review, but in honesty i dont take NHL yahoo seriously. They should just stick to football and basketball

KINGS17 09-14-2010 05:32 PM

Even I wouldn't give Dean an A,




Yet.

KopitarFAN 09-14-2010 05:41 PM

The thing I do agree with is the assessment of the forwards. They do have 6 or 7 guys capable of potting 20.

KingLB 09-14-2010 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch (Post 27774973)
... Yep, those grades for forwards, goaltending, coaching, and management are pretty hilarious.

Do you think they should all be lower? So "C's", cause it makes perfect sense that the team that finished 9th in the whole league last year should be average in almost every stat....

If anything most are off by maybe a +/- imo, management I won't comment on cause that is a personal opinion for everyone, as we have seen. If anything he underrated our special teams greatly, I know ppl on here blast our PP, but if its anything its effective.

JT Dutch* 09-14-2010 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingLB (Post 27780066)
Do you think they should all be lower? So "C's", cause it makes perfect sense that the team that finished 9th in the whole league last year should be average in almost every stat....

... If I were grading here, it would be:

Forwards: B-
Defense: B+
Goaltending: C-
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: C+
Management: C-

When I think of what the Kings have done up to this point, the end result is greater than the sum of their individual parts. All of those grades could improve before the season is over; they only reflect, in my view, what has been done up to this point. I'm not going to give people credit for what they haven't done yet.

KingLB 09-14-2010 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch (Post 27781860)
... If I were grading here, it would be:

Forwards: B-
Defense: B+
Goaltending: C-
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: C+
Management: C-

When I think of what the Kings have done up to this point, the end result is greater than the sum of their individual parts. All of those grades could improve before the season is over; they only reflect, in my view, what has been done up to this point. I'm not going to give people credit for what they haven't done yet.

Yet you give coaching a C? Those seem like they should be related. And again how can people grade our special teams so low, the PP is really good, yes we don't zip the puck around the ice, but the Kings play to their strengths and it works really well. Then ofcourse your management and goaltending grades might be low for most. Me personally would have management at atleast a B-, and goaltending at C+.

JT Dutch* 09-14-2010 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KingLB (Post 27782190)
Yet you give coaching a C?

... Well, the grade being as low as it is reflects Murray's utter failure in handling the goaltenders last season, which effectively killed the team's chances of success in the playoffs. Defensively, I thought Murray did well -- there's no question that defensive philosophy is his strong point. Murray's offense, I would say, was simple and inconsistent -- but the end result (231 goals) shows "effective".

Perhaps there needs to be one extra category? Shootouts? Chemistry? In the end, the Kings were a better than average team; with six more points they would have been tied for 4th in the conference, but with six fewer points they would have squeaked in as an 8th seed. The Kings won 36 games without the shootout; that says to me that they're above average but certainly not elite. They're about where they were in 1998, if I was looking for a past Kings' squad to compare. The 1998 Kings won 38 games, about the same number last season's Kings team did without shootouts. Bounced in the first round of the playoffs. Promising but unproven goalie (Storr, Bernier), young number one center scoring a point a game (Stumpel, Kopitar), great number one defenseman (Blake, Doughty).

The 1998 Kings faded in 1999, due to injury -- but they were back strong in 2000. Unfortunately, they ran into problems trying to unseat established Cup-winning teams in the playoffs. The current team is younger than the '98 Kings, because the team was worse from 2006-09 than it was from 1994-97, and thus had better draft picks. The NHL doesn't have any established Cup-winning teams today. The prognosis for future success obviously looks better than it did in 1998 ... how much better remains to be seen. Those grades I gave them could change a lot by the end of this coming season.

hauspaint 09-15-2010 03:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KINGS17 (Post 27778063)
Even I wouldn't give Dean an A, Yet.

oh.. don't be so hard on yourself Dean.;)

Orenji 09-15-2010 04:30 AM

I would say, if all healthy, we have one of the best top six or so defenses in the league. If Johnson can emerge even more as an offensive weapon with a steady partner, we'll be even better.

Our offense is completely solid with a bunch of guys who can score 20 goals and only one dude who can possibly put up over 85 points.

kingsholygrail 09-15-2010 04:40 AM

Is that John Cena?

BigBrown 09-15-2010 05:37 AM

I think I'd give B's across the board. Some plusses, some minuses but I don't see any real obvious weak spots.


Quote:

Originally Posted by kingsholygrail (Post 27784861)
Is that John Cena?

Yes it is.

http://video.kings.nhl.com/videocent...id=-7&id=34683

KingLB 09-15-2010 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBrown (Post 27784973)
I think I'd give B's across the board. Some plusses, some minuses but I don't see any real obvious weak spots.




Yes it is.

http://video.kings.nhl.com/videocent...id=-7&id=34683

I think Greene and maybe even Ivanans were better actors in that skit:shakehead:help:

KINGS17 09-15-2010 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch (Post 27781860)
... If I were grading here, it would be:

Forwards: B-
Defense: B+
Goaltending: C-
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: C+
Management: C-

When I think of what the Kings have done up to this point, the end result is greater than the sum of their individual parts. All of those grades could improve before the season is over; they only reflect, in my view, what has been done up to this point. I'm not going to give people credit for what they haven't done yet.

You obviously aren't going to give people credit for what has been done as well.

Like it or not Lombardi has completely revamped this organization from the ground up, and his best job has been done in doing things that folks like yourself don't seem to notice. The scouting department and development program is light years ahead of where it was in the past. That is why you are starting to see guys like Loktionov, Voynov, Clifford, and many others start to emerge. I guess since that doesn't show up on your stat sheet you missed it.

The Kings have far and away the best prospect pool in the Pacific Division and one of the best in the NHL. That is how championship organizations are built. The question now is can the assets be used to put the finishing touches on the big club.

Management: C- is a joke though and shows why your opinion on anything management related is taken with a grain of salt.

Buddy The Elf 09-15-2010 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JT Dutch (Post 27781860)
... If I were grading here, it would be:

Forwards: B-
Defense: B+
Goaltending: C-
Special Teams: B-
Coaching: C+
Management: C-

When I think of what the Kings have done up to this point, the end result is greater than the sum of their individual parts. All of those grades could improve before the season is over; they only reflect, in my view, what has been done up to this point. I'm not going to give people credit for what they haven't done yet.

How do you give management a "C-" when every other category has a higher grade and all of those categories are management's responsibility? What other areas is management performing miserably to the point that their grade is being reduced lower than everything else they are responsible for. I think you are just showing your bias.

The way I read that is management gets a B- for the list of forwards on the roster, they get a B+ for defense, C- for goaltending, C+ for coaching and a B- for Special Teams (a function of coaching which is a position filled by management). Yet some how management ends up with the worst grade of the bunch. That makes absolutely no sense.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:40 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.