View Single Post
Old
01-18-2006, 09:37 AM
  #11
TubbyTerrion*
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Studio City
Country: United States
Posts: 3,974
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to TubbyTerrion*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Game Misconduct
For the record, I have been saying all season that Lubo was going to get hurt if we didn't get an enforcer to protect him. Well, Fedoruk proved my point.
Such nonsense...

We've gone over this ad infinitum... if Lubo is going to get 27 minutes of ice time game in and game out, he's going to be targetted. It's part of any coaches game plan. Other teams analysts always mention their team's plan of dumping the puck into a particular weak side defenseman's zone and banging the crap out of them. Lubo is small. Teams know that if you hit him enough, he'll wear down over the course of a game. An enforcer is not going to change a 20 man team's game plan. Look at the other 29 team's box scores night in and night out. Most are not working according to your plan. One thing the Kings DID do last night was (try) to hit like hell, although at times the "you can't hit what you can't catch" theory was firmly in place. When fielding a healthy lineup, the Kings have people who do bang bodies. Visnovsky will always be a target. Now, Grebeshkov will be one too, because it doesn't take much more than sight to look at video and see that he's vulnerable and prone to monsterous giveaways when pressured.

The REAL solution in the Visnovsky situation is to get a solid, large, skating/shooting defenseman that can eat some of those minutes AM overuses Visnovsky on. PP and Even Strength, fine, but cut his minutes on the PK... not because he's bad on the PK, but because if you have bigger defensemen who are also mobile and defensively responsible, you can rest Visnovsky for those minutes and he'll be generally more effective (read: keep his head up when clowns like Fedoruk see a LARGE target on the head of a tiny d-man) throughout the game.

TubbyTerrion* is offline