LA Kings Don't Have Enough "Good Defensemen"
View Single Post
11-02-2012, 01:52 PM
Bandwagon Since 1967
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Originally Posted by
Right Ron, I get it....you, like many others, saw the acquisition of Mike Richards and 'success' of previous two seasons, and then predicted an even more successful season in that this team should go deep in the playoffs. BUT AT WHAT POINT DURING THE SEASON did you watch that team and say to yourself "oh yeah, this is an elite team and are poised to win the Stanley Cup"!
Personally, the only thing I can take credit for in predicting was that this team would NEVER win a cup with Terry Murray behind the bench.
I never said they were an "elite" team during the season. I just felt that the scoring slump would end, sooner or later, and with that, given their superior defense, they would be a very dangerous team in the playoffs.
I think the scoring slump would have ended even if we didn't have Carter, although IMO Carter expedited the scoring punch.
I have been watching hockey long enough to know that you can ride a hot goaltender very far in the playoffs. Only this season, Quick was not just a hot goaltender. He was a consistent, "elite" goaltender, if you will, and the anchor and backbone of our emerging defense.
My feeling has always been is defense wins championships...in football, basketball, and hockey. The Kings had the defense to get it done, always. The offense averaged 2.98 goals/game in the playoffs, up from 2.11 during the regular season.
That will get it done, thank you.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Ron