Shouldn't Niewendyk be fired for replacing Tippet with Crawford?
I thought that was the biggest bonehead coach move in quite some time.
Yes, he should. Isn't Dallas still paying Avery too? Wasn't that Hull and Niewendyk's signing? Dallas is probably going to lose Richards for nothing too.
When Dallas gets new ownership, I expect a new GM in Dallas. It just remains to be seen if they can get a owner before July 1st.
Phoenix fans were clamoring for Tippett's head earlier this season as well. It doesn't matter who the coach is... fans will want him fired.
Dallas fans, to their credit, weren't at all happy with the Crawford hire.
Grass is always greener. Look at all the people who want TRotz. Or a guy that has not coached one single game of NHL hockey; as a head coach to take over the Kings.
Trotz has never made it out of the first round of playoff hockey (maybe this year). People like to point to talent on Nashville, but that's bull. He had Rudulov, Forsberg, Kariya, and Vokun all on one roster. And still got bounced.
I didn't read all the posts but from what I've read, I'm getting that most didn't feel Tippet was the problem.
In any case, I think Tippet is now respected around the league and I am happy for him. I'm just glad he's not the coach of the dux.
Why? Randy Carlyle has a Stanley Cup. You should be far more afraid of him (current coach). Than someone that has failed to get his team to the dance in Seven tries. Hell Tippet has only made it past the first round twice.
Why? Randy Carlyle has a Stanley Cup. You should be far more afraid of him (current coach). Than someone that has failed to get his team to the dance in Seven tries. Hell Tippet has only made it past the first round twice.
My point is Tippet has allegiance to the kings as well as being a respected coach. I like the thought of liking Tippet. But not if he's a duck.
My point is Tippet has allegiance to the kings as well as being a respected coach. I like the thought of liking Tippet. But not if he's a duck.
You dig?
I don't mind the Ducks, if anything their fan's proved they don't care. I mean the Ducks won a cup for gods sake. And they still have problems drawing at Honda.
I don't mind the Ducks, if anything their fan's proved they don't care. I mean the Ducks won a cup for gods sake. And they still have problems drawing at Honda.
If he were interested, I would absolutely replace Kompon with him. But that is a pipedream. In the end, we are stuck with who we got and need to hope they adapt sooner or later. I don't think Crawford was the right fit there, but Dallas has many problems besides Crawford.
__________________
"It has not been a good day. I lost my glasses early this morning and I had to go buy a pair of 79 dollar reading glasses today. 79 bucks. You can literally get them at Costco, three-for-20." - Darryl Sutter's response to going up 2-0 in the series.
Grass is always greener. Look at all the people who want TRotz. Or a guy that has not coached one single game of NHL hockey; as a head coach to take over the Kings.
Trotz has never made it out of the first round of playoff hockey (maybe this year). People like to point to talent on Nashville, but that's bull. He had Rudulov, Forsberg, Kariya, and Vokun all on one roster. And still got bounced.
You have GOT to be kidding. He had Forsberg for 17 ****ing games. Just throwing names out there like they were any good at their ages.
You didn't even name the top 2 goal scorers on the team.
It's like saying the Kings should have won the cup when they had Terry Sawchuk or Billy Smith in goal.
I was surprised but not shocked, the bottom line is that they were right in the thick of it all year but they let it come down to the wire. Any time your season comes down to a couple games or a couple breaks, you deserve to lose IMO. Oddly the Kings are probably the ones who screwed them in the end, that pair of own goals at Staples pretty much spelled it out for them. They had injuries, they had a tough run of five road games at the end there and they weren't a rock solid projection for the playoffs, that's all true. Still, they were awfully close and where they had chances to play inspired and seize a berth, they did not do so.
I hope Crawford gets a decent gig, I'm sure there will be a couple more available after these playoffs.
__________________
Danny Duberstein is good at two things ...
People have lost their minds. Dallas was good enough to get to the playoffs. Brad Richards, Mike Ribeiro, Brenden Morrow, Loui Eriksson, Jamie Benn, they had James Neal for most of the season and you could say Goligoski actually became a better player in Dallas (and Neal did zilch in Pittsburgh).
They also have a pretty solid blueline and a very agile goalie in Lehtonen. They were in a playoff position and held the division lead, only to see Crawford's team squander it away and fail to show up in the last game of the season.
To say Crawford achieved a lot from that team is silly. They had a significantly better top six on offense than LA, but as is the case with Crawford's teams, their GF-GA differential was terrible.
That defense was awful. Lehtinen stood on his head during their hot streak, facing 30+ shots every night. That caught up to them near the end of the season. Dallas wasn't that good IMO. Some solid forwards to be sure, but not enough on defense at all.
That defense was awful. Lehtinen stood on his head during their hot streak, facing 30+ shots every night. That caught up to them near the end of the season. Dallas wasn't that good IMO. Some solid forwards to be sure, but not enough on defense at all.
So basically the exact same reason that he was fired here (lack of a decent defensive system) is the reason he was fired in Dallas? Odd how that works out. How do people still think Crawford is a good head coach? His teams have been underwhelming when it comes to results everywhere he's been and his system has been exposed as not working in the new NHL, plus every team he's had chokes when it comes to big games. It's astonishing how people can still want him here at this point.
I'll admit I don't get alot of the TM hate, I don't consider him a great coach but he's decent and he has provided results the last two years, so I just don't get it...
So basically the exact same reason that he was fired here (lack of a decent defensive system) is the reason he was fired in Dallas? Odd how that works out. How do people still think Crawford is a good head coach?
... Yeah I can't figure out why Crawford couldn't build a great defensive team with stalwarts like Trevor Daley, Stephane Robidas, and Niklas Grossman leading the charge from the blue line over the past couple years.
And, with the Kings, he was forced to overuse players clearly past their prime (Rob Blake, Mattias Norstrom, Aaron Miller, Jaroslav Modry) along with rookies as green as grass (Jack Johnson) with guys not exactly known as defensive defensemen (Lubomir Visnovsky). How in the World did he not create an impregnable defense with such talent?!?! He couldn't turn chicken **** into chicken salad, clearly he's a terrible coach.
Crawford was fired from the Kings more for his off ice personality with a young team. Lombardi wanted to go full rebuild and felt that Crawford's acid personality would conflict with the team. I don't think it had to do with x's and o's.
Murray is known as a players coach, which isn't always a good thing. A lot of players have said Murray is the easiest coach to play for.
Crawford was fired from the Kings more for his off ice personality with a young team. Lombardi wanted to go full rebuild and felt that Crawford's acid personality would conflict with the team. I don't think it had to do with x's and o's.
Murray is known as a players coach, which isn't always a good thing. A lot of players have said Murray is the easiest coach to play for.
Crawford has talked about how he had to tone down his yelling as a coach. Coaching is a what have you done for me lately gig in the NHL, if you miss the playoffs either all eyes turn towards the GM or the GM fires the coach to get all eyes off of him. Look at Lombardi as the Kings have made the playoffs 2 seasons in a row. Most of the complaints are on Murray, not Lombardi.
... Yeah I can't figure out why Crawford couldn't build a great defensive team with stalwarts like Trevor Daley, Stephane Robidas, and Niklas Grossman leading the charge from the blue line over the past couple years.
And, with the Kings, he was forced to overuse players clearly past their prime (Rob Blake, Mattias Norstrom, Aaron Miller, Jaroslav Modry) along with rookies as green as grass (Jack Johnson) with guys not exactly known as defensive defensemen (Lubomir Visnovsky). How in the World did he not create an impregnable defense with such talent?!?! He couldn't turn chicken **** into chicken salad, clearly he's a terrible coach.
But the fact that he had a glut of two-way forwards that are decent enough and still the Kings were one of the worst defensive teams in the league means nothing... If you have a number of sub-par defensemen than you have to adjust the system for the forwards to help out... That's you know how you coach... Which in the end is kind of his job... It didn't get done here or there and that's why he's without a job... Again.
... Yeah I can't figure out why Crawford couldn't build a great defensive team with stalwarts like Trevor Daley, Stephane Robidas, and Niklas Grossman leading the charge from the blue line over the past couple years.
And, with the Kings, he was forced to overuse players clearly past their prime (Rob Blake, Mattias Norstrom, Aaron Miller, Jaroslav Modry) along with rookies as green as grass (Jack Johnson) with guys not exactly known as defensive defensemen (Lubomir Visnovsky). How in the World did he not create an impregnable defense with such talent?!?! He couldn't turn chicken **** into chicken salad, clearly he's a terrible coach.
Kopitar was very much below average defensive forward and Crawford wasn't showing any intent to develop him into a better defensive player. This lack of intent was the biggest worry for me. He is probably one of the most shortsighted coaches in NHL. It's not about WHO you have in your team, it's about what kind of system you put them in. I have a feeling that under MC we would be talking about some of our players the same way you talk about Dallas players right now: "How can you play defense with players like Matt Greene, Anze Kopitar, Alec Martinez,..." Many of the Kings forwards are not really defensive specialists, but they work well in defensive system that TM envisioned. You have to WORK on a system and teach your players how to do it, MC wasn't really doing that. Remember, that TM started with dots on the ice and said that the players don't know even some of the basics of defensive play?
My point is, that I think Murray could turn current Dallas roster into a much better defensive team.
But the fact that he had a glut of two-way forwards that are decent enough and still the Kings were one of the worst defensive teams in the league means nothing... If you have a number of sub-par defensemen than you have to adjust the system for the forwards to help out... That's you know how you coach... Which in the end is kind of his job... It didn't get done here or there and that's why he's without a job... Again.
... OK, look - I'm just gonna let you carry on with your bashing after this post; it's pretty obvious that you're not willing to let any facts get in your way. I've mentioned who the Kings had on defense in the two years he was here - I don't care how many alleged "two-way forwards" Crawford had, he wasn't going to build a good defense with the team he had to work with. Not to mention his goalies - Mathieu Garon, Sean Burke, Dan Cloutier. The only goalies who played decently for him were the much-maligned Jason LaBarbera (for only a half a season) and Erik Ersberg. And you're saying that Crawford is to blame for a poor defense here? Terry Murray couldn't form a good defense out of that roster - hell, Scotty Bowman couldn't.
Crawford did what he could with what he had. He had some guys who could put the puck in the net, so he let them do that. He had some rookies and some second-year guys who needed to get their feet wet and get established in the NHL, so he let them do that. In Crawford's second season, the Kings were actually an above-average offensive team - a bit of a minor miracle when you consider Michael Cammalleri had an injury-plagued off year, Patrick O'Sullivan was fourth on the team in scoring, and Derek Armstrong seventh on the team.
Yes, when Terry Murray came over, he improved the defensive play of the team. But he did so at the expense of his offense.
In 2007-08 under Crawford, the Kings were 12th in scoring and 28th in defense. 497 goals were scored in Kings' games, and the Kings scored 231 (46.5%) of those goals.
In 2008-09 under Murray, the Kings were 13th in defense and 28th in scoring. 441 goals were scored in Kings' games, and the Kings scored 207 (46.9%) of those goals.
So - did Murray really improve the overall team? Or did he simply change its focus, with the team remaining about as bad as it ever was? On top of that, Crawford didn't get to have Drew Doughty on his roster, or Matt Greene, or Jarret Stoll, or a healthy Michal Handzus, or Sean O'Donnell ... all guys who had a good deal of defensive aptitude and could help the team make the adjustment from being an offensive team to being a defensive one. Murray has had the benefit of having a good young team, as opposed to Crawford, who had a team made up largely of raw rookies and over-the-hill placeholders.
I think that, before you blindly bash Crawford again, you need to go and take a good look at his rosters over the last four years in L.A. and Dallas, and come back and tell me that anyone else could make those teams into defensive stalwarts, and whether that would even be the right thing to do. Crawford played to Dallas's strengths this season, which were based on offense. If he had tried to make a defensive team out of what he had, he wouldn't have even been in the race; it would have been foolish for him to even attempt it. He had young guys who could put the puck in the net, so he let them do it - and, for a time, it had his team at the top of the division. That they ran out of mirrors by the end of the season isn't the coach's fault.
In 2007-08 under Crawford, the Kings were 12th in scoring and 28th in defense. 497 goals were scored in Kings' games, and the Kings scored 231 (46.5%) of those goals.
In 2008-09 under Murray, the Kings were 13th in defense and 28th in scoring. 441 goals were scored in Kings' games, and the Kings scored 207 (46.9%) of those goals.
I have already written that because of Crawford's bad coaching the team had to take a step back and learn the defensive basics. Yes, at the expense of scoring. All players did that. They have said so themselves. They say so today. They talk about getting back to offense after getting "comfortable" with defensive system. Murray said that team is going to play more offensive in second season, because players have learned to play defense well enough. It is a fact, not an opinion. But let's see if the facts are supported by the numbers, shall we?
2009/10 season:
Kings 10th in defense
Kings 7th in offense
Kings scored 52.4% of the 460 goals in their games.
2010/11 season:
Kings 22nd in offense
Kings 6th in defense
Kings scored 52.5% of the 417 goals in their games.
Quote:
So - did Murray really improve the overall team?
Obviously yes.
Quote:
I think that, before you blindly bash Crawford again.
Nobody is blindly bashing Crawford, all the bashings are well substantiated and the arguments are strong. After all it's proven with your own approach, using the same stats that are important to you. I hope that you will not simply disregard 09/10 and 10/11 just because they don't fit your theory, I trust that you are objective enough.
