HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Our system / coach

View Poll Results: 1 way / Murray OR 2 way / new coach
1 way / Murray 6 12.50%
2 way / new coach 42 87.50%
Voters: 48. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-22-2011, 05:10 PM
  #76
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,075
vCash: 500
So Murray is fired and we are supposed to trust the buffoon who hired Crawford and Murray to bring us a decent coach. Sorry, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

If Murray is fired Lombardi will just bring in another defensive minded coach from the dead puck era who hasn't done squat for over a decade.

Ken Hitchcock.... Come on down!

Herby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 05:14 PM
  #77
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc620 View Post
Actually they ALL use the cycle... it's kind of like skating and passing. It's a fundamental part of hockey.
Yes, every team cycles, but TM uses it not only as the primary means of offense, but wants his team to play it consistently because by keeping the puck low in the corners, it also limits opponents opportunities to transition to offense. Its a defensive offensive style.

Other teams get the puck off the boards far quicker than we do through speed and movement of players into open lanes. Their defensemen are NOT welded to the blueline. Ours only seem to come in low when they rush the puck.

I have been lambasted here by certain other posters for pointing out that other teams that also occasionally utilize a cycle also utilize the cross ice pass to get their defenseman into the play or attack from the weak side. I could go through the playoffs so far this year and point out 8-10 goals scored in that manner. And those team arent giving up 2-1's or 3-2's all the time either.

The problem remains that TM is rigid in his coaching philosophy, doesnt try to put players together who complement each other or cover for the others weaknesses and has little feel for how to adjust during games. That doesnt make him a bad coach, but it should make him an unemployed one!

DIEHARD the King fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 05:30 PM
  #78
JR28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Better than Murray's post lockout. Has Tippett lost 4 straight home playoff games?
Obviously you didn't look at the stats or results, as Phoenix lost the last 2 home games against Detroit in 2010, then lost the 2 games this year in 2011. So yes Tippett has lost 4 straight home playoff games. This includes game 7 at home in 2010, against a tired Red Wing team. As I look further Phoenix only won 1 home game out of 6 home playoff games against Detroit the last 2 seasons.


Last edited by JR28: 04-22-2011 at 05:43 PM.
JR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 05:38 PM
  #79
JR28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
From the Parse thread:



Murray DOES NOT MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. That is my point.

Did Murray put Richardson's line out on the PP last night since it was by far the most successful one? Nope, he went with the same PP unit that has failed all year.

It's okay to use the same unit in an 82 game schedule because of the ebbs and flow of a 82 game schedule, but when you are in a series against the same team for 7 games, you MUST play the hot players and put them in every available situation to succeed.

Richardson was 7th in ice time last night (forwards only). 7th. He could have been this season's Kontos if Murray got his head out of his ass and put him on the ice at every available opportunity. Do you want to know how much PP time he got last night? 7 Seconds. 6 PP chances and Richardson got 7 seconds.

Handzus got over 6 minutes of PP time.
Even though you got one wrong about Tippett, I do agree with you that TM should use the richardson line more. The problem with the System and why it is exploited, is it seems to be done so by teams that have more speed then the Kings. This is a probem as while the Kings are big, they aren't very speedy cept for a few players like Richie and Lewis. I hope this offseason brings in more speedy players, as I hope Schenn and Loktionov make it. They can let Zeus go and I hope they trade Stoll for a winger. I do believe that with a speedier team, the system that TM would bring is a puck possession one, where the cycle is a part of it. I believe the only reason we do the dump and chase is we are too big and slow, for the most part. You see when Richie is on he brings the puck into the zone, once in a while they dump it in and then hurry up and recover.

JR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 06:51 PM
  #80
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JR28 View Post
Obviously you didn't look at the stats or results, as Phoenix lost the last 2 home games against Detroit in 2010, then lost the 2 games this year in 2011. So yes Tippett has lost 4 straight home playoff games. This includes game 7 at home in 2010, against a tired Red Wing team. As I look further Phoenix only won 1 home game out of 6 home playoff games against Detroit the last 2 seasons.
You're right. I forgot that Phoenix had home ice last year. Kings fans wouldn't know what home ice advantage feels like.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 07:20 PM
  #81
Duc620
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
This is such a tired argument. Of course, every NHL team cycles the puck, the Sedins do it better than anyone out there, but they also don't use the dump in as their primary method of setup for the cycle. It is way more organic with most NHL teams. The cycle is a very effective style of offense, but only if you have players moving below the circles for cross ice passes and opening up lanes. Detroit cycles the puck too, but no one would confuse their system with Murray's. Again it isn't just the X's and O's that makes Murray a terrible coach, it is his inability to adjust during a series. Murray plays a conservative, defensive style yet the Kings have given up a tremendous amount of goals in 10 playoffs games. He doesn't take advantage of the favorable matchups.

The "cycle" is a vague term of the offense, but the Kings cycle and the Canucks cycle are very different animals.


Does anyone, other than Terry Murray, think that Richardson's line hasn't been the most effective line for the Kings?

I don't believe I've watched a coach's press conference (and I've been watching since games were only b&w) read about it in the papers, heard it on the radio, or the interwebs without hearing the phrase "get it deep" until I want to scream. That said, you are correct, it is merely one way and not the only way to start a cycle.

The Kings, being a young team, do not currently have the game instincts or players to change their structure on the fly, while skating into a zone making reads. They aren't quite the Detroit Red Wings, yet. So they have to play the "tired old get it deep and cycle below the goal line" cliche until they gain the valuable experience that lets 30-40 year old players make this s**t look easy and instinctive. It ain't easy. It takes a lot of reps to make changes, that you eloquently describe in three or four sentences, in a game while under pressure and at 20 miles per hour.

It's not just the coach yelling at the players "make the read!! make the play!!". You start with the basic part and add the complications.

As proof of my thesis, I offer up the Sharks; who, until recently, have been miserable losers in the playoffs; primarily because, while amazingly skilled, they have been unable to deal or adjust to different game situations (aka choked). This year's team handled the 4-0 shellacking the Kings were dealing them in game 3 with veteran savvy. They rope-a-doped, chipped, and agitated their way back into control. They forced the pace. They took control away from the younger, less experienced, team. They didn't "change their system". They played it. They made an adjustment because of the score and the position they were in. The Kings were unable to do that. That's what Scuderi was talking about when he said "immaturity"....

So. No, it's not the coach. Or the system.

Duc620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 07:29 PM
  #82
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
It is the coach when Handzus gets 6 minutes on the PP and Richardson gets 7 seconds. That's part of the problem with Murray's rigid "system". He expects all players to play the same way. He doesn't see a problem with putting Penner and Handzus on the same line. He doesn't see a problem with putting Stoll on the point on the PP.

A coach isn't usually fired because of X's and O's, it is the misuse of the players. It is putting players in a position to fail and not adjusting.

Handzus and Stoll should be on the third and fourth lines, until they are the Kings are at a disadvantage in this series.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 07:43 PM
  #83
Duc620
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 931
vCash: 500
Sydor, it's not the system or Murray that's rigid. He doesn't expect the players to play the same way. He expects them to play the system together at the same time. They aren't doing that for sixty minutes. And that's what pisses us off. They don't use their skills within the structure. They're young, they get excited and start flashing their skills independently of structure. Oops! Bad things happen. What happened to our lead?

I think he held Richie off. Why would you put Richardson on the PP when his line are your best in the game 5 on 5? Gotta worry about tiring him out. He's not a big fella. When he gets tired, that affects badly two other players (his line mates) and the ice time they get.

Young team in playoffs:

First Year: surprising, energetic, "This is fun!" "We can do this"
Second Year: "Hey what happened?" "We should be better" "We can do this?"
Third Year: "Oh, we gets it now." "Let's DO THIS!"

Duc620 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 07:56 PM
  #84
JR28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
You're right. I forgot that Phoenix had home ice last year. Kings fans wouldn't know what home ice advantage feels like.
With this particular Kings team, would you really want home ice advantage? Plus as long as Ryan Smith is a King, we most likely won't see home ice, as he hasn't had it in 12 years. Of course maybe lucky 13 will break it, next year.

JR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 08:08 PM
  #85
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duc620 View Post
Sydor, it's not the system or Murray that's rigid. He doesn't expect the players to play the same way. He expects them to play the system together at the same time. They aren't doing that for sixty minutes. And that's what pisses us off. They don't use their skills within the structure. They're young, they get excited and start flashing their skills independently of structure. Oops! Bad things happen. What happened to our lead?

I think he held Richie off. Why would you put Richardson on the PP when his line are your best in the game 5 on 5? Gotta worry about tiring him out. He's not a big fella. When he gets tired, that affects badly two other players (his line mates) and the ice time they get.

Young team in playoffs:

First Year: surprising, energetic, "This is fun!" "We can do this"
Second Year: "Hey what happened?" "We should be better" "We can do this?"
Third Year: "Oh, we gets it now." "Let's DO THIS!"
Duc,

It's useless to try and explain it, these guys have a hate on like I have never seen before, it's quite, amusing and pathetic all at the same time.

Diehard thinks that coaches send the weakside D in for cross ice passes off of the cycle, and then points out PP cross ice passes as proof.

Sydor thinks that Richardson is the answer to this year's playoffs, and yes his line has been effective, they would not be effective on the PP, but I doubt he knows why...

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 08:16 PM
  #86
JR28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
It is the coach when Handzus gets 6 minutes on the PP and Richardson gets 7 seconds. That's part of the problem with Murray's rigid "system". He expects all players to play the same way. He doesn't see a problem with putting Penner and Handzus on the same line. He doesn't see a problem with putting Stoll on the point on the PP.

A coach isn't usually fired because of X's and O's, it is the misuse of the players. It is putting players in a position to fail and not adjusting.

Handzus and Stoll should be on the third and fourth lines, until they are the Kings are at a disadvantage in this series.
I understand what you are saying and agree with it, but as of right now there isn't a whole lot TM can do with Zeus and Stoll, other then have them on the top 3 lines, or with Kopi out the top 2. I would replace Stoll with Schenn, but DL doesn't appear to want to rush him in this situation. Next season I would like to have our centers go like this....

Kopi
Schenn
Loktionov
Lewis/Richardson

You can interchange Lewis and Richardson, or move one to wing. They show they can play on any line, so they can be spotted throughout the year in case of injury, slumps or poor play. We may not be as big, but speed and skill will be greatly improved. Stoll can be traded to a team looking for a veteran center who is good on the face offs and can score, for a winger. I doubt we will be able to trade Penner, but I see Dustin being much better next season with a full training camp and the fact that it is a contract year should give him enough incentive to do well. Allowing Penner to play one more year, will give guys like Toffoli, Kozun, Weal, Vey, etc to get one more year of experience, before jumping to the NHL, unless one or more surprises in training camp. We also have all thast depth on the blue line, whcih can be traded for a winger. Of course if a guy like Zach Parise wants out of New Jersey, Dean should be all over that.

JR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 08:28 PM
  #87
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Richardson, Simmonds, and Clifford have absolutely without a doubt played great.

Individually they probably all deserve some power play time, as a unit though, that's a disaster waiting to happen....

Not one of the three have "great" hands, or great vision, they aren't passers, they aren't snipers, they play a very good overall game, but on the PP, when most of the PK's are in a box, they will buzz the perimeter, and not be able to penetrate the box like Sydor25 wants them too, and then they will be on his bad side again.

The PK's will just sit back and let them buzz around, and it wastes that lines energy for when they come back with a top line.

The Clifford-Richardson-Simmonds line with time can be a premier shut down line, and with time, can be a solid 2nd line, but throwing them on the PP because they buzz well, is just bad....

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 08:48 PM
  #88
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Holy ****. Wow.

Doughty and Johnson would still be the shooters on the PP. Just like they were when Stoll was suspended. You know, the one game the Kings won with PP goals.

The Kings PP strategy isn't to penetrate the slot, it is to recover pucks and get the puck to the point with traffic. Richardson and Simmonds have the speed to get on the Sharks defense quickly and get the puck to the point. Clifford's job is to the crash the net, you know the place where he scored a goal.

Right now Handzus has no chance of recovering the dump in because he's too slow. Smyth can't recover pucks to save his life. Brown tries, but he is usually out numbered and the puck is cleared. Rinse and repeat.

Kings were 0 for 6 in game 4. Very strong evidence that the current players aren't getting it done. Would it really kill Murray to try the one line that was creating offense? Just once?

You really have no problem giving Handzus 6 minutes of PP time and Richardson 7 seconds?

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 08:59 PM
  #89
JR28
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Holy ****. Wow.

Doughty and Johnson would still be the shooters on the PP. Just like they were when Stoll was suspended. You know, the one game the Kings won with PP goals.

The Kings PP strategy isn't to penetrate the slot, it is to recover pucks and get the puck to the point with traffic. Richardson and Simmonds have the speed to get on the Sharks defense quickly and get the puck to the point. Clifford's job is to the crash the net, you know the place where he scored a goal.

Right now Handzus has no chance of recovering the dump in because he's too slow. Smyth can't recover pucks to save his life. Brown tries, but he is usually out numbered and the puck is cleared. Rinse and repeat.

Kings were 0 for 6 in game 4. Very strong evidence that the current players aren't getting it done. Would it really kill Murray to try the one line that was creating offense? Just once?

You really have no problem giving Handzus 6 minutes of PP time and Richardson 7 seconds?
I noticed that TM has started putting Lewis on the PP, which is a curious choice at this time. The one I think they should put on the PP is Simmonds. Of the few times he's been on the PP this season, the team did well with either him scoring the goal, or assisting. I feel that having both Zeus and Smyth on the PP together is a recipe for dissaster, as they won't be able to get back if by some chance the other team comes down shorthanded.

I just hope the defense that was in games 1 and 2 comes back in Game 5 and no stoopid penalties

JR28 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:01 PM
  #90
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Holy ****. Wow.

Doughty and Johnson would still be the shooters on the PP. Just like they were when Stoll was suspended. You know, the one game the Kings won with PP goals.

The Kings PP strategy isn't to penetrate the slot, it is to recover pucks and get the puck to the point with traffic. Richardson and Simmonds have the speed to get on the Sharks defense quickly and get the puck to the point. Clifford's job is to the crash the net, you know the place where he scored a goal.

Right now Handzus has no chance of recovering the dump in because he's too slow. Smyth can't recover pucks to save his life. Brown tries, but he is usually out numbered and the puck is cleared. Rinse and repeat.

Kings were 0 for 6 in game 4. Very strong evidence that the current players aren't getting it done. Would it really kill Murray to try the one line that was creating offense? Just once?

You really have no problem giving Handzus 6 minutes of PP time and Richardson 7 seconds?
Absolutely no problem with that, for exactly the reasons I said. Richardson, Simmonds, and Clifford are effective when they buzz and get the opposing players chasing them, they won't be chasing them on the PP, I don't know how you can't see that....it's plain to see...they simply don't have the tools to create an effective PP.

Yes, the PP was 0-6, but they generated some solid opportunities, Richardson and company, wouldn't generate as much, if any.

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:07 PM
  #91
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
Absolutely no problem with that, for exactly the reasons I said. Richardson, Simmonds, and Clifford are effective when they buzz and get the opposing players chasing them, they won't be chasing them on the PP, I don't know how you can't see that....it's plain to see...they simply don't have the tools to create an effective PP.

Yes, the PP was 0-6, but they generated some solid opportunities, Richardson and company, wouldn't generate as much, if any.
You have concluded without ever seeing them on the PP that they won't be effective on the PP, while concurring with their success 5 on 5 and while, I assume, knowing that much of their success 5 on 5 has been zone entries and puck possession that created scoring opportunities and goals, while concluding at the same time that the 0-6 PP should not receive a change in personnel? Tell me, what exactly is it that the 0 for 6 players have that the Richardson, Simmonds, Clifford lack? I can't wait to read this. Are they too fast? Does Clifford crash the net too well? Does Simmonds hold on to the puck far too effectively? Does Richardson use his playmaking skills too much?

Zad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:08 PM
  #92
azsharkfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 893
vCash: 500
The 5 on 3 pretty much summed-up the Kings system last night. Play the perimeter and throw it from the blue line.

I think there is nothing wrong with your coach or system. The Western Conference is loaded with strong teams.

azsharkfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:17 PM
  #93
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
You have concluded without ever seeing them on the PP that they won't be effective on the PP, while concurring with their success 5 on 5 and while, I assume, knowing that much of their success 5 on 5 has been zone entries and puck possession that created scoring opportunities and goals, while concluding at the same time that the 0-6 PP should not receive a change in personnel? Tell me, what exactly is it that the 0 for 6 players have that the Richardson, Simmonds, Clifford lack? I can't wait to read this. Are they too fast? Does Clifford crash the net too well? Does Simmonds hold on to the puck far too effectively? Does Richardson use his playmaking skills too much?
Did you not read what I said above? Maybe I was to plain spoken, I don't know.

Not one of the three have "hands" or "vision" for great passing, which you need, at least someone on the PP up front to have that, they don't have extremely strong shots, while they all can shoot, I wouldn't call any of them snipers per se.

Their best asset as a line, is that they create turnovers and force opposing players to chase them bringing them out of position.

That will rarely happen on a PP, the PK's will not chase you in the corner if you have possession of the puck, they will only chase you if you bobble the puck, or have your head down trying to find it. That happens to Simmonds all the freaking time.

If you think their greatest asset is zone entry, you are freaking delusional.

They create turnovers and chaos, that's what they do...

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:23 PM
  #94
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,828
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Again. Wow.

And the Kings have six forwards that are that much better than Richardson's line? Who are these snipers? Handzus? I don't think he has ever been called a creative passer or a sniper.

Would you call the Kings PP a strength of the team? If not, why not?

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:29 PM
  #95
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Again. Wow.

And the Kings have six forwards that are that much better than Richardson's line? Who are these snipers? Handzus? I don't think he has ever been called a creative passer or a sniper.

Would you call the Kings PP a strength of the team? If not, why not?
Once you get off of Handzus, like he's the only player on the ****ing power play.

First of all, Handzus can CONTROL the puck, much better than Simmonds and Richardson, he READS the play better than either, and he PASSES the puck better.

Does it always correlate to success, of course not, but only in your world do you expect the powerplay to be 100%

Do I think the powerplay is a strength, no, I think Kompon needs to go? Do I think Richardson's line would improve the PP, no, not the way it's set up.

If they can run a different set up, possibly, but as it is now, no.

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 09:57 PM
  #96
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
Did you not read what I said above? Maybe I was to plain spoken, I don't know.

Not one of the three have "hands" or "vision" for great passing, which you need, at least someone on the PP up front to have that, they don't have extremely strong shots, while they all can shoot, I wouldn't call any of them snipers per se.

Their best asset as a line, is that they create turnovers and force opposing players to chase them bringing them out of position.

That will rarely happen on a PP, the PK's will not chase you in the corner if you have possession of the puck, they will only chase you if you bobble the puck, or have your head down trying to find it. That happens to Simmonds all the freaking time.

If you think their greatest asset is zone entry, you are freaking delusional.

They create turnovers and chaos, that's what they do...
I get it now. The Terry Murray PP that focuses on cycling the puck along the boards and getting it to the point (defensemen) so the shot gets on goal and create opportunities for garbage rebounds for forwards planted in front of the net requires forwards with hands and vision and not players whose strength is along those very boards and getting to the net...I understand. Are you ****ing serious? You don't have to answer that question actually. Your response to my post made yours and its purported merit perfectly clear.

Zad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 10:03 PM
  #97
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
I get it now. The Terry Murray PP that focuses on cycling the puck along the boards and getting it to the point (defensemen) so the shot gets on goal and create opportunities for garbage rebounds for forwards planted in front of the net requires forwards with hands and vision and not players whose strength is along those very boards and getting to the net...I understand. Are you ****ing serious? You don't have to answer that question actually. Your response to my post made yours and its purported merit perfectly clear.
Are you ******** me? Seriously, you think the Kings cycle on the PP? ****, have you ever watched the ****ing power play?

They dump it in, they have to fight to get it back, once they get it back, they either skate it out of the corner to the half wall, trying to get the high near side PK to drop low, then pass it to the point, goes point to point, to half wall to point, shot that misses the net, dig to get possession, point, halfwall, point, shot etc.

There is no ****ing cycling on the PP for **** sake...I can not seriously believe you said there was.

Either you have no idea what cycling is, or you completely mistook 5-5 for a powerplay...

Wanna know why there is no cycling on the powerplay, because most teams PK's are not ****ing stupid, they aren't going to go chase you in the corner, they might pressure you, but they sure as hell are not going to chase you up the sidewall unless you are having trouble with the puck.

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 10:07 PM
  #98
ukyo
Registered User
 
ukyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Silicon Valley
Country: United States
Posts: 1,760
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herby View Post
So Murray is fired and we are supposed to trust the buffoon who hired Crawford and Murray to bring us a decent coach. Sorry, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

If Murray is fired Lombardi will just bring in another defensive minded coach from the dead puck era who hasn't done squat for over a decade.

Ken Hitchcock.... Come on down!
The Crawford hiring was a maybe. Based on his resume at the time, that was not a bad call. Crawford took two young, talented, but immature teams and coached them into Cup contenders, one to a Cup champion. Who knew that it was more the teams than the coach?

Murray was absolutely the right hiring at the time. Don't tell me you're displeased with the development of the young Kings now, as opposed to how the previous classes of young Kings did with other coaches.

So yes, I would be inclined to trust the buffoon that hired Crawford and Murray to decide which coach to replace Murray with. However, I don't trust that he knows he needs to do it at all. My guess, he thinks the team has another year of learning to do under Professor Murray.

ukyo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 10:07 PM
  #99
Zad
HFB Partner
 
Zad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: OC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjmay View Post
Are you ******** me? Seriously, you think the Kings cycle on the PP? ****, have you ever watched the ****ing power play?

They dump it in, they have to fight to get it back, once they get it back, they either skate it out of the corner to the half wall, trying to get the high near side PK to drop low, then pass it to the point, goes point to point, to half wall to point, shot that misses the net, dig to get possession, point, halfwall, point, shot etc.

There is no ****ing cycling on the PP for **** sake...I can not seriously believe you said there was.

Either you have no idea what cycling is, or you completely mistook 5-5 for a powerplay...

Wanna know why there is no cycling on the powerplay, because most teams PK's are not ****ing stupid, they aren't going to go chase you in the corner, they might pressure you, but they sure as hell are not going to chase you up the sidewall unless you are having trouble with the puck.
Now you are just making **** up as you go along. The exact same cycle that gets the puck to the point 5 on 5 ONCE THEY OBTAIN POSSESSION trough a soft or hard dump is the exact same play on the PP, except on the PP, every once in a while we see them skate it over the blue line and obtain that possession without losing the puck and recovering it. The play then goes through the same damn process after possession. Get it to the point, take a shot through and look for a rebound. I am almost tempted to go dig up a Murray quote about the importance of the cycle on the PP but quite frankly, I don't have the energy for it tonight, though giving you **** is warming me up.

Zad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2011, 10:11 PM
  #100
sjmay*
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,732
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zad View Post
Now you are just making **** up as you go along. The exact same cycle that gets the puck to the point 5 on 5 ONCE THEY OBTAIN POSSESSION trough a soft or hard dump is the exact same play on the PP, except on the PP, every once in a while we see them skate it over the blue line and obtain that possession without losing the puck and recovering it. The play then goes through the same damn process after possession. Get it to the point, take a shot through and look for a rebound. I am almost tempted to go dig up a Murray quote about the importance of the cycle on the PP but quite frankly, I don't have the energy for it tonight, though giving you **** is warming me up.
I would love for you to find a quote that says how important the cycle is on the powerplay, ffs. Keep in mind, FOR the powerplay and ON the powerplay are two different ****ing concepts.

Again, as far as obtaining possession, A) that's not a ****ing cycle, that's a ****ing forecheck, B) Passing to the point, is not a ****ing cycle, that's a ****ing pass.

It's clear you have no idea what you mean when you use cycle, and think Murray=cycle, so ****, I will use it all the time when I refer to Murray.

I am surprised you haven't mentioned how Murray likes to cycle on the ****ing penalty kill.

sjmay* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:41 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.