This is for all you "Calm Downers" out there who wonder why people get so angry after a loss even if it was only the 2nd loss in regulation in a month:
Since the League expanded to 24 teams 19 seasons ago (ya know '92-'93, our favorite year), 38 different teams have played in the Stanley Cup Finals. Only 5 of those teams finished in the bottom half of the league offensively during that regular season. The lowest any of those teams ever finished offensively during the regular season was 18th (2010 Flyers of John Stevens ironically).
In that period of time only 2 teams in the bottom 5 of the league offensively EVEN MADE THE PLAYOFFS (1996 Blues & 1998 Senators). Neither of which was DEAD LAST in offense, but certainly in the bottom 5 in GF. That's 2 teams out of 304 playoffs teams that made the playoffs despite being bottom 5 in goals scored and neither was DEAD LAST like the Kings are!
The last team to make the playoffs while being dead last in offense was the 88-89 Canucks (23 years ago) when only 5 teams in the league missed the playoffs.
The chances the Kings even make the playoffs with this offense are atrocious. In fact it would be a league first considering 14 teams will miss the playoffs.
So when the Kings lose at home, scoring 1 goal or get shut out by the worst team in hockey at home or when they pile up the OTLs... have more perspective... look at the overall, it's not good at all and the clock is ticking.
As one of those "calm downers" I just want to say this.
There is a difference about telling people to calm down about an OTL/SOL and telling them to calm down about not scoring many goals. I understand you say they go hand in hand, and they do in many cases. I just wanted to say that if we lost 6-5 in a SO, I'd still tell people to calm down about the fact we only got one point in the standings.
A 2-1 SOL and a 6-5 OTL still give us the same points in the standings, just like a 8-2-6 records is 22 points in 16 games, whether or not we scored eight goals or 98 goals in that time frame.
I'm all onboard to ***** and moan about our goalscoring woes, and if you've read the threads about that you'll likely remember me for doing just that. But I'm not going to complain about getting a point in the standings until such time as well need more than just a point. Complaining about getting a point and complaining about not scoring are two different topics in my opinion, even if one can and has affected the other.
And absolutely it does, you say having a top ranked offense means you make the playoffs, I just showed you three in the SAME YEAR that didn't,
How again didn't that debunk your claim?
Anyways, why the hell am I arguing with a fan who started watching hockey when Gretzky came around....
First of all, I've forgotten more about hockey than you will EVER know.
secondly... all I was saying is you have to score goals to to make the playoffs. bottom 5 teams don't make it. I never said top scoring make it, I said bottom scoring teams don't.
You said great defensive teams do, I showed 8 recent examples where they didn't.
History dictates that this team is in deep **** to make the playoffs, to say nothing of being successful in them. Their vaunted "defense first system" has gone right out the window the last two playoffs. So the one thing they're actually good at has been a complete non-factor in the post season, if they can even get there. Pile on top of that the complete inability to score in any situation, and there is plenty of reason to be concerned.
By law you have to start out EVERY post with "LOL".
Anyways, why the hell am I arguing with a fan who started watching hockey when Gretzky came around....
I went to my first game when I was 7 years old in 1976. That would make me a 35 year fan of the Kings. We lost to the French Connection line that night 4-2...Quick, name the French Connection line... which of them played for the Kings later and how many games did he play...and by the way Gretzky wasn't even in the league much less a Kings player.. but thanks for playing we have lovely parting gifts.
First of all, I've forgotten more about hockey than you will EVER know.
secondly... all I was saying is you have to score goals to to make the playoffs. bottom 5 teams don't make it. I never said top scoring make it, I said bottom scoring teams don't.
You said great defensive teams do, I showed 8 recent examples where they didn't.
No I didn't.
I ridiculed you for looking at ONE STAT AND ONE STAT only in trying to make your ridiculous argument.
It's not just one STAT ffs, especially when there are as many variables in the game.
I went to my first game when I was 7 years old in 1976. That would make me a 35 year fan of the Kings. We lost to the French Connection line that night 4-2...Quick, name the French Connection line... which of them played for the Kings later and how many games did he play...and by the way Gretzky wasn't even in the league much less a Kings player.. but thanks for playing we have lovely parting gifts.
Congrats, I went to my first game when I was 4....not sure exactly how that proves you have forgotten more about hockey than I will eve r know....but kudos.
Look at any hockey banner risen, they all have that '92 xxxxx '93 on them...that tells you the SEASON they were earned
A) You're changing your argument. You blatantly referred to the year the season started. Now you're changing your tune.
B) You'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't refer to the "2011 Stanley Cup Champions, Boston Bruins," or the "1993 Stanley Cup Champion, Montreal Canadiens."
Anyways, why the hell am I arguing with a fan who started watching hockey when Gretzky came around....
ah, there it is, the condescending elitist comment that people just have to pull out as if post-Gretzky fans are any less of a fan. I think we can all agree, there's a scoring problem, right? I guess it's just the degree of worry it is, whether it be a time for patience or a time to pull a trigger on something eye-opening, correct?
Okay, if that's the case, how long do you (calm-downers) feel we should wait before the team should be sounding the alarms? How long do you feel it will take before we start seeing the true effects of Sutter?
I personally feel 11 games out of 16 scoring under 2 goals is adequate time for the Kings to start worrying about something still inherently wrong with the team.
A) You're changing your argument. You blatantly referred to the year the season started. Now you're changing your tune.
B) You'll be hard pressed to find anything that doesn't refer to the "2011 Stanley Cup Champions, Boston Bruins," or the "1993 Stanley Cup Champion, Montreal Canadiens."
ah, there it is, the condescending elitist comment that people just have to pull out as if post-Gretzky fans are any less of a fan. I think we can all agree, there's a scoring problem, right? I guess it's just the degree of worry it is, whether it be a time for patience or a time to pull a trigger on something eye-opening, correct?
Okay, if that's the case, how long do you (calm-downers) feel we should wait before the team should be sounding the alarms? How long do you feel it will take before we start seeing the true effects of Sutter?
I personally feel 11 games out of 16 scoring under 2 goals is adequate time for the Kings to start worrying about something still inherently wrong with the team.
I never said something wasn't wrong.
I did say relying on one stat and one stat only to prove your argument, is bush league and idiotic.
Well, now I said it was bush league and idiotic, before I just laughed at him.
I did say relying on one stat and one stat only to prove your argument, is bush league and idiotic.
Well, now I said it was bush league and idiotic, before I just laughed at him.
I know that you think there is something wrong with the team. Truthfully, there's probably nothing you disagree with when we complain about the offense, I just want to know where you feel we are at. These are honest questions, I just want to understand what you're seeing is all.
How long do you (calm-downers) feel we should wait before the team should be sounding the alarms? How long do you feel it will take before we start seeing the true effects of Sutter?
I think after 14 games we should be pretty comfortable with seeing what Sutter can offer. And I feel that the continued low scoring output is a signal for worry. This is why these last few games have pushed me to the other side. I do believe Lombardi has to do something dramatic like trading somebody or threatening it in order to ignite the team. If Sutter can't get these people to score, than I believe they are just too comfortable with their position.
Skill-wise, these are all exceptional players and, as far as I know, there is no rift in the team dynamics. From my limited point of view, all I can assume is that the players are just too confident they'll be here at the end of the year.
I did say relying on one stat and one stat only to prove your argument, is bush league and idiotic.
Well, now I said it was bush league and idiotic, before I just laughed at him.
and you were the only one laughing... Again, bottom feeder offensive teams haven't made the playoffs with any frequency. It's a fact. Top Defensive teams have missed the playoffs both recently and more frequently than bottom feeder offensive teams have made the playoffs, no matter what year you thought it was.
Playing good defense only helps if you score goals.
Wait here are some more defensive minded teams that missed the playoffs recently:
4th best - 2003-04 - Minnesota Wild (missed playoffs)
9th best - 2002-03 - Nashville Predators (missed playoffs)
2nd best - 2001-02 - Edmonton Oilers (missed playoffs)
8th best - 2001-02 - Anaheim Mighty Ducks (missed playoffs)
10th best - 2001-02 - Buffalo Sabres (missed playoffs)
7th best - 2000-01 - Nashville Predators (missed playoffs)
4th best - 1999-00 - Montreal Canadiens (missed playoffs)
I know that you think there is something wrong with the team. Truthfully, there's probably nothing you disagree with when we complain about the offense, I just want to know where you feel we are at. These are honest questions, I just want to understand what you're seeing is all.
How long do you (calm-downers) feel we should wait before the team should be sounding the alarms? How long do you feel it will take before we start seeing the true effects of Sutter?
I think after 14 games we should be pretty comfortable with seeing what Sutter can offer. And I feel that the continued low scoring output is a signal for worry. This is why these last few games have pushed me to the other side. I do believe Lombardi has to do something dramatic like trading somebody or threatening it in order to ignite the team. If Sutter can't get these people to score, than I believe they are just too comfortable with their position.
Skill-wise, these are all exceptional players and, as far as I know, there is no rift in the team dynamics. From my limited point of view, all I can assume is that the players are just too confident they'll be here at the end of the year.
I think we are miles ahead of where we were with Murray, and I thought we were miles ahead of where we were with Crawford.
I understand the ebbs and flows of the game, and especially a young team.
I am not overly concerned, the chances are still there, they will begin to bury them, they need to show effort night in and night out, but this about the most talented team we have seen in the past 15 years.
and you were the only one laughing... Again, bottom feeder offensive teams haven't made the playoffs with any frequency. It's a fact. Top Defensive teams have missed the playoffs both recently and more frequently than bottom feeder offensive teams have made the playoffs, no matter what year you thought it was.
Playing good defense only helps if you score goals.
Wait here are some more defensive minded teams that missed the playoffs recently:
4th best - 2003-04 - Minnesota Wild (missed playoffs)
9th best - 2002-03 - Nashville Predators (missed playoffs)
2nd best - 2001-02 - Edmonton Oilers (missed playoffs)
8th best - 2001-02 - Anaheim Mighty Ducks (missed playoffs)
10th best - 2001-02 - Buffalo Sabres (missed playoffs)
7th best - 2000-01 - Nashville Predators (missed playoffs)
4th best - 1999-00 - Montreal Canadiens (missed playoffs)
oooooh I could do this all day.
Again, you one track one stat fan,
The flip is also, top offensive teams have MISSED the playoffs, HAVING A TOP OFFENSIVE TEAM IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF MAKING THE PLAYOFFS.
But you don't understand that because you are focused on one stat and one stat alone.
Tell me again how watching the game at 7 years old lets you understand the game.
The flip is also, top offensive teams have MISSED the playoffs, HAVING A TOP OFFENSIVE TEAM IS NOT A GUARANTEE OF MAKING THE PLAYOFFS.
But you don't understand that because you are focused on one stat and one stat alone.
Tell me again how watching the game at 7 years old lets you understand the game.
I do understand that... it was never a consideration because it wasn't my point. Again, for the umpteenth time, in English, using a subject AND a predicate, teams that don't score better than the bottom 5 of the league have made the playoffs less than 1% of the time over the last 19 years...
I think we are miles ahead of where we were with Murray, and I thought we were miles ahead of where we were with Crawford.
I understand the ebbs and flows of the game, and especially a young team.
I am not overly concerned, the chances are still there, they will begin to bury them, they need to show effort night in and night out, but this about the most talented team we have seen in the past 15 years.
fair enough, i agree with you on much of what you said. But is there any point where you'll get worried? Let's say they continue to get chances but don't bury them for the rest of the year, you still won't think something drastic has to be done?
fair enough, i agree with you on much of what you said. But is there any point where you'll get worried? Let's say they continue to get chances but don't bury them for the rest of the year, you still won't think something drastic has to be done?
No, reason being, AGE.
Kopitar, Brown, Richards, Lotkionov, even Fraser, Richardson, Lewis, then Doughty, Johnson, Voynov, Quick, etc,
All young, everyone is acting like this is our last season to do anything when in reality we have a huge window.
THIS is the reason why patience is a virtue, you don't build a team for a one and done, you build a team to dominate and compete year after year, we are finally getting there.
Do some tweaks need to be made, yes. But THE CHANCES ARE THERE. That is what everyone seems to be in a rush to forget, they are getting the chances, if they weren't, THAT is the time to be worried and talk about a drastic change.
Does a move need to be made, if it's the right one. We don't panic and we have one of the youngest, talented core in the league, and our defense/goaltending is top in the league, bar none.
Everyone is saying we need a sniper, we need a sniper, BS, you need patience and an understanding of the game.
We need to find a PP that works, that alone will bring your goals up by a ton, then a few of the chances/bounces start going in, and yea, you have a powerhouse of a team.
The window doesn't end on the Kings in 3 months ffs.
I think we're going to have to define what's negative and what's realistic. The plan we were sold on here is that this team would continue to improve, year after year. Big moves have been made to improve the team and development has gone stagnant. The players as a collective group are not progressing year by year. That's just an unfortunate fact.
A negative nancy is one who believes the worst is going to happen, every season, every game. We don't have many of those here.
