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

LA Kings Don't Have Enough "Good Defensemen"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-29-2012, 04:28 PM
  #26
LAX attack*
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Danger Zone
Country: United States
Posts: 14,544
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to LAX attack*
In a certain sense it isn't really a valid point, look at how good Martinez and Voinov were (I don't think I even need to bring up Scuderi-Mitchell-Greene, best defensive 3 dmen in the NHL as a group) but to some degree it is still true even now. I see Voinov as a very inconsistent player, who moves the puck other than Doughty?

LAX attack* is offline  
Old
10-29-2012, 07:44 PM
  #27
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,068
vCash: 500
Meh, Button looks idiotic now of course, but the Kings were playing so bad it was hard to tell what the problem was to an outsider, even an analyst. We see the ins and outs of the Kings and knew exactly what the problems were, and that TM had ample opportunity to get the team to the next level before he was axed.

I don't really like Button, but you can't deny the guy knows a bit about how to build a team. He had a huge part in the personnel on the Dallas cup winning team, and built quite a good Flames team (that made the finals a year after he was fired). I can't help but think that there was a little resentment in that he was replaced by Sutter in Calgary after only a couple years behind the helm.

Still, as a former executive you would think that he would know that it's never just one party's fault when a team is struggling like that. Of course, I would make a horrible analyst, I'd be right down the middle on everything

Fishhead is offline  
Old
10-30-2012, 12:28 PM
  #28
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
Meh, Button looks idiotic now of course, but the Kings were playing so bad it was hard to tell what the problem was to an outsider, even an analyst.
You are correct in regard to the offense, but Mr. Button did not do his homework when it came to the Kings' defense. All he did was mention Doty and him not being ready at the beginning of the season due to the contract issues. And I quote:

Quote:
"They have...too many gaps on defense."
He doesn't even talk about the depth on the defense: Scuderi, Mitchell, Greene, Voynov, and Martinez. Even when they had Johnson they were still playing very well on defense.

I think analysts do a disservice when they don't know the team they are talking about. Button is frothing at the mouth the entire time in the video, and wraps it all up with the now classic "Stanley Cup Contenders? Give me a break!"

Now, I am not going to jump on Ron McLean here, but look at the short segment on the video below, starting at 2:04:13:



McLean admits he didn't know how good Mitchell was.

Say what?

Why didn't he? I mean, its not like Mitchell is a rookie. These guys MUST know the talent level of the players. After all, its their job...then again, he gives a Mitchell a high compliment, so there's that.

__________________
Ron is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:25 AM
  #29
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,027
vCash: 500
Don't forget that Ron hasn't seen Mitchell play in about 5 years most likely as he's on the East Coast covering teams there mostly (Leafs and Eastern COnference is his real area with HNIC, the second game has little to do with him) and Mitchell has been in Vancouver and LA for that amount of time.

I think he can safely say he knew Mitchell was good, but not THAT good.

As a Kings fan, I said that about a few of our players in the playoffs as they ALL cranked it up a notch.

I wouldn't slag MacLean much, he's a really fair guy and one of the few worth watching just as much as the players.

kingsfan is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:38 AM
  #30
Herby
Culture Changer
 
Herby's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Chicago
Country: United States
Posts: 15,041
vCash: 500
I had no idea he was this good either. I knew he was a solid veteran who had been through some injuries. He has been a star player his two years in LA. I don't think the Kings make the playoffs this season without him, he was a total rock.

Herby is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 01:47 AM
  #31
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,881
vCash: 500
Ye, we as fans didnt really know how good Mitchell was until he was out for like 20 games with an injury in i think it was 2010-2011 and the team just fell apart defensively without him

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 03:54 AM
  #32
CNS
A World Alone
 
CNS's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 10,251
vCash: 672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post

McLean admits he didn't know how good Mitchell was.

Say what?

Why didn't he? I mean, its not like Mitchell is a rookie. These guys MUST know the talent level of the players. After all, its their job...then again, he gives a Mitchell a high compliment, so there's that.
As others have stated, no one really knew. Yeah we knew Mitchie would be a good, solid guy but man has he been ****ing AWESOME in LA. I talked about it before and some agreed with me - Willie went from being very good to an elite-ish level defender. He's an absolute rock in his own zone and seemingly out of nowhere added some offense to his game.

Does anyone REALLY care what idiots like Pierre say? Saying controversial **** gets you views. I think almost everyone on this board realizes our defense is great 1 through 6.

CNS is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 11:51 AM
  #33
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Yeah, maybe I am asking too much of these guys.

After all, they get paid very well for NOT knowing things.

Hell, Charles Barkley didn't know which teams 4 out 5 players played for in a quiz last night.

Maybe they need another million to study team rosters!

Ron is offline  
Old
10-31-2012, 12:07 PM
  #34
tigermask48
Maniacal Laugh
 
tigermask48's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: R'Lyeh, Antarctica
Country: Antarctica
Posts: 2,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
Yeah, maybe I am asking too much of these guys.

After all, they get paid very well for NOT knowing things.

Hell, Charles Barkley didn't know which teams 4 out 5 players played for in a quiz last night.

Maybe they need another million to study team rosters!
It's like I've been told from the many teachers, doctors, and post-docs I know and work with regarding the current state of education in the U.S.;

"incompetence is the new over achievement."

tigermask48 is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 02:45 PM
  #35
Leo W
Registered User
 
Leo W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 4,176
vCash: 50
Interesting how some here are acting like they thought we were still cup contenders at the trade deadline last season..

Leo W is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 03:08 PM
  #36
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
 
King'sPawn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 8,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Washington View Post
Interesting how some here are acting like they thought we were still cup contenders at the trade deadline last season..
It wasn't due to poor defensive depth, which is sort of the point of the thread.

King'sPawn is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 08:46 PM
  #37
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leonard Washington View Post
Interesting how some here are acting like they thought we were still cup contenders at the trade deadline last season..
We were always Cup contenders, I could feel it throughout the season...going to every home game, it was very frustrating to see a team with so much talent unable to score.

I always knew we had the defensive depth, and I hoped we could get our scoring to come around, but truth be told, that really didn't happen until we got Carter in the mix and everyone got slotted into their righteous position and line.

So, I guess its all how you looked at it. At the time, and now.

Ron is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 09:52 PM
  #38
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
We were always Cup contenders, I could feel it throughout the season...going to every home game, it was very frustrating to see a team with so much talent unable to score.

I always knew we had the defensive depth, and I hoped we could get our scoring to come around, but truth be told, that really didn't happen until we got Carter in the mix and everyone got slotted into their righteous position and line.

So, I guess its all how you looked at it. At the time, and now.
Anyone who thought the Kings were actual cup contenders BEFORE they knocked Vancouver out of the first round are either lying out of their ass or we're smoking some really good stuff.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 10:16 PM
  #39
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 31,156
vCash: 500
While not many may have thought the Kings to be Cup contenders at the time of the firing of Terry Murray or the Jack Johnson trade, to write them off and laugh at their chances was quite foolish, especially from a former NHL executive who clearly had no clue what he was talking about.

Ziggy Stardust is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 11:04 PM
  #40
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
While not many may have thought the Kings to be Cup contenders at the time of the firing of Terry Murray or the Jack Johnson trade, to write them off and laugh at their chances was quite foolish, especially from a former NHL executive who clearly had no clue what he was talking about.
Not when you looked at the Kings history.....it was as obvious as stating the Red Wings would make the playoffs. It was about the most un-risky prediction you could possibly make.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-01-2012, 11:26 PM
  #41
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Anyone who thought the Kings were actual cup contenders BEFORE they knocked Vancouver out of the first round are either lying out of their ass or we're smoking some really good stuff.
Then again, someone who didn't really follow the team as closely as I did can apparently only make insulting and ignorant comments to others.

Ron is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 02:11 AM
  #42
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
Then again, someone who didn't really follow the team as closely as I did can apparently only make insulting and ignorant comments to others.
So Ron, if you felt the Kings were SC contenders, how many other years did you feel the same way?

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 02:15 AM
  #43
Bandit
Registered User
 
Bandit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 5,440
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docgonzo View Post
I'm fine with the Penner trade mainly cause I doubt we would've picked Klefbom.
I'm fine with the Penner trade because we won the ****ing Stanley Cup!

Bandit is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:09 AM
  #44
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 7,412
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
So Ron, if you felt the Kings were SC contenders, how many other years did you feel the same way?
You have not been paying attention.

This was my first season as a STH. Part of the reason for the investment was because...

...you fill in the blank.

Ron is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 09:05 AM
  #45
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Anyone who thought the Kings were actual cup contenders BEFORE they knocked Vancouver out of the first round are either lying out of their ass or we're smoking some really good stuff.
It depends on how you look at it as well. Go back and read my posts from a year ago or so. Heck, go back about two years. I never said I think they'd win the cup but I did say that last year was the year they'd make a deep playoff push, and figured they'd make the third round. Publicly saying a team will make round three isn't to far off from saying they could reach the finals. I think I even said that I expected that this year (2012-2013) would be the year they became perrenial cup contenders. My logic was that they'd need a strong playoff push one year (IE reach round three) to build up the confidence to be legit cup threats down the road. My only miscalculation was that I didn't see the Kings playing like the early 1980's NY Islanders and steamrolling everyone with very little post-season expereince.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Not when you looked at the Kings history.....it was as obvious as stating the Red Wings would make the playoffs. It was about the most un-risky prediction you could possibly make.
So we can make assumptions based on a teams history? I could agree with you if you're talking say the last 3-5 years maximum, but if you're talking overall history that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard. For example, St. Louis had a great season last year and no reason to think they couldn't do just as well next year. Is it 'un-risky' to say they won't win the cup, simply because they've generally sucked for much of the history?

No. Every team at some point sucked. Look at Detroit, took them 42 years before they won the cup again in 1997. New Jersey was labelled a Mickey Mouse organization by the Great One himself. Both of those clubs have had a great run over the past 18 years, accounting for I seven Stanley Cups and 11 Finals appearances. Coming into 1995, would you have said that would happen for the next 18 years?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit View Post
I'm fine with the Penner trade because we won the ****ing Stanley Cup!
This. As someone who blasted the Penner trade repeatedly, I'll now give it a pass simply for his 2012 Stanley Cup playoffs. They weren't GREAT, but they were worth the price we paid because he was a key cog in a cup winning team.

kingsfan is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 09:49 AM
  #46
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron View Post
You have not been paying attention.

This was my first season as a STH. Part of the reason for the investment was because...

...you fill in the blank.

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.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:01 AM
  #47
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post

So we can make assumptions based on a teams history? I could agree with you if you're talking say the last 3-5 years maximum, but if you're talking overall history that has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard. For example, St. Louis had a great season last year and no reason to think they couldn't do just as well next year. Is it 'un-risky' to say they won't win the cup, simply because they've generally sucked for much of the history?

No. Every team at some point sucked. Look at Detroit, took them 42 years before they won the cup again in 1997. New Jersey was labelled a Mickey Mouse organization by the Great One himself. Both of those clubs have had a great run over the past 18 years, accounting for I seven Stanley Cups and 11 Finals appearances. Coming into 1995, would you have said that would happen for the next 18 .
Ummm yah, you can make assumptions based on teams history.....in fact if you assumed the Kings would suck, you would have been correct 44 out of 45 years based on their history. If you predict the Red Wings would make the playoffs, you'd of been correct for like the last twenty years, no? Those predictions are easy, that's what hockey analysts do...every year they predict the team who won the previous year will win it again, or at least choose a team who was very successful the year prior. Christ, how many experts have picked SJ to win the cup over the last ten years?

Predicting St. Louis would win a cup is a hell of a lot LESS risky than the Kings. St Louis may have never won a cup but has had WAY more playoff success and has been considered 'elite' many times over the last twenty years.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 10:39 AM
  #48
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,068
vCash: 500
It became fairly apparent that the Kings had a great shot at the cup once they started scoring after the trade deadline. Everyone here knew that the defense was stellar and was build for the playoffs. For me, I didn't actually think they could win it until their position was set. I didn't fear Vancouver whatsoever, they were eking out wins against bottom feeders for the last month. They sucked for almost all of March, their bad play was obvious. Having St. Louis in the second round was a matchup dream, and no way were the blues going to lose to San Jose. What frightened me the most was getting Chicago in one of the later rounds. We don't match up well against them at all.

No one could foresee the destruction they wreaked on the western conference, but looking at the match-ups/how teams were playing, the Kings had one of the more favorable paths in the conference, 8th seed or no. The only team that was on fire over the last stretch to the playoffs was Phoenix, which is probably why they made the WCF.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:24 AM
  #49
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 891
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
It became fairly apparent that the Kings had a great shot at the cup once they started scoring after the trade deadline.

Umm...no, it didn't.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 11:36 AM
  #50
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,068
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Umm...no, it didn't.
Perhaps you weren't looking close enough. One of the top scoring teams over the last couple months with stellar defense is exactly what kind of teams win the cup. The roster was built with the playoffs in mind.

Who was there to fear? A banged-up Vancouver team who sucked down the stretch? A St. Louis team that the Kings controlled in all but one game? Wasn't worried about either. In particular, the Kings beating St. Louis was as sure as St. Louis beating the Sharks. The third round was the most concerning.

Fishhead is offline  
Closed Thread

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 07:30 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.