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
11-02-2012, 12:44 PM
  #51
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
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.
Looking close enough? I've followed this team for TWENTY years, doing way more than looking at them...more like dissecting them on a daily basis. This WAS a team who hadn't won a playoff round in over 10 years and had only made it past the 2nd round ONCE IN THEIR ENTIRE 45 YEAR HISTORY. But I see, you had it all figured out before they even clinched a playoff spot....OK.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 01:24 PM
  #52
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Looking close enough? I've followed this team for TWENTY years, doing way more than looking at them...more like dissecting them on a daily basis. This WAS a team who hadn't won a playoff round in over 10 years and had only made it past the 2nd round ONCE IN THEIR ENTIRE 45 YEAR HISTORY. But I see, you had it all figured out before they even clinched a playoff spot....OK.
Each year is different, obviously. And I didn't have it "all figured out", I simply thought they would contend this year going into the playoffs based on the roster makeup and match-ups. I don't see how that's so hard to fathom. And I said that I reached this point AFTER their seeding was set, as indicated by "For me, I didn't actually think they could win it until their position was set". Such a condescending post from someone who apparently didn't read very closely.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 01:27 PM
  #53
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fishhead View Post
Each year is different, obviously. And I didn't have it "all figured out", I simply thought they would contend this year going into the playoffs based on the roster makeup and match-ups. I don't see how that's so hard to fathom. And I said that I reached this point AFTER their seeding was set, as indicated by "For me, I didn't actually think they could win it until their position was set". Such a condescending post from someone who apparently didn't read very closely.
Maybe you are forgetting your original quote, here it is:

"It became fairly apparent that the Kings had a great shot at the cup once they started scoring after the trade deadline."

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 02:11 PM
  #54
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Maybe you are forgetting your original quote, here it is:

"It became fairly apparent that the Kings had a great shot at the cup once they started scoring after the trade deadline."
nothing wrong with that

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...k-nhl-playoffs

#1 team in the league in score adjusted fenwick by a large distance post deadline

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 02:30 PM
  #55
Fishhead
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,158
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Maybe you are forgetting your original quote, here it is:

"It became fairly apparent that the Kings had a great shot at the cup once they started scoring after the trade deadline."
Yep, but I thought they had a shot and nothing more, a little better than other teams because of their play at the time. I really wasn't confident they would win it until after I saw the seeding.

Fishhead is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 02:52 PM
  #56
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
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.

__________________
Ron is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:10 PM
  #57
TruKingFan
Two-Time Cup Winner
 
TruKingFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Beachfront
Country: United States
Posts: 291
vCash: 500
Axl is just bitter that the Kings won the Cup and no longer suck. What happened between 1967-2012 good or bad don't really matter too much.

Fact is, the Kings were termed as a "dark horse" when the playoffs started simply because of the trade deadline deal for Carter and the fact they played much better by the end of the regular season so, being the 8th seed was really a misnomer. And boy did we find out that's true with the way the Kings played throughout the playoffs.

So yeah, some of us had faith the team was a Cup contender when the playoffs started.

TruKingFan is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:47 PM
  #58
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TruKingFan View Post
Axl is just bitter that the Kings won the Cup and no longer suck. What happened between 1967-2012 good or bad don't really matter too much.

Fact is, the Kings were termed as a "dark horse" when the playoffs started simply because of the trade deadline deal for Carter and the fact they played much better by the end of the regular season so, being the 8th seed was really a misnomer. And boy did we find out that's true with the way the Kings played throughout the playoffs.

So yeah, some of us had faith the team was a Cup contender when the playoffs started.
Yeah, you got it, that cup thing really chaps my hide! What I'm bitter about are the Kings fans who act like they saw it all along....give me an f-ing break. This team barely squeaked into the playoffs with 3 games in the season, and all of you already had your SC tattoo session scheduled.

The original point I was trying to make was that Craig Button, as big of a ****** that he is, was saying NOTHING off the mark in December that considering the Kings as SC contenders was laughable....because it absolutely was.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:52 PM
  #59
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Yeah, you got it, that cup thing really chaps my hide! What I'm bitter about are the Kings fans who act like they saw it all along....give me an f-ing break. This team barely squeaked into the playoffs with 3 games in the season, and all of you already had your SC tattoo session scheduled.

The original point I was trying to make was that Craig Button, as big of a ****** that he is, was saying NOTHING off the mark in December that considering the Kings as SC contenders was laughable....because it absolutely was.
So you don't think Craig Button was overreacting one bit when he was saying the Kings have no good defenseman? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you quit being a Kings fan as well? I seem to recall you having a farewell thread kissing the team goodbye.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 04:54 PM
  #60
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
So you don't think Craig Button was overreacting one bit when he was saying the Kings have no good defenseman? And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you quit being a Kings fan as well? I seem to recall you having a farewell thread kissing the team goodbye.
Absolutely, the defensemen comment is idiotic....but I couldn't blame him about the SC comments, cause I was saying the same thing and I'm a die-hard fan!

No, I never quit being a fan, I predicted they would not make the playoffs...that was the thread.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 05:11 PM
  #61
Leo W
Registered User
 
Leo W's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Buffalo
Posts: 4,527
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.
[MOD]
For reference lets all look at this thread (I was right. ):

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1115073&page=7


Last edited by Holden Caulfield: 11-03-2012 at 04:00 AM. Reason: accusations not needed
Leo W is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 05:41 PM
  #62
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
to be fair, even before getting Carter, the Kings, in terms of advanced stats, should have been around 4th-5th in the league if 'puck luck' had been even for every team

Getting Carter didnt make that much of a difference, it was getting rid of Johnson that changed everything since he isn't very good at hockey

http://www.coppernblue.com/2012/2/24...on-is-not-good

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:37 PM
  #63
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
 
Ziggy Stardust's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 32,250
vCash: 500
What nobody anticipated was the impact both Dwight King and Jordan Nolan had on the Kings. They didn't set the world on fire with big offensive numbers, but their play and size gave the Kings more puck possession minutes (I wish there was a stat to track this, but just using my own set of eyes gave me enough of an impression to notice it).

On top of that, it's like the Kings added a brand new player to the roster in addition to Jeff Carter when Dustin Brown broke out of his shell. He was a completely different player in the latter half of the season and entering the playoffs. Richards started to play like his old self that we saw in the earlier parts of the season, prior to his concussion.

The ball got rolling with lots of players finding their game, and nobody could have anticipated this in December or January. But, to write them off at that juncture of the season was a wee bit premature. I agree that this team was churning its wheels with Terry Murray behind the bench, but it was quite obvious that they were no longer being stifled and suffocated by X's and O's and a systematic approach that Terry Murray preached.

Darryl Sutter made these guys play the way most of us expected them to play, and that is aggressively. We never saw the same type of aggression and intensity under the plodding style of Terry Murray's coaching. Sutter allowed the players to react, and that brought out and enhanced the abilities of players like Brown and Doughty.

As for Craig Button, the way he ran his mouth, he was talking like he had all the answers to the Kings' problems.

Ziggy Stardust is online now  
Old
11-02-2012, 06:41 PM
  #64
Johnny Utah
Registered User
 
Johnny Utah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Santa Monica, CA
Posts: 7,076
vCash: 500
Exactly. King and Nolan did what Modin, Poni and Simmonds did years earlier...and more.

We went over the Richards trade tons of times and of course we are stoked how it turned out now but the Kings lost two big forwards in Schenn and Simmonds as well as Modin and Ponikarovsky through UFA two years in a row. We also traded Ryan Smyth. A lot of big forwards were shipped out. Guys who play in the hard areas.

So King and Nolan come up, they show they can play and have the size those other guys had along with some grittiness. That was our identity. Teams hated playing against a big, tough, physical team who had skill and size on every size and could play any style of game...rough, fast, or finesse.

Johnny Utah is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 05:53 PM
  #65
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
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.
I'll reiterate my original point. If you think you can make predictions on who will be the next Stanley Cup champion based in part on what a team did 10-45 years ago, you are out to lunch.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 06:38 PM
  #66
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
I'll reiterate my original point. If you think you can make predictions on who will be the next Stanley Cup champion based in part on what a team did 10-45 years ago, you are out to lunch.
You are missing the point entirely.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 06:54 PM
  #67
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
You are missing the point entirely.
No I am not.

You claim you can predict a teams chances based on their past, and even cited the fact the Kings had little success in their 45 year history as a reason they weren't a good contender. If you believe that, go ahead. It's flawed.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 07:19 PM
  #68
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
No I am not.

You claim you can predict a teams chances based on their past, and even cited the fact the Kings had little success in their 45 year history as a reason they weren't a good contender. If you believe that, go ahead. It's flawed.
Wow...

So you are basically saying that when Craig Button says in December that the Kings are NOT a Stanley Cup contender, that's an absolute baseless assumption?

So forget about the Kings NEVER winning a Stanley Cup in their previous 45 years, forget about them only going to the finals ONCE in 45 years, forget about them not winning a playoff round in 10 years...forget about the 45 years of FAILURE and MEDIOCRITY....Button just didn't know what he was talking about, right?

So, in other words, had that same guy (Button) predict that the Red Wings would make the playoffs, and let's say they DIDN'T....you would take that prediction and call Button an idiot, right?

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 08:28 PM
  #69
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Axl confirmed one of those people who keep betting 'Red' because they are due

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 09:13 PM
  #70
Ron
Bandwagon Since 1967
 
Ron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Brea, California
Country: United States
Posts: 9,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
Axl confirmed one of those people who keep betting 'Red' because they are due
No, actually all I see is someone who is pining to win an argument.

Bottom line, no one here can read a person's mind. If I say I felt a certain way this season (hence, only part of the reason to make an investment and buy season tickets), then accept what I said and move on.

I really don't understand that some posters here feel the need to insult others for what they write here. I just don't get it.

Ron is offline  
Old
11-03-2012, 09:34 PM
  #71
kingsfan
#SutterforanOscar
 
kingsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Manitoba, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,662
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
Wow...

So you are basically saying that when Craig Button says in December that the Kings are NOT a Stanley Cup contender, that's an absolute baseless assumption?

So forget about the Kings NEVER winning a Stanley Cup in their previous 45 years, forget about them only going to the finals ONCE in 45 years, forget about them not winning a playoff round in 10 years...forget about the 45 years of FAILURE and MEDIOCRITY....Button just didn't know what he was talking about, right?

So, in other words, had that same guy (Button) predict that the Red Wings would make the playoffs, and let's say they DIDN'T....you would take that prediction and call Button an idiot, right?
Wow yourself... Get some reading comprehension...

Not once have I discussed Button in this thread. I'll refresh you about what we're taking about here...

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=45

I'm responding to your baseless assumption that determining a potential Stanley Cup contender has anything to do with their long-term past. You can continue discussing Button with others in this thread, but if you think that anything a team did in the mid-90's has any bearing on whether or not they will vye for a Stanley Cup this year you are really out to left field.

Long-term past history means nothing to winning the cup this year. You'd think you'd realize the LA KIngs just proved that to you.

kingsfan is online now  
Old
11-03-2012, 11:56 PM
  #72
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingsfan View Post
Wow yourself... Get some reading comprehension...

Not once have I discussed Button in this thread. I'll refresh you about what we're taking about here...

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...7&postcount=45

I'm responding to your baseless assumption that determining a potential Stanley Cup contender has anything to do with their long-term past. You can continue discussing Button with others in this thread, but if you think that anything a team did in the mid-90's has any bearing on whether or not they will vye for a Stanley Cup this year you are really out to left field.

Long-term past history means nothing to winning the cup this year. You'd think you'd realize the LA KIngs just proved that to you.
Whatever dude, my original argument was in regards to people harping on Button....all I was getting at was that I didn't see anything wrong with what he was saying. The second quote in the thread you indicated above was exactly that.

BTW, I'm taking it that you dont do very well in Vegas. Maybe you could change your name to Nostrodamus since you see things better than anyone using actual logic.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 01:39 AM
  #73
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Axl, to be fair the thought process you brought up was absurd. The fact you use the argument that because the Kings didn't win the cup in 1999, that has a direct impact on the result of game 52 of the regular season in 2011 is never going to go over well.

Its like thinking that because I didn't wear my Brown jersey to the game, thats why Brown didn't have a good game

Muzzinga is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 10:38 AM
  #74
Axl Rhoadz*
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 958
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
Axl, to be fair the thought process you brought up was absurd. The fact you use the argument that because the Kings didn't win the cup in 1999, that has a direct impact on the result of game 52 of the regular season in 2011 is never going to go over well.

Its like thinking that because I didn't wear my Brown jersey to the game, thats why Brown didn't have a good game
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not even going to attempt to figure it out.

If you guys all had it figured out in December that the Kings were going to win the cup...and it makes you feel good to bash Button for making such an idiotic comment that the Kings were not cup contenders, then have at it.

Axl Rhoadz* is offline  
Old
11-04-2012, 02:08 PM
  #75
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 8,102
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Axl Rhoadz View Post
I have no idea what you're talking about, and I'm not even going to attempt to figure it out.

If you guys all had it figured out in December that the Kings were going to win the cup...and it makes you feel good to bash Button for making such an idiotic comment that the Kings were not cup contenders, then have at it.
you have said in several posts itt that because the Kings had never won a cup, that had an effect on how the team would perform in the 2012 playoffs. Which is just an absurd line of thinking and is never going to win you many arguements

You also conveniently skipped over this link

http://www.broadstreethockey.com/201...k-nhl-playoffs

Muzzinga 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 04:17 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.