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

New Article

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-04-2006, 02:11 AM
  #51
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I just don't understand that anti-AM sentiment.
I guess that makes us even, since I can't understand your anti-JR sentiment and why you're knocking his playoff performance . He has a very impressive 97pts in 127 career playoff games (which is just slightly lower a PPG average than Modano), and a still respectable 21pts in 36 games most recently with the Flyers. I'm not sure why you knock his performance. He isn't one of the highest-scoring Americans in league history for nothing.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-04-2006, 10:32 AM
  #52
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Because points is only part of the picture when it comes to success in the playoffs...unless you're talking about fantasy hockey.

If you go back to what JR himself said when Hitchcock was hired and for the next 6 months you'll see what I'm talking about. He compared himself to Yzerman and Modano and talked about how finally needed to put aside individual achievement for the betterment of the team the way those two did. He admitted that in the past he hadn't done that.

JR is one of the best examples EVER of an athlete giving lip service to stuff and then when it comes time to put up or shut up, he does neither.

It's a team game where you need to play the way your coach tells you and to this day, JR doesn't understand that...and he's essentially admitted as much. I never really cared for him but was pretty ambivalent. But after that Hitchcock mess, I started to lose respect for his overall game. Yzerman, Modano, Hull and alot of other players adjusted...why can't JR? He's always ALWAYS got someone else to blame. And if you can't see that coaches are REQUIRED to assess blame but players aren't (at least not NEARLY as much as JR does), then I hardly know where to start.

But some people (maybe you?) seem to believe that coaches are generally wrong and players should run the teams and play whatever games suits them...even if it means 19 guys playing 19 different games.


Last edited by jt: 02-04-2006 at 11:01 AM.
jt is offline  
Old
02-04-2006, 12:23 PM
  #53
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I just don't understand that anti-AM sentiment. How people can think that the lineups he's had should be winning divisions/conference/NHL championships is beyond me. I know of NO coach who would have the lineup AM's had this season at the top of the divsion wire-to-wire.
I respectfully disagree with you on this one jt. The Carolina Hurricanes have been at the top of their division for most of the season. I think you would have a hard time finding people to say that Carolina has a more talented roster than LA. Yet they are still leading the league. How do they do it????

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-04-2006, 12:25 PM
  #54
kingsfan25
Registered User
 
kingsfan25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,834
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I respectfully disagree with you on this one jt. The Carolina Hurricanes have been at the top of their division for most of the season. I think you would have a hard time finding people to say that Carolina has a more talented roster than LA. Yet they are still leading the league. How do they do it????
Staal's a witch.

kingsfan25 is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 12:27 AM
  #55
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
I respectfully disagree with you on this one jt. The Carolina Hurricanes have been at the top of their division for most of the season. I think you would have a hard time finding people to say that Carolina has a more talented roster than LA. Yet they are still leading the league. How do they do it????
I sort of agree but Staal has had a breakthrough year that Frolov hasn't...and if Frolov had that breakthrough year, I think they'd be on top of the division. Cullen has had a career year too and the Kings haven't gotten that out of Belanger. The Canes have also been very healthy this season and the Kings haven't. So in that respect, they also have a more talented roster (because they guys actually PLAYING are more talented). Also, I would have to say that a top 6 of Staal, Williams, Cole, Brind'Amour, Whitney and Stillman beat Demitra, Frolov, Conroy, Cammy, Army and Luc (or JR or Brown)...at least in the regular season. Come playoff time, Whitney and Stillman probably won't get the job done...but that's one reasons they picked up Weight.

Also, keep in mind that the Kings have ZERO bottom feeders to beat the crap out of like the Canes...they have the Caps, Panthers and Thrashers who they are 10-3 against for 20 points. If you cut that in half, they'd have 68 points and be only a little ahead of the Kings.

jt is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 12:58 AM
  #56
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
This is not directed at you entirely jt......


But I think it is funny when people keep using the injury excuse for the Kings this season.

Just to show you it is ridiculous let's look at the Kings and Hurricanes....shall we?

Top 5 forwards....

Carolina-----------------games missed due to injury

Eric Staal.....................0
Justin Williams...............0
Erik Cole......................0
Rod Brind'Amour............4
Corey Stillman...............9

total............................13

Los Angeles--------------games missed due to injury

Craig Conroy..................1
Pavol Demitra.................10
Alexander Frolov.............3
Michael Cammalleri..........1
Eric Belanger..................15

total.............................30

top 3 defensemen....



Carolina------------------games missed due to injury

Oleg Tverdovsky.............8
Frantisek Kaberle.............3
Brett Hedican.................2

total..............................13

Los Angeles---------------games missed due to injury

Lubomir Visnovsky............2
Mattias Norstrom.............2
Aaron Miller....................16

total..............................20


The totals may look like the Kings have significantly more injuries. But they are mostly 2 players (Belanger, Miller).

I know there may be those that disagree with me but this team isn't a make or break team based on the presence of Miller and Belanger.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 01:10 AM
  #57
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
IMO, the Kings losing Demitra is about as devastating as it gets. If the Canes lost Staal for 10 games and when he came back he still had nerve pain, they'd lose a bunch of those games too.

jt is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 01:16 AM
  #58
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
IMO, the Kings losing Demitra is about as devastating as it gets. If the Canes lost Staal for 10 games and when he came back he still had nerve pain, they'd lose a bunch of those games too.
You could be right...............But we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 03:14 AM
  #59
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
IMO, the Kings losing Demitra is about as devastating as it gets. If the Canes lost Staal for 10 games and when he came back he still had nerve pain, they'd lose a bunch of those games too.
You're not saying that the team that went 13-1 in January and outscored their opposition 61-33 would've gone 5-7-2 (the Kings' january record), instead, if Staal was missing, are you? I find that about as likely as the Kings going 13-1, themselves, if Demitra had been healthy.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 10:18 AM
  #60
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
You're not saying that the team that went 13-1 in January and outscored their opposition 61-33 would've gone 5-7-2 (the Kings' january record), instead, if Staal was missing, are you? I find that about as likely as the Kings going 13-1, themselves, if Demitra had been healthy.
You're not using the same logic I did. It's not just ONE factor with the Canes...but it's probably two BIG factors: Staal and the bottom feeders.

I'll turn it around and say that if the Canes were in the Pacific with an injured Staal, it'd be easy to see them go 5-7-2...and if the Kings were in the Southeast with a healthy Demitra, it'd be easy to see them go 12-1. An that's as likely as the Kings going 9-1-1...which they did with a healthy Demitra.

jt is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 04:50 PM
  #61
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
You're not using the same logic I did. It's not just ONE factor with the Canes...but it's probably two BIG factors: Staal and the bottom feeders.

I'll turn it around and say that if the Canes were in the Pacific with an injured Staal, it'd be easy to see them go 5-7-2...and if the Kings were in the Southeast with a healthy Demitra, it'd be easy to see them go 12-1. An that's as likely as the Kings going 9-1-1...which they did with a healthy Demitra.
Ok, I think that I'm following you now, but I still disagree. The Canes went 4-1 against division opponents in January. If you change just one of those wins into a loss (for a 3-2 division record), they would've still had a 12-2 record on the month. If you change two of those wins into losses (for a 2-3 division record), they would've still had an 11-3 record on the month.

On the entire season, the Canes are 10-5-1 against division opponents. Let's pretend that they're in a different division and turn two of those wins into losses, for a division record of 8-7-1. That's a difference of only 4pts, which would still be good enough for 3rd place in both conferences. So, being in the division that the Canes are does help them a little bit here and there, but it's not a big factor in how awesome they've been playing all season.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 05:21 PM
  #62
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Ok, I think that I'm following you now, but I still disagree. The Canes went 4-1 against division opponents in January. If you change just one of those wins into a loss (for a 3-2 division record), they would've still had a 12-2 record on the month. If you change two of those wins into losses (for a 2-3 division record), they would've still had an 11-3 record on the month.

On the entire season, the Canes are 10-5-1 against division opponents. Let's pretend that they're in a different division and turn two of those wins into losses, for a division record of 8-7-1. That's a difference of only 4pts, which would still be good enough for 3rd place in both conferences. So, being in the division that the Canes are does help them a little bit here and there, but it's not a big factor in how awesome they've been playing all season.
It's not the "division opponents", it's specifically the Caps, Panthers and Thrashers. Those have been some of the worst teams in recent memory (and maybe moreso for the Wings and Predators with the Blues, Hawks and BJ's). I don't begrudge them that, but it's a fact that they have an easier schedule and I DEFINITELY believe that if the Kings and Canes (or the Wings or Preds) switched divisions and the Kings had a healthy Demitra while the Canes lost Staal (or the Wings lost Zetterberg or Datsyuk or the Preds lost Sullivan), things would look pretty different. HOW different? I don't know...but anyone who thinks that has MINIMAL impact is crazy.

I wouldn't look at it just a month at a time. I look at their 10-3 record against the bottom feeders and IMO if you subbed Phoenix/SJ/Anaheim for Washington/Florida/Atlanta (or St. Louis/Chicago/Columbus), it wouldn't be just 4 points. Not only would the Canes (or Wings or Preds) lose points against those teams, they'd be more beat up against other teams they play and that would affect those games.

Sorry, but if you really think that playing 13 games against Washington/Florida/Atlanta instead of Phoenix/SJ/Anaheim isn't a big factor, I'd have to vehemently disagree.

jt is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 06:49 PM
  #63
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I wouldn't look at it just a month at a time. I look at their 10-3 record against the bottom feeders and IMO if you subbed Phoenix/SJ/Anaheim for Washington/Florida/Atlanta (or St. Louis/Chicago/Columbus), it wouldn't be just 4 points.
Ok, the Canes have gone 9-3 against Was/Flo/Atl this season. I granted that they'd have 2 fewer wins if those division rivals weren't so weak. That would make for a 7-5 record, a very modest record for a very good team like the Canes against a bunch of non-playoff teams. Even if you really stretch believability and go for 6-6, that's still a drop of only 6pts, still enough for 2nd in the East and 3rd in the West.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Also, keep in mind that the Kings have ZERO bottom feeders to beat the crap out of like the Canes...they have the Caps, Panthers and Thrashers who they are 10-3 against for 20 points. If you cut that in half, they'd have 68 points and be only a little ahead of the Kings.
You're honestly suggesting that the best team in the league would have a record of only 5-8 against Pho/Ana/SJ? That's what I find "crazy."

Sorry, but if you think that the team with the most points in the league (by a healthy 3pt margin) is hardly better than the team with the 12th-most points, I vehemently disagree, myself... and I imagine that even most of the rest of the Kings apologists would disagree, as well. You really take the cake, jt


Last edited by Osprey: 02-05-2006 at 06:59 PM.
Osprey is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 07:11 PM
  #64
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Ok, the Canes have gone 9-3 against Was/Flo/Atl this season. I granted that they'd have 2 fewer wins if those division rivals weren't so weak. That would make for a 7-5 record, a very modest record for a very good team like the Canes against a bunch of non-playoff teams. Even if you really stretch believability and go for 6-6, that's still a drop of only 6pts, still enough for 2nd in the East and 3rd in the West.
Are you kidding me? You really think that playing three very weak teams vs zero weak teams is only worth 6 points? I'd say it's a MINIMUM of 10 points.

Quote:
You're honestly suggesting that the best team in the league would have a record of only 5-8 against Pho/Ana/SJ? That's what I find "crazy."
That's a circular argument. They're not the best team in the league. They're the team with the most points. And they have the most points because they play three pretty bad teams. So yes, I think the fact that they play three pretty bad teams is what's gotten them where they are.

Are you really trying to argue that if they played a MUCH harder shedule they would only lose six points? Sorry, the NHL now has a VERY unbalanced schedule and strength of schedule (strength or your division) will be much more important until/unless they change it.

Quote:
Sorry, but if you think that the team with the most points in the league (by a healthy 3pt margin) is hardly better than the team with the 12th-most points, I vehemently disagree, myself... and I imagine that even most of the rest of the Kings apologists would disagree, as well. You really take the cake, jt
Again, this is a cicular argument...they have so many points because they play a weak schedule, not because they're a great team. Now that they've picked up Weight, they're definitely a better team and I'd expect them to keep up this pace nomatter who they're playing. But to ignore strengh of schedule just shows the lengths you'll go to in order to criticize the Kings.

jt is offline  
Old
02-05-2006, 11:24 PM
  #65
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
jt ........I have one thing that can shoot down your whole argument. The Tampa Bay Lightning (the defending Stanley Cup champions). They have the exact same schedule as the Carolina Hurricanes (ie they play the same bottom feeders 8 times) and have one of the most talented cores in the entire NHL (alot more talented than Carolina). Their division record is almost the exact same as Carolina's (10-5-3 compared to 11-5-1) and yet they are trailing the Hurricanes by 18 point. How do you explain that???

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-06-2006, 02:08 AM
  #66
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Are you kidding me? You really think that playing three very weak teams vs zero weak teams is only worth 6 points? I'd say it's a MINIMUM of 10 points.
A 10-3 record minus 10pts (5 wins) = a 5-8 record. You think that the unstoppable Canes would go only 5-8 or worse against Pho/Ana/SJ? Are you kidding me?

Excellent point, Spongebob. I really don't think that that can be explained away. By his logic, the Lightning should be doing much better because of the huge advantage that playing in the SE provides.

Osprey is offline  
Old
02-07-2006, 12:40 AM
  #67
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
jt ........I have one thing that can shoot down your whole argument. The Tampa Bay Lightning (the defending Stanley Cup champions). They have the exact same schedule as the Carolina Hurricanes (ie they play the same bottom feeders 8 times) and have one of the most talented cores in the entire NHL (alot more talented than Carolina). Their division record is almost the exact same as Carolina's (10-5-3 compared to 11-5-1) and yet they are trailing the Hurricanes by 18 point. How do you explain that???
Apples and oranges. The Canes are simply a better team this year than the Lightning, which if you didn't notice took a MAJOR hit to their goaltending. And BTW, it's not the DIVISION records, it is specifically their record against the Thrashers, Caps and Panthers. This is actually a pretty common phenomenon in the Southeast Division...for the teams to rotate who the "best" team is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
A 10-3 record minus 10pts (5 wins) = a 5-8 record. You think that the unstoppable Canes would go only 5-8 or worse against Pho/Ana/SJ? Are you kidding me?
I suppose...if you eliminate ties...and also reject the notion that a harder schedule works against the team in more than the specific games they play against the tougher teams. But I believe that if you play an overall harder schedule (including more travel), that it affects most of your games...not just your games against the tougher teams. But I'm sure the answer will be "It doesn't matter. Nothing matters. jt, you just make excuses and there is no such thing as an excuse in sports. Only wins matter and if the Kings don't win, it MUST be someone's fault. Because in sports there must be fault."

Lord knows, there couldn't be a sensible reason.

jt is offline  
Old
02-07-2006, 01:03 AM
  #68
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
Apples and oranges. The Canes are simply a better team this year than the Lightning, which if you didn't notice took a MAJOR hit to their goaltending. And BTW, it's not the DIVISION records, it is specifically their record against the Thrashers, Caps and Panthers. This is actually a pretty common phenomenon in the Southeast Division...for the teams to rotate who the "best" team is.
But jt, you said the reason the Kings are not playing well is a lack of talent...not coaching. Then I point out Carolina, which are not blessed with a talented roster. You respond by saying that the Hurricanes have an easier schedule. I then point out that the Lightning have the same schedule as the Hurricanes and also have a more talented roster than Carolina and you say the reason that Tampa is struggling is because of the goaltending? Since when is Martin Gerber an "elite" goalie?

By the way here is the Lightning's record against the "bottom feeders"

Thrashers 3-2-0
Capitals 3-1-2
Panthers 1-1-1

total 7-4-3 (17 points)

Here is Carolina's record vs. the "bottom feeders"

Thrashers 4-2-0
Capitals 2-1-0
Panthers 4-0-0

total 10-3-0 (20 points)

So Carolina has a 3 point advantage over Tampa against the "bottom feeders". Yet the Hurricanes have an 18 point lead over the Lightning. Where did the other 15 points come from?

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-07-2006, 01:28 AM
  #69
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
But jt, you said the reason the Kings are not playing well is a lack of talent...not coaching. Then I point out Carolina, which are not blessed with a talented roster. You respond by saying that the Hurricanes have an easier schedule. I then point out that the Lightning have the same schedule as the Hurricanes and also have a more talented roster than Carolina and you say the reason that Tampa is struggling is because of the goaltending? Since when is Martin Gerber an "elite" goalie?
Maybe we need to re-post ALL of what I said and not selected points.

What I actually said was that the Canes have an easier schedule AND they have better health than the Kings AND Staal has had the breakout season Frolov hasn't. Ignoring two of these to try to make a point dodges the other two issues. The Canes have a more talented HEALTHY roster and the fact that Frolov hasn't had the breakout year Staal has makes a HUGE difference.

As for Gerber, I didn't say he is elite...but maybe he is. He's sure playing like an elite goalie right now. Was Kiprusoff elite before he was traded to the Flames? Just because Gerber doesn't have the pedigree or history doesn't mean he's some shmuck.

Quote:
By the way here is the Lightning's record against the "bottom feeders"

Thrashers 3-2-0
Capitals 3-1-2
Panthers 1-1-1

total 7-4-3 (17 points)

Here is Carolina's record vs. the "bottom feeders"

Thrashers 4-2-0
Capitals 2-1-0
Panthers 4-0-0

total 10-3-0 (20 points)

So Carolina has a 3 point advantage over Tampa against the "bottom feeders". Yet the Hurricanes have an 18 point lead over the Lightning. Where did the other 15 points come from?
Because the Lightning just aren't that good a team. I didn't think they were last year either. But they had an INCREDIBLY hot goalie and missed only TWENTY THREE man-games to injury. Let me say that again...they missed only TWENTY THREE man-games to injury. That's a HUGE benefit...for ALOT of reasons. I can't find their numbers this year, but I know it's alot more than that already. St. Louis isn't healthy...Lecavalier isn't playing very well...Fedotenko is playing mediocre. Their defense is playing, well, to their talent level. And their goaltending is just not good. Add to that the dreaded Championship Hangover and this is what you get. In fact, this record underscores my point even more...if even the Lightning can get 17 out of 28 points from those teams, they're really bottom feeders.

Sorry, TB just ain't that good and that's where "the other 15 points" is.

I can't believe I'm actually having to argue that if the Kings played the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers instead of the Sharks/Coyotes/Ducks that they'd have significantly more points. It's as if some people just can't admit that there are ANY reasons the Kings aren't dominating other than the Kings being a bad organization.

jt is offline  
Old
02-07-2006, 01:41 AM
  #70
Captain Ron
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Gardnerville, NV
Country: United States
Posts: 17,409
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I can't believe I'm actually having to argue that if the Kings played the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers instead of the Sharks/Coyotes/Ducks that they'd have significantly more points. It's as if some people just can't admit that there are ANY reasons the Kings aren't dominating other than the Kings being a bad organization.
jt....I am not trying to ague with you. I am just trying to understand your logic. You say the Kings would be significantly higher in the standings if they played teams like the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers. But they did play them each once this year.

They beat Florida pretty good, lost to Washington and "barely" beat the Thrashers.

Oh and by the way the Kings lost to the "medocre" Lightning as well. I really think the Kings have the talent to be a top 5 team in the NHL "right now". But the ineffective system that this coaching staff insists on using is what is killing this team.....IMO!

Captain Ron is offline  
Old
02-07-2006, 06:55 AM
  #71
Osprey
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 14,391
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt
I can't believe I'm actually having to argue that if the Kings played the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers instead of the Sharks/Coyotes/Ducks that they'd have significantly more points. It's as if some people just can't admit that there are ANY reasons the Kings aren't dominating other than the Kings being a bad organization.
Well, from our perspective, it's simply amazing to actually see someone so apologetic for the Kings organization. It's as if the Kings' yearly, recurrent mediocrity is due to every excuse under the sun except them being a bad organization, and holding the organization accountable for the team's performance seens to be the last thing in mind. It's always the fault of the division opponents, the injuries, the schedule, the players not performing as expected, and so on. You'd think that the Kings not being a dominant team is due only to factors beyond their control and that they'd be a Cup contender if only Lady Luck would just stop being mean to them. Is that the "sensible reason" that you mentioned?

Honestly, it really is just amazing to some of us how strongly you back management and coaching up at every single opportunity. I don't know what the Kings ever did right to foster such a foot soldier. It's fascinating in a sense. If you were to ever hold AM or DT (instead of circumstance) accountable, I think that I'd fall out of my chair. Heck, I'd probably do that if you were to even use a smilie for once (give in to the temptation, jt...).


Last edited by Osprey: 02-07-2006 at 08:06 AM.
Osprey is offline  
Old
02-11-2006, 06:47 PM
  #72
jt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Orange County
Country: Norway
Posts: 963
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spongebob
jt....I am not trying to ague with you. I am just trying to understand your logic. You say the Kings would be significantly higher in the standings if they played teams like the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers. But they did play them each once this year.

They beat Florida pretty good, lost to Washington and "barely" beat the Thrashers.

Oh and by the way the Kings lost to the "medocre" Lightning as well. I really think the Kings have the talent to be a top 5 team in the NHL "right now". But the ineffective system that this coaching staff insists on using is what is killing this team.....IMO!
2-1 is 2-1 whether it's "barely" beating or otherwise. And I was at the loss to the Caps and Ovechkin just DOMINATED. The nights he'll do that are unpredicatable but when he does, the Caps are likely to win nomatter if they're playing the Kings, Wings, Sens or Canes. IMO, if they played the Caps/Thrashers/Panthers AND if they were as healthy as the Caps AND if Frolov was having the kind of breakout year I expected out of him (not as good as Staal but considerably better than he is), then I would expect them to have a record pretty close to the Canes. Maybe not quite as good, but pretty close.

I just don't know where fans here get the notion that the system is what's ineffective. IMO, it's the players who aren't carrying it out well. Damn near all us fans are yelling "shoot" SO much of the time and they just don't. I completely reject the notion that the coaches are teaching the players to try to win games by NOT shooting the puck...and I would be ANYONE ANYTHING that they're not.

As for their talent, we clearly disagree. I do not think this talent (until Frolov truly breaks thru) is as good as you do. I am simply not enough impressed with Cammy and I don't think Brown is ready yet. I also think JR sucks and is living on his laurels. Army has also had a tougher year than his last two (but I think that has alot to do with the mediocre play of his linemates).

I'd be interested in comparing the Kings' roster to the teams you think fall in the 6-10 rankings. How about naming your other top 4 you think are up there with the Kings?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Osprey
Well, from our perspective, it's simply amazing to actually see someone so apologetic for the Kings organization. It's as if the Kings' yearly, recurrent mediocrity is due to every excuse under the sun except them being a bad organization, and holding the organization accountable for the team's performance seens to be the last thing in mind. It's always the fault of the division opponents, the injuries, the schedule, the players not performing as expected, and so on. You'd think that the Kings not being a dominant team is due only to factors beyond their control and that they'd be a Cup contender if only Lady Luck would just stop being mean to them. Is that the "sensible reason" that you mentioned?

Honestly, it really is just amazing to some of us how strongly you back management and coaching up at every single opportunity. I don't know what the Kings ever did right to foster such a foot soldier. It's fascinating in a sense. If you were to ever hold AM or DT (instead of circumstance) accountable, I think that I'd fall out of my chair. Heck, I'd probably do that if you were to even use a smilie for once (give in to the temptation, jt...).
What you call apologetic, I call being realistic and seeing the truth through eyes unbiased from the failures of the first 25 years. You clearly have problems remembering what I post because I have placed blame on the organization in the past and continue to do so. You OTOH seem to be unable to accept "reasons" for why things go badly and only look to "blame"...and that's fine. Fans are entitled to be fans in whatever ways they want, but looking to "blame" people for why the Kings don't win isn't how I get my kicks. Moreso, I think there are lots of times "blame" isn't even appropriate. I swear, there are some fans that would blame the Kings for not winning if the entire team died in a plane crash...they'd blame them for not having a contingency plan or booking the wrong flight.

Lastly, I think there are ways to hold mgmt accountable other than firing them. If you had your way, you would fire the GM or whomever every time they did something that didn't work out, regardless of the rationale for the decision or the reason it didn't work out. Personally, I think having DT and AM is the best thing ever to happen for the Kings. The consistency of (mostly) high quality player acquisition and keeping quality draft picks and prospects (DT) and teaching the players on the roster a SYSTEM that will carry over from year to year is invaluable. That's a BIG reason why the Devils have been able to be good for so long, particularly with very mediocre early draft picks.

But you go on hating how DT and AM do their jobs. You keep staying angry that they can't turn the team around in 3 yrs and win a Cup (which no team has ever done). You keep ignoring the effect injuries have had. I'm pleased with most of what they do (and have been pretty vocal about the mistakes I've seen made, your ostrich-in-the-sand-ignoring-what-I-post notwithstanding) and see the incremental improvment year after year. I'm not ADHD and I don't need instant success, especially since I am absolutely convinced (by the facts) that it's impossible. I want them to take steps closer to the Cup year after year and I see that happening.

One last thing, I've been pretty clear about where I place "fault" or "blame" or whatever you blamestormers want to call it. Turning a pathetic franchise (which the Kings were when DT took over) into a consistent Cup winner takes time. Until 2000, DT was not a very good GM. If you want to "blame" someone for that, try McNall (not AEG). Nobody wanted to be the Kings' GM, so they put DT in that job. He learned on the job and IMO, by 2000 he had learned pretty well and built a damn good organization top to bottom. From that point on, I think he's done an overall outstanding job. I think AM has too. But anyone who thinks that it was even POSSIBLE for the Kings to have won a Cup under DT/AM before 2000 is beyond my ability to talk with. And since DT really only started being a very good GM starting in 2000 AND because two of the best assets he acquired (Deadmarsh and Allison) were lost to injury (which he had ZERO control over), I think those who blame him (and/or AM) for not seriously competing for a Cup since those injuries hit need to get a clue. I have NO idea what they think DT should have done to make the Kings competetive in the years Deadmarsh and Allison were hurt...but according to the drs were supposed to come back. I just don't think the blamestormers really understand how bad of shape this franchise was in when DT took over and how far it has come.

jt 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 06:15 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.