Looking back at the Terry Murray hiring and the official thread...
I went back just for ***** and giggles and looked at the thread here about his hiring. Reading some of those comments again was interesting, to say the least. I also found my own comments about my concerns and why I was against the hiring. I would have rather been wrong, but wow...
You know I went back and read some of those posts. My how 75 games can change ones perspective. Well we know at least two star players who might not be so happy with TM, and maybe others under the surface as well.
I'm certainly not "amazed" by his decisions with lines and lineups (perplexed would be a more apt description), although the team has learned something about defense. Problem is now that they seem to have forgotten it as well, but that might just be the case of a team outside the playoffs, playing out the string. I certainly don't see him guiding us to a Stanley Cup. The playoffs, maybe, but the Cup, NO!
I don't think anyone can argue that the changes implemented by Terry Murray have been a big part of the team's unexpected success this year. However, the subsequent death of the offense is something that gravely concerns me...and I'm not so certain that bringing in another top-six forward in the off-season, regardless of his talent level, is going to magically make everything alright on that front. IMO, TM's going to have to ease up on the choke chain a bit if this team is going to fill the net with any consistency in the coming seasons.
Another thread to ***** about Murray. Some people around here won't be happy with anyone or any situation short of a Stanley Cup and even then they'd be disappointed some how.
Another thread to ***** about Murray. Some people around here won't be happy with anyone or any situation short of a Stanley Cup and even then they'd be disappointed some how.
This is not a thread about ******** on Murray. It's a thread about looking back at the hiring and some of the opinions shared at that time. It's history. You learn from it. It gives perspective.
Thats not success, thats shifting from sucking on defense to being good offensively to sucking on offense and being good on defense.
How is that success? We just traded one for the other lol!
And to tell you the truth..I don't know what game you watch but in the sport of hockey the point of the game is to SCORE goals. So if next year we go back to the same offense we had last year and sacrifice a lot of the defense, will you be posting how successful we've been? no because it will just be back to square one and there is no success whatsoever. MURRAY=FAILURE!
I still don't see the improvement everyone else does. Murray took the 13th offense and made it 28th and then took the 28th defense and made it 12th. Still stuck at the bottom of the West.
The Kings were the 5th best at holding a 2nd period lead and they are now 26th. The Kings are taking more shots and scoring less. The Kings still suck 5 on 5.
Unless the Kings spend $$$ on some quality FAs, it won't matter who is coaching next season.
Thats not success, thats shifting from sucking on defense to being good offensively to sucking on offense and being good on defense.
How is that success? We just traded one for the other lol!
And to tell you the truth..I don't know what game you watch but in the sport of hockey the point of the game is to SCORE goals. So if next year we go back to the same offense we had last year and sacrifice a lot of the defense, will you be posting how successful we've been? no because it will just be back to square one and there is no success whatsoever. MURRAY=FAILURE!
I'd be willing to bet that if you polled everyone working in hockey they would say that defense wins championships.
The adage is the same in every sport, and there's a reason for it: Offense wins games, defense wins championships.
However, the subsequent death of the offense is something that gravely concerns me...and I'm not so certain that bringing in another top-six forward in the off-season, regardless of his talent level, is going to magically make everything alright on that front.
While its definately cause for concern, I think that offense can be more readily solved with adding the right player to the lineup, whereas defense can't be solved so readily. So in that regard, I'm happy that they learned defense this year, though as DIEHARD points out, they've forgotten that too lately. I'm confident we can buy the offense.
The thing that I dislike the most about Murray is he seems incapable of coaching superstars. He can take a fringer and make him look decent, or a good 3rd/4th line player and make them shine, but he is not the guy who will turn Kopitar into a top 10 scorer in the league, which I think down the line he is fully capable of doing. I can buy into making Kopitar a more complete player, but I want Kopitar to be DOMINANT, and Murray doesn't seem like he can instill that into a player.
I'm crossing my fingers that if he is still around next season, which I think is almost a guarantee, that he will come into camp a little more open, with a better plan, now that he knows the players and has a whole summer to think about everything that worked and didn't work.
To start the season I didn't care for all the 'old man' and 'out of touch' comments, but now with 5 games left, I'm starting to think he just might be too out of touch with the new NHL.
I'd be willing to bet that if you polled everyone working in hockey they would say that defense wins championships.
The adage is the same in every sport, and there's a reason for it: Offense wins games, defense wins championships.
I agree with this, but the 12th ranked defense isn't good enough.
It's also misguided to compare our defense this year to our defense last year as we've added Doughty, Quincey, O'Donnell, Greene and most importantly, Jonathan Quick.
I'd be willing to bet that if you polled everyone working in hockey they would say that defense wins championships.
The adage is the same in every sport, and there's a reason for it: Offense wins games, defense wins championships.
Ahhhh..ok find lets agree on that point.
but my point is we did not have any SUCCESS whatsoever.
Let me use an anology
A woman is heavy, and wants to reduce the size of her butt. After a year, she "succesfully" lost circumference of her butt....but gained circumference around her belly.
but my point is we did not have any SUCCESS whatsoever.
Let me use an anology
A woman is heavy, and wants to reduce the size of her butt. After a year, she "succesfully" lost circumference of her butt....but gained circumference around her belly.
I'd be willing to bet that if you polled everyone working in hockey they would say that defense wins championships.
The adage is the same in every sport, and there's a reason for it: Offense wins games, defense wins championships.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William H Bonney
I agree with this, but the 12th ranked defense isn't good enough.
It's also misguided to compare our defense this year to our defense last year as we've added Doughty, Quincey, O'Donnell, Greene and most importantly, Jonathan Quick.
There is NO DOUBT that defense is a crucial part of most championship teams. But, there are always exceptions. In Hockey IF you have a blistering offense and a solid goalie with a hot hand, defense is not as important. Gretzky, Kurri, Coffey, Anderson and Messier will attest to that fact for me. But if your offense is not ripping through the league, AND OURS ISNT, defense is vitally important. But unlike offense, you cant succeed on defense alone.
My concern with TM is that he doesn't grasp the need to structure lines in certain ways that maximize players offensive potential and further that he doesn't get that you must let players build chemsitry with their linemates. Musical linemates might work in pee wee's, but its a failure of a philosophy in the NHL.
Of course its possible that a new offensive coach with a bit more creativity that Kompon could be brought in and that might help out...but I think the offensive problems start higher up than the assistant and that is troubling indeed.
but my point is we did not have any SUCCESS whatsoever.
Let me use an anology
A woman is heavy, and wants to reduce the size of her butt. After a year, she "succesfully" lost circumference of her butt....but gained circumference around her belly.
A woman is heavy, and wants to reduce the size of her butt. After a year, she "succesfully" lost circumference of her butt....but gained circumference around her belly.
