HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Pacific Division > Los Angeles Kings
Notices

Bernier

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-04-2010, 09:00 PM
  #26
BigKing
Spot Picker
 
BigKing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Belmont Shore, CA
Posts: 3,146
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... The reason why you (and I and a lot of people) don't trust Terry Murray on this is because he is stuck in a backwards way of thinking when it comes to handling young players; in this case young goalies. Furthermore, you know that this backwards way of thinking has been repeated over and over, because fans subscribe to it. Case in point ...



... Never mind that Bernier played almost four times as many games (134) as Quick played (34) in the AHL, or that Bernier's number of games at lower levels (218) are significantly higher than Quick's (153).

Quick had the good fortune of: first, a situation where he could step in and play in 08-09 because the team in front of him wasn't going anywhere, and the goalies who preceded him had fell out of favor -- and second, cementing himself as the #1 in 09-10 because he was the beneficiary of the team around him improving, and was able to post a high victory count by virtue of the fact that he played almost all of the team's games in the season.

So, those two factors have now placed upon Quick the "proven" label -- which seems to strike such a chord with head coaches, like Murray, who aren't confident enough in their own ability to take a chance on a goalie like Bernier, who has MORE than paid his dues, simply because he doesn't have that "proven" label attached to him. He sticks with the guy who has the "proven" label so that he can have an answer for his bosses and the media when they ask him why he's continuing to work (and overwork) a guy who clearly showed himself to be a lower-tier goalie as the season wore on. If you look through the history of hockey, you'll find that the successful coaches, the WINNING coaches, by and large don't do this. Do you think that Scotty Bowman in the 90s or Glen Sather in the 80s would have given a damn if their bosses or the media said that this player or that goalie shouldn't play because they weren't ready? Bowman or Sather (or any other head coach worthy of the title) would have laughed and told their bosses or the press to go sleep it off.

In 1984-85, the Montreal Canadiens had a 23-year-old goalie named Steve Penney, who led the NHL in goals against average, and in shutouts. He was sixth in the NHL in wins, and sixth in games played. Despite all that, Canadiens' coach Jean Perron had enough confidence to play a 20-year-old in net in 1985-86, a man who had exactly 20 minutes of NHL experience. And that goalie, Patrick Roy, won the Conn Smythe Trophy as the Canadiens won the 1986 Stanley Cup.

The Kings have a 25-year-old goalie who appeared on the leaderboards of the NHL last season. Despite that, do they have the confidence to play the less experienced 22-year-old goalie, to see what he is capable of accomplishing? We'll see.
Good post but I think you have the respective ages wrong.

BigKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 09:15 PM
  #27
Telos
Moderator
In Dean We Trust
 
Telos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Reno, Nv.
Country: United States
Posts: 25,584
vCash: 0
Send a message via ICQ to Telos Send a message via AIM to Telos Send a message via MSN to Telos Send a message via Yahoo to Telos
I quickly skimmed through looking for Shellz' reply, but unfortunately there isn't one yet So I guess I will go ahead and predict that he will be #1 within the first four games

But seriously... I expect him to be #1 by the playoffs next season. Even if he plays 35 games to Quick's 47, I expect Bernier to start us off in round 1.

Telos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-04-2010, 10:04 PM
  #28
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
So, those two factors have now placed upon Quick the "proven" label -- which seems to strike such a chord with head coaches, like Murray, who aren't confident enough in their own ability to take a chance on a goalie like Bernier, who has MORE than paid his dues, simply because he doesn't have that "proven" label attached to him. He sticks with the guy who has the "proven" label so that he can have an answer for his bosses and the media when they ask him why he's continuing to work (and overwork) a guy who clearly showed himself to be a lower-tier goalie as the season wore on. If you look through the history of hockey, you'll find that the successful coaches, the WINNING coaches, by and large don't do this. Do you think that Scotty Bowman in the 90s or Glen Sather in the 80s would have given a damn if their bosses or the media said that this player or that goalie shouldn't play because they weren't ready? Bowman or Sather (or any other head coach worthy of the title) would have laughed and told their bosses or the press to go sleep it off.
While the rest of your post was pretty darn good, this paragraph is full of ridiculous.

You are neglecting to look at the circumstance under which Quick was overplayed.

I admit, Murray made some BONEHEADED decisions last year with the goalies. I do not think he is a great goalie-handling coach.

However, to presume, and it is a major presumption, that playing Quick so much had to do with labels or media/fan perception, is really just silly.

Murray screwed himself by making up his goalie calendar at the beginning of the year. When Ersberg took a dump against the hottest team in the league at the time (the Rangers), he wavered from his plan, and from then on was stuck in a bad pattern. It is ironic, because the plan should have never existed in the first place. Had it not, he would not have played Ersberg against the hottest team in the league. He only did because it was the plan before the Rangers were the hottest team in the league. He initially did not go with immediate circumstance, and then when his ill-conceived plan blew up in his face, he flopped to violently in the other direction.

I'm not sure why it needs to be repeated, but apparently it does: Murray had no say in Bernier playing in the AHL. Sure we can speculate that Lombardi defers to Murray to some degree in call-ups... its reasonable to assume they discuss these things... but ultimately, it was Lombardi's decision and plan, not Murray's, to keep Bernier in the minors, and to send him back after his two call-ups. It did not have to do with media perception, or proven or unproven, and it didn't even have to do with Quick or the Kings' performance. It had to do with Lombardi having a plan for Bernier he wanted to stick with... the same kind of plan he had for Quick that he was forced to stray from, in his own words, essentially much to his chagrin. It amazes me that the same plan for Bernier that is turning him into the world-class goalie we ALL want him to be, at the same time upsets so many... really this boils down to impatience on the part of fans who love Bernier and/or are frustrated with Quick.

Let's also please remember that Quick was only called up in 08-09 because of injuries. Proven had nothing to do with it... at the time, AHL experience and tenure was the controlling factor. I can't believe I even need to reiterate this point, so I won't any further.

Back to Ersberg.

Murray lost confidence in Ersberg, and that is why Quick played as much as he did. Plain and simple. Ersberg was the goalie who was mishandled by Murray, NOT Bernier. Bernier has been handled marvelously by management (save for his initial stint in the NHL starting in Europe), and virtually not handled by Murray, because he hasn't been given the opportunity. Going into the 09-10 season, it was basically a foregone conclusion that Bernier was going to play in the minors, barring injury, Quick ******** the bed in camp, or Bernier lighting the world on fire in camp, which he did not do.

As the season wore on, Murray had already tied his hands behind his back with the goalie rotation. There were a few more instances where he made the wrong decision in playing Quick over Ersberg, but they all came down to his lost confidence in not only Ersberg, but his general goalie plan. By that point, it was either "play tired Quick again after a loss" or "play overly rested and rusty Ersberg after Quick lost." He went with the former option too many times.

None of it had to do with Bernier in the slightest.

Bernier will be in the NHL this season. He will likely get 25-35 games, as he should... as Quick got his first NHL season (albeit in a different manner). Bernier will have to earn the #1 reigns, as Quick did. I have full confidence that he will. If you believe that Bernier will be kept down by the man (which is essentially your argument so far as I can tell), you are allowing your bias and misplaced distaste to get in the way of not only positive, but rational and historically relevant thinking. Sather and Bowman are not relevant to Murray. Murray is relevant to Murray. Murray has shown that when he is given two goalies, he plays the better one the majority of the time. Once Quick proved to be better than Labs, Murray played Quick. Given the choice between QUick and Ersberg, Murray played Quick, even if too much. This season, when he has the choice between Bernier and Quick, he will play who is playing better. As the season wears on, the true #1 of this team will likely emerge.

Bernier is no longer bitter about not being given faith out of hand, and its why he succeeded as he did last year. I suggest you do the same. Lest everyone suddenly forget that when Bernier had the entitled attitude that so many now feel for him in his place, he did not play half as well as he did once he realized proving himself at each level actually means something.


Last edited by JDM: 08-04-2010 at 10:11 PM.
JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 06:26 AM
  #29
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Let's also please remember that Quick was only called up in 08-09 because of injuries. Proven had nothing to do with it... at the time, AHL experience and tenure was the controlling factor. I can't believe I even need to reiterate this point, so I won't any further.

Bernier will be in the NHL this season. He will likely get 25-35 games, as he should... as Quick got his first NHL season (albeit in a different manner). Bernier will have to earn the #1 reigns, as Quick did.


Really confused on your post as these two statements contradict each other.

Quick got the job handed to him, and basically in the end failed as he couldn't make even the slightest of routine saves at the end of the year. Even with Quicks appearance in the playoffs, Berniers track record and resume is STILL more impressive than Quicks. Jamie Storr also saw time in the playoffs.. JB has been the best goalie at every level he's played at, and all Quick has done was look like a SIV when it counted the most. He should consider himself lucky that Kopitar was the best player in the league for a portion of the year and that the team was playing pretty damn good in front of him.

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 07:00 AM
  #30
Chruceg
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 865
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post


Really confused on your post as these two statements contradict each other.

Quick got the job handed to him, and basically in the end failed as he couldn't make even the slightest of routine saves at the end of the year. Even with Quicks appearance in the playoffs, Berniers track record and resume is STILL more impressive than Quicks. Jamie Storr also saw time in the playoffs.. JB has been the best goalie at every level he's played at, and all Quick has done was look like a SIV when it counted the most. He should consider himself lucky that Kopitar was the best player in the league for a portion of the year and that the team was playing pretty damn good in front of him.
I find your post really confusing. First of all where is the contradiction? JDM said in the first statement Bernier was called up in 08-09 because of injuries. In JDM's second statement he said Bernier will play the same number of games as Quick did in his first season and Bernier will have to earn the #1 position.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the contradiction you are (errantly) referring to is that Quick was handed the #1 job at the beginning of 08-09 and didn't have to earn it while JDM is saying Bernier will have to earn it?

Chruceg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 08:11 AM
  #31
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post


Really confused on your post as these two statements contradict each other.

Quick got the job handed to him, and basically in the end failed as he couldn't make even the slightest of routine saves at the end of the year. Even with Quicks appearance in the playoffs, Berniers track record and resume is STILL more impressive than Quicks. Jamie Storr also saw time in the playoffs.. JB has been the best goalie at every level he's played at, and all Quick has done was look like a SIV when it counted the most. He should consider himself lucky that Kopitar was the best player in the league for a portion of the year and that the team was playing pretty damn good in front of him.
Why do you find the need to abuse the keeper that got us into the playoffs? you think we make the playoffs if Ersberg was the #1? It wasn't Quick's fault that he was overworked, nor was it his fault that 2 of his defencemen were Randy ****ing Jones and O'Donnell

Why do people already have in their mind that they want Quick to fail next year just so Bernier gets the #1 job. Wouldnt you rather it if Bernier earned the #1 job by outperforming Quick? I honestly don't care 1 bit which of the 2 has the #1 role next year, both are great young goalies, and i want whichever 1 that givestheteam the best chance to win to play.

I mean, I really want Richie to perform well and earn a spot in the top 9, but that doesnt mean i want someone in the top 9 to suck so that Richie gets gifted the spot

Muzzinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 08:28 AM
  #32
Evgeny Oliker
Registered User
 
Evgeny Oliker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,295
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sw1tch View Post
Why do you find the need to abuse the keeper that got us into the playoffs? you think we make the playoffs if Ersberg was the #1? It wasn't Quick's fault that he was overworked, nor was it his fault that 2 of his defencemen were Randy ****ing Jones and O'Donnell

Why do people already have in their mind that they want Quick to fail next year just so Bernier gets the #1 job. Wouldnt you rather it if Bernier earned the #1 job by outperforming Quick? I honestly don't care 1 bit which of the 2 has the #1 role next year, both are great young goalies, and i want whichever 1 that givestheteam the best chance to win to play.

I mean, I really want Richie to perform well and earn a spot in the top 9, but that doesnt mean i want someone in the top 9 to suck so that Richie gets gifted the spot
I don't think he wants anyone to fail. What he was saying is that Quick is not an ideal #1 goalie. He is more of a 1B option. I'd compare him to a guy like Garon maybe...better than a backup, but not a pure #1. Quick is of course still better than Ersberg.

The point is that if you want to win the Cup, you want to have your BEST goalie in net to give yourself the best shot at winning. I think that this season Bernier will prove that he is the BEST goalie the Kings have and therefore will end up being the starter.

Evgeny Oliker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 08:52 AM
  #33
Scrivezina
Who needs offense?
 
Scrivezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: RSM, CA
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeeMeck View Post
I think Bernier is #1 by the trade deadline.
I like Quick but he may get traded, if not this year then the next. We have a good pipeline and we have some holes to fill. If we can't do it via FA then we'll do it via trade. That said, I'd say trade deadline as well.


EDIT: or we can sign Niemi and then trade Quick but that would throw Bernier back a bit....

Scrivezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 08:58 AM
  #34
Scrivezina
Who needs offense?
 
Scrivezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: RSM, CA
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2forsbergaura1 View Post
I don't think he wants anyone to fail. What he was saying is that Quick is not an ideal #1 goalie. He is more of a 1B option. I'd compare him to a guy like Garon maybe...better than a backup, but not a pure #1. Quick is of course still better than Ersberg.

The point is that if you want to win the Cup, you want to have your BEST goalie in net to give yourself the best shot at winning. I think that this season Bernier will prove that he is the BEST goalie the Kings have and therefore will end up being the starter.
I am guessing but I wonder if some look at Bernier as symbolic of the pipeline becoming a reality and LA getting to the next level. Kind of like that light at the end of the tunnel. I don't think they're slamming Quick or wanting him to fail. I think it is more based on impatience (which is not necessarily a bad thing) and the desire to be an actual competitor.

Scrivezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 09:01 AM
  #35
Scrivezina
Who needs offense?
 
Scrivezina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: RSM, CA
Posts: 1,978
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post


Really confused on your post as these two statements contradict each other.

Quick got the job handed to him, and basically in the end failed as he couldn't make even the slightest of routine saves at the end of the year. Even with Quicks appearance in the playoffs, Berniers track record and resume is STILL more impressive than Quicks. Jamie Storr also saw time in the playoffs.. JB has been the best goalie at every level he's played at, and all Quick has done was look like a SIV when it counted the most. He should consider himself lucky that Kopitar was the best player in the league for a portion of the year and that the team was playing pretty damn good in front of him.
I don't know about that last line..I think I recall many games being won by one goal and Quick had to stand on his head to make those turn into W's. It was a team effort of course but I don't think the team saved Quick. I think it was more the other way around.

Scrivezina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 10:52 AM
  #36
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fatty View Post
I don't know about that last line..I think I recall many games being won by one goal and Quick had to stand on his head to make those turn into W's. It was a team effort of course but I don't think the team saved Quick. I think it was more the other way around.
Well, I don't really know how else to explain things when your team is above .500 with a goaltender whos statistics in GAA and SV% are either average or below average..

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 11:47 AM
  #37
JBernierFan
Drink up!
 
JBernierFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,777
vCash: 500
What I don't understand is why we can't root for both goalies to succeed. I want Bernier to be #1, but that doesn't mean I want Quick to faulter or turn into a sieve. Why can't both play their minds out? Wouldn't that mean the Kings were in a great position? I hope we feel confident no matter who is in goal.

JBernierFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 12:11 PM
  #38
two out of three*
 
two out of three*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Newbury Park, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 4,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to two out of three* Send a message via AIM to two out of three*
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBernierFan View Post
What I don't understand is why we can't root for both goalies to succeed. I want Bernier to be #1, but that doesn't mean I want Quick to faulter or turn into a sieve. Why can't both play their minds out? Wouldn't that mean the Kings were in a great position? I hope we feel confident no matter who is in goal.
That would be cool. I just think Quick is bad. Thats all.

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 12:26 PM
  #39
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 15,433
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBernierFan View Post
What I don't understand is why we can't root for both goalies to succeed. I want Bernier to be #1, but that doesn't mean I want Quick to faulter or turn into a sieve. Why can't both play their minds out? Wouldn't that mean the Kings were in a great position? I hope we feel confident no matter who is in goal.
I really believe that the potential is there for the Kings to have the best tandem in the NHL.

JDM pretty much nailed everything including the correct presentation of the history in his post.

He also nailed the main reason for any dissatisfaction that exists among some fans, and that is that they are simply too impatient to let the overall plan bear fruit. These are the kind of people that even if the team makes it to the promised land will say, "Finally, what took so long?" Instead they should enjoy the process and the ride the kids are taking us on while they are getting there.

KINGS17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 01:24 PM
  #40
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
You are neglecting to look at the circumstance under which Quick was overplayed.
... Hahaha, whatever. You say this, then go on to say that ONE bad game from Ersberg caused Murray to waver from his "plan", which is assuming Murray had a plan in the first place.

Ersberg had the poor game against the Rangers on 10/14 and didn't start again for nearly a month, yet Quick had NINE poor games in October/early November alone (10/3, 10/6, 10/8, 10/15, 10/17, 10/22, 11/2, 11/7, 11/9) and another (10/24) where he was below average, and yet he kept getting trotted back out there.

Then, after Ersberg had a good start on 11/11, he didn't get another start for almost ANOTHER month, even though Quick had another five poor games in that stretch (11/13, 11/16, 11/18, 11/21, 12/5) and another three where he was below average (11/26, 12/1, 12/3).

There were several opportunities to start Ersberg during these two months ... 10/8 vs Min, 10/12 vs. NYI, 10/22 vs Dal, 10/25 vs Cls, 11/16 vs Fla, 11/25 vs Edm, 12/7 vs Cgy -- that's 7 starts in the first 31 games, not necessarily ideal but workable. It's one thing to make up a "goalie calendar" as you put it, which is a silly premise anyway because each season presents new challenges and opponents that look better or worse than the previous season, and it's up to the coach to make adjustments. Murray didn't make ANY adjustments, and that's because he had it in his mind that Quick had the "proven" label and Ersberg didn't, and that was that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I'm not sure why it needs to be repeated, but apparently it does: Murray had no say in Bernier playing in the AHL.
... Did Lombardi ever SAY this??? If he did, hey fair enough; but I don't recall it. And if he didn't say that, then where do you come up with this? And, furthermore, it's still a terrible approach to winning. For a GM to see that the team's starting goalie is being played too often and that the coach has zero confidence in the backup -- and to do NOTHING at all, to offer no help within or outside the organization -- what sort of message does that send to the players and the fans? It's one thing to have a plan for the team in the future, and it's another to sit back and watch the team in the present under-achieve because the organization can't or won't respond to the needs of the team.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
It amazes me that the same plan for Bernier that is turning him into the world-class goalie we ALL want him to be, at the same time upsets so many
... Now we have a completely unfounded claim that it was the PLAN which made Bernier the goalie he is, and not the ability of the goalie himself. What makes you so certain that Bernier wouldn't have played well if he had 40 games (instead of 3) to show what he could do in 09-10? Bernier already had more experience in the AHL than Quick did prior to the 09-10 season, so what justifies the opinion that playing more than three games in the NHL in 09-10 would have ruined or somehow hindered his development as a goalie?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
If you believe that Bernier will be kept down by the man (which is essentially your argument so far as I can tell), you are allowing your bias and misplaced distaste to get in the way of not only positive, but rational and historically relevant thinking.
... Yes, more condescension, please! What my post ACTUALLY said was "do the Kings have the confidence as an organization to give a true shot to a goalie who lacks NHL experience?" so I honestly don't know where you're even coming up with this.

As for what happened in 09-10 -- Bernier certainly did everything in his control to indicate he was NHL-ready, so who or what was holding him down in the AHL?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Sather and Bowman are not relevant to Murray. Murray is relevant to Murray. Murray has shown that when he is given two goalies, he plays the better one the majority of the time.
... It's one thing to play someone the majority of the time; it's another to play someone ALL the time. This goes back to 08-09, even. Once Quick established he was the #1 in Murray's mind, that was that. Ersberg got 9 starts in the last 45 games of the season. A higher percentage than he had in 09-10, sure -- but taking into account he was playing behind a rookie #1, he was clearly played too sparingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Bernier is no longer bitter about not being given faith out of hand, and its why he succeeded as he did last year. I suggest you do the same.
... Yay for more condescension. Awesome. Since when does the opinion that a young and promising goalie should be given a chance that he's more than earned to succeed in the NHL constitute bitterness toward the other goalie, or to the team for that matter? I LIKE Quick and I want him to succeed; I just choose not to kid myself about what he's done up to this point or let a team-based statistic (such as goalie wins) cloud my judgment on him. Quick did not impress as a number one; he was adequate at best. Bernier has earned a full shot, and by that I mean an equal shot to compete for the #1 job. To make the determination beforehand that Bernier should be a backup and only get 25-30 games, because of a misguided and backwards notion that "he needs to prove himself" when he's actually done more than Quick has to earn the shot ... THAT is what's ridiculous.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 01:41 PM
  #41
Muzzinga
Regehr GOAT
 
Muzzinga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,742
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by two out of three View Post
That would be cool. I just think Quick is bad. Thats all.
How can you say that, when the team finished 9th in the entire league, despite having only 4 proper NHL defenceman, and a decent but slow O'Donnell. If Quick was bad, the kings concede over 3 goals a game and they dont make the playoffs. I mean im not a big fan of Quick, just because he is frustrating to watch at times, but he isnt a bad keeper

Muzzinga is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 02:01 PM
  #42
Brodie562
Registered User
 
Brodie562's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: LBC
Country: United States
Posts: 796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Yay for more condescension. Awesome. Since when does the opinion that a young and promising goalie should be given a chance that he's more than earned to succeed in the NHL constitute bitterness toward the other goalie, or to the team for that matter? I LIKE Quick and I want him to succeed; I just choose not to kid myself about what he's done up to this point or let a team-based statistic (such as goalie wins) cloud my judgment on him. Quick did not impress as a number one; he was adequate at best. Bernier has earned a full shot, and by that I mean an equal shot to compete for the #1 job. To make the determination beforehand that Bernier should be a backup and only get 25-30 games, because of a misguided and backwards notion that "he needs to prove himself" when he's actually done more than Quick has to earn the shot ... THAT is what's ridiculous.
THIS!!!!!

Brodie562 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 02:30 PM
  #43
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Hahaha, whatever. You say this, then go on to say that ONE bad game from Ersberg caused Murray to waver from his "plan", which is assuming Murray had a plan in the first place.
Its not an assumption:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hammond, [url
http://lakingsinsider.com/2010/01/12/confidence-restored[/url]
Murray didn’t really need to say that he had lost confidence in Erik Ersberg. It was fairly evident, back in October, when Murray said he had “erased” the goaltending plan he had penciled in at the start of the season, and it’s been evident in the massive workload that has been handed to Jonathan Quick in the first three months of the season.

But in his last three outings, Ersberg has looked solid, leading to the question of whether the goalie had regained some of the coach’s trust…[/QUOTE]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Murray [url
http://lakingsinsider.com/2009/10/08/plan-in-goal/[/url] (from Oct. 8)]“I’ve gone through the schedule, right through the end of December. I’ve gone that far and penciled in starts. So I have a plan for him.
Moving right along.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
Ersberg had the poor game against the Rangers on 10/14 and didn't start again for nearly a month, yet Quick had NINE poor games in October/early November alone (10/3, 10/6, 10/8, 10/15, 10/17, 10/22, 11/2, 11/7, 11/9) and another (10/24) where he was below average, and yet he kept getting trotted back out there.

Then, after Ersberg had a good start on 11/11, he didn't get another start for almost ANOTHER month, even though Quick had another five poor games in that stretch (11/13, 11/16, 11/18, 11/21, 12/5) and another three where he was below average (11/26, 12/1, 12/3).

There were several opportunities to start Ersberg during these two months ... 10/8 vs Min, 10/12 vs. NYI, 10/22 vs Dal, 10/25 vs Cls, 11/16 vs Fla, 11/25 vs Edm, 12/7 vs Cgy -- that's 7 starts in the first 31 games, not necessarily ideal but workable. It's one thing to make up a "goalie calendar" as you put it, which is a silly premise anyway because each season presents new challenges and opponents that look better or worse than the previous season, and it's up to the coach to make adjustments. Murray didn't make ANY adjustments, and that's because he had it in his mind that Quick had the "proven" label and Ersberg didn't, and that was that.
I never said Murray did a good job. I specifically said he made bonehead decisions and mishandled Ersberg.

However, this 'proven' thing you are hell bent on is what I just can't jive with. That is your attitude, not anything you can prove or even have what I consider enough circumstantial evidence to support. Like I said, Murray was stuck in a bad pattern.

He would play Quick until he didn't play well. Then he would play Quick again in order to keep Quick's confidence up and help develop the young #1. Murray obviously believes very heavily in having a clearly established #1... TOO HEAVILY. After a efw bad games from Quick, he would stick with him for the aforementioned reason, compounded by Ersberg being rusty... a problem Murray himself created.


Quote:
... Did Lombardi ever SAY this??? If he did, hey fair enough; but I don't recall it. And if he didn't say that, then where do you come up with this? And, furthermore, it's still a terrible approach to winning. For a GM to see that the team's starting goalie is being played too often and that the coach has zero confidence in the backup -- and to do NOTHING at all, to offer no help within or outside the organization -- what sort of message does that send to the players and the fans? It's one thing to have a plan for the team in the future, and it's another to sit back and watch the team in the present under-achieve because the organization can't or won't respond to the needs of the team.
He doesn't have to say anything. Its in Lombardi's job description, not Murray's, to make roster call-ups and send downs. I'm fairly sure Murray gets consulted, and has some say, but Lombardi signs off on call-ups and send downs to the AHL. His decision is the final one, not Murray's.

As for thinking that Lombardi sticks to a plan for the benefit of one player and to the detriment of the team, a couple things:

- Lombardi thought the Kings' overachieving. You are allowed to disagree with him, but you can't put your perception of the team onto Lombardi when Lombardi has often said that his feelings are completely opposite. To Lombardi, why pull up Bernier when he feels the team is overachieving in the first place?

- What's best for Bernier is best for the team in the long run. Its not condescension towards you to say you are operating from a place of impatience. Its very clear that you are. You want what is best for the Kings in the moment, and care more for that than the future. That's fine. Lombardi disagrees.

- I agree that once it was clear that Murray had lost confidence in Ersberg, that Lombardi should have gone out and picked up a better backup goalie that Murray would play more often. Yay, we agree on something.

Quote:
... Now we have a completely unfounded claim that it was the PLAN which made Bernier the goalie he is, and not the ability of the goalie himself. What makes you so certain that Bernier wouldn't have played well if he had 40 games (instead of 3) to show what he could do in 09-10? Bernier already had more experience in the AHL than Quick did prior to the 09-10 season, so what justifies the opinion that playing more than three games in the NHL in 09-10 would have ruined or somehow hindered his development as a goalie?
I dunno... maybe the fact that Bernier hasn't been consistently stellar since the Kings' drafted him? Maybe because he was pretty average after getting sent down in 06-07, because he pouted. Or that he was on par with Quick in 08-09 before Quick's call-up. Or that he played pretty poorly after Quick got called up because again, he pouted. Then the organization convinced him that he needed to lead the team in Manchester. It clicked for Bernier and he started playing well. Voila. I'm not going to speculate what would have happened had Bernier played 40 games last year. But I will say that I agree with the plan that was in place that dictated Bernier lead the Monarchs for a season as the #1 and that he take them as far as he could. He did that. Seems to have worked out pretty well for him. Why fight this? Bernier is developing SPECTACULARLY. Why do you insist on being displeased with the development plan for Bernier when Bernier is developing awesomely? Oh, that's right, because in your world coaching and management can be blamed for ruining players, but not for helping them. Now THAT was condescension, but you've earned it.

Quote:
... Yes, more condescension, please! What my post ACTUALLY said was "do the Kings have the confidence as an organization to give a true shot to a goalie who lacks NHL experience?" so I honestly don't know where you're even coming up with this.
So your contention is that Lombardi doesn't go with his gut more? Interesting for a stats guy.

Quote:
As for what happened in 09-10 -- Bernier certainly did everything in his control to indicate he was NHL-ready, so who or what was holding him down in the AHL?
Lombardi wanted Bernier to lead the MOnarchs in the playoffs. Its clear, its obvious, its been said over and over. No one was holding him down. The Kings set a task in front of Bernier, and set him out to accomplish that. If the task at hand is to lead the AHL throughout a season and into the playoffs, it is physically impossible to complete that task before the season is over.

Quote:
... Yay for more condescension. Awesome. Since when does the opinion that a young and promising goalie should be given a chance that he's more than earned to succeed in the NHL constitute bitterness toward the other goalie, or to the team for that matter? I LIKE Quick and I want him to succeed; I just choose not to kid myself about what he's done up to this point or let a team-based statistic (such as goalie wins) cloud my judgment on him. Quick did not impress as a number one; he was adequate at best. Bernier has earned a full shot, and by that I mean an equal shot to compete for the #1 job. To make the determination beforehand that Bernier should be a backup and only get 25-30 games, because of a misguided and backwards notion that "he needs to prove himself" when he's actually done more than Quick has to earn the shot ... THAT is what's ridiculous.
You read that last part of my post completely wrong. Go read it again, think about it, and get back to me.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 03:45 PM
  #44
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
However, this 'proven' thing you are hell bent on is what I just can't jive with. That is your attitude, not anything you can prove or even have what I consider enough circumstantial evidence to support. Like I said, Murray was stuck in a bad pattern.
... Stuck in a bad pattern because he put a label on one guy and not on another.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
As for thinking that Lombardi sticks to a plan for the benefit of one player and to the detriment of the team
... How does bringing up a goalie (who has clearly earned the chance) to replace a goalie that the coach has zero confidence in work to the detriment of the team?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Lombardi thought the Kings' overachieving.
... At what point does he realize the team in front of the goalie is for real, considering the team was 23-15-3 at the halfway point despite not getting anything from their goalies (.898 SV%) and the backup goalie getting exactly 4 starts at that point? That's a little slow on the uptake if you ask me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Its not condescension towards you to say you are operating from a place of impatience. Its very clear that you are. You want what is best for the Kings in the moment, and care more for that than the future.
... It IS condescension. You have this black and white notion that one can't care about the present without disregarding the future, and what's more, you project it onto others as THEIR flaw, when in fact it is yours. Just as I don't consider the present to be so important as to neglect the future, I also believe the reverse is true. It is wrong to neglect the present team at the expense of what is perceived to be the best action for the team's future, particularly in the case of a team that is otherwise successful, and playoff seeding being at stake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I dunno... maybe the fact that Bernier hasn't been consistently stellar since the Kings' drafted him?
... Neither has Quick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Why do you insist on being displeased with the development plan for Bernier when Bernier is developing awesomely? Oh, that's right, because in your world coaching and management can be blamed for ruining players, but not for helping them. Now THAT was condescension, but you've earned it.
... Whatever makes you happy; if the same tired insults and **** works for you, great. I choose to put more of the credit on the player improving than I do on the plan. I remember Jamie Storr ... now here was a high draft goalie who spent year after year in the minors, never rushed, developed at a snail's pace, and in the end didn't develop into a #1. One could make a case that he was developed TOO slowly, but more has to be put on Storr himself for not being able (for whatever reason) to progress in the minors as a #1 and progress further than the level of a good backup in the NHL. Occasionally, you see people blaming the Kings for screwing that up, but more often than not Storr gets blamed, and rightfully so. It isn't black or white, it isn't all one or all the other ... both parties, the team and the player, are responsible -- but in most cases, the player is more responsible than the organization for his success or failure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
So your contention is that Lombardi doesn't go with his gut more? Interesting for a stats guy.
... Yes of course if someone uses statistics to help evaluate players he can never go with his gut at times beep bop boop everything is either black or white does not compute overload tilt

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Lombardi wanted Bernier to lead the MOnarchs in the playoffs. Its clear, its obvious, its been said over and over.
... Holy **** I KNOW what the plan was. Damn. Question is, was it the RIGHT plan??? I am willing to say that it wasn't, especially when no adjustments were made in order to help a team in one extremely important area that, with the exception of one month (January), the team needed help with ALL season long. And it blew up in their faces during the most important time of the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
You read that last part of my post completely wrong. Go read it again, think about it, and get back to me.
... Is this where I say "first, think before YOU post"? Whatever, everyone who dares to question the opinion "In DEAN I trust" is impatient, bitter, doesn't care about the future, raging against "the man", too reliant on stats, etc etc etc etc I get it. Have fun.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 04:17 PM
  #45
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
One must also consider JT, that I'm an argumentative person and enjoy arguing with you, for whatever masochistic reason. I'm countering your points, which is different than asserting my own. My major contention with your dialogue in this thread, was the assumptions of WHY things happened the way they did. Not your assessment of the end result.

Speaking of the end results though, I am baffled how your are not satisfied with Bernier's development. If he jumps in this season and proves himself and kicks some serious ass... are you going to be upset that it didn't happen last year instead? To my eyes, all the stars are aligning for Bernier, and his handling last season is part of that. I'm not going to bother to speculate what would have been different for him or the team had he played more last year. I am presuming that Bernier staying in the AHL last year helped him along in his development. You are presuming that he would have been better off with the Kings. We are both presuming (although my presumption is based off events that DID occur, not events that might have occured). You are presuming your presumption is more valid than mine, and vice versa. Round and round we go.

Either way, I like to live in the realm of what has happened, not what I wish had happened. My world is not black and white (its shades of hallucinated grurple), and once again I am responding to thoughts of yours I felt were overly black (or white), so I showed you the opposite. The "interesting for a stat guy" comment is not a black and white interpretation of the world as you took it. It is a very specific comment towards someone (you) that has, in the past, frequently dismissed the opinions of others because they weren't backed up by stats. So it is interesting that you, who have derided others for using their gut to form opinions on players (Frolov, for example), to suddenly advocate that more gut should be used in regards to Bernier. That my friend, is hypocritical.

Oh and that last little bit cracks me up. After you just spent all this time telling me how black and white I am, how bad that is, how gray you are, you make a demonstratively pejorative, and distinctly polarizing statement.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 04:49 PM
  #46
DeeMeck
Registered User
 
DeeMeck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,360
vCash: 50
Grab your kids, grab your wife...cuz we smackin' down errybody up in here...

DeeMeck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 04:59 PM
  #47
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
I still believe that Bernier is the key to the Kings finally winning the Stanley Cup. Doughty and Kopitar are huge and extremely important, but Bernier could have the biggest impact.

If he plays as he did in the AHL, then the Kings will not have to score as much to win games as they did with Quick. They can take more chances knowing that Bernier will be there as their last line of defense.

Many times the Kings defended the play correctly and Quick still let in a soft goal. That has to be deflating for a team. Quick makes some spectacular saves and just leaves you wondering why he lets in so many weak goals.

Bernier just makes everything look so easy. His defenseman have to feel much calmer with him in net.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 05:09 PM
  #48
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
Many times the Kings defended the play correctly and Quick still let in a soft goal. That has to be deflating for a team. Quick makes some spectacular saves and just leaves you wondering why he lets in so many weak goals.
Not that I disagree with you really, because in general here I don't, but I was left wondering an equal amount of times during the season why the players weren't sticking to the system on certain nights, why they weren't hustling, why Jones was in the lineup and generally allowed to live, and why no one could hit the damn net or keep up offensive pressure.

It goes both ways.

Quick is not world class, but lets not kid ourselves that the team in front of him was.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 05:49 PM
  #49
Sydor25
LA Kings
 
Sydor25's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 21,829
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Sydor25
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Not that I disagree with you really, because in general here I don't, but I was left wondering an equal amount of times during the season why the players weren't sticking to the system on certain nights, why they weren't hustling, why Jones was in the lineup and generally allowed to live, and why no one could hit the damn net or keep up offensive pressure.

It goes both ways.

Quick is not world class, but lets not kid ourselves that the team in front of him was.
That's what sucks about being a goaltender. A defenseman and forward can completely screw up on a play and no goals are scored, a goalie ****s up and it is in the net.

I just feel that Bernier will be the better goalie, he is so calm in net and plays his angles so well. Quick relies on his quickness too much and is out of position too much to be an elite goalie.

Every goalie gives up soft goals during the season. Quick just seems to give up more softies than a #1 goalie should. He will make a fantastic backup goalie at only $1.8 million.

Bernier/Quick should make the best 1-2 punch in net in the NHL for the next 3 years.

Sydor25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-05-2010, 06:00 PM
  #50
Chazz Reinhold
Registered User
 
Chazz Reinhold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Stanley Cup
Country: United States
Posts: 6,933
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sydor25 View Post
That's what sucks about being a goaltender. A defenseman and forward can completely screw up on a play and no goals are scored, a goalie ****s up and it is in the net.

I just feel that Bernier will be the better goalie, he is so calm in net and plays his angles so well. Quick relies on his quickness too much and is out of position too much to be an elite goalie.

Every goalie gives up soft goals during the season. Quick just seems to give up more softies than a #1 goalie should. He will make a fantastic backup goalie at only $1.8 million.

Bernier/Quick should make the best 1-2 punch in net in the NHL for the next 3 years.
Know what I'm interested to see? What Quick looks like with another summer of training under his belt and with presumably fewer minutes played. I agree with you, I think the Kings could have quite the tandem.

Chazz Reinhold is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 11:22 AM.

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.