can you name me one Kings center except Kopitar who scores more then Boyle ???
And can you name any LW on the KIngs roster who scores more than Moulson ???
Can you name me a Kings 3rd line player who scores more than Purcell ???
I REPEAT this team is missing a true star top line winger and a true number 2 center.
No, but I can name you plenty that scored more than they did as Kings
hahah
+1
I think of Boyle was a guy looking at the end of his career and decided to actually be a professional. Only took him 4 of professional hockey and another 4 years of college to grow up and stop playing like a primadona.
Still it seems a little stupid to look at these guys as huge mistakes... They got beat out by better players. Part of having a huge amount of quality prospects is that some of the good ones are going to end up being successful somewhere else. Just part of the business.
The Bruins are rumored to be after former King Matt Moulson, although Moulson has said he wants to remain with the Islanders. Would be interesting to see how he performs on a better team with higher expectations. I think he could still be a productive player with the quality of centers the Bruins have. Maybe he'll get a french connection going with Patrice Bergeron.
Why would any player choose to remain an Islander? Their stadium is the worst in the league, their owner is insane and they have a GM who I don't think has a clue what he's doing. It's only a matter of time before Tavares escapes from New York.
I agree only also in saying that it doesn't guarantee that he or anyone else wouldn't either.
I mean if what is alleged is true then maybe provided the same opportunity direction and support that they have received from their new teams that maybe they would have continued to develop and eventually excel as a King.
To me though in the end they aren't here and until I see us lose Moller and or Voynov or any other established and successful prospect under the same circumstances and they go and prove themselves on another team then I will continue to think that its just one of those things that are gonna happen under DL.
More often than under most other GM's but that's about it.
Possibly. To me different players do well under different systems and maybe the system here wasnt the most conducive to their style of play where as in NY and TB they are. I think what did Purcell in here was him having a drop off like he did.
I think that Purcell is one of those cases in which a player came in, was given every opportunity to get there by everyone even at the expense of some of the players around him and then simply lived up to his less than stellar expectations.
Purcell on TB is pretty much the same player that he was here.
Possibly. To me different players do well under different systems and maybe the system here wasnt the most conducive to their style of play where as in NY and TB they are. I think what did Purcell in here was him having a drop off like he did.
that and forcing a natural right winger to play on his left side despite the fact the kid had very little NHL experience.
AND the fact that Murray's system isn't conducive to players who think the game.
I think that Purcell is one of those cases in which a player came in, was given every opportunity to get there by everyone even at the expense of some of the players around him and then simply lived up to his less than stellar expectations.
Purcell on TB is pretty much the same player that he was here.
Every opportunity? Huh?
He was put out of position, and bounced up, down in and out of the lineup.
He's a thinking, lateral player and that does not fly under Terry Murray's system. He demand board battles, and pucks funnelled at the net - he will not reward players who stop to think, take that extra second, and find the better scoring chance. Purcell was too ineffective along the boards, but when you have someone with instincts that strong, you have to give them "real" time to acclimate to the system - no just minutes, but time in the same spot in the same role.
Murray tried to change the successful parts of his game, got in his head, and he lost his confidence. Same thing happened to a degree with Frolov - both smart players who looked to make plays instead of just trying the same hope play all night, every night.
AND the fact that Murray's system isn't conducive to players who think the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bland
Murray tried to change the successful parts of his game, got in his head, and he lost his confidence. Same thing happened to a degree with Frolov - both smart players who looked to make plays instead of just trying the same hope play all night, every night.
Some of you are finally catching on.
Brian Boyle and Matt Moulsen seem to be playing alright as well in different systems
Why would any player choose to remain an Islander? Their stadium is the worst in the league, their owner is insane and they have a GM who I don't think has a clue what he's doing. It's only a matter of time before Tavares escapes from New York.
Moulson has been in the minors most of his career....this may be his one chance to get paid. The Islanders have no leverage, therefore they most likely would present the best offer, something Matt needs.
Also the revisionist history on these boards are great when the team starts struggling....
He was put out of position, and bounced up, down in and out of the lineup.
He's a thinking, lateral player and that does not fly under Terry Murray's system. He demand board battles, and pucks funnelled at the net - he will not reward players who stop to think, take that extra second, and find the better scoring chance. Purcell was too ineffective along the boards, but when you have someone with instincts that strong, you have to give them "real" time to acclimate to the system - no just minutes, but time in the same spot in the same role.
Murray tried to change the successful parts of his game, got in his head, and he lost his confidence. Same thing happened to a degree with Frolov - both smart players who looked to make plays instead of just trying the same hope play all night, every night.
Fair enough but if what your saying is true then he should simply be exploding in TB and that isn't happening and you know what else? His new team/coaching staff have moved him around a bunch too and the current criticism of TP's game is that he is too soft along the boards and doesn't always play with any real desperation or consistency. Good enough to be there but they are still waiting for him to fulfill his potential.
His best season/time with the Kings he produced 4 goals and 12 assists in 40 games with a plus minus of minus -4 and on TB his best during the same 40 game stretch he had produced 6 goals and 15 assists with a plus minus of -8.
This is his first full season on TB after getting 19 games last season so if he was so messed with on the Kings then why the same exact problems and a very similar production during the same amount of time on a completely different team? To be fair now that he is at the 45 game mark his numbers are up to a career high 7 goals and 18 assists for 25 points and his plus minus is down to -7 so the 25 year old in his 3rd NHL campaign is having a break out year.
I agree completely that we have dropped the ball and made coitus with the canine in regards to a few of the young players that have come through our system (Boyle, Moulson) and will concede that Teddy could have had a somewhat better shake of things under better direction here but in his case I still stand by my opinion that he is one of those players who is going to put out what he puts out regardless of where he plays.
If at the end of this season he puts up 15 goals and 30 assists and not be seen as a defencive liability by his team then you might be in a better position to sway. Shouldn't be too difficult if Teddy is the player you peg him to be. We are only talking about another 8 goals and another 12 assists during the next 38 games.
A 45 point season may not make him a good player at this point but it would make him a vastly improved one and in that it would absolutely prove your point in my opinion.
Last edited by Tonellisghost: 01-18-2011 at 01:05 AM.
He was put out of position, and bounced up, down in and out of the lineup.
He's a thinking, lateral player and that does not fly under Terry Murray's system. He demand board battles, and pucks funnelled at the net - he will not reward players who stop to think, take that extra second, and find the better scoring chance. Purcell was too ineffective along the boards, but when you have someone with instincts that strong, you have to give them "real" time to acclimate to the system - no just minutes, but time in the same spot in the same role.
Murray tried to change the successful parts of his game, got in his head, and he lost his confidence. Same thing happened to a degree with Frolov - both smart players who looked to make plays instead of just trying the same hope play all night, every night.
Those changes were necessary. Not much different happened in Tampa. Link
Quote:
"Since I'm not a real perimeter guy, he was having a hard time with me," Boucher said.
Boucher challenged Purcell, 25, and the wing responded, showing more grit and willingness to play around the crease. It has paid off, as Purcell has four goals (and 10 points) in his past 10 games, including a power-play goal Saturday against the Panthers where he raced to the net and knocked in a pass from Steven Stamkos.
"(Boucher) is great with communication, and sometimes you think you're (going to the net), but you don't realize that you're not," Purcell said. "We went over some video, and I'm getting rewarded. I'm going there. Also, another thing he talked about was not just going there, but when you go in there, stop there, because a lot of pucks come back for you. So far so good."
“A shooting mentality is a lot more important to me than a zig-zag pass,” Boucher said. “I think [Purcell] has done a lot better in that respect. He needs to trust his shot because his shot is even better than his vision and passing ability. If he kept passing like he was always before, we would have lost more games. Because he has helped us win.”
Even if you have the great vision and hands that Purcell possesses, Boucher said the decision-making balance should be tilted toward shooting. Shots create goals, momentum, offensive-zone face-offs, an indirect pass or rebound. Passes have to be perfect to be productive and those made in the offensive zone often become turnovers.
“It’s only the last couple years that I’m starting to realize that it can be pretty effective, too. I’ve just got to find that balance, not force any passes and use my shot to create rebounds for the guys.”
Rumors abound in Boston that L.A. has had (2) scouts at the past 4 Bruins games. Names mentioned (rumored) Wheeler Savard Ryder Hickey Simmonds.. Obviously not all but some combo of those mentioned. How do Kings fans feel about Savard as a #2 center behind Kopitar?
Rumors abound in Boston that L.A. has had (2) scouts at the past 4 Bruins games. Names mentioned (rumored) Wheeler Savard Ryder Hickey Simmonds.. Obviously not all but some combo of those mentioned. How do Kings fans feel about Savard as a #2 center behind Kopitar?
Thanks for the heads up.
It would be an upgrade! We need offense in the worst way right now
Rumors abound in Boston that L.A. has had (2) scouts at the past 4 Bruins games. Names mentioned (rumored) Wheeler Savard Ryder Hickey Simmonds.. Obviously not all but some combo of those mentioned. How do Kings fans feel about Savard as a #2 center behind Kopitar?
sounds like a massive salary dump for Boston while at the same time addressing some of LA's needs. Both sides come away with something they want/need. Could happen but I don't think the Kings take on $13 million in salary between those three players. Savard at $7 million and Ryder at $4 million are just bad contracts. Wheeler for Simmonds would be interesting.
Rumors abound in Boston that L.A. has had (2) scouts at the past 4 Bruins games. Names mentioned (rumored) Wheeler Savard Ryder Hickey Simmonds.. Obviously not all but some combo of those mentioned. How do Kings fans feel about Savard as a #2 center behind Kopitar?
I feel that would have been fine 3 years ago. Savard looks like he will be done soon to me. Wheeler would better fit our age group.
Rumors abound in Boston that L.A. has had (2) scouts at the past 4 Bruins games. Names mentioned (rumored) Wheeler Savard Ryder Hickey Simmonds.. Obviously not all but some combo of those mentioned. How do Kings fans feel about Savard as a #2 center behind Kopitar?
I don't want to lose Simmonds. I honestly don't care about Hickey, given our depth pool of prospect defensemen.
Savard, eh? Does that mean we're not going after Brad Richards? I wouldn't mind Hickey and a 2nd for Savard, but would be seriously discouraged if we lost Simmonds in any sort of Savard deal.
Afterall, Savard is slightly old (and not getting younger), slightly damaged (and not getting healthier), and fairly expensive (years, not necessarily the yearly cap hit). Yeah, obtaining Savard would be doing a favor more to the Bruins than to the Kings, probably. Losing Simmonds under those circumstances would be unforgivable.
BTW......IIRC, it was Boston who wanted Hickey in the 1st round, aside from us, of course!
EDIT: I just checked the "cap geek" stuff. I didn't know Savard was already 33!!! And he's signed for 7 more years? Really? No!!! For us to take him on, Boston would have to give us Toronto's 1st round pick!!!
Last edited by Capn Brown: 01-18-2011 at 10:45 AM.
From what I recall, Wheeler isn't having a great season. It shouldn't cost a guy like Simmonds to get him and if it does, you pass.
Statistically they are very close with Wheeler actually having a slight edge to Simmonds. Agewise they are close as well.
Simmonds has not had a great season either...the wildcard here might be the locker room impact or the "rumors" of Simmonds off-ice antics. Not sure if any of that is true but where there is smoke...
It actually may cost Hickey and Simmonds to get Wheeler. Boston should have to pay LA to take Ryder and Savard.
Boston should have to pay LA to take Ryder and Savard.
Hey, as long as the payment is Toronto's 1st round pick in 2011, I'm all ears.
Can you imagine bundling our own 1st round pick along with Toronto's and trading up to 1st, 2nd, or 3rd overall? Then again, I'm reading that the 2011 draft is looking crappy.
Statistically they are very close with Wheeler actually having a slight edge to Simmonds. Agewise they are close as well.
Simmonds has not had a great season either...the wildcard here might be the locker room impact or the "rumors" of Simmonds off-ice antics. Not sure if any of that is true but where there is smoke...
It actually may cost Hickey and Simmonds to get Wheeler. Boston should have to pay LA to take Ryder and Savard.
If the Boston rumors have some truth to them, then... That's interesting. I don't see Savard waiving his clause to come out West and to a team that is fighting for a play off spot when the Bruins are sitting second in the East. Not going to happen. Guys like Ryder and Wheeler would be of some help, but the team is full of guys like that. The only top guy that they have that the Kings would be lucky to have, is Krejci. I don't know how available he is, but I imagine Lombardi and co. scouting so many Bruins games because of a player of his caliber. They know all about Savard, Ryder, and Wheeler, so...
