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

Matt Reitz says we are fanboys to a fault

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-07-2010, 04:59 PM
  #1
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Matt Reitz says we are fanboys to a fault

Have you guys seen this article from yesterday?

http://thefourthperiod.com/news/lak101206.html

Quote:
Have you ever wished someone on your bench would turn over the puck just ONE more time so he could spend some time in the press box in order for someone else you want to see to play?

What about those Jaroslav Halak fans who just want to see Carey Price falter?

If you stop and think about it, all you're doing is asking for your team to fail.
This article rubbed me the wrong way. So much so that wrote a rebuttal:

http://lakingsnews.com/2010/12/07/ma...-fans-as-boys/

Quote:
Matt gets it backwards, I want to see certain players sit in the press box AFTER the turnover.

This misinterpretation of cause and effect will continue throughout the article, as Matt’s whole point is predicated on this concept.
I'm curious what you guys think. Clearly he is talking about a lot of the same opinions you see floating around this forum, but I like to give most of you the benefit of the doubt to put the team before your personal preferences. Perhaps Matt is really just referring to some people having crappy opinions and interpreting that as malcontent towards your own team.

Either way, I think this article its way too assumptive.

Your thoughts?

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2010, 07:16 PM
  #2
northernKing
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,838
vCash: 500
I for one have NEVER wanted a KINGS player to make a mistake or play bad. Yes I have wanted LA to trade some players to improve the current roster, but at the end of the day i like to believe that we as fans put our bias aside and cheer on OUR team regardless of who is in the lineup.

northernKing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2010, 08:00 PM
  #3
Ollie Weeks
Registered User
 
Ollie Weeks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sioux Lookout, NWO
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,706
vCash: 500
Guy comes off as a holier-than-thou asshat, and late to the party to boot.

Ollie Weeks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-07-2010, 09:16 PM
  #4
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Have you guys seen this article from yesterday?

http://thefourthperiod.com/news/lak101206.html



This article rubbed me the wrong way. So much so that wrote a rebuttal:

http://lakingsnews.com/2010/12/07/ma...-fans-as-boys/



I'm curious what you guys think. Clearly he is talking about a lot of the same opinions you see floating around this forum, but I like to give most of you the benefit of the doubt to put the team before your personal preferences. Perhaps Matt is really just referring to some people having crappy opinions and interpreting that as malcontent towards your own team.

Either way, I think this article its way too assumptive.

Your thoughts?
Cammy back or bust!

DIEHARD the King fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 12:35 AM
  #5
Quattro
Registered User
 
Quattro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 4,172
vCash: 500
he's pretty much dead-on accurate - especially about the LA goalies

Quattro is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 10:13 AM
  #6
JBernierFan
Drink up!
 
JBernierFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: San Diego
Country: United States
Posts: 3,788
vCash: 500
I think there are a small handful of people on this board who think like this. I'm not one of them.

Let's take the goalies as an example. I obviously love Bernier and want him to succeed, but I also love Quick. It's a win-win situation to like them both, because then the Kings also do well when they are. I think goalies are usually the big divide in the fan base. It's easy to pick one guy or the other, especially when both see action. I'd love Bernier to be able to get a chance to work out his funk and have his confidence back up to where it can be, but not at the expense of Quick faltering. If my choice was for Quick to play amazing and take the Kings far with Bernier not playing another single game (won't happen, but lets just say it could), then I would choose that over Quick and Bernier playing okay, but both getting ice time.

JBernierFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 11:01 AM
  #7
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quattro View Post
he's pretty much dead-on accurate - especially about the LA goalies
You honestly believe people sit there, watch Quick start in net and sincerely HOPE he lets in a bad goal? That's crazy to me. Sure there are people who expect he will let in a bad goal, or that Bernier could have made such and such a save that Quick missed, but to outright hope in a 0-0 game that Quick lets in a softie and gets pulled is beyond even the stupidest of fans to me.

Take Labarbera for example. In fact, Labs is the PERFEFCT example.

I hated Labs. Let me rephrase, I ****ing despised Labs.

Each and every game, I would worry. Worry that he was going to let in a soft goal and lose us the game. Worried whenever a shooter was encroaching on him. Always worried, because past experience had conditioned me to expect a certain result.

However, no matter what, no matter how awful the game before may have been, or the crappy goal to go down 2 goals in the third, whatever the scenario, I always HOPED he would make the big save. I always wanted to him to prove my dubiousness out of place. Every time he started a game I said to myself "OK Labs, lets have a good one tonight."

I don't think I've ever hated a goalie or player as much as watching Labs in net made me cringe. Even still, he was a King and I wanted him to succeed.

If anyone has ever wanted a player on their team to fail, they should be flogged and banned from ever watching hockey again.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 11:17 AM
  #8
Defgarden
Registered User
 
Defgarden's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Loma Linda, CA
Country: United States
Posts: 2,827
vCash: 500
Hoping for a bad goal or a bad turnover and expecting it are two different things.

Deep down, we all want to see the team be successful and win the Stanley Cup. There's no doubt that many people have favorite or favored players that they would like to see succeed, but it's very rare for these people to actively wish for bad performances, just to give that particular player a bigger role, or a start in net.

There ARE definitely people who will use these opportunities to say "blah blah, I told you so", but I don't really think that's the same thing. Most of us are fans of the team first.

Defgarden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 11:30 AM
  #9
onlyalad
Registered User
 
onlyalad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 4,292
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
You honestly believe people sit there, watch Quick start in net and sincerely HOPE he lets in a bad goal? That's crazy to me. Sure there are people who expect he will let in a bad goal, or that Bernier could have made such and such a save that Quick missed, but to outright hope in a 0-0 game that Quick lets in a softie and gets pulled is beyond even the stupidest of fans to me.

Take Labarbera for example. In fact, Labs is the PERFEFCT example.

I hated Labs. Let me rephrase, I ****ing despised Labs.

Each and every game, I would worry. Worry that he was going to let in a soft goal and lose us the game. Worried whenever a shooter was encroaching on him. Always worried, because past experience had conditioned me to expect a certain result.

However, no matter what, no matter how awful the game before may have been, or the crappy goal to go down 2 goals in the third, whatever the scenario, I always HOPED he would make the big save. I always wanted to him to prove my dubiousness out of place. Every time he started a game I said to myself "OK Labs, lets have a good one tonight."

I don't think I've ever hated a goalie or player as much as watching Labs in net made me cringe. Even still, he was a King and I wanted him to succeed.

If anyone has ever wanted a player on their team to fail, they should be flogged and banned from ever watching hockey again.
I 100% agree. When Modry was in games I wanted him to prove my doubt wrong. In fact I think I got more upset when he proved my fears were valid. Because I had given him my trust yet again by wanting him to do well and he broke my heart again. It is kind of like the girl who keeps going back to a man who cheats on her. She knows deep down that he will never change, but she takes him back hoping that this time it will be different, because she loves him. We all love our team and the players. We want them to do well, so every time they are on the ice we give them our hearts, knowing that some will likey break them again.

onlyalad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 11:32 AM
  #10
Hendrydoso
Registered User
 
Hendrydoso's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento
Country: United States
Posts: 412
vCash: 500
This is one rung above my sons Hockey Numbers book "1 big rolling machine makes the ice shiny and clean. With skill and luck 2 goalies aim to stop the puck. Score three goals - it's a hat trick - must be your lucky stick." etc. This article is a complete miss.

This is the response that I tried to post to the comments. It wouldn't post.

Every wish that I've had for a Kings player is founded in the idea that it would be best for the team.

Hendrydoso is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 12:06 PM
  #11
DIEHARD the King fan
Registered User
 
DIEHARD the King fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: blueline to slot
Country: United States
Posts: 6,244
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post

I don't think I've ever hated a goalie or player as much as watching Labs in net made me cringe. Even still, he was a King and I wanted him to succeed.
Does the name Dan Cloutier mean anything to you?

DIEHARD the King fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 12:16 PM
  #12
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DIEHARD the King fan View Post
Does the name Dan Cloutier mean anything to you?
I had more hope for Labs than I ever did for Cloutier. Cloutier was an abomination but he never crushed me the way Labs did. With Labs there was the promise of the unknown but Cloutier I had been watching screw up for years before we got him.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 02:44 PM
  #13
JT Dutch*
Cult of Personality
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: B.C.
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
... I think that it's more of a mentality on the boards that if a person is not completely 100% in the "camp" of one guy, then that person is perceived to be against him somehow.

I've written a great deal of pro-Jonathan Quick things on this BB, but I've never kidded myself about what he did last season, that his W-L record was not indicative of his performance - that it was a fallacy brought on by the quality of the team in front of him. I've also shared the opinion I have that Bernier is still the more promising goaltender, and pointed out that the sum total result of Bernier's first seven games in goal this season are remarkably similar to what Quick did last season in HIS first seven games.

As a result of that, I've been automatically labeled as anti-Quick by certain people even though that's nowhere close to being accurate. My attitude is that even though I have a logical idea of who is the more promising goalie, I know that they both are young, and may the best man win. I just would want both guys to get a fair shot, and I know one is - but I also know that one is not, and that's just the plain truth of the whole matter.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 02:55 PM
  #14
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
... I think that it's more of a mentality on the boards that if a person is not completely 100% in the "camp" of one guy, then that person is perceived to be against him somehow.

I've written a great deal of pro-Jonathan Quick things on this BB, but I've never kidded myself about what he did last season, that his W-L record was not indicative of his performance - that it was a fallacy brought on by the quality of the team in front of him. I've also shared the opinion I have that Bernier is still the more promising goaltender, and pointed out that the sum total result of Bernier's first seven games in goal this season are remarkably similar to what Quick did last season in HIS first seven games.

As a result of that, I've been automatically labeled as anti-Quick by certain people even though that's nowhere close to being accurate. My attitude is that even though I have a logical idea of who is the more promising goalie, I know that they both are young, and may the best man win. I just would want both guys to get a fair shot, and I know one is - but I also know that one is not, and that's just the plain truth of the whole matter.
Your post was going so well until the last sentence.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 03:11 PM
  #15
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
Your post was going so well until the last sentence.
... Well, I don't really want to go back and forth on this, so I'll just agree to disagree. Ten games in two seasons isn't anywhere near enough for a head coach to just throw up his hands and say "I've seen enough, I've seen all I want to see from this guy." For the record, that's just ridiculous. That's not a full shot in any sense of the word. If he can't afford to let a goaltender play through any problems he may or may not have, or trust his team enough to adapt from one goalie to the other, then he has far less faith in the quality of the team than I do.

It just shows that Murray, even after all of his experience, still doesn't understand how to handle goaltenders. It's baffling. He's had several teams in Washington and Philadelphia who were certainly good enough to win it all, and it was usually problems in the net that prevented them from doing so.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 03:32 PM
  #16
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
... Well, I don't really want to go back and forth on this, so I'll just agree to disagree. Ten games in two seasons isn't anywhere near enough for a head coach to just throw up his hands and say "I've seen enough, I've seen all I want to see from this guy." For the record, that's just ridiculous. That's not a full shot in any sense of the word. If he can't afford to let a goaltender play through any problems he may or may not have, or trust his team enough to adapt from one goalie to the other, then he has far less faith in the quality of the team than I do.

It just shows that Murray, even after all of his experience, still doesn't understand how to handle goaltenders. It's baffling. He's had several teams in Washington and Philadelphia who were certainly good enough to win it all, and it was usually problems in the net that prevented them from doing so.
While in general I agree that one of Murray's weaknesses is handling goalies, perspective is everything.

This "I've seen all I want to see" thing is not how I see it. I see it as "Well hey, Quick is playing lights out this year, Bernier is struggling a little, the team comes before both of these guys, and since the schedule isn't very demanding for the near future, lets just ride Quick until that doesn't seem like a good idea anymore"

We'll see if he runs Quick into the ground again, which would be dumb, but right now the schedule is so light and easy there is no reason for Quick to get burnt out playing every game.

Is "a fair shot" to you to continue to play Bernier even while he is struggling and Quick is hot? You would sit the hot goalie for the sake of fairness?

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 04:08 PM
  #17
Buddy The Elf
Kings!
 
Buddy The Elf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Belmont Shore
Country: United States
Posts: 9,703
vCash: 500
I read about half of the article before I stopped. I usually like anything that has to do with Kings but that was just retarded. I feel dumber for having have read that.

My response to that article is as follows: Who cares!?!

Buddy The Elf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 04:34 PM
  #18
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
While in general I agree that one of Murray's weaknesses is handling goalies, perspective is everything.

This "I've seen all I want to see" thing is not how I see it. I see it as "Well hey, Quick is playing lights out this year, Bernier is struggling a little, the team comes before both of these guys, and since the schedule isn't very demanding for the near future, lets just ride Quick until that doesn't seem like a good idea anymore"
... But the thing was, before the Florida game, Quick was NOT lights out. He had a sub-.900 save percentage in three of his past five starts. When the team came back home and played better against Florida and Detroit, Quick's numbers went back up. Amazing how that happens, isn't it?

Murray made the decision to stop playing Bernier after the Montreal game. By all who observed the game, the Kings played perhaps their worst game of the season. It was either that game or the game in San Jose (where Bernier was also in net). That's a pretty ****ty way to give up on an apparently pre-planned goaltender schedule, isn't it? The team sucked, so I'm gonna abandon my goalie plan?

Does Murray not have any faith in his team to adjust to playing in front of a different goaltender, if that's even what the problem is? That's what I mean by him not having the confidence in the team that I do. And I doubt that's even the problem, anyway. The team has played well in front of Bernier in the past. To quote John Tortorella, "they know what they did." I think they just laid an egg in a few road games, and Bernier happened to be the man in net when it happened. So, in effect, that's saying to the team "hey boys, it's OK that you played badly, I'll designate someone to take the fall for you." And I don't believe scapegoating works. It's a tactic of bad teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Is "a fair shot" to you to continue to play Bernier even while he is struggling and Quick is hot? You would sit the hot goalie for the sake of fairness?
... Again, you have to look at context here. Why was Quick hot in the early part of the season. Wasn't it because the team was playing well? Sure, Quick was playing well, but it wasn't like he was stealing games left and right, was it? Only game I can say that Quick has stolen this season was the game in Boston. When the team struggled, Quick was losing games too. It's not like he's infallible here.

Has there been games where the team played well in front of Bernier, but he still lost the game for them? Not really, maybe the game in Buffalo. That's really reaching, but if you do count that one, then you have to say that Quick has had a couple of similar games like that this season, as well.

In order to say that Bernier deserves to sit for the foreseeable future, you're in effect saying that even if the team played as well as they did against Florida and Detroit - that Bernier would lose those games for the team if he had started them. And, that's crap. That is a horse**** way to evaluate a goalie, especially a rookie goalie. Bernier's earned the shot. He's done everything the organization has asked him to do. It's really easy for a head coach to say that a guy sucks when he doesn't have enough confidence in the team or in himself to give the player a real chance to prove himself one way or another - a chance that the player has earned. Are you going to try and tell me that giving him that chance will sabotage the team's chances? I don't agree with that at all.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 05:31 PM
  #19
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
... But the thing was, before the Florida game, Quick was NOT lights out. He had a sub-.900 save percentage in three of his past five starts. When the team came back home and played better against Florida and Detroit, Quick's numbers went back up. Amazing how that happens, isn't it?

Murray made the decision to stop playing Bernier after the Montreal game. By all who observed the game, the Kings played perhaps their worst game of the season. It was either that game or the game in San Jose (where Bernier was also in net). That's a pretty ****ty way to give up on an apparently pre-planned goaltender schedule, isn't it? The team sucked, so I'm gonna abandon my goalie plan?

Does Murray not have any faith in his team to adjust to playing in front of a different goaltender, if that's even what the problem is? That's what I mean by him not having the confidence in the team that I do. And I doubt that's even the problem, anyway. The team has played well in front of Bernier in the past. To quote John Tortorella, "they know what they did." I think they just laid an egg in a few road games, and Bernier happened to be the man in net when it happened. So, in effect, that's saying to the team "hey boys, it's OK that you played badly, I'll designate someone to take the fall for you." And I don't believe scapegoating works. It's a tactic of bad teams.
You literally just gave Bernier and excuse for something you condemn in Quick.

Those games in which Quick had a sub-.900 save %, the team did not give Quick any goal support and even then, Quick did not let in any bad goals during the stretch and in two of those games, the team played pretty ****** too. Treat both goalies fairly please.

Though I'm sure you will just reiterate to me that the team was playing so well therefore Quick looked good, but this in no way takes into account the momentum and energy the team gained when Quick made big saves on terrible breakdowns. Lets take the home opener against the Thrashers as an example. The Kings outplay the Thrashers for good portions of the game. The team is playing well. Gives Quick 2 goals to work with in the third period. Thrashers come on strong and Quick comes up with a HUGE save on Ladd with 5:33 remaining in the third. Smyth scores an empty netter a few minutes later.

So the team may have played well, given Quick the 3 goals you have said any goalie should win with, but really, it was just two goals and Quick stole a point away from the Thrashers with his game-saving stop on Ladd. But you would call this one of those games that we should give Quick less credit for because the team played well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JT Dutch View Post
... Again, you have to look at context here. Why was Quick hot in the early part of the season. Wasn't it because the team was playing well? Sure, Quick was playing well, but it wasn't like he was stealing games left and right, was it? Only game I can say that Quick has stolen this season was the game in Boston. When the team struggled, Quick was losing games too. It's not like he's infallible here.

Has there been games where the team played well in front of Bernier, but he still lost the game for them? Not really, maybe the game in Buffalo. That's really reaching, but if you do count that one, then you have to say that Quick has had a couple of similar games like that this season, as well.

In order to say that Bernier deserves to sit for the foreseeable future, you're in effect saying that even if the team played as well as they did against Florida and Detroit - that Bernier would lose those games for the team if he had started them. And, that's crap. That is a horse**** way to evaluate a goalie, especially a rookie goalie. Bernier's earned the shot. He's done everything the organization has asked him to do. It's really easy for a head coach to say that a guy sucks when he doesn't have enough confidence in the team or in himself to give the player a real chance to prove himself one way or another - a chance that the player has earned. Are you going to try and tell me that giving him that chance will sabotage the team's chances? I don't agree with that at all.
Perhaps I missed some quotes from Murray, but I don't ever recall Murray saying Bernier sucks in any way. Again, what I interpret as confidence in Quick you interpret as disdain for and blame on Bernier.

And I didn't say Bernier deserves to sit. I said Quick is playing great, is our #1 and there is nothing in the schedule to outright warrant a rest at this time or in the NEAR future. Near and foreseeable are two very different terms.

I don't think giving Bernier a chance will sabotage the team's chance to win, but at the moment, Quick gives them the better chance to win. Back-up goalies are there to give the #1 goalie a rest or a respite when they aren't playing well. Bernier is a back-up goalie this year and you should be used to that fact already because there was never going to be this 1A/1B situation you want. No one gives a **** about comparing Quick and Bernier's first 7 games of their careers. All I care is that Quick has vastly more NHL experience at this point and is the team's #1.

In the end, I like Bernier and I think he has RIDICULOUS potential. I think he struggles between the ears, which is the most important part of a goalie's game. I hope and think he will adjust, like he did in Lewiston when he was sent back and like he did in the AL when Quick was called up. Bernier has a history of playing poorly when he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to learn to not let management decisions have such a negative impact on his game. Whether or not those decisions are wise, just or stupid only matters to a point. Personal accountability is the hallmark of professionalism in any field.

I don't think Bernier has been terrible this season. I think he has been OK, good at times, looking uncomfortable at others. No matter how you slice it or how the team is playing in front of him, Quick is playing with better rebound control and more swagger. There isn't much in the way of anything besides empiricism, which you have no tolerance for, to say that the two goalies have been playing equally good hockey.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 06:46 PM
  #20
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
Those games in which Quick had a sub-.900 save %, the team did not give Quick any goal support and even then, Quick did not let in any bad goals during the stretch and in two of those games, the team played pretty ****** too. Treat both goalies fairly please.
... Damn, I said I wouldn't do this. Look man, read your own posts, please? You said Quick was "lights out". I said he was not. Did I say Quick played poorly? No. I said he wasn't lights out. And he wasn't. Christ.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
momentum and energy
... Yep, I knew it. It's really easy and convenient to point to something that can't be proven or disproven and call upon someone to deny it was there. The team didn't gain momentum and energy with Stoll's go-ahead goal? They didn't gain some with Smyth's goal, after a great shift, to put the team on the board? Maybe a teammate stood up in the dressing room during the second intermission and said a few things to inspire the team? We don't know what inspired them or what didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
So the team may have played well, given Quick the 3 goals you have said any goalie should win with, but really, it was just two goals and Quick stole a point away from the Thrashers with his game-saving stop on Ladd. But you would call this one of those games that we should give Quick less credit for because the team played well.
... The Kings attempted 62 shots in that game, and the Thrashers only attempted 43. Gives a bit of an idea of which side of the ice the play was on. But you feel like Quick stole that game, even though the Kings outplayed and outchanced their opponents in a home game? OK. Again, I'll agree to disagree, and again, just because I don't hold the opinion that Quick stole the game does not mean that he shouldn't be given credit for playing well. To me, a goalie steals a game when he's able to win despite the team being outplayed. That happened in the Boston game, for sure. Otherwise, I haven't seen it from either guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Perhaps I missed some quotes from Murray, but I don't ever recall Murray saying Bernier sucks in any way. Again, what I interpret as confidence in Quick you interpret as disdain for and blame on Bernier.
... This quote comes right before the goalie plan was shelved:

MURRAY: “I don’t like it going through goaltenders. I don’t like that. [pause] I just don’t like it.”

So, again - whatever. Murray sure didn't mind those goals last season, but now they're a big issue. OK. So, it's fair to say it's a little bit of both, isn't it? If he thought Bernier could play, he would.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
Bernier is a back-up goalie this year and you should be used to that fact already because there was never going to be this 1A/1B situation you want. No one gives a **** about comparing Quick and Bernier's first 7 games of their careers.
... Of course YOU don't care about it, because it doesn't support your position. Stats only matter to you if they support something you agree with, that's been the case time and again with you so spare me the lecture. Nice job with the "no one" quote there, by the way, as if you need to speak for others. Speak for yourself. You can say "well hey JT the coaching staff agrees with me and they're in the game so they know blah blah blah" and that's nice - they sure did a bang-up job of handling the goalies last season, didn't they? It's why they went golfing after the first round.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
In the end, I like Bernier and I think he has RIDICULOUS potential. I think he struggles between the ears, which is the most important part of a goalie's game. I hope and think he will adjust, like he did in Lewiston when he was sent back and like he did in the AL when Quick was called up. Bernier has a history of playing poorly when he doesn't get what he wants. He needs to learn to not let management decisions have such a negative impact on his game. Whether or not those decisions are wise, just or stupid only matters to a point. Personal accountability is the hallmark of professionalism in any field.
... Yes, let's call upon myths of "playing poorly when he doesn't get what he wants". Any proof of that? After Bernier was sent down, he was as good at Lewiston as he always was, he played great in the WJC for Canada when he got the opportunity, he played great in the short trial he got in Manchester as well. He played well in his first full season in Manchester, and played excellently in his second season there. Where were the struggles? Tell me. Where was he not personally accountable? Where did it reflect in his results? You say you like the guy. Well, liking a guy doesn't = parroting or making up biased reasons to somehow justify that the guy didn't "deserve" the shot earlier. Bernier has done more at this point to earn the shot than Quick did to get his. It's obvious that Quick's experience since that shot have helped him become a better goalie than Bernier is at this point in time. The point is that Bernier will benefit from experience as well, which he's not getting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JDM View Post
I don't think Bernier has been terrible this season. I think he has been OK, good at times, looking uncomfortable at others. No matter how you slice it or how the team is playing in front of him, Quick is playing with better rebound control and more swagger. There isn't much in the way of anything besides empiricism, which you have no tolerance for, to say that the two goalies have been playing equally good hockey.
... And I said they've been playing equally good hockey - where??? Where is the quote? Something you made up? OK. You know what? I said I wouldn't do this, and I did. So, you win the argument, because you're not even responding to my posts at this point, you're responding to made-up **** in your own mind. Have fun winning the arguments you're having with yourself.

JT Dutch* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 07:23 PM
  #21
Brodie562
Registered User
 
Brodie562's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: LBC
Country: United States
Posts: 830
vCash: 500
i wont lie i wanted to see them get swept last season against Vancouver. but only because i saw it as the only way to get rid of TM and i didnt really believe they were gonna have a cinderella type run. no doubt he's here for an other couple of seasons.

i hate the way he handles the Keepers and his line-ups and the dump and chase. I want to see this team with a coach not named Murray!!!!!

Brodie562 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 07:24 PM
  #22
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*
In regards to the article: All I can is last year when Quick was REALLY struggling, at the end of the games we were losing I would say to myself "Well, at least Bernier has a better chance of getting called up to finish the season.."

There are players on the team that I don't like (Trevor Lewis, Kevin Westgarth, Jack Johnson), but I don't root against them when the puck gets dropped. However, I do look for the first chance I have to chastise them but if they do something positive like for instance score a goal.. I stand up and say something like, "F-Yeah, Lewis!"

Now.. In regards to basically the main point of the thread now on this Quick/Bernier situation.. I was HATING on Quick (and I had a right to) at the end of the season and judging by the games Bernier played in last season and also the resume that he's posted so far in his career.. I'd say I was the leader of the "Bernier 4 Starter" campaign.. BUT.. Quick out of the gate has been pretty stellar and has shut me up so far this season.

I just have a beef (like JT) of Terry Murrays handling of Bernier. At the end of the year soft goal after soft goal after soft goal got past Quick, but he stayed by him every step of the way. Now, Bernier lets in "soft goals" (and I question how many of those goals could really be labeled as "soft") and its okay... Not that it should be.

TM gives Bernier a back to back IN Calgary where we haven't won in pretty much an eternity. He gets scored on by Drewiske and the team scores one goal.

Then he gets the Champs (perfectly fine), Drewiske scores on him again, and the team gets one goal.

Then, Bernier gets the team that has RAN this division for years (again, perfectly fine) now, the Kings play one of the worst games of the season, Matt Greene actually scores on Bernier (Dont know if you guys caught that) and he loses again.

I COULD give you the Buffalo game, but really Bernier didn't let in anything soft.. Oh yeah, and Drewiske interferes with Bernier allowing that Sekera goal..

Then, of course.. Montreal. Kings play like dog-s*** and somehow it mostly gets pinned on Bernier. The team scores only one goal. Terry Murray then scratches the goalie plan and says "AHHH, THIS GUYS SUCKS!"

Its irrelevant.. People will probably just say I'm trying to find excuses, but thats really just the reality of the situation.

two out of three* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 07:49 PM
  #23
JDM
HFB Partner
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Country: United States
Posts: 9,968
vCash: 500
In my cursory search, I couldn't find game-by-game stats for juniors or the AHL going back 3 and 4 years ago.

A quick search will pop this up:

From http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospect/jonathan_bernier:

Quote:
2007-08: Bernier began the season with Los Angeles after more than earning himself a chance at showing what he can do on the big stage. After a phenomenal NHL debut, Bernier was thrown to the wolves in the next three games as the defense in front of him could not find their own end of the ice with a map and a compass. Bernier struggled a bit upon returning to Lewiston, but turned things around towards the middle of the season to finish at or near the top in most goaltender categories in the QMJHL again. At the conclusion of Lewiston’s season, Bernier joined Manchester to finish out the season as the starter in net.
That's all I really said, in different terms. I didn't say he **** the bed or fell of the face of the earth.

You accuse me of responding to things you never said, which going back I can see where I did do that... so fine, I apologize sincerely, but don't turn around and do the same thing to me if it bothers you so much. One example,

[QUOTE-JT Dutch]Did I say Quick played poorly? No.[/QUOTE]

I didn't say you said he played poorly. I said you take away credit from Quick based on the play of the team... which you do. Its your entire argument in any goalie thread. Someone says "Quick rulz" and you say "cool down there haus, the team is playing too good for Quick to rulz" And yes, that is a direct quote, I stole it from your subconscious.

As for the first 7 games business... don't get offended on the behalf of others... no-one, I... maybe this one works for you... WHO gives a ****? You and... I'm waiting for someone else to chime in here.

The point is that the first 7 games of a goalies career tell you exactly nothing about their future. I don't use stats only when they support my case, I just don't use stats in general because they are myopic. I basically only use them when they refute YOUR stats, you know, for fun.

You tell me to talk about context... well **** man, there is virtually no context in any single stat. To give true context to a statistic you would have to include every possible related statistic... so if you want to compare the first 7 games of these two goalies careers in a way that is meaningful, then you must first show me several examples of goalies of the past, their first 7 games and then how the rest of their careers turned out. Only then would you have a correlation worth talking about. Otherwise YOU are using stats just because they support your case. This first 7 game thing is just ******** my friend. Its not even a matter of me caring one way or the other, or you caring if I care, its a simple matter of logic. If you can't prove in the past that the first 7 games of a goalie's career are relevant to the rest of their career, then why even bring it up at all? To tell me that they deserve to be given the same number of games and chances in their next 10, 20, 30 40 50+ games because their first 7 were similar? What the **** is your point with this 7 game crap? I just can't see the relevance to any discussion except a myopic one that starts and ends with "their first 7 games were similar". Whoop.

Moving on... Murray didn't like a goal against and he said so... your point is... what? That he should like it? That because he didn't say the same exact thing about Quick last year that what? He should be shot in the face? Anally *****? Hyperbole aside, what is this obsession with fairness? Being the general cynic that you are, I think you would have accepted that life ain't fair and it doesn't always need to be.

We seem to have a problem of terms here. I say Quick is hot. You say he's only stolen one game... apparently therefore he is not hot, or lights out. These things don't follow. They are not mutually exclusive. Quick is top 5 in the NHL in every main goalie statistic. If you don't consider top 5 lights out, then you are ignoring stats because they don't support your case.... which only makes me care about stats even less.

JDM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-08-2010, 07:57 PM
  #24
etherialone
dialed in your mom
 
etherialone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Ether
Country: United Nations
Posts: 12,990
vCash: 500
As to Matt's article it seems to me that Matt has a problem with projecting his thoughts views and opinions onto other people. Its all speculation on his part about what he "feels" and "believes" that the rest of all Kings fans are thinking.

Its silly journalism 101, controversy sells so make everything you write controversial.

JDM, Kudos on your response but when I first read the article I thought that it was just what I had said, an attempt to get people to react and draw attention to its originator.


On the rest of the argument I am lost on what the key points are so I am going remain outside.

etherialone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-09-2010, 01:20 AM
  #25
RonSwanson*
Gadfly
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Food 'N Stuff
Country: United States
Posts: 8,769
vCash: 500
I don't think ANYONE wanted Quick to falter just so Bernier could become the #1 goalie. Yet this hack was implying just that.

I know I wanted Quick to do well, and if by chance Bernier outplayed him, then that would be great news for Kings fans. But I never hoped for failure by Quick.

RonSwanson* 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 11:26 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.