Kicking off the Q&A sessions with Dean Lombardi and Terry Murray, here was the first general question about the season. The questions get more specific from here, and the answers also get shorter (and yes, this was one answer…)
Question: When you look back at the season, where did you see progress and where did you expect to see progress that maybe you didn’t get?
LOMBARDI: “In a backhanded way — and I said this during the season — I don’t like the fact that we put ourselves in situations where we had to face adversity, but I liked the way we dealt with it. The way they responded after putting themselves in that position in late January, we went through a stretch there for a month and a half where we only lost four games, and every one of those games was critical. The way they found a way to win, that, i think, is progress. That’s part of building mental toughness and not caving to the pressure of having expectations or whatever. But on the other hand, and I’ve had a couple players already talk about it, we almost have to be better — well, I don’t want to say almost, because you’re always trying to gauge the mental look of your team — it was almost like we had trouble dealing with success. I put success in quotes. We had the 12-3 (start), and there’s such a thing of feeling good about yourself in the wrong way. Then we had another stretch where we were really good, and it looked like we had learned from the first one, then we fell off and put ourselves to where we had to fight our way back and play at an incredibly high winning percentage to get in (to the playoffs).
“Then you almost look at the playoffs too, a 4-0 lead (in Game 3). It’s almost like you’ve got a microcosm of some of the things you faced during the year. Again, I put this in quotes, but it’s a version of `success,’ and dealing with it. That’s where, on the one hand, I liked the fact that we responded to putting ourselves in a predicament, and not giving up, and on the other hand, we have to learn from this and not get in that situation in the first place. So you lose a 4-0 lead, and then you find a way to go back up there and win Game 5 and take them to overtime. Even in Game 6 there, the first 30 minutes, they’re all over us, and the last 30 minutes are ours. So they’ve shown they can respond to it, but the point is that to be a really good team is to learn to be professional. If you look at the good teams, you have to define the problem and then recognize the signs that this is not going to seep in again. That’s the responsibility of your captains and your young people going, that when you get off to 12-3 and you start seeing that slide, knock it off. Detroit, when they’re in a slide, they’ve be .500, but you don’t go 0-8 or 0-9 or whatever. Those are the two things that I take out of it, in terms of progress. I do like the fact that they dealt with that. That wasn’t easy. From the high-stick game (against Phoenix), I looked at it and we had lost only four games up until the last week there. That’s a lot of pressure, and that is responding. Then, obviously, they found a way after losing their top player, to get in in the first place.
“The irony is, you look at this playoff series and everybody talked about our scoring. I think that’s the thing we’ve got to figure out here now. It’s identifying your areas of strength and weakness first, and really identifying it. I think if we had gone into the series and lost games 2-1 or 3-2, everybody would have said, `OK, that makes sense.’ And that’s kind of the way we looked at it. We thought it would be tough to get in a shootout with them. The number of goals we scored in six games, I think we only did that once this year, if you look at six-game blocks. We scored 16 goals in (the first) four games, and I know we only did that three times during the year, over a block of four consecutive games. I haven’t looked at it yet, but I think there’s one block now, over six games, where we scored that many goals. So that’s the one thing that’s troubling. So that’s what we have to look at. And our goaltending was great. So we scored goals, and we’ve proven we can stop them. We beat them 5-0 up there during the season (and) we beat them 1-0, so we proved we can deal with probably the best nine forwards in the league, collectively. Then, all of a sudden, the playoffs start and we were very uncharacteristic in what is supposed to be a staple of our game. I told you this three years ago, that we’re going to build this from the back out. Defensively, it’s the first step. We were fourth in the league in goals against, and we accomplished that. Then we got in the playoffs and we scored goals and all of a sudden we’re giving them up. So that’s something we’ve got to look at closely.
“Now you’ve got to give San Jose credit. Obviously those three lines, like I said, I think collectively are as good as anybody. I do think what showed up is the emergence of one of your top players, Kopitar. I think, over his first couple years in the league, we talked about it. He was free-wheeling and it looks great on offense, but he was not a great defensive player. I think, this year, he became one of the best defensive players in the league. You’ve got a guy here now that has has already done the Yzerman, Sakic transformation. It usually took those guys until 25, 26 (years old) before they figure out how to be a complete player. This kid has done it at an early age. I think that’s huge, particularly when you’re dealing with big bodies like San Jose down low. But that’s the irony of it. We all looked at it and thought missing his offense (would be big), but we end up missing his defense. But give San Jose credit. And also, when you’re talking about our key young guys on the back end, and the way we’re set up with the 3-3 split, with three puck-movers, those three are just starting to get playoff experience. You saw it there when they ratchet it up, and you see it in all these games. It’s an enormous level of intensity, it’s an enormous level of pressure, and generally, when you’ve got those scrambles going on and Doughty is on his game, it’s, `Settle it down, we’re going to make a play here and we’re going the other way.’ You saw, at times, it go like this [up and down]. When I look at the experience of those guys, the three puck-movers who have to show poise, you’re dealing with (limited) playoff experience. I think that was part of the issue, but that part, those kids will figure out.
“So this goes through the whole series. It’s not just the end. That’s why the pro scouts are constantly watching, because these are key evaluation periods. But those are the things that kind of strike us. The staple of our game, where was that? What was going on there? Those are the things that strike me. The poise level, the key defensive guys, and then I think you’ve got to give San Jose credit, because that’s as good a group as you’re going to face. It’s one thing to shut down one line, but you’re dealing with three lines there. The other thing that would show up is the skill level, at times, to get in their end. Because when we were at our best, we were playing in their end and exposing their back end, and we didn’t do that enough. You saw pockets of it, like certainly in Game 2, and even in Game 6 you saw it when we finally got our feet under us. That’s our game. It’s one thing to be a staple, but part of being good defensively is playing in their end. So those are the things that strike me. Ask me in two weeks and I’ll give you a longer-winded answer.”
Lombardi could write War and Peace II.
[Reply]
ChiKingFan Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
@18,118, The man has a law degree from Tulane.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 3:31 pm
@18,118, At least he didn’t give a quizzical short non-answer. I really like his responses, in general. Look how many GMs don’t really give the public any access to their thoughts. He really seems to tell us what’s really on his mind.
[Reply]
rontheking Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 5:00 pm
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?,
He was right about the 4-0 meltdown being a microcosm of the season, of the Kings not knowing yet how to deal with success. That’s typical of a young team…unfortunately….
[Reply]
hockey jockey Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
@18,118, funny
[Reply]
Gotta love DL…He never has much to say…
[Reply]
King Doughnuts Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@therope, I’m sorry what was the question again?
[Reply]
can’t image any “lomger-winded” answer….sheesh
[Reply]
launch Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
@launch, image = imagine & lomger = longer
[Reply]
I like how he talks like a fan.
He’s just as baffled as we are about the lack of defense in the playoffs. That is what concerns me. I think that Murray’s sytem gets exposed in a seven game series and he doesn’t adapt. The past two seasons have been a carbon copy of each other, even with more skill and better players in the lineup. Murray is supposed to be a defense first coach, yet his team falls apart in the most important games of the year.
Kings GAA over the past 2 regular seasons: 2.48
Kings GAA over the past 2 playoff series: 3.75
Kings GAA over the first 2 games of the last 2 playoff series: 2.00
Kings GAA over the final 4 games of the last 2 playoff series: 4.63
The Kings start out the playoffs strong, splitting both series in the first 2 road games and then the defensive wheels come off and Murray doesn’t have an answer.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Sydor25, I think it has to do with the pressure of the situation in the playoffs. Lack of experience has been out biggest issue and there’s really nothing that the coach/gm can do about that (outside of bringing in a boat load of veterans, but not going to happen here). We all know JQ struggled in last year’s playoff, which was his first exposure, along with almost everybody else’s.
And this year, I think the blame is the players and theirs alone. Sure TM should’ve called a TO in game 3, but whether or not that would’ve mattered is never going to get answered. It’s not TM that needs to come up with the answer, it’s the players who couldn’t execute. at least that my take.
[Reply]
RLane420 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 5:52 pm
@Stuart, Then why have a coach. If it is entirely up to the players why have a coach. Why can a team go from lossers to winners simply by changing coaches. How many rings does Bowman have and from how many teams? Sorry coaching isnt as illrelevant as you would have us believe. Coaches can drastically change a game. Maybe not mid period but certainly between periods.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:07 am
@RLane420, and coaches implement a system. that’s why you have a coach. And I agree about doing things between periods, but as has already been discusses by number6 (IIRC) there isn’t much time in 18 minutes to change a lot of stuff up.
I never said coaches were irrelevant. Coaches coach and players play. that is all.
BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@Sydor25,
Okay…
Then why, this year after giving up 12 goals in games 3-4 did the Kings only give up 5 in two games + overtime in games 5-6? That would be less than 2.50 GAA…
That is not a learned effect, or is it? Did the Kings adapt in games 5-6 defensively?
I’d say yes. We saw all the Sharks could produce in game 6, and nearly beat them.
Have an answer for that?
[Reply]
Sydor25 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
@BakoCAkingsCondorsGuy,
Quick played out of his mind in game 5. You can’t expect your goalie to do that for 4 games to win a series. Game 6 = 4 goals.
[Reply]
tornado12 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
@Sydor25, maybe that speaks to the fact that over the regular season, you play a different team every night with different skill levels and strengths. Van and SJ have some of the better offensive teams and the league with suberb skill levels compared to the rest of the league. Of course, I think thats only one aspect of it. There is no one single answer!
[Reply]
dMan Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@Sydor25, Reading that I certainly didn’t get the sense that Lombardi was baffled; in fact, he succinctly said “When I look at the experience of those [...] three puck-movers [Doughty, Johnson, Martinez] who have to show poise, you’re dealing with (limited) playoff experience. I think that was part of the issue, but that part, those kids will figure out.”
He also stated: “The other thing that would show up is the skill level [...] when we were at our best, we were playing in their end and exposing their back end, and we didn’t do that enough.”
So according to Lombardi, skill and experience were the reasons – not too baffling.
And again the Murray bashing is moot. The system works and the players DOMINATE when they follow the system and can compete with the best of them.
[Reply]
Sydor25 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
@dMan,
Except the Kings had more skill and experience this season, same result. How many years does it take for NHL caliber players to learn? It should take 3 years to learn not to make the same mistakes.
“And again the Murray bashing is moot. The system works and the players DOMINATE when they follow the system and can compete with the best of them.”
It’s easier to dominate with a passive system when you play a different team each game, in a seven game series, you have to adapt and put more pressure on the other team. The other team will find holes in your defense and you have to adapt. Murray expects the same system to work no matter what the other team does and that doesn’t work unless you have an insane amount of talent/skill over the other team.
Murray will be the coach of the Kings next season, but I sure hope he does allow the team to play with more possession and speed. The dump and chase is a vital offensive option, but it should not be the primary option.
[Reply]
Michael J. Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@Sydor25,
It usually takes NHL defensemen about four years to figure it out (about 25 or 26 years old). As far as skill goes, missing #11 and #24 (like it or not) does not equal more skill than last year in the playoffs.
I think the Kings actually did better this year than last year in the playoffs, and mUCH better than the previous nine yeats!
TM Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
@Sydor25,
An analogy that comes to mind is a golf swing. If it were strictly mechanical you should be able to replicate it every time. Problem is when you put pressure on it or nerves, things breakdown. I don’t think the issue is the system, its guys panicking and forgetting assignments.
“If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you; If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; . . . If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same . . . Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it.”
Rudyard Kipling
[Reply]
tuan jim Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 9:48 pm
@TM,
If. If, if, if . . .
. . . and you will be a man, my son.
I think the Kings behaved like men. It hurts that we lost a playoff series that we should have won, despite the ferocious talent among the Sharks forwards. But that’s showbiz.
Even the best teams spend several successive play-off years groveling and second-guessing themselves. What’s going through Montreal’s mind right now? Or Pittsburgh’s? What has San Jose had on its mind for the past four or five seasons?
In 1982 Gretzky scored more than Brad Pitt in a women’s prison. And his Oilers whupped EVERYONE and were picked to go straight to the finals. But they couldn’t get past a scrappy Kings squad in the opening round, a Kings squad that entered a playoffs for teams with the sixteen best records with the seventeenth best record over all. To pour even more acid on that wound, the Kings pulled off a THIRD period comeback that wiped its behind on what San Jose just did in game 3 against us.
And the next year the Oilers did make the finals, but were stepped on in four games. After that they started winning. And winning.
It takes time to be great. Time and bitter experience.
[Reply]
Player-X Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
@Sydor25, You are simply pointing out inconsistency, which is the main trait of youth and inexperience. The Kings can do “it,” but not always. As they mature, they will do “it” more often than now, but still never always. It was a great year, the highs were much higher than the lows were low, and so many players improved it was wonderful to enjoy. These guys are YOUNG, but will soon play even more above their years, as I think they did this season already.
This whole argument from simple fans (don’t mean that insultingly) saying Murray’s system is crippling our sparkling offensive-minded youth is preposterous. Every TV commentator talks about how defense wins in the playoffs. We scored tons of goals, and gave up tons of goals. So, the Kings actually did what you wanted them to do, concentrate on offense, and it DID NOT WORK. That is what Lombardi is talking about, and as far as I know, Lombardi and Murray have way more credibility on the subject than I, or you, or anyone else who posts on this site.
[Reply]
Dave's a Killer Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 7:47 am
@Player-X, You probably won’t get to this as I am late but, Player-X has absolutely nailed it! I guess it isn’t too surprising that others have not commented on this post since it is right on point. The Kings decided to try and play the SJ way and lost. An excellent post, Player-X
[Reply]
mrbrett7 Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 7:12 am
@Sydor25, If you read what he said, and I agree with him, it has quite a bit to do with the fact that you have guys out there with 6 games of playoff experience against guys with 66.
[Reply]
Lombardi, so stoic. It’s like he doesn’t feel he needs to explain himself to anybody. I find that attractive in a leader.
So mysterious. Lombardi.
Just playin, I love the guy.
[Reply]
I didn’t quite get that. Can Dean repeat that?
[Reply]
Maybe TM has a future in being an author once his days in LA are done?
[Reply]
Branzilla Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:17 pm
@Branzilla, Check that. DL*
[Reply]
Can’t wait for his answer in a couple of weeks.
[Reply]
What about the score-and-be-scored-upon-in-three-minutes-or-less problem??? Will that be addressed?
[Reply]
Michael J. Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
@Stuart,
Rich hasn’t had the necessary three days to type out that answer.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Michael J., true! LOL. that was Rich’s 3rd question, so we’ll read it next month.
[Reply]
tornado12 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
@Stuart, interesting dillema! They addressed it several times, but failed to correct it. HOW do you fix that? do other teams have that problem? Is it just a statistical anomoly? IMHO, I think it speaks to the teams inconsistency and inability to deal with success, as has been alluded to. ‘we scored, whew, we can relax now’ or ‘now they are pissed, uh-oh’. Its a microcosm of the teams general weakness of lack of ‘killer instinct’. Hopefully, it doesnt rear its ugly head next year too!
[Reply]
Scot Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@Stuart,
That is maybe THEE biggest concern of the season, for me.
That was super frustrating, it happened so. many. times.
I think if you have to point a finger, it goes to coaching.
Maybe not putting the right bodies out after goals. I really don’t know.
You have to kick teams while their down. Imagine if just on half of all the times that happened, if WE scored again within 3 minutes of us scoring, instead of them scoring right after.. how many more games we would have won.
But, in the end, I hate to say it, even if we had racked up a lot more wins and points, and got a higher seeding, even winning the division maybe.. and we ended up with 2nd or 3rd seed. I still think, without Kopitar, we would have been upset. Having home ice advantage, obviously, would have been a disadvantage for the Kings. 1-5 in home games in the last 2 years in the playoffs. Not cool.
[Reply]
CUP4LA Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
@Stuart, I don’t think it happened in the playoffs.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
@CUP4LA, I think it did. After Smyth scored to go up 5-3 is one I can remember. Maybe it didn’t, but it felt like SJ scored shortly after (within 3 minutes of game-time).
[Reply]
LONGER-winded? whew!
[Reply]
I love this analysis.
So in typical DL style this is long and rambling, but goes to the heart of the big areas of concern related to the season and the playoffs.
Season: Why did we handle success so poorly and continue to dig holes for ourselves?
Playoffs: Why did we get away from the defensive structure and responsibility that was so key to our season success?
It isn’t directly asked in the response, rather inferred, but how much of this is related to coaching?
[Reply]
mrbrett7 Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 7:13 am
@ForumFan, How much is related to youth?
[Reply]
Can you imagine what it would be like to be Deano’s kid and he has “The Talk” with you. his explanation would require several box-and-arrow schematics and last most of the kids teenage years.
In Dean We Trust…say what you will about our playoff success (or lack thereof), but I hope he’s our GH for a long time
[Reply]
Shakes Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:25 pm
@Shakes,
GH = GM
[Reply]
do you have this on tape? takes less time to listen to DL, than to read what he said
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
@Peter32,
Always think the same thing about Lombardi. Rather listen than read.
[Reply]
Darrell Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:17 pm
@Kingsfanone, Can you imagine how Rich could do this job if he didn’t have a tape recorder? Shorthand anyone?
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 6:06 pm
@Darrell,
Shorthand? Hell, he’d need a court reporter. And what if your mind gets stuck on one word or phrase you’re trying to jot down, how many next thoughts will you miss without a recorder? And then your pen/pencil breaks? Geez, give me a recorder please!
I just hope he realizes the importance of having some good offensive players in your lineup
[Reply]
Scot Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
@Whodawat,
Yeah, he kept alluding to that being a strength for San Jose.
But, he said, “We are going to build this from the back out. Defensively, it’s the first step.”
I agree, but you still need more, better offensive players than the Kings have.
[Reply]
David Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
@Scot, it’s a horrible argument…..Detroit doesn’t win with goaltending, Pitt didn’t win with goaltending and defense. All this hot air about building from the back out is horrible. If we can’t put pressure on other teams in their zone with our offensive skill then our defense will eventually break down no matter who is back there. Bottom line
[Reply]
Cristobal Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
@David,
I concur here.
Any team that is playing defense for the majority of the game will eventually have breakdowns.
TM never seems to want to defend with possession – this is a big factor in my disdain for the betrayal of Frolov.
Look through the season and how many times TM has scrratched Richardson. The TM emphasis has always been on size over skill and speed. This is why we landed Penner, not Hemsky.
I feel TM does help some young players develop into complete players, but that he over-values his system to the detriment of guys like Moller, Richie, Harrold, and even Williams.
If you can’t trust your defenders to deal with breakouts and less defensive zone time is your defense really very good?
I’d like to see a more possession and skill oriented LA Kings and I don’t think it will ever happen under TM.
Stuart Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@David, ummm, I think PIT did have pretty good goaltending and D when they won. But I could be wrong… And DET might not have the goaltending, but they have some of the best back-checking forwards in the game. So to say that they didn’t win it with D is naive. They absolutely did it with D, not just conventional Dmen as we might be used to seeing it.
Paul M. Hedberg Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
@David, He’ll just say Crosby,Malkin,Datsyuk,Ovechkin,Semin etc etc don’t “grow on trees”.My answer to that:…ahem,aren’t Caps doin it more our way than b4?Haven’t C & M been out alot for Pens?DET ALWAYS gets to the 2nd rd…even in an “off” yr.Hard to compare the 2 conf…easy to get away w/more over their.I think STL is gonna have 110 pts next yr.When you look at it though they were more of a “head scratcher”than we were.How can that be explained away just using the injury excuse.I know one thing,no matter which way it goes(down the road)w/the loser pt,shootout,reg. 3pt W or whatever 100 points aint gonna do it anymore.Gets u into a battle for 6-10(in the West).Top 3 or 4 have fig. that out already…that’s why their the top 3 or 4.
Michael J. Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:11 pm
@Scot,
Scoring is coming. remember, it usually takes defensemen about two to three years longer to figure it out than it does for wingers. As far as building from the back end forward-I have to agree. I always want my youngets and most inexperienced players as far from my net as possible (on the wing).
Detroit has had some quality defensemen, I think they have a guy who wears #5…
[Reply]
“Ask me in two weeks and I’ll give you a longer-winded answer.”
[Reply]
Did Dean take a breath? That’s my only question! LOL
[Reply]
I always enjoy reading DL’s answers, and although he gets a little ribbing for trying to cram so much information into a few questions, I really appreciate reading his take on things. Thanks Rich for taking on writing it out, and be careful that thumb injury doesn’t flair up with all the extra work. Above and beyond dude.
[Reply]
So what he’s saying here is, give San Jose credit. Got it.
[Reply]
Shakes Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@Drake,
Well also in the 3rd paragraph he explained the Higgs-Boson/”God Particle,” that is hypothesized to exist using the Large Hadron Collider. But that’s neither here nor there.
[Reply]
Dominick Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@Shakes,
I’ll give you points for even knowing what a Large Hadron Collider is. The fact that you even used it in a sentence pertaining to hockey is impressive. If you use it in a Haiku I think I’ll actually owe you money. LOL
[Reply]
Cristobal Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:37 pm
@Shakes,
Ha! Brilliant!
[Reply]
Scot Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 3:20 pm
@Shakes,
Time for this 25-year-old to do some research..
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 6:13 pm
@Shakes,
Geez, that’s way above my pay grade! But impressive nonetheless!
[Reply]
Excuse me Dean, can we start over..I’m sorry..you lost me at “In a backhanded way”.?!
[Reply]
Hey Dean the reason why San Jose has three top lines is because they went out and got talent…Thornton and Heatley are big name guys that the Sharks got to help the young team…FIGURE IT OUT!
[Reply]
Dave Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
@David, The reason SJ has talent is because Dean built them a base from which they could further develop and eventually trade for said talent. The Penner acquisition, blah, was the first deal of that type for the Kings, hopefully we get some better ones down the road.
[Reply]
Whodawat Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 1:55 pm
@David, You’d think he’d have figured that out after last year, but you know…
[Reply]
mrbrett7 Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 7:15 am
@David, Who both fell in their laps for a song and a dance. Figure it out.
[Reply]
David Reply:
April 28th, 2011 at 11:11 am
@mrbrett7, ya because nobody else in the NHL could’ve made an offer for these guys right? Oh wait Healtley had some “character” issues that I’m sure Lombardi didn’t like. Something along the lines of what Gaborik had minus the injury concern. I’ve figured it out since he told fans at a GM meeting that if he had a fantasy draft and his top choice was either Gretzky, Orr, or Roy he would pick Roy every time…..Yes I figured it out, it’s time for other to follow suit. We need an offensive threat.
[Reply]
Sort of off topic….i looked at the previous post with contract status for each player. Looks like the guys under contract total approx $50 Million. How are we planning on signing DD, Lewis, Martinez, Richardson with only $10 Million to go to the Cap. Am I missing something? Are planning on making some trades to she payroll? What do you guys think?
[Reply]
Dave Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:07 pm
@Tony, no, you’re not missing anything. and you forgot Simmonds. there’s about $13M to spend. doughty gets $6, Simmonds $2.5, Lewis $1, Richie $1.5. that leaves $2M to either re-sign Martinez or go with Voynov/Muzzin/Hickey.
[Reply]
tuan jim Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
@Tony,
If Zeus and Poni are not re-signed we have abouyt $11.5 million is projected cap space. The largest single hit, of course, is going to be DD. But if we sign him at, say, $7 million, that’s only an increase in our current cap hit of little more than half that amount, since his hit is already $3.475 million per season.
If you go through the list of RFAs whom we want to lock down, the total amount of increased cap hits will still — most likely — be well within our projected space. In fact, it should be sufficiently within that space even if we re-sign Zeus (at somewhat less than his current $4 million).
Wild cards include Schenn and Loki, etc. If they play with the big boys, their numbers go up. Schenn’s cap hit if he plays with the Kings is more than $3 million.
All of this, of course, can wind up being meaningless once the CBA is re-negotiated.
But worry not. If there’s one thing Lombardi can NOT be criticized for it’s a failure to work intelligently with the team’s cap space. Take a look at his deals with Quick and Bernier, for example — nailing down two strong goalies for an annual outlay that’s about half of what Giguerre gets in Toronto.
[Reply]
With Kopitar out and Williams coming back from injury, the Kings were very worried about scoring goals. Murray either told the Defensive to get involved in the offense more or the defense did this on their own. Either way, this took away from our defensive game plan and resulted in a lot of goals being scored against us.
[Reply]
Cristobal Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:41 pm
@Craig,
The majority of costly errors were defensive zone breakdowns – not a failure to backcheck. Some were a result of getting caught deep, but, imo, the breakdowns were more defeating because it sucks belief out of the team.
[Reply]
he said a lot of words about the playoffs when he could have just said “we missed Kopi’s defense”. that really is why we lost that series.
[Reply]
Helvetica Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:19 pm
@Dave, Except that that wasn’t all he was saying. He said they thought they would be missing his offense and that, as it turned out, they missed his defense much more. I think the bigger issue was that, as he mentioned, they really got away from their game and it sounds like he thinks its an issue of experience and maturity. Its not as simple as, Kopi would have won the series for us.
[Reply]
Can someone please summarize this for me? I only have 5-minute break.
[Reply]
Fernando Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
@JFont,
He said we missed Kopi’s defense more than his offense.
I had not thought about, but that is a good excuse in my book.
[Reply]
Rainman Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 2:17 pm
@JFont, Blah, blah, blah…
[Reply]
Geez, the guy gives a great break down of what he liked and didn’t like, and why he thinks we lost the series and all you guys can do is complain that his answer is too long?
Maybe he should have tweeted his answers as one liners…
[Reply]
His best point was regarding what we missed with Kopitar. Yeah, his offense, but it’s Kopitar’s defense that was dramatically missing and cost us the most.
[Reply]
I think DL needs get off the pill hes taken!! What did he say….
Well, he likes SJ the way they play – two-way hockey
Well, defance 1st – how many more years you going to that! Two-way hockey might solve that problem.
Well Kopi – thats right he plays two-way hockey, offance to D flow to D to O flow, its called speed and skating at all times…
DL has done a great job and dont get me wrong and I think DL gets it, I just dont think TM get it, hes all about the D.
[Reply]
Helvetica Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 3:00 pm
@Sammuch, He’s all about D because thats what these players need to learn first and thats what this current roster has as its strength. As the offensive pieces are added, the team can grow into a complete package.
[Reply]
HockeyOnly Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 10:30 pm
@Sammuch, Of course he likes their two way hockey, who wouldn’t when they have speed to burn, forwards and defensemen. To bad we don’t have that except for 2 0r 3 players.
[Reply]
For me the two best things in there entirely were 1) talking about how you have to identify strengths and weaknesses. That’s intelligent. That’s the only way you can start to break things down.
2) The other was his comments about skill level as related to the following quote: Because when we were at our best, we were playing in their end and exposing their back end, and we didn’t do that enough. You saw pockets of it, like certainly in Game 2, and even in Game 6 you saw it when we finally got our feet under us. That’s our game. It’s one thing to be a staple, but part of being good defensively is playing in their end.
He linked that up with the skill issue when you look at the quotes, and essentially That’s what I was seeing. It’s not just about shooting off of one leg and roofing it w a defender draped all over you to blow people away on the highlights. It’s about having enough skill that you can manage the puck (like in soccer, getting the ball away from the other team and keeping it). Then you get the puck in to their end and don’t have to exclusively depend on the cycle and physical force alone.
So I like his analysis. Now, it’s to see what can be done about it because I think that is a big issue.
[Reply]
Cristobal Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 3:08 pm
@number 6,
Hey sir.
Are we the Wolves of the NHL as I said earlier in the season?
Look at the top soccer teams and they all need to be able to attack and hold possession.
Defending cannot be the sole goal of any successful hockey or soccer team. Sooner or later mistakes will occur when it’s 24/7 defending.
This is why I don’t like TM and DL. We had one heck of a possession forward in Fro and they didn’t want the door to hit him as he left.
Richie was benched for half the season and when he was given his playoff role he showed how he can perform – albeit he had some defending errors (but would he have been better if he’d been played more during the season?).
We may not be Wolves, but definitely no better than a Stoke.
It’s a shame because Brown and Kopi deserve to have some serious talent around them. Not to mention, if TM had had a more prominent 4th line to soak up minutes at the end of the reg. season do we have 2 serious injuries going into the playoffs?
I feel DL has failed to get enough young talent AND that TM has an unbalanced approach.
Perhaps the pressure to make the playoffs has pushed them into making things the way they are. Not a good excuse, but maybe we are still developing – I don’t know.
[Reply]
number 6 Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
@Cristobal,
Yeah Cristobal…. I do remember those comments.
[Reply]
I don’t feel DL is holding himself accountable enough.
There are good things TM has brought, but…
Why build the defense first when you come into a team with Kopi, Brown, Cammy, Fro, Lubo, Corvo, Demitra, etc.?
Why not build the offense and recruit defense through the draft and FA markets since that’s exactly what was done anyway?
Why criticize former LA GM’s for trading draft picks at deadline and then trade Teubert (who cost Cammy and was preferred to Myers) for a Penner?
Why pursue players like Smyth, Mitchell, Scuderi, Poni, Cloutier, Calder, Zus, Jones, Thornton, etc.- instead of really building through the draft to have young, talented players who would be blooded in the league by year 6 next season.
Are we further along than St. Louis, Toronto, Edmonton, and NYI?
I feel something has to change. If DL is to stay on it likely should be TM leaving.
Are we going to be a playoff team in 12 months with these players or with some wholesale changes via departures?
[Reply]
I know we will poke fun at DL for his answers, which is great. But for me, the “punch line” tends to lead us away from the point. I have some serious problems with what he says and here I’ll try to boil it down.
On the one hand, he talks about the recurring problems during the season (he calls it dealing with success, I call it losing focus) and how the playoffs were “almost like you’ve got a microcosm of some of the things you faced during the year, ” regarding losing the 4-0 lead.
Then he goes into the lack of playoff experience… “When I look at the experience of those guys, the three puck-movers who have to show poise, you’re dealing with (limited) playoff experience,” “…this goes through the whole series. It’s not just the end,” “The staple of our game, where was that? What was going on there? Those are the things that strike me. The poise level, the key defensive guys…”
This is a contradiction. My problem with his thinking is, he can’t have it both ways yet he tries to.
Either the problem during the season (whatever you want to call it) was the same/similar to the problem in the playoffs OR the problem in the playoffs was lack of experience, which has nothing to do with the problems during the regular season. (Regular season = basic pressure, Playoffs = enormous pressure)
Of course, I know he could say both, but he didn’t. He equated the two and then proceeded to contradict himself.
The other thing too, which he didn’t say, was the same thing happened 1 year ago against the Canucks. Did they learn from that? No.
So the bottom line is, what is the problem, cause and what is the solution?
I think we can all agree that the cause/solution is NOT simply more playoff pressure/experience because we know the same issues cropped up all year. So it can’t be that.
What it can be, and he didn’t directly address, is the approach (or game plan or system) that has been implemented by the coaching staff.
He alluded to it by saying, “I think that’s the thing we’ve got to figure out here now. It’s identifying your areas of strength and weakness first, and really identifying it.”
So what he’s saying is, he and TM haven’t figured out what the teams’ strengths and weaknesses are. I mean “really” identifying them. As opposed to “kind of” identifying them.
Ultimately, it’s DL’s job to bring in the players and TM’s job to implement a system that breeds success. It’s hardly as simple as players “dealing with success” better. Yet, it took him over 1,300 words to make a simple point that isn’t the problem or the cause or the solution.
But hey, he’s fun to listen. He’s like a fan.
Yeah right.
[Reply]
Cristobal Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
@wavesinair,
For the past year you have picked up on the contradictions, deflections, scapegoating, and excuses of DL.
Do you feel he should be retained?
What about TM?
Are we where we shoud be after 5 years?
Didn’t DL imply there would be more after the 5th year?
Will we still be a mix of youth and the aged next year? Mitchell, Scuds, Smyth, Zus…
Will we be a whole lot younger and inexperienced? Voinov, Schenn, Kitsyn, Hickey…
I don’t know if either path makes us a better club, I mean franchise, playoff time next year.
Burke will likely have Toronto closer to the goals DL said we would be at.
Edmonton is in the 2nd year of a full rebuild and will have the youth, and inexperience, we should have faced 2 years ago.
I think DL has been pretty average with some horrible blunders – penner may be added to the list soon.
Maybe for all TM has done with seemingly little (or is it the other way round) the DL/TM marriage is dysfunctional.
[Reply]
Kingsfanone Reply:
April 27th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
@wavesinair,
Nicely said waves! So with any endevor, business or sports or life, there is a need to identify strengths and weaknesses in order to breed/gain success. Once you have identified you can address and “fix” areas of concern. So one of those fixes was Penner, completely different than plugging stop gap measures in like a Halpern for example. Sturm must not have been a “fix” as he wasn’t protected.
So my question is why haven’t they figured out the strengths and weaknesses yet? Moves are being made to “fix” different areas, yet they haven’t finished identifying yet? Isn’t the very first thing you do when attacking any problem is figure out what type of problem you have and where you need to address concerns first, before jumping in and tearing things out will nilly without a completed plan of attack?
If you don’t know the outcome of your actions, if you make decisions just to make decisions, you’re really not getting ahead anywhere, are you? Unless of course you are extremely lucky and things fall into your lap and all works out.
So by not identifying strengths and weaknesses yet, NOW how many years of building will it take? That’s assuming they really DO identify them now?
Jus’ askin’
[Reply]
I put the uncontrolled slides on the coaching.
[Reply]
I think playing the run-n-gun with them was due to missing Kopitar. Those regular season games were with Kopitar…besides the 6-1 disaster, which was pretty much the same problem as the two bad playoff games–only worse.
[Reply]
“We all looked at it and thought missing his offense (would be big), but we end up missing his defense.”
Gonna toot my own horn. I predicted it. Go check if you want. They missed Kopitar’s matchup against SJ’s top line, and they missed his ability to control the tempo of the game (slow it down and bore SJ to death.)
[Reply]
Um, give San Jose credit? I ain’t givin’ ‘em DIDDLY. Thornton can blow kisses at my um, whatever.
Also I love Lombardi in an interview almost as much as I love Matt Greene. I wish he was my neighbor like three houses down so I could laugh all the time when I ran into him.
[Reply]
I understand Murray’s system is all about puck control and cycling down low but they MUST address the lack of speed on the team. The series winning goal is a great example. Setoguchi was just too fast and they created havoc all series long by skating circles around us.
[Reply]
DL proved he’s dillusional comparing Kopitar to Yzerman AND Sakic, he’s not even a shadow of either.
[Reply]
Our strengths this year was goaltending and a much improved defensive corp. Mitchell, Martinez, and an improved JJ and Greener really strengthened our weakness last year. Greener and JJ probably tied for most improved, with Greener possibly maxing his potential.
Reasons for our up & down play:
1) Young players are gonna have defensive lapses, and we have a young team. Kopi, Williams, etc… going down meant more critical time to younger players.
2) Our young puck-moving dmen have to continue to improve on defense.
3) Penner was pretty poor on defense.
4) Too many forwards are not good defensively. There is a difference between being good defensively and being defensively responsible. Just because you buy into the team concept of defense first and try to be in good position does not automatically mean you are good defensively…so you can expect lapses and there were lapses.
5) Too many forwards are only marginally skilled offensively…a sin considering number 4 above. Obviously this is why our PP sucks and why we make some teams with defensive/goaltending issues look like the iron curtain (Canucks/San Jose,etc…). I love our grinding style but how about some grinders who can actually make plays. Maybe having an abundance of centers could help.
[Reply]
i wish Yzerman was our GM….look where his team is and what he has done ever since became GM of the lighting……DL seems to be all talk to me at times, but where are the results?
GO KINGS GO
[Reply]