Not surprisingly, Phoenix coach Dave Tippett was none too pleased with Drew Doughty’s game-winning goal, which held up after a video review. Doughty was given credit for the goal after several players crashed the net front and the puck snuck past goalie Mike Smith as the net was slightly lifted in the scrum. Here’s what Tippett told reporters…
TIPPETT: “It should be no goal. It’s not a matter of (the) fact that the puck went in the net. The puck did go in the net, but it should be goalie interference. If they don’t give the goal to (Jack) Johnson then it’s goalie interference. If he comes in and puts his leg in front of Mike Smith’s leg so (Smith) can’t make a stop, that is goalie interference. It’s as simple as that. It’s a poor call. It’s a blown call that should be no goal.”
i can agree with that. i would be pissed if that were Quick
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:02 am
@aj, The law changed. Skates can be inside the crease now. Neglible contact between JMFJ & Smith. Good goal!
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:02 am
@aj, The law changed. Skates can be inside the crease now. Neglible contact between JMFJ & Smith. Good goal!
[Reply]
Synergy Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:06 am
@aj, Ya i have no problem with Tippett saying that. Seems like it has happened to us many times. They should really make goalie interference reviewable on goals.
[Reply]
Perro Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:15 am
@aj, Argument can go both ways. finally got a call our way. I thoght johsn was riden in by the defense.
I also thought Johsnon should have got credit.
[Reply]
300x13 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:42 am
@Perro, Looking at the slow motion, it never touched Johnson. Once it went off the Coyotes’ player, the puck took a straight trajectory into the net (and out, as it was). Therefore, the last King to touch was Doughty.
[Reply]
300x13 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:53 am
@300×13, It might have gone off of Johnson’s stick before it hit the Yotes skate. Either way, a goal and a win for the Kings…although I was really hoping for that one BEFORE the end of regulation.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:31 am
@Perro, Yup. The NHL screwed that up. JJ was the last King to touch the puck. It went from Dewey’s stick, was deflected about 20 degrees by JJ’s stick (away from the net), and hit Phoenix 23′s skate, then slid under the goaltender, and showed up going over the red line behind him.
[Reply]
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:53 pm
@Perro, Puck went in off of Eckman which came off of DD’s stick.
[Reply]
IceGuy Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:43 am
@aj,
I agree that if it was Quick, we’d be pissed, and most likely Toronto would have said good goal. “Turn around is fair play” comes to mind.
However, the reality of the situation was that Johnson was WEARING Coyote defenders as he entered the crease. He was essentially surrounded on all sides by Coyotes.
Note to Dave: Teach D-men to clear players AWAY from the goal/goalie, not into the goal/goalie.
[Reply]
Can’t believe Tippett is crying about that goal. His team also got outplayed all through out.
[Reply]
Kings Fan In Temecula Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:23 am
@Kingsation8, i disagree i think the yotes were on our (butts) for most of the game and we just got lucky and Quick isnt human thats all
[Reply]
It is one of those plays where any team that gets that goal is saying sure it is a good goal and any team that has it against them would be crying no goal. Key with the replay is that it is only for if the puck crosses the goal line. They don’t review things like what he is complaining about.
[Reply]
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 5:40 am
@Jeff Hoffman, True. Tippet’s beef is with the referee. He would have had to make the interference call and did not. Toronto had no ability, by rule, to call no goal unless they said the net was off the mooring or the puck never went in. I have no doubt, based on their track record, that if they could have called it no goal, they would have. Can you smell that? There’s a foul stench coming out of Toronto.
[Reply]
Stuart Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:09 am
@40YearKingsFan, I will never be comfortable while TOR has the fate of a Kings goal in their grubby hands. I would not have been surprised at all if TOR waived it off. And I’m being dead serious. After they pulled that “not enough concrete evidence to overturn the call on the ice yet we’re going to overturn the call on the ice” a few games back, I lost all respect for the replay goons who look at the screen. Someone somewhere mentioned that maybe the refs should be the ones looking at a screen to determine like the do in the NFL… Get Mike Murphy out of the war room, get rid of that monkey!
[Reply]
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:55 pm
@40YearKingsFan, Anyone notice if Tippett got fined by the NHL for bitchin about the call…. Jus say’n
[Reply]
If that were Phoenix that scored we’d be well beyond pissed… That’s one that went our way and we should be real to the idea that we got a good non call there..
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:12 am
@Mike, I think we would have been pissed, but not in a “just” way…more like a “that figures” way. If you watch the replay, there’s no “just” reason why the goal shouldn’t count. It DID go off Johnson’s stick, and there’s no evidence the goal was off the moorings at any time, and there’s no way that made any difference in whether the puck goes in (the reason it went in is because it went off a Phoenix player’s skate, and the goaltender didn’t see it.)
[Reply]
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:57 pm
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, Ken, how can you mistake a skate blade of the Yote dman for JJ’s stick?? I’d like to have seen JJ get it, but it clearly went in off of Eckman’s skate blade. Honest.
[Reply]
gralx Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 6:59 am
@Mike, Fortunately for the NHL I was one of 2 people in the greater Phx area watching the game last night. And, we were both rooting for the Kings. So, there will be no outcry LOL
[Reply]
ZurichKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:44 am
@Mike, Voilà, exactly my point. Would it have been us we would’ve said that this was another bad decision by Toronto.. right?
[Reply]
DEH Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:58 pm
@Mike, If anything the contact from the defenseman caused the any contact with Smith by Johnson. Tippett, why you hef to be mad, is only game?
[Reply]
Evens out with that Hanzsal high stick goal a year ago if anything…
[Reply]
Action Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:53 am
@LB,
Not even close. We’d have to score 10 more against them like this one to make up for that Hanzal nonsense. Plus someone would have to pay Lombardi his 50K back.
[Reply]
Buster Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:58 am
@Action,
Sorry to disagree with you on this one, BUT it’s more like 100 more against them to even it up.
[Reply]
These dirty goals in the crease are difficult calls for the ref. It’s as if u could call goalie interference on many of them.
We were due for some calls going our way
[Reply]
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 5:53 am
@@spencerlakings, I agree. Everything happens very quickly in the crease and I don’t know how they can possibly see it all. So, unless he SEES goalie interference or the dislodged net, he’s right to call it a goal. He can’t assume it based on the fact that there was a pile up in front of the net and Phoenix is complaining. The call went our way, but it was the proper call. We didn’t get away with one.
[Reply]
McCheese Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:46 am
@@spencerlakings, I like the way Sutter approached it after the joke no-goal the other night. If its in the net, then you need alot of overturn it, or else its a goal.
Wouldn’t be perfect, but at least it would even the playing field.
[Reply]
Smith could have made the save, his glove was right on the puck.
[Reply]
The problem with Tippett’s claim is that there was a Coyote draped all over Johnson, thus contributing to the contact with Smith. If Johnson was alone it would have been goalie interference.
Also, Lokti was our weak link tonight. We need him to get tricky with the puck and have better puck possession.
[Reply]
TheCrazyWhls Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:37 pm
@DBking, Agreed. His puck possession tonight was frustating to watch. His line could be AMAZING if they could just settle the puck down a lil more.
[Reply]
Shakes Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:11 am
@TheCrazyWhls, also have you noticed that when we’re in the offensive zone, he makes awkward soft passes back to our blue line in traffic that get picked off and can easily go the other way if our d-men don’t scramble back. i’ve noticed it a few times in the past few games (as opposed to if you don’t have a strong play, i’d think you’d want to just put it into the corners deeper in the zone)
[Reply]
bonvivant1 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 4:43 am
@TheCrazyWhls, I saw it differently. He made some quality passes to players in soft areas of the ice from the boards that resulted in quality shots on goal— including one by DP.
[Reply]
It’s payback for the blown call last year when an obvious high stick goal was allowed. Ended up being the game winner I believe…comes around, goes around!
[Reply]
1) The back of the net coming up had no bearing on the goal.
2) The replay shows conclusively that it went off Jack Johnson’s stick, then off a Phoenix player’s skate, before it appears to go under the goal tender and into the net.
3) Other than a technicality of the goal frame not being squarely on the ice, I can see no reason why it’s not a goal. It’s not like there was any chance it “sneaked in” under the post or from the back. Overturning the goal may be according to some obscure reading of the rules, but it wouldn’t be in the spirit of the game.
4) It sucks to lose like that, but the way to avoid that is to score more goals. We’ve seen that sort of thing happen to the Kings far too often.
5) I don’t see any interference–particularly since it DID go of Johnson’s stick and indirectly into the net.
[Reply]
puck73 Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:29 pm
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, Very well stated.
[Reply]
justmyopinion Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:32 pm
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, Umm, Doughty got the goal. Johnson never touched it. As far as the net being dislodged the rule states it has to come completely off the peg before the puck completely crosses the line, which it didn’t do before or after.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
@justmyopinion, Um. You’re wrong. The replay shows it changing direction off Johnson’s stick. I watched it over and over again and still have it on my DVR. As for coming completely off the peg, there’s now way to tell for sure it didn’t, but there’s no evidence it did either.
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:11 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, I’m with W.t.f.K? – replay shows a faint touch off JMFJ’s stick and minimal contact. Don’t sympathize with Tippett one little bit. Have a nice 1 hour flight, you lost fair & square!!!!
mrbrett7 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 2:02 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, I would have to disagree. Every replay I watched JJ never touched the puck. It went off of the defender’s skate (can’t remember who).
As for clear interference? Accordin to the rule, it’s not even close to interference. Any player has the right to enter the crease and go for the puck. That’s all he was doing.
The only dispute in my mind was if the net came completely off the mooring, but, as you stated, there isn’t a single replay available (that we know of), showing if it did or didn’t.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:19 am
People can disagree if they want, but I have a replay on my DVR that proves Jack Johnson touched the puck. If it’s going to be a matter of people not accepting it, in a few days I’ll take the time to get the video off my DVR and on the web, but there’s absolutely no doubt, if you carefully watch all the replays from the Kings broadcast.
Since that IS the case, Jack Johnson, who was reaching from the left-wing side of the net was not remotely interfering with the goaltender, as he touched the puck first, before (IIRC) being shoved into the goaltender.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:07 am
By the way, that’s probably why Tippett said “if they don’t give the goal to Johnson…”
[Reply]
DLB Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:18 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, IMO it hit off a skate, not a stick.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:47 am
@DLB, It went off Jack Johnson’s stick, THEN off Phoenix 23′s skate.
GrapevineKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 5:14 am
@justmyopinion, I agree with DLB, the puck went off the coyotes player skate. When they were showing the overhead angle, even Fox pointed it out.
[Reply]
300x13 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:52 am
@GrapevineKingsFan, I said the same thing in a post above, but watching it again, it looks like it might have hit Johnson’s stick BEFORE it hit the Coyotes player’s skate. If that is the argument for it being Johnson’s goal, I can live with that. Either way, it’s a goal for the Kings…and that’s all that matters.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:20 am
@300×13, Watching closely enough, it’s certain it did.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:21 am
BTW, that means the NHL _did_ screw up in crediting the goal to Dewey–it would be JJ’s goal.
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 3:05 pm
@GrapevineKingsFan, JJ was to the right of Ekcman and the puck couldn’t have come off of JJ’s stick because then it would have hit the inside of the blade and it went in from the outside of the blade as he (Eckman) was facing Smith, it went off of DD’s stick to the blade of ERckmans skate and JJ’s stick never touched it. Quit looking at JJ raising his arms as though he scored, they’re raised because the puck went in.
Goaltender Interference? That’s stretching it. Smith’s body position wouldn’t have allowed his leg to move to where Jack was pushed by Doan. I’d call that 50/50 contact between JJ & Doan. JJ was fighting for position with Doan as much as he was crashing to the net. Pegs down baby, 2 points. Let’s get 2 more.
[Reply]
Dave Tippet should be grateful they got a point out of this game. They got outplayed for most of the game.
Does anyone else think Kopi made it too easy on Smith by sending all his shot square to Smith’s chest?
I counted at least 4 shot like it.
[Reply]
KingOfRedlands Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
@Gustavo, I was thinking that the whole game. I was sitting right behind the Kings bench and I can’t tell you how many times they would skate in ready to slam their stick on something.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
@Gustavo, Yes…it was fairly easy to see even KOPI thought he made it too easy on Smith. My guess is he tried to pick the corner and it just didn’t go there.
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:15 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, Scary how off-form that would make him ….
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:15 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?, Scary how off-form that would make him ….
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:30 am
@Duncan, There’s probably nothing no more demoralizing for a forward than facing a goaltender 1-on-1 and bouncing the puck off his chest.
Didnt like the call huh Tippet? Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah waaaaaaaaaaaaah! Try being a Kings coach Dave and asking Toronto to give you a break, doesnt happen very often !
[Reply]
Kramsteezy Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
@puck73,
Nice
[Reply]
Forum67 Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
@puck73,
That was the shock for me. FINALLY we didn’t screwed by Toronto. When they announced the play was under review I was already preparing myself for Toronto to break out hearts again. As difficult as it is for the Kings to score goals, having Toronto overturn that one probably would have led to repeat of the outcome in Winnipeg.
[Reply]
absoludicrous Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:48 pm
@Forum67,
was going to post the same thing. thank you toronto for giving it to us ONCE.
[Reply]
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:45 am
@Forum67, The only reason Toronto didn’t screw us is that, by rule, they couldn’t screw us. The puck clearly went over the line and the net was not dislodged and that’s all they can rule on. If it was in their purview to rule goalie interference after the fact, I have no doubt they would have. They didn’t do us any favor at all. As a matter of fact, I’d be willing to bet they were irritated by the fact that they were handcuffed by the rules. The NFL replay/review seems so unbiased to me while the hockey replay/review stinks of the old hockey inner circle which we have somehow fallen out of favor with. Just my thoughts.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
@40YearKingsFan, There are things about the NHL review that need work, but the NFL review is a total joke.
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:57 pm
@puck73, Yeah, I was all set to have it overturned. I figured there was no way Toronto let it stand, regardless of what should have happened.
[Reply]
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 3:09 pm
@puck73, I don’t think it was a break, I think it is more “we’re not gonna make an ass out of our ref even if he is wrong” and I’m not saying it just about the goal, it’s many othert calls also. The ref said it was in and they weren’t going to make him look stupid, but I’m sure he’ll hear something about it from the head office.
[Reply]
Sucks doesn’t it Dave. Trying being a King again. You would get used to it.
And it’s about time a questionable goal situation went the way for the Kings it usually goes for all the other teams. The right way.
[Reply]
Oh, yeah. Questioning the league and league officials is finable by the league. Well it is for the Kings. Am I correct Dean!.
[Reply]
Ducksuck Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:37 am
@Jamesonafterawin, Correct ask rangers coach after his comments about the officals in the winter classic. $3,000 I think it was.
[Reply]
Blade17 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:08 am
@Ducksuck, $30,000, no?
[Reply]
gralx Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:15 am
@Blade17, $30,000, yes
Jamesonafterawin Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:23 am
@Ducksuck, Oh yeah. Hadn’t heard that yet.
[Reply]
Darrell Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:41 am
@Jamesonafterawin, Saying it’s a blown call won’t get him fined. He’d only get fined if he said it was Murphy paying the Kings back for previous calls.
[Reply]
Jamesonafterawin Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:30 am
@Darrell, That’s true now that I think about it. Not so much questioning a call or the league, but more if you make an accusation while questioning a call.
[Reply]
Dave Tippett, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
[Reply]
yetiman_oc Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:43 pm
@jess, When/where did this boo thing start?
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:45 pm
@yetiman_oc,
Long time ago, probably by the romans..
[Reply]
nykingfan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 5:20 am
@jess,
Pretty sure it was the moops
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
@yetiman_oc,
To be honest, sort of a running joke between friends and I know, we are wearing it out bigtime
[Reply]
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:57 am
@jess, Not wearing it out at all!!! It lightens everything up when everyone’s getting all cranky after a loss! Sometimes I’ll just scan the threads quicly to find the BOOOO’s just to get a good laugh.
And then some people get irritated,,,,,,,, making it all that much funnier!
puck73 Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:50 pm
@yetiman_oc, TM…BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
@puck73,
LOL, now see, for some reason that will continue to make me laugh forever.
Resedakingsfan Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:55 pm
@puck73, Guess it’s not completely out of your system yet.
neil Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:03 am
@puck73, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo That felt good..I wasnt booing anyone particular just letting my freak flag fly!!!! BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO man..that does feel good..Carry on….
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:52 am
@puck73, BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:51 am
@yetiman_oc, Puck73 is the first one I saw rockin’ the BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. When he does it now, I just instictively boo along with him. Only AFTER I have joined in will I go back and check what he was booing. You should try it. It feels good.
[Reply]
I understand where he’s coming from, JJ was in the goalies way, but frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn. We’ll take a goal, and a win, any way we can. As someone posted higher on this page, consider it payback from last year’s high stick goal Hanzel scored.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:44 pm
@CB14,
His argument flys about as far as the brick thrown by TM through his own flatscreen after Sutter goes 5-0-3!
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:09 am
@jess, I like the coaching change more and more every game, but I still don’t feel good about TM’s potential anguish.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:13 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?,
He doesn’t get upset -remember? How about when we lost the game against Dallas right before Boston. Folloing this,
Q & A: Terry Murray: “I’m not going to change anything about the way were playing”
Leweike to DL “Guess what DL?”
-”What?”
Lewieke: “Were getting on a flight to Boston…”
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:32 am
@Jess…well, sometimes he gets upset. How about when they got booed by the fans because they got killed at home and didn’t look like they even tried?
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:36 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?,
That was the wrong time to get mad! At the fans? That’s when it really went down hill (my opinion of TM). He didn’t come out in the press and say: “The fans have a right to be mad, it is time to work on this..” He never took responsibility once that I can ever remember. So he blamed the fans.. Bye TM..
Ducksuck Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:34 am
@CB14, I saw brown in the crease getting a face wash and doughty on the ice on the side of the net. All coyotes pushing brown and it left drew’s stick off a coyotes skate in the net. Only problem was the net was up a little when brown was being pushed. I didn’t see Johnson In smiths way. At the game not on tv so only saw it live and on the big screen but the goal looked good because the call on the ice was a goal not a penalty so looks like a good goal from the sell out crowd. Go Kings!
[Reply]
HockeyOnlyAwaitingModeration Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 3:13 pm
@Ducksuck, I agree with you, that’s what I kept seeing on the TV replays also.
[Reply]
40YearKingsFan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 9:08 am
@CB14, Shane Doan actually had a lot more intelligent argument although just like you, frankly I don’t give a damn. He argued that the referee was paying such close attention to the net that he missed the interference. And that’s a sensible argument because the net situation can be reviewed and the interference cannot so you’d want the ref looking for goalie interference and let the replay thieves in Toronto decide if the puck went in or not. That said Mr. Doan can now take his good argument and their point and go away. He and Mr. Tippet are both dismissed.
[Reply]
I seem to remember some other team benefiting from a blown call (way more obvious one at that) last year………. Hmmmm…….
[Reply]
all those guys in the Pheonix locker room need to remind themselves that they can’t win if they don’t score goals. It doesn’t matter that they got “screwed” on that one in overtime. Figure it out.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:56 pm
@KingOfRedlands,
Maybe we can give them some tips on how to handle that anguish?
[Reply]
KingOfRedlands Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:58 pm
@jess, In exchange for what, power play tips? They are one of the few teams worse than us.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 5th, 2012 at 11:59 pm
@KingOfRedlands, read it again.
DesertKing Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:54 am
@jess,
We are the experts.
[Reply]
Jamesonafterawin Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 8:36 am
@KingOfRedlands, LOL, ha!
[Reply]
Anyone know the record for the least amount of goals scored in an 82 game season? Whatever it is, that record is in danger of being broken.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:07 am
@4tee, It will be known as “The year that paint never quite dried”
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:19 am
@4tee, We’ve scored 85 goals in 41 games, that projects to 170 goals over the whole season. You have to go back 10 years to find a team who scored less goals then we’re on pace for this year. Colombus in 01-02 scored 164 goals. That was only Columbus’ 2nd year in the league. The year before that, Minnesota, in their 1st year in the league, scored 168. Pretty bad looking ain’t it. Thankfully it’s only a projection in the Kings case, lets hope it improves.
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:26 am
@CB14, Hey it’s the new “New NHL”, I guess – Has a team ever scored so few goals and actually made the play-offs?
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:30 am
@Duncan, I don’t believe that it has happened where the team last in goals has made the playoffs, but I’m not positive about that.
How many times has that happened to the Kings? For once it’s a goal! After being there against the Av’s I thought and still think Williams scored, but the call on the ice was NO GOAL. in this game it was ON THE ICE a goal! So cry all u want coyotes it’s a goal part of the game. Btw my username is finally correct.. 10 wins lol ducks suck! Go Kings I will miss u! While I was here the kings were 3-0-1 and I loved it go Kings!
[Reply]
Man, after writing a response to 4tee about the Kings goal totals compared to teams of previous years, Quick’s performance this year really sets in. The Kings are on pace to score the fewest amount of goals in the past 10 years and yet they are still in the playoff hunt. They’re currently 9th in points percentage in the West, .002 behind Nashville and .004 behind Dallas. If that doesn’t speak volumes about Jonathan Quick’s performance this year, I don’t know what does.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:31 am
@CB14,
As well as our D for sure. Our D cuts off a lot of angles leading to JQ before a lot of pucks make it there. Not taking anything away from Quickie but we really know how to slow another team down, so me thinks it’s a combination of the two.
[Reply]
CB14 Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:33 am
@jess, No doubt.
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:35 am
@jess, Yeah, Quick deserves “complete” credit, but the defense does ALSO. A couple recent games when Quick has been on fire, a defenseman has saved his bacon at least once, as well, not to mention “routine” stuff like blocked shots and clearing pucks, or even solid, man-on-man D, most of the time.
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 12:40 am
@What’s the frequency, Kenneth?,
Yeah, I mean think about it, you rarely see those “glory highlight plays” on quick cause our guys kinda shut those chances down way before it gets to that..
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:00 am
@jess, It’s about time people noticed that although Quickie is playing lights out the D is helping him keep his fingers firmly on the switch and they haven’t gotten nearly enough credit, especially the stay-at-home guys. Coyotes had 22 shots tonight so that says an awful lot for the D (bet they didn’t miss Torres one little bit) and truthfully there weren’t a great number of heart-stopping moments in front of the Kings net.
… And how about your favorite combo getting it done on the goal?!! Gotta love it!!!
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:03 am
@Duncan, Your right! I missed that… Do I have to eat the feathers too?
4tee Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 6:33 am
@CB14,
if he played back east they would be talking Hart trophy in addition to Vezina.
[Reply]
my favorite part is JJ is in the crease and so is doughty, who the heck is playing D lol. I like how kings are playin under DS.. just a matter of time.. i actually think come playoff time they will be one of the most dangerous teams
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:08 am
@jason, Great point
[Reply]
Bluecoconuts Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:08 am
@jason, Stoll and Williams…. Who were also basically right there. This was an all or nothing type play.
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:13 am
@Bluecoconuts, Great read and execution by that OT unit it must be said.
[Reply]
DesertKing Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:20 am
@jason,
TM is rolling over in his gr…hammock… watching that.
[Reply]
Pretty sure they can’t look in Toronto if it’s interference with a player because that’s the refs discretion right? So therefor Toronto did what it needed to do
[Reply]
@Jess The beak, the claws, the beady eyes – but I’ll spare you the extra helping of ‘Schlemko’ I was going to feed you, amigo!
[Reply]
jess Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:15 am
@Duncan,
Nasty!
-But ok, thanks for letting me off easy
So what’s the vote on SCHLEMKO? I vote for @DesertKings V-Man Bikini from Turkey. That’s hilarious!
[Reply]
Duncan Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:23 am
@jess, Agreed, he really Schlemmed the door on the others with that one!
[Reply]
DesertKing Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:22 am
@Duncan,
Thanks guys. I would have voted for the mucous buster or the yamaka maker. By the way, I just watch that Carls Jr commercial for the cool middle eastern drum riff.
Schlemko seems like the name of some store in the 80s you didn’t want to go back to.
Eh?!
[Reply]
What's the frequency, Kenneth? Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
@DLB, Gemco. I hated that place!
[Reply]
I just came up with a hypothesis that maybe its quick’s fault this team can’t score. He’s too solid. Maybe he’s even too solid in practice and he has stolen the scoring touch from everyone. I say they should hire a couple of my buddy’s to be practice goalies for the players to gain confidence on lol
[Reply]
We’ve been screwed enough times that I couldn’t care less that someone else is complaining about an alledged screwing.
Finally..see what happens when u crash the net hard…good things come from it.
[Reply]
Sammuch Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 6:33 am
@nykingfan,
Agree…
[Reply]
DesertKing Reply:
January 6th, 2012 at 7:52 am
@nykingfan,
Also agree. If you can’t score by shooting, you should be scoring by crashing the net. Every time we go to the net, good things happen.
[Reply]
if the goal was disallowed I don’t think the Kings would of had much of an argument as to why it should have counted IMO
[Reply]
To feel good about……only 14 losses in regulation in 41 games!!!!!
[Reply]
Why does every coach the Kings beat complain about officiating? If it was a bad non-call (which it wasn’t), every team has to be able to overcome that possibility. Hell. We did just the game before.
[Reply]
His team didn’t score any goals. Stop complaining.
[Reply]
Cry me a river please =D
[Reply]
Did hell just freeze over or did Toronto actually make a call in the Kings favor?
[Reply]
i feel for tippet but those calls go against us plenty…..
[Reply]
I agree with the goal and the non-call of goalie interference. Even if you don’t, what goes around, comes around. Every team in the NHL gets their share of good calls and bad calls.
[Reply]
It’s not how anyone would want a game to be decided but Tippet of all people should know that they are called “breaks”, which I know he and the opposing coach prays for all the time.
[Reply]