Jason Lewis: Did the Kings Have the Balance?

Jeezz...... cldt read all of that..... but holy... LA has a great nucleus..... the results of this year is no need to panic

still think it starts on the back end...why forbort and gravel weren't given more opps to break in is still mind boggling. what good are prospects if they toil as a healthy scratch or play really limited minutes?

using the rolling 10 game averages is a great visual to see where the trends change over time, and to what degree. makes me wonder why others dont look at it that way more instead of the absolute number or the simple average.

still think it starts on the back end...why forbort and gravel weren't given more opps to break in is still mind boggling. what good are prospects if they toil as a healthy scratch or play really limited minutes?

using the rolling 10 game averages is a great visual to see where the trends change over time, and to what degree. makes me wonder why others dont look at it that way more instead of the absolute number or the simple average.
- hiway39

It's one of the 2 flaws in Sutter's coaching style. Play your goalie to death and play the old mules and let Stothers get them ready for retirement.

Have to agree, it looks like they never replaced Voynov and as a Penguin fan Scuds is a disaster of a dman. Missed having Martinez for sure, but the forwards were not the issue.

Also, something that killed the Penguins that I see the Kings doing (until Sullivan took over) is not giving the kids a chance to shine. Kings will be fine, but inject more youth in the defense.

I live in la, could give a frank about the Kings, but I know this is an issue from friends who are kings fans.

Last point, Sharks were due. Just like the Blues. Great teams that ran into freight trains in the Kings and Hawks in past years. Every dog has his day...blah blah blah.

Its probably coming so i"ll say it. It's all Muzzins fault Good write up Jason. I always had this nagging thought things weren't all there. Time to reshuffle the deck a little.

Its probably coming so i"ll say it. It's all Muzzins fault Good write up Jason. I always had this nagging thought things weren't all there. Time to reshuffle the deck a little.
- arh777

That's a good way to put it. I think a lot of people had that nagging thought this year when some things were not quite normal, but even the headiest of pundits wrote it off because "It's the Kings, they will come around."

Not much to panic about with how good the core is, but certainly some shuffling is in order.

There are plenty of places to put the blame, but I think it all comes back to the defense and Lombardi and Sutter's philosophy of the components that are necessary for an effective d-corps.

Fans tend to be dramatic, but read anything from Penguins and Flyers fans the past 2 years about Scuderi and Schenn and their performance with the Kings should be no surprise. Losing Martinez was big, but playing Schenn and Scuderi 18 and 19 minutes a night in the playoffs, respectively, was always going to lead to serious mismatches. Sutter tried to "shield" Scuderi by pairing him with Doughty much of the time, but that just meant that Scuderi was consistently matched up against some of the toughest Sharks competition and Doughty was constantly covering for him.

I have nothing but respect for Scuderi, particularly for his value in the 2012 Cup run, but the man is quite simply no longer an NHL defenseman, and that wasn't going to cut it against the Thorntons and Pavelskis of the world.

And as hiway39 noted, the inability to give more opportunities to Gravel and Forbort is a concern moving forward. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that Sutter plays them more next year, otherwise we're never going to have players in the system who are able to come in and take significant minutes and we're just going to run Doughty into the ground.

There are plenty of places to put the blame, but I think it all comes back to the defense and Lombardi and Sutter's philosophy of the components that are necessary for an effective d-corps.

Fans tend to be dramatic, but read anything from Penguins and Flyers fans the past 2 years about Scuderi and Schenn and their performance with the Kings should be no surprise. Losing Martinez was big, but playing Schenn and Scuderi 18 and 19 minutes a night in the playoffs, respectively, was always going to lead to serious mismatches. Sutter tried to "shield" Scuderi by pairing him with Doughty much of the time, but that just meant that Scuderi was consistently matched up against some of the toughest Sharks competition and Doughty was constantly covering for him.

I have nothing but respect for Scuderi, particularly for his value in the 2012 Cup run, but the man is quite simply no longer an NHL defenseman, and that wasn't going to cut it against the Thorntons and Pavelskis of the world.

And as hiway39 noted, the inability to give more opportunities to Gravel and Forbort is a concern moving forward. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic, that Sutter plays them more next year, otherwise we're never going to have players in the system who are able to come in and take significant minutes and we're just going to run Doughty into the ground.
- DonzoBean

When there's a win now at all cost with cap restrictions then you go with what the cap gives you. Sutter went with what he was given. The kids are good but more then likely wouldn't have handled playoff hockey any better. If we don't unload contracts and get top d they will have to go with the kids, something I'd like to see.

When there's a win now at all cost with cap restrictions then you go with what the cap gives you. Sutter went with what he was given. The kids are good but more then likely wouldn't have handled playoff hockey any better. If we don't unload contracts and get top d they will have to go with the kids, something I'd like to see.
- arh777

I'm having a hard time believing that Forbort or Gravel were both inferior options to Scuderi. I think Sutter puts too much stock in a "veteran presence" and it can blind him to the results on the ice. In any case, unless Scuderi retires, I may have to get used to seeing him play for one more season.

When there's a win now at all cost with cap restrictions then you go with what the cap gives you. Sutter went with what he was given. The kids are good but more then likely wouldn't have handled playoff hockey any better. If we don't unload contracts and get top d they will have to go with the kids, something I'd like to see.
- arh777

Did anyone happen to notice the egregious error made by the Hawks young dman leading up to the GWG in game 7??? IMO you just don't roll with inexperience when it matters most. Had one of those guys been in there, we would've had McNabb and them playing heavy meaningful minutes. Not that the outcome would've been better or worse than 5 games, but you didn't go into the series thinking it would've ended like that. Had we had another inexperienced dman in the rotation, I would've expected 5 games or less. Some things you don't rush and dmen are one of them.

Did anyone happen to notice the egregious error made by the Hawks young dman leading up to the GWG in game 7??? IMO you just don't roll with inexperience when it matters most. Had one of those guys been in there, we would've had McNabb and them playing heavy meaningful minutes. Not that the outcome would've been better or worse than 5 games, but you didn't go into the series thinking it would've ended like that. Had we had another inexperienced dman in the rotation, I would've expected 5 games or less. Some things you don't rush and dmen are one of them.
- Stu17

Exactly, Those types of things are hard to get over for a kid Van remsdyke (spelling) was the guy and he's been villafied in the Chicago press.

When there's a win now at all cost with cap restrictions then you go with what the cap gives you. Sutter went with what he was given. The kids are good but more then likely wouldn't have handled playoff hockey any better. If we don't unload contracts and get top d they will have to go with the kids, something I'd like to see.
- arh777

That is a statement built on cliche. Much like "The Kings are built for the playoffs."

Better teams will beat lesser teams, better players should play over older and more experienced ones...IF they are better. Both Gravel and Forbort, in at least my opinion, were better options than Rob Scuderi AND Luke Schenn...or at least should have been afforded better chances to establish that they, in fact, were.

You do share the feeling of the majority of coaches in the NHL though, so maybe it is you that are on to something and not me

That is a statement built on cliche. Much like "The Kings are built for the playoffs."

Better teams will beat lesser teams, better players should play over older and more experienced ones...IF they are better. Both Gravel and Forbort, in at least my opinion, were better options than Rob Scuderi AND Luke Schenn...or at least should have been afforded better chances to establish that they, in fact, were.

You do share the feeling of the majority of coaches in the NHL though, so maybe it is you that are on to something and not me
- Jason_Lewis

I agree Jason if they were given more time to prove themselves during the season. That's where I agree with those who criticize Sutter. It seemed the defense was playing not to make mistakes instead of taking it to other teams with all 5 Players.

Jason, it would be interesting to hear you elaborate a bit on the Zykov for Versteeg deal, given your familiarity with the prospect pool. From what I've read, it seemed like Zykov was drafted because of a great work ethic along with some skill and grit, but he started plateauing in his last year of juniors and was not advancing the way he needed to in Ontario. So the Versteeg deal, particularly given his rental status, felt not so much like parting with a coveted asset, but rather bailing on a prospect who was starting to show some serious red flags. What's your perspective?

Jason, it would be interesting to hear you elaborate a bit on the Zykov for Versteeg deal, given your familiarity with the prospect pool. From what I've read, it seemed like Zykov was drafted because of a great work ethic along with some skill and grit, but he started plateauing in his last year of juniors and was not advancing the way he needed to in Ontario. So the Versteeg deal, particularly given his rental status, felt not so much like parting with a coveted asset, but rather bailing on a prospect who was starting to show some serious red flags. What's your perspective?
- responsible_D

Eeeeeeeh, I personally liked Zykov's game. He definitely was a bull on the forecheck. Just an absolute hound on the puck. Very good puck handling also in tight spaces, around defensemen. Defensive game needed work, but altogether I think he is an NHL player. I would not say there are serious red flags, maybe just not as much high end to him as scouts had originally hoped for. Worst case scenario I think Z turns into a tweener top 9 forward. Think....Joonas Donskoi actually for a comparable.

Would have liked to see him get a healthy pro season under his belt to comment on the plateauing part. Could have been because junior was no longer challenging enough anymore, but yea he dealt with a bum wrist while with Ontario which may have impacted him.

Eeeeeeeh, I personally liked Zykov's game. He definitely was a bull on the forecheck. Just an absolute hound on the puck. Very good puck handling also in tight spaces, around defensemen. Defensive game needed work, but altogether I think he is an NHL player. I would not say there are serious red flags, maybe just not as much high end to him as scouts had originally hoped for. Worst case scenario I think Z turns into a tweener top 9 forward. Think....Joonas Donskoi actually for a comparable.

Would have liked to see him get a healthy pro season under his belt to comment on the plateauing part. Could have been because junior was no longer challenging enough anymore, but yea he dealt with a bum wrist while with Ontario which may have impacted him.
- Jason_Lewis

Interesting, thanks. Maybe DL will resign Versteeg and the deal will seem more worthwhile, but in hindsight this makes it seem like a high price to pay for what turned out to be 19 games of mostly bottom six action (though clearly it was meant to support a deeper run).

Pardon me for how this may come across, but some of us did point out red flags, raise concerns and signal alarm bells during the season and were brushed off. I was told on a number of occasions that I was a troll because I was doing those things (instead of posting "positive" things) and contradicting others on their rosier interpretations of the team and its players. I was also repeatedly told that I was wrong because the analytics said so.

For example, I argued all season that the D corps after Doughty was shaky on defense and relied too much on the forwards bailing the defensemen out. I was repeatedly shown Corsi charts to prove me wrong. When Lombardi added two defensive defensemen in Schenn and Scuderi, most viewed that as a strengthening of an already strong defense, but it was really a confirmation of an issue with a defense that wasn't as strong as it appeared. It didn't do a very good job of fixing the issue, and when the playoffs rolled around and the forwards (especially the centers) uncharacteristically dropped the ball on defense, the defense corps that I argued all season relied too much on them got exposed.

In the same way, it was clear to some of us that there was a big problem at 3rd-line center in the 1st half, even though we were told what a great Corsi player Shore was. Lombardi adding Lecavalier was, again, not a move to strengthen a strength, but to address an obvious weakness. That and the case above were both warning signs that were recognized for what they were at the time, not simply in hindsight.

Ultimately, it's not all about personnel, though. You can argue about weaknesses in the roster and the team's "balance," but what led to this year's outcome as much as (if not more than) those was the team's attitude. This is something that I've been critical of for years. Inspired heavily by their successes winning the Cup as an #8, winning series on the road and coming back from significant series deficits, they've developed a lazy disregard for the regular season and a cockiness that they can just "flip the switch" when they really want to. Last year, for maybe the first time, that switch failed. It looked like they may've learned their lesson from that, since they played better for the first 71 games this season, but then proved that they really didn't, since they coasted into the playoffs with a 4-7 record, assuming that they would flip the switch when the playoffs started. Going cold into the playoffs like that is what really doomed them. The team had/has some personnel issues, and those need to be addressed this Summer, but we can't think that the teams issues are purely personnel, IMO.

I don't want to fully get into this now, but my theory is that part of the "attitude" problem stems from deteriorating leadership. Beyond the fact that they've lost some leaders (like Mitchell, Williams and Richards) over the years, my feeling is that, with him becoming more and more irrelevant to the team on the ice, Brown is becoming more irrelevant as a leader. He's always been a lead by example type, so when he was leading on the ice (with scoring, hitting, penalty drawing, etc.), the team followed him. Consider that the team's two Cups came when Brown was an integral part of the team. Since the last Cup, however, he's been AWOL and the team has seemed lost, which may not be a coincidence. Worse, my suspicion is that Doughty may be stepping in to fill that leadership void and his personal, cocky attitude is more and more influencing the team attitude. He's a great player, but saying things like "we're where we want to be" when down 1-3 in a series demonstrates that he shouldn't be speaking for the team and should be kept in check. Along with tweaking the roster, addressing the growing "Brown issue" might be something that finally needs to be seriously considered this Summer if the team wants to move forward.

Pardon me for how this may come across, but some of us did point out red flags, raise concerns and signal alarm bells during the season and were brushed off. I was told on a number of occasions that I was a troll because I was doing those things (instead of posting "positive" things) and contradicting others on their rosier interpretations of the team and its players. I was also repeatedly told that I was wrong because the analytics said so.

For example, I argued all season that the D corps after Doughty was shaky on defense and relied too much on the forwards bailing the defensemen out. I was repeatedly shown Corsi charts to prove me wrong. When Lombardi added two defensive defensemen in Schenn and Scuderi, most viewed that as a strengthening of an already strong defense, but it was really a confirmation of an issue with a defense that wasn't as strong as it appeared. It didn't do a very good job of fixing the issue, and when the playoffs rolled around and the forwards (especially the centers) uncharacteristically dropped the ball on defense, the defense corps that I argued all season relied too much on them got exposed.

In the same way, it was clear to some of us that there was a big problem at 3rd-line center in the 1st half, even though we were told what a great Corsi player Shore was. Lombardi adding Lecavalier was, again, not a move to strengthen a strength, but to address an obvious weakness. That and the case above were both warning signs that were recognized for what they were at the time, not simply in hindsight.

Ultimately, it's not all about personnel, though. You can argue about weaknesses in the roster and the team's "balance," but what led to this year's outcome as much as (if not more than) those was the team's attitude. This is something that I've been critical of for years. Inspired heavily by their successes winning the Cup as an #8, winning series on the road and coming back from significant series deficits, they've developed a lazy disregard for the regular season and a cockiness that they can just "flip the switch" when they really want to. Last year, for maybe the first time, that switch failed. It looked like they may've learned their lesson from that, since they played better for the first 71 games this season, but then proved that they really didn't, since they coasted into the playoffs with a 4-7 record, assuming that they would flip the switch when the playoffs started. Going cold into the playoffs like that is what really doomed them. The team had/has some personnel issues, and those need to be addressed this Summer, but we can't think that the teams issues are purely personnel, IMO.

I don't want to fully get into this now, but my theory is that part of the "attitude" problem stems from deteriorating leadership. Beyond the fact that they've lost some leaders (like Mitchell, Williams and Richards) over the years, my feeling is that, with him becoming more and more irrelevant to the team on the ice, Brown is becoming more irrelevant as a leader. He's always been a lead by example type, so when he was leading on the ice (with scoring, hitting, penalty drawing, etc.), the team followed him. Consider that the team's two Cups came when Brown was an integral part of the team. Since the last Cup, however, he's been AWOL and the team has seemed lost, which may not be a coincidence. Worse, my suspicion is that Doughty may be stepping in to fill that leadership void and his personal, cocky attitude is more and more influencing the team attitude. He's a great player, but saying things like "we're where we want to be" when down 1-3 in a series demonstrates that he shouldn't be speaking for the team and should be kept in check. Along with tweaking the roster, addressing the growing "Brown issue" might be something that finally needs to be seriously considered this Summer if the team wants to move forward.
- Osprey

Every time I start reading your novels the third line on takes on a very Charlie brown's teacher tone. END OF STORY