Sheng Peng: Thoughts on Stevens & Blake's Presser; Gaborik Won't Be Bought Out

Dear Rob Blake,

Please keep things the way they are. You're doing an excellent job so far.

Signed,

Ducks Fans

it seemed like Blakey got past that getting-boo'ed-in-LA thing but he's doing all he can to bring it back

^^^ 2 Morons.

..but yeah, anyway...it does feel like something new and something old. Sort of like renovating your house. It's the same house but with a different look and spaciousness. Stevens will be good. He is a good soul with a good heart. Blake, not quite sure but it wil be the Sep/Oct timeframe before we get things going.

We know that a coach can come at a player in several different ways. Sutter (bleh... ) and Murray where the stubborn, stick to your ways even though they lead to a faulty conclusion types. Stevens is none of those things. If Gaborik has anything left in the tank we will find out for sure. There won't be a guessing game of "what if...", or what not. Once that happens, than you can safely buy him out or whatever. Gabby likes to work out and he is always in good shape. We shall see.

What did happen to Kopi this season? From being thrown around as 1 of the top C in the NHL to not being mentioned at all seems very strange.

How good of skater is he? Can an up-tempo structure suit him? I hope he gets back in the conversation for a leading C next season.

On another note, how's Dusty Brown looking?

Thing is they are going to use the young skilled players, not let them walk out the door, trade them away, or bury them in the minors. They are going to have to ride out bad contracts that handcuff them some and that will hurt but overall sure defence is going to be maintained but the structure from the coach, feedback, use of players, all of that is going to change and likely for the better!

Dear Rob Blake,

Please keep things the way they are. You're doing an excellent job so far.

Signed,

Ducks Fans
- yzermaneely

Ducks fans trying to mentally prepare for their inevitable, annual collapse in the first couple rounds of the playoffs. like clockwork baby. can't get enough of it!!

John Stevens, surprisingly enough, is the absolute perfect hire for head coach. A person with an inherent knowledge of all our systems players and someone with a perfect temperament for this group of players. Not rigid or married to an outdated philosophy of not giving your younger players a chance to succeed. Completely adaptable to the requirements of today's NHL. Gotta say, couldn't have picked a better guy.

What did happen to Kopi this season?

How good of skater is he? Can an up-tempo structure suit him?

On another note, how's Dusty Brown looking?
- Aussiepenguin

You'll get a different answer about Kopi from every Kings fan, but the Kings still believe he's an elite player. Personally, I tend to think he had poor puck luck and wasn't helped by below-average wingers.

I do think he'll be fine with up-tempo. He's not Tyler Seguin, but he's often responsible for lugging the puck up and gaining entry on the power play. That's not a reflection on up-tempo, but he can skate.

Dustin Brown resembles the player that he was in his prime, but just a touch slower, less impactful physically, slightly off offensively. So he's still a useful player, but I believe his top-six days are long over.

Completely adaptable to the requirements of today's NHL.
- Woodysdemise

Stevens strikes me as adapatable too. I think this was a key thing that LA was looking for -- if Sutter had this flexibility, I believe he might still have a job.

John Stevens, surprisingly enough, is the absolute perfect hire for head coach. A person with an inherent knowledge of all our systems players and someone with a perfect temperament for this group of players. Not rigid or married to an outdated philosophy of not giving your younger players a chance to succeed. Completely adaptable to the requirements of today's NHL. Gotta say, couldn't have picked a better guy.
- Woodysdemise

I'm going to start to answer your offensive question by answering about defense. The success here and in the National Hockey League comes from teams who can defend.

...

I think part of our identity as a hockey team has to be that the LA Kings are a team that goes hard to the net, and quite honestly, if we lead the league next year in coach's challenges for goalie interference, I’d be really happy about that.
- John Stevens

So much for more creativity. He doesn't seem concerned with doing much different than what they've been trying to do these last three years. It sounds like his answer for more offense is to keep flinging puck on net and hoping that all of the traffic at the net produces greasy goals from screens, deflections and rebounds. I get the strong sense that he wants to go back in time and be the 2012 Kings again, even though those regular season teams struggled, these players can't play that way (any longer) and the league has drifted away from and learned to counter that. It sounds like another simple system and message that requires doing the same thing repeatedly, that the players won't enjoy and that they'll get bored of before long.

We may see less emphasis on low-to-high plays in the offensive zone. Low to high often resulted in Los Angeles point shots. I think the forwards, in general, created enough traffic last year, but the shot origination area could've been lower in the zone. In short, we may see less "fire at will" from blueliners Drew Doughty and company.
- Sheng Peng

I read it the opposite. Stevens is a defenseman's coach and his first answer to the question about offense was to talk about the defense. Combine that with him wanting crashing to the net and I think that we'll see just as many of the low-to-high plays as before. As a defensive coach, he's likely to want the defensemen to control the play in the offensive zone, which means the forwards passing the puck back to the blue line a lot. Maybe that won't be propositioned as the #1 option, but, if the forwards are encouraged to make the simple play, rather than the creative play, then that's going to happen more often than not.

Ducks fans trying to mentally prepare for their inevitable, annual collapse in the first couple rounds of the playoffs. like clockwork baby. can't get enough of it!!
- Woodysdemise

I happen to think the first two comments on this blog were asinine too. Can't always prevent stupid. But you know it's no fun watching the playoffs right now with your team not playing. Ducks will probably lose (there can only be one champ), but it's way more fun if your team is playing.

I've watched my fair share of Kings games this year, and the one thing I've always admired was their willingness to swarm the net. There always seems to be a couple of players in front of the opposing goalie, so to hear Stevens say there needs to be more emphasis on net presence seemed odd to me. I thought the Kings already emphasized the importance of scoring "dirty goals."

I happen to think the first two comments on this blog were asinine too. Can't always prevent stupid. But you know it's no fun watching the playoffs right now with your team not playing. Ducks will probably lose (there can only be one champ), but it's way more fun if your team is playing.

I've watched my fair share of Kings games this year, and the one thing I've always admired was their willingness to swarm the net. There always seems to be a couple of players in front of the opposing goalie, so to hear Stevens say there needs to be more emphasis on net presence seemed odd to me. I thought the Kings already emphasized the importance of scoring "dirty goals."
- quackup

Well I do wish the Kings had made the cut, there has been plenty of entertaining hockey to keep me happy. I'm a Kings fan, obviously, but a bigger hockey fan and this year's playoffs haven't disappointed so far.

Well I do wish the Kings had made the cut, there has been plenty of entertaining hockey to keep me happy. I'm a Kings fan, obviously, but a bigger hockey fan and this year's playoffs haven't disappointed so far.
- PancakesPenner

You're right.

So much for more creativity. He doesn't seem concerned with doing much different than what they've been trying to do these last three years. It sounds like his answer for more offense is to keep flinging puck on net and hoping that all of the traffic at the net produces greasy goals from screens, deflections and rebounds. I get the strong sense that he wants to go back in time and be the 2012 Kings again, even though those regular season teams struggled, these players can't play that way (any longer) and the league has drifted away from and learned to counter that. It sounds like another simple system and message that requires doing the same thing repeatedly, that the players won't enjoy and that they'll get bored of before long.



I read it the opposite. Stevens is a defenseman's coach and his first answer to the question about offense was to talk about the defense. Combine that with him wanting crashing to the net and I think that we'll see just as many of the low-to-high plays as before. As a defensive coach, he's likely to want the defensemen to control the play in the offensive zone, which means the forwards passing the puck back to the blue line a lot. Maybe that won't be propositioned as the #1 option, but, if the forwards are encouraged to make the simple play, rather than the creative play, then that's going to happen more often than not.
- Osprey

I took it as going to the net with the puck not going to the net to create traffic. No point in arguing what we thought he meant so I'll just wait until the season starts to see what he meant. Blake had also mentioned the desire to get shots off from high-danger areas, which would be a drastic break from the fling-it-on-net style of Sutter... I'm enthused about what it can be,

I happen to think the first two comments on this blog were asinine too. Can't always prevent stupid. But you know it's no fun watching the playoffs right now with your team not playing. Ducks will probably lose (there can only be one champ), but it's way more fun if your team is playing.

I've watched my fair share of Kings games this year, and the one thing I've always admired was their willingness to swarm the net. There always seems to be a couple of players in front of the opposing goalie, so to hear Stevens say there needs to be more emphasis on net presence seemed odd to me. I thought the Kings already emphasized the importance of scoring "dirty goals."
- quackup

To be perfectly honest, just qualifying for the playoffs isn't enough for me. The Kings won a single game against the Sharks 2 years ago in the first round and were ousted. I would have much, much rather not qualified and got a slightly higher draft pick than to get beat by a rival like that. I'd venture a guess and say if you're a blackhawks fan right now, and won the same amount of playoff games as all non playoff teams this year, you'd have been better off simply taking the higher pick. The Kings weren't a good team this year and wouldn't have done anything in the playoffs had they qualified anyways. It's also why I've enjoyed watching the ducks as a Kings fan the last 5 years. That's a team with a closing window with getzlaf, Kesler and perry and with every failure they let another prime year slip away forever. We've won ours. The ducks piss it all away without fail year after year.

To be perfectly honest, just qualifying for the playoffs isn't enough for me. The Kings won a single game against the Sharks 2 years ago in the first round and were ousted. I would have much, much rather not qualified and got a slightly higher draft pick than to get beat by a rival like that. I'd venture a guess and say if you're a blackhawks fan right now, and won the same amount of playoff games as all non playoff teams this year, you'd have been better off simply taking the higher pick. The Kings weren't a good team this year and wouldn't have done anything in the playoffs had they qualified anyways. It's also why I've enjoyed watching the ducks as a Kings fan the last 5 years. That's a team with a closing window with getzlaf, Kesler and perry and with every failure they let another prime year slip away forever. We've won ours. The ducks piss it all away without fail year after year.
- Woodysdemise

But bottom line, when it's all said and done, Kings have 2 Cups in 50 years, and Ducks have 1 in 24. Difference is (as a former Kings fan, since they've been around forever) I'll root for the Kings if the Ducks are out of it. I understand the opposite isn't possible.

I'll take my chances with the Ducks. Yes, Kesler, Getzlaf and Perry are getting older. As is Quick, Carter, etc. But I look at the D, and our G, and know they're going to be relevant for the foreseeable future.

But bottom line, when it's all said and done, Kings have 2 Cups in 50 years, and Ducks have 1 in 24. Difference is (as a former Kings fan, since they've been around forever) I'll root for the Kings if the Ducks are out of it. I understand the opposite isn't possible.

I'll take my chances with the Ducks. Yes, Kesler, Getzlaf and Perry are getting older. As is Quick, Carter, etc. But I look at the D, and our G, and know they're going to be relevant for the foreseeable future.
- quackup

damn near same ratio of cup wins to years
I don't know if Gibson is the guy, yet. We'll know for sure in the next couple of years.

But bottom line, when it's all said and done, Kings have 2 Cups in 50 years, and Ducks have 1 in 24. Difference is (as a former Kings fan, since they've been around forever) I'll root for the Kings if the Ducks are out of it. I understand the opposite isn't possible.

I'll take my chances with the Ducks. Yes, Kesler, Getzlaf and Perry are getting older. As is Quick, Carter, etc. But I look at the D, and our G, and know they're going to be relevant for the foreseeable future.
- quackup

Why ever root for a team like the Quacks with such a pathetic and unknowledgable fan base where the only icing they know is the kind they lick off a cupcake. On top of that, the team was named after a silly Disney movie and has always employed cheap shot artists, divers, and pure goons as part of their roster year after year. The Quacks got lucky picking up Selanne when many thought he was done and getting Pronger who was whining about living in Edmonton. They never put anything together, a complete team, like the Kings; and the Quacks will never have the glory, the mistique, and the legends of the Kings. Eventually they will move thankfully because Quack fans are not hockey fans but simply people who go to an Italian Opera and can't understand any of the words but the costumes are cool.

Oilers FTW:

So much for more creativity. He doesn't seem concerned with doing much different than what they've been trying to do these last three years. It sounds like his answer for more offense is to keep flinging puck on net and hoping that all of the traffic at the net produces greasy goals from screens, deflections and rebounds...

Combine that with him wanting crashing to the net and I think that we'll see just as many of the low-to-high plays as before. As a defensive coach, he's likely to want the defensemen to control the play in the offensive zone, which means the forwards passing the puck back to the blue line a lot. Maybe that won't be propositioned as the #1 option, but, if the forwards are encouraged to make the simple play, rather than the creative play, then that's going to happen more often than not.
- Osprey

I don't agree, but like Stu17 said, we'll see. I think it'll be a noticeable difference, though of course, low to high won't disappear completely either.

I've watched my fair share of Kings games this year, and the one thing I've always admired was their willingness to swarm the net. There always seems to be a couple of players in front of the opposing goalie, so to hear Stevens say there needs to be more emphasis on net presence seemed odd to me. I thought the Kings already emphasized the importance of scoring "dirty goals."
- quackup

They do. I think there will be a lesser emphasis on low to high play, point shot, traffic, crash the net. More emphasis on getting shots off lower in the offensive zone, higher-danger areas than the point.

I took it as going to the net with the puck not going to the net to create traffic. No point in arguing what we thought he meant so I'll just wait until the season starts to see what he meant. Blake had also mentioned the desire to get shots off from high-danger areas, which would be a drastic break from the fling-it-on-net style of Sutter... I'm enthused about what it can be,
- Stu17

given his comment about hoping the lead the league in coaches challenges for crashing the net, i think your interpretation was correct.

Why ever root for a team like the Quacks with such a pathetic and unknowledgable fan base where the only icing they know is the kind they lick off a cupcake. On top of that, the team was named after a silly Disney movie and has always employed cheap shot artists, divers, and pure goons as part of their roster year after year. The Quacks got lucky picking up Selanne when many thought he was done and getting Pronger who was whining about living in Edmonton. They never put anything together, a complete team, like the Kings; and the Quacks will never have the glory, the mistique, and the legends of the Kings. Eventually they will move thankfully because Quack fans are not hockey fans but simply people who go to an Italian Opera and can't understand any of the words but the costumes are cool.

Oilers FTW:

- verwustung

The 13 year old has spoken.

The 13 year old has spoken.

- quackup

Did your parents have any children that lived?

[quote=verwustung]Why ever root for a team like the Quacks with such a pathetic and unknowledgable fan base where the only icing they know is the kind they lick off a cupcake. On top of that, the team was named after a silly Disney movie and has always employed cheap shot artists, divers, and pure goons as part of their roster year after year. The Quacks got lucky picking up Selanne when many thought he was done and getting Pronger who was whining about living in Edmonton. They never put anything together, a complete team, like the Kings; and the Quacks will never have the glory, the mistique, and the legends of the Kings. Eventually they will move thankfully because Quack fans are not hockey fans but simply people who go to an Italian Opera and can't understand any of the words but the costumes are cool.

There are a few Kings fans who are pre-Gretzky. Personally, I was at the Fabulous Forum (before Great Western) right after it opened. I'm a long time (used to be Kings now Ducks) fan. My thoughts on Kings fans is that they fall into three camps:
a.) Jumped on the bandwagon when Gretzky joined them in the late 80s
b.) Jumped on the bandwagon when they won the Stanley Cup in 2012
c.) Love the Kings because they love their Raider-esque colors.
I find Kings fans who are either b or c (the majority of the fans) to be as unknowledgeable as any fans in the league.
As far as the glory, "mistique" (actually spelled mystique, moron), and glory, are you referring to the 45 years of mostly mediocrity? Sure you have 2 cups in 50 years. Ducks have 1 in 24 years. Speak to me in another 26 years. In the meantime, enjoy your cocaine and MDMA since we now know that Kings don't golf when they miss the playoff, they party their asses off.

But bottom line, when it's all said and done, Kings have 2 Cups in 50 years, and Ducks have 1 in 24. Difference is (as a former Kings fan, since they've been around forever) I'll root for the Kings if the Ducks are out of it. I understand the opposite isn't possible.

I'll take my chances with the Ducks. Yes, Kesler, Getzlaf and Perry are getting older. As is Quick, Carter, etc. But I look at the D, and our G, and know they're going to be relevant for the foreseeable future.
- quackup

These numbers are relevant only in the event somebody has been alive long enough to have followed the teams from their inceptions. I was born in the late 80's and didn't start really following and loving the Kings until 2001. So in terms of actual years ive been emotionally invested in this team, I've seen 2 championships in around 16 years. That's not too bad. Same applies if you're a ducks fan... just figure out how long you've followed them and do the math. I'll take 1 every 8 years hands down in a league of 30 (next year even harder with 31, eventually rising all the way to 32 once one more expansion team is awarded). The argument is academic as opposed to how it has personally impacted each fan. And to be perfectly honest, I won't pull against the ducks much anymore once Kesler and Perry have been put out to pasture. Until they retire or leave the ducks though, it literally makes my entire summer once they're forced to return home heartbroken with no cup every single year. Fowlers awesome though, love that kid.