Adam Kirshenblatt: Unbeaten no more as the Kings fall to the Leafs

Very strange play with Quick but it really didn’t factor in much there since it came at the end of the period.

The biggest thing was Toronto’s speed. Kings had a very hard time handling such again. Unlike Montreal who struggles offensively, the Leafs are deep in that respect and it came back to haunt them. The SH goal kept it close but Quick did not have his best game at all and Leags prevailed.

kings need more bozak

I wanted at least 6 points out of this road trip, so we're still on track, and this was the toughest game (on paper). Made some mistakes, played a bit sloppy, but can't question the effort. We keep this up we will win more often than we lose. Very disappointed Quick couldn't keep his temper in check though, we were really making a push.

kings need more bozak
- Tumbleweed

You never go full Bozak.

If nothing else it highlighted how badly the NHL has put together their concussion protocols. That whole sequence was weird. Couldn't easily get him to leave the net to be tested and they didn't even test him when he did leave the net. It's good that he turned out to be fine, but no thanks to the actual rules in place.

You never go full Bozak.
- tkecanuck341

put him on your 3rd line, and he'll be adequate.

burke went full bozak and put him on our 1st line for years. never do that.

put him on your 3rd line, and he'll be adequate.

burke went full bozak and put him on our 1st line for years. never do that.
- Tumbleweed

The problem is that the Kings have an abundance of 3rd & 4th line players. We just have no depth in the top six. Kempe, Gaborik, & Cammalleri are the only real options available, and none of them are ideal candidates at this juncture to fill in for Jeff Carter. Bozak would add into our already lengthy list of players that fit in the bottom six that aren't ideal as a top-six fill-in.

Like I said, we'd take him if Lou wanted to give him away, but we wouldn't give up anything of value for him.

I wonder if LA ever dangles Muzzin for scoring help.

I really liked Forbort. Looks like a solid young top 4 guy

I wonder if LA ever dangles Muzzin for scoring help.
- Santo_44

See here:

LA Kings Insider: Internally, LA Has Considered Possibility of Trading Defenseman for Forward

I really liked Forbort. Looks like a solid young top 4 guy
- Santo_44

He's solid. His offensive game leaves much to be desired.

so much to unpack here:

Quick's penalty - dumb, just flat out potato, you can't do that to your team.

The incidental contact was actually a good goal, and the high stick was actually a no goal, zero sum though.

Muzzin, Folin and Martinez got abused. they have to figure out how to deal with speed in a positional way.

Shore does not belong on the 2nd line as center, he was much better playing with Lewis and Andreof, why bust up the chemistry they have? Let Dowd or Kempe have a shot up there eh?

Camelleri was invisible.

would really have liked to had Mac in the line up last night.

I guess you could say it was a good/tight game, but that easily could have been a 6-2 blow out.

Quick's penalty - dumb, just flat out potato, you can't do that to your team.
- MikeOxbyg

Agreed. After taking a shot to the head that I'm sure he felt was from a Toronto player and not from his own teammate, in addition to multiple collisions including the disallowed goal, and the challenged goal that stood that cost the Kings their timeout. After a while he got fed up and went a little too far. For all the games he has stolen for us in the past, I'm willing to give him a freebie.

The incidental contact was actually a good goal, and the high stick was actually a no goal, zero sum though.
- MikeOxbyg

Yea I disagree. The incidental contact call was a good call. There was contact in the crease, and Quick was never able to get back into position after the contact. Marner had an open net to shoot into, which he wouldn't have had if there wasn't contact.

The high stick call looked like it could have been above the crossbar, but the call on the ice was a goal. College football rules apply here. There was no video review angle that showed clearly that the puck was contacted above the crossbar to overturn the call on the ice, so the call stood. I don't know that I agree with the referee's assertion that it was "confirmed" that the puck was touched below the crossbar, but the result is the same.

I think they got these calls right.

Muzzin, Folin and Martinez got abused. they have to figure out how to deal with speed in a positional way.
- MikeOxbyg

I thought the Kings defense did well against a type of team they're not used to playing. If anything, I thought the Kings needed to better exploit the defensive lapses by Toronto that are inevitable given the system they play. They almost sprung Kempe on a breakaway with a stretch pass, and had that Shore/Pearson 2-on-1 that probably would have been a goal if it was Carter/Pearson. You're never going to be able to completely shut down an offense like Toronto.

Shore does not belong on the 2nd line as center, he was much better playing with Lewis and Andreof, why bust up the chemistry they have? Let Dowd or Kempe have a shot up there eh?
- MikeOxbyg

Kempe has played exceptionally with Cammalleri and Lewis. They had 6 goals and 10 points in 2 periods last week. They had one of the two goals last night. Why break that up? In today's NHL, you need at least 3 lines that can score. Having CLK together provides them with depth scoring. Shore on the 2nd line isn't ideal, but there's no better options right now. I think Dowd might have kicked Stevens' dog or insulted his wife or something. He's clearly in the doghouse.

Camelleri was invisible.
- MikeOxbyg

You have to lower your expectations for Cammalleri. He's 35 and on a $1M contract. He's not going to have a 2g 4p game every night. Invisible is better than a liability.

would really have liked to had Mac in the line up last night.
- MikeOxbyg

If you thought the Kings defense got abused, MacDermid would have gotten destroyed. He's solid, but he's the slowest and least experienced on the team. Toronto would have skated circles around him.

I thought the Kings played a solid game. They're on an extended road trip, so we can't expect them to come out of every game with points. As long as they go 500 or better, I would consider this trip successful.

Agreed. After taking a shot to the head that I'm sure he felt was from a Toronto player and not from his own teammate, in addition to multiple collisions including the disallowed goal, and the challenged goal that stood that cost the Kings their timeout. After a while he got fed up and went a little too far. For all the games he has stolen for us in the past, I'm willing to give him a freebie.
- tkecanuck341

Normally I would let you dismantle me, but not today pal,

Quick had plenty of time to hear that it was Forborts elbow, so that can be dismissed as a building block to his crappy decision to take a penalty with 2 minutes left.

The challenged goal was a total reach, everyone new that.

not even his past performances are an excuse, go fish.

Yea I disagree. The incidental contact call was a good call. There was contact in the crease, and Quick was never able to get back into position after the contact. Marner had an open net to shoot into, which he wouldn't have had if there wasn't contact.
- tkecanuck341

Quick had plenty of time and actually got into to position for the next shot, in fact, so much time that he over played it. so that is null too.

The high stick call looked like it could have been above the crossbar, but the call on the ice was a goal. College football rules apply here. There was no video review angle that showed clearly that the puck was contacted above the crossbar to overturn the call on the ice, so the call stood. I don't know that I agree with the referee's assertion that it was "confirmed" that the puck was touched below the crossbar, but the result is the same.
- tkecanuck341

there was a pretty level replay angle that showed the point of contact above the crossbar. But i don't want to stop you, you are on a roll here. Remember when the German's bombed Pear Harbor?

I thought the Kings defense did well against a type of team they're not used to playing. If anything, I thought the Kings needed to better exploit the defensive lapses by Toronto that are inevitable given the system they play. They almost sprung Kempe on a breakaway with a stretch pass, and had that Shore/Pearson 2-on-1 that probably would have been a goal if it was Carter/Pearson. You're never going to be able to completely shut down an offense like Toronto.
- tkecanuck341

I saw a lot of bad passes behind the net, I saw Muzzin get turned into a traffic cone by Marner, I saw Folin scrambling because of bad reads, so I am going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.

Kempe has played exceptionally with Cammalleri and Lewis. They had 6 goals and 10 points in 2 periods last week. They had one of the two goals last night. Why break that up? In today's NHL, you need at least 3 lines that can score. Having CLK together provides them with depth scoring. Shore on the 2nd line isn't ideal, but there's no better options right now. I think Dowd might have kicked Stevens' dog or insulted his wife or something. He's clearly in the doghouse.
- tkecanuck341

I actually almost agree with everything here except the fact that lewis shore and andreof have been a great pressure line that may not have numbers but they have an effect out there, good pressure. physical play, I liked it.

You have to lower your expectations for Cammalleri. He's 35 and on a $1M contract. He's not going to have a 2g 4p game every night. Invisible is better than a liability.
- tkecanuck341

< tips hat >

If you thought the Kings defense got abused, MacDermid would have gotten destroyed. He's solid, but he's the slowest and least experienced on the team. Toronto would have skated circles around him.
- tkecanuck341

allow me to clarify, since it wasn't perfectly obvious why I wanted him in the line up, not for his skating skills... can you take a wild guess why we needed him?

I thought the Kings played a solid game. They're on an extended road trip, so we can't expect them to come out of every game with points. As long as they go 500 or better, I would consider this trip successful.
- tkecanuck341

Cheers,

Nice sparring with you

Normally I would let you dismantle me, but not today pal,

Quick had plenty of time to hear that it was Forborts elbow, so that can be dismissed as a building block to his crappy decision to take a penalty with 2 minutes left.

The challenged goal was a total reach, everyone new that.

not even his past performances are an excuse, go fish.
- MikeOxbyg

It was actually Forbort's glove to the side of the head, not his elbow. Quick is a fiery and emotional guy. I don't know that I would have it any other way.

Also, I'm not contesting that the challenged goal was or was not a good goal, just that there was a lot of contact initiated on Quick by Toronto players. They showed on the broadcast that he had a lot of conversations with the officials, yet no goaltender interference calls were made. Again, I'm not saying that any were warranted, but after getting snubbed the entire game by the refs, he took a swing at someone. It was a bad decision, but I can understand why he did it. Like I said, I'm willing to give him a pass, as long as he learns his lesson and doesn't do it again.

Quick had plenty of time and actually got into to position for the next shot, in fact, so much time that he over played it. so that is null too.
- MikeOxbyg

Quick did have a good amount of time to get back in position, but he never did. However, the only reason he was out of position in the first place was due to a Leaf player sliding through the crease and knocking him out of position. If he had gotten back into position and was square to the shooter when the goal went in, then I would have agreed that it probably should have been a good goal. However, even when the refs had a chance to look at it a second time, they determined that it was still interference.

there was a pretty level replay angle that showed the point of contact above the crossbar. But i don't want to stop you, you are on a roll here. Remember when the German's bombed Pear Harbor?
- MikeOxbyg

I don't know what angles you had that weren't on the broadcast, but all the ones that I saw (including the most clear angle that was from behind the Toronto net) were inconclusive at best. It showed that the point of contact was close to the level of the crossbar, but there was nothing that showed that it was clearly above the crossbar. If the call on the ice had been no-goal, I don't think that exact same replay would have been enough to overturn that call either. Again, the key term is "conclusive video evidence," which in this case there was none.

I saw a lot of bad passes behind the net, I saw Muzzin get turned into a traffic cone by Marner, I saw Folin scrambling because of bad reads, so I am going to have to go ahead and sort of disagree with you there.
- MikeOxbyg

Toronto is one of the speediest and best forechecking teams in the league. The Kings have yet to deal with a team like that this season. That's the reason why Toronto has been as successful as they have been so far this season. In the 9 games they've played thus far, they've only scored 3 goals or fewer on their opponents 3 times, and only one other time on their home ice. I think the Kings did a very good job containing their offense.

allow me to clarify, since it wasn't perfectly obvious why I wanted him in the line up, not for his skating skills... can you take a wild guess why we needed him?
- MikeOxbyg

Terry Murray isn't our coach anymore. We don't put plugs in the lineup. Andreoff and Folin were more than capable of handling themselves. I thought Dowd did a pretty good job destroying Moore at the red line.

that was a sweet hit

[quote=tkecanuck341]


normally I shy away from engaging you, i have yet to determine whether its your somewhat acute knowledge or your condescending tone. I don't think I will ever post a take on here and not have you come in swinging d!ck and do everything you can to be contrary, but maybe just maybe, someday you will read something of mine and decide it stands on it's own

normally I shy away from engaging you, i have yet to determine whether its your somewhat acute knowledge or your condescending tone. I don't think I will ever post a take on here and not have you come in swinging d!ck and do everything you can to be contrary, but maybe just maybe, someday you will read something of mine and decide it stands on it's own
- MikeOxbyg

I agree with you that Quick's penalty was a bad decision and unnecessary, and said as much in my original post. I just said that I understood why he did it and that I was willing to give him a pass. I don't think that that was being contrarian.

You seem to be the type of fan that follows the team with your heart, while I follow with my head. I certainly don't intend for my tone to be condescending. A lot of times, I only chime in when I disagree with something someone has said. I'm sure you've posted things in the past that I agreed with, but if that was the case, there would be no reason for me to reply since I agree with what you said already.

If it makes you feel better, I will try and remember to actively agree with you the next time you say something that I believe is valid on its own, rather than saying nothing.

I agree with you that Quick's penalty was a bad decision and unnecessary, and said as much in my original post. I just said that I understood why he did it and that I was willing to give him a pass. I don't think that that was being contrarian.

You seem to be the type of fan that follows the team with your heart, while I follow with my head. I certainly don't intend for my tone to be condescending. A lot of times, I only chime in when I disagree with something someone has said. I'm sure you've posted things in the past that I agreed with, but if that was the case, there would be no reason for me to reply since I agree with what you said already.

If it makes you feel better, I will try and remember to actively agree with you the next time you say something that I believe is valid on its own, rather than saying nothing.
- tkecanuck341

Barring my responses to 2Real and some other chuckle heads, I try to disagree in a polite way, granted, nothing you said was all that scathing, I tend to think (and I have read many of your posts and replies) the we both tend to comment from the head and the heart, and I realize it takes more time then the both of us have to really weigh out our words, so I will rescind most of that

Jesus, how do you blow a 4 on 1? then give up a goal like that to that plug Phanuef