Dustin Brown: “We’re Capable Of Doing Everything We Need To With The People We Have…”

Lisa Dillman of the L.A. Times gave us this interesting quote from Dustin Brown. I found it unusual I didn’t find this quote reported by Rich Hammond as it appears to be a post game statement and it is a bold one. Perhaps there may be a logical explanation for it. Perhaps Rich wasn’t there to hear it.

Here is the passage from Dillman’s article (emphasis added)

King captain Dustin Brown was asked if he thought individuals were anticipating a shakeup, in terms of a player move.

“It’s hard to say. I’ve never been on a team that’s good, that’s gone through this,” Brown said. “That’s probably the biggest difference for me. We have a good team in here. We’re capable of doing everything we need to with the people we have in here.

“I don’t think guys consciously think about that. Maybe it’s in the back of some guys’ heads.”

Brownie then went on to talk about desperation, etc., referring to the players, which Rich does cover in detail and Lisa Dillman just summarizes (appropriately) in her article with, “His school of thought was that there was not enough desperation, using that word several times.”

Dustin Brown’s comment, in direct response to a question about anticipating a player shakeup, is telling. Our captain has, in the past, talked about the team’s needs. At one point, he even irritated Dean Lombardi when Brownie commented about the L.A. Kings’ need for a left wing (this was after Murray’s first year I believe), which caused Lombardi to retort that he wants players to think about their own game and not what they “need” from the outside.

Now, Dustin is telling everyone this L.A. Kings team is one that is “capable of doing everything” the Kings needs to do to win. In other words, it’s no longer a personnel or talent issue.



Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , ,

47 replies

  1. They have the people needed to score and win under the right system.

    It’s funny Lombardi said that about Brown because I always thought leaders led by example as well as having a vocal role. Why put a C on someone if he can’t talk? Obviously there are certain exceptions to the talking rule, but I don’t feel this is one of them.

    • C stands for capital, as in real estate, football teams and big boats with below waterline doors accommodating private submarines.

      Is the encrypted message “if the players are present then the coaching isn’t”?

  2. The rest of Dillman’s article, leading up to the question to Brown (the question she poses aloud before discussing Brown)
    strongly emphasizes your point and is worth reading (openly asking the question: player move or coach (as with the Ducks, also in a slide), then Brown saying the roster looks fine to him).

    Our situation is more analogous to Washington’s – good looking roster underperforming. The Ducks got old, and need players. If there was a failure there, then it was the GM’s. Age is part of the game. Last year’s playoff appearance was that of an old lion fighting on memory and pride (I speak with some respect, and no affection). They were headed nowhere but out, and the point was to go out the right way – on their feet.

    Coach Murray brought order, toughness and discipline. Thanks to him, our lads are prepared to graduate to the next class, but Coach Murray does not offer those classes. Pointlessly repeating 8th grade is not working well for anyone.

    • The next step, since we are speaking aloud and offering public opinions/reasons: who? why? I liked Hitcock, due to his forecheck/forward pressure and his Cup. He is no longer available.

      For those who disagree about the coach, then what should be done?

  3. oh Captain my Captain. Dustin is “hinting” at something. Someone has to say it from the locker room.

  4. 1) “Desperation” was clearly Murray’s postgame buzzword. It appeared on several of his quotes.

    2) Given (1) the is ZERO chance that Brown was quietly conveying disappointment or disagreement with his coach. There is no hidden hint. That’s not Brown’s style.

    We’re fucked. We will remain fucked until TM is gone.

    If we get less than 6 points out of the road trip, you have to believe that DL will finally acknowledge his only choice is to get a new coach. (I really like the idea somebody posted of the guy in New Brunswick that won back-to-back coach of the year and the Memorial Cup.)

    DL is smart enough to know that 1 body is ugly but better than 2, right? He won’t leave this in Leiwicke’s hands will he?

  5. Desperation is something you resort to when all other hopes have been lost, all other avenues have been explored – when all would be destroyed if your “desperate” last ditch effort to survive your journey has failed. It is NOT a manner in which to conduct your every day operations.

    We DO NOT need desperation in the locker room.
    We DO NOT need desperation from our players.
    We DO NOT need desperation, period.

    Desperation is for losers.
    Desperation is for those without a strategy.
    Desperation is for those who refuse to dig in, think, evolve, activate and conquer.
    Desperation is for those whom are on the cusp of giving in altogether.

    Not that the lack of commitment on the ice and bench was enough to worry about – we now have a coach who has resorted to a final act of desperation, including that god damned phrase in his monotonous mumbo jumbo he feeds the media and it’s seeped into the minds of our players. Great coaching, Terry.

  6. I haven’t followed the S & S blog closely but what is your theory with Hammond? Is he too close to the team and won’t ask the difficult or controversial questions?

    • He’s a team employee. Thus he refuses to acknowledge that the king has no clothes.

    • I have no “theory.” This was just an observation.

      • I have a theory. Hammond was hired by the Kings to be their beat writer. That was a good move. The Kings needed a dramatic pump in their PR and exposure and this was the most inexpensive way to guarantee it.

        Hammond is no dummy. He knows not to bite the hand that feeds him. He works WITH the Kings, FOR the Kings. I don’t know who exactly signs his checks but they most certainly have “Los Angeles Kings” or Anshutz Entertainment Group” written on them.

        He works his ass off and I give him props for that. He does what he can and I respect that. I also respect the fact that he knows how quickly he’d be shitcanned if he opened his mouth about the scoring woes the Kings are going through by placing public blame on Murray through questions, interviews or the like. That would be career suicide and like I said, he’s no dummy. In fact, you’d have to be either completely retarded, obliterated on the sauce or utterly hate your job to do so. I don’t think he’s any of those.

        Unbiased reporting isn’t going to come from Hammond. It never will.

  7. Now, Dustin is telling everyone this L.A. Kings team is one that is “capable of doing everything” the Kings needs to do to win. In other words, it’s no longer a personnel or talent issue.

    … I honestly think that if there were video of Brown or another player getting up to go over to the bathroom and take a piss, there would be someone all ready to spin that into an article about “well clearly the fact that he chose that particular time to relieve his bladder is proof beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Kings need to immediately make changes to the coaching staff”.

    At this point, it’s really boring. The GM is supposed to be the best ever GM in Kings’ history, right? Isn’t that what he’s been referred to, time and again? This is year six. This is his head coach. This is his team. Hunter, Moreau, Fraser – these are his players. There is no help in the minors. The team is playing at a worse pace than it did in the last year of Dave Taylor’s stint as GM. The Kings have been to the playoffs twice and won four playoff games in the last five years. In the first five years of Taylor’s tenure, the Kings went to the playoffs four times and won ten playoff games.

    If Murray clearly needs to lose his job, what makes Lombardi worthy of keeping his? If Lombardi shouldn’t be fired, why should Murray be? Right now, I don’t have a dog in this hunt – honestly, I couldn’t care less whether anyone gets fired or not. The Kings have been slumping, and they would be slumping regardless of who would happen to be behind the bench or in the GM’s office. If they’re going to pull out of it (which I happen to think they will), they will pull out of it on their own. They’ve been losing close games where they have played level with or better than their opposition, but are losing because they are effectively beating themselves. The last game where the Kings were outplayed was against Florida, and that was their last victory. The last game before that was against San Jose, and they won that, too.

    Shit like “we don’t have the right attitude” and “we’re not playing with enough desperation” is just grist for the mill; quotes for public consumption. To take those quotes and run with them is just lazy analysis. The Kings took nine penalties last night. This is the main reason why they lost the game last night. There have been different specific reasons for every loss, and they have nothing to do with the level of desperation or anything else. Attitude is something that comes with winning, just like chemistry. They don’t create wins; they are created BY wins.

    The Kings have a game on the road Tuesday against the defending World Champions. Quick is coming off a poor two-game stretch, but he’s obviously going to get the start. I don’t foresee any changes being made to the lineup that was out there last night. This can be either a game where they show success against a strong opponent and build their confidence from there, or it will be a complete disaster. I don’t see it falling anywhere in between. I’m sure there will be those hoping for a disaster, and if it is, those people might get their wish. There’s still a lot of the season left to be played. Late last season, the Kings went through a 32 game slump (12-19-1) that nearly destroyed their season. Perhaps they’re going through their seasonal slump early, and they will finish strong. The organization can either panic and shake things up, or they can ride out the storm and come out on the other side stronger for the experience.

    • You criticize the interpretation but do not offer any of your own…or do you completely dismiss Dustin’s words as irrelevant? Your piss analogy was funny though.

      • do you completely dismiss Dustin’s words as irrelevant?

        … Yeah, pretty much.

        My way of thinking is … what would anyone expect him to say? “Well, all’s fine with the team – I’m off to wax my Ferrari.” Probably not. He’s not going to get analytical about the team, either; that’s for the coaches to do, and most fans don’t want that sort of thing out of the players anyway. Most fans want the players to react like they themselves would, or as close to it as possible, meaning they want the player to talk like “we didn’t show up heart soul grit attitude urgency shake it up I need a beer” or something like that.

        Dustin’s just giving the public what he thinks they want him to say. That’s why I said it’s for public consumption. And, what he’s saying is not altogether false. The Kings DO need a change in attitude and they DO need to raise their level of intensity. But how is that done? With confidence and success, of course.

        Right now, the Kings are hanging their heads, their confidence is down, they look like the weight of the World is on their shoulders and that they have to play an absolutely flawless game or else they will lose. They’re afraid to make mistakes. The only way that is going to change is with success. A good shift, then another good shift, then a good period, then a good two periods, then a good game. It builds, like a snowball rolling down a hill, getting bigger and bigger. Right now, it’s like they’re pushing a snowball up a hill rather than letting it roll down.

    • “The organization can either panic and shake things up, or they can ride out the storm and come out on the other side stronger for the experience.”

      If only it were true that those were the only two options. Alas you’re black and white view does not really encompass reality or the very possible permutations of the future.

      • I would add this isn’t an abstract philosophical scenario where members of the Kings’ organization are trying to become better for the experience. This is a business. It’s about winning or losing. Making money or not. That is what the Kings are to themselves (and are very different to the fans who take it more personally and emotionally). If what JT writes is a preach of patience, then I can accept it in that context but, like JT mentioned, it’s been 6 fucking years. Patience at some point wears thin and the assumption I am letting Lombardi off the hook is an incorrect one. He is responsible for Murray as he was for Crawford as he is for all of his mistakes, some of which were dumb in foresight just as much as hindsight.

      • If only it were true that those were the only two options. Alas you’re black and white view does not really encompass reality or the very possible permutations of the future.

        … Enlighten me. What other options are there? They can either shake things up, or not. They can fire somebody. They can make a trade. They can waive someone else. Or – they can go along as they are, and see if there’s light at the end of the tunnel.

        • Your affectation that riding it out leads to a strengthening is what makes your statement false. Also the addition of the word panic to the option to make a move.

          Yeah the two general options are to shake it up or ride it out. What is not a bilateral certainty is what effect each of those options carry.

          • Your affectation that riding it out leads to a strengthening is what makes your statement false. Also the addition of the word panic to the option to make a move.

            … Why is it automatically false? You don’t believe that shaking up the team before game 30 isn’t panicking to some degree? What is it, then?

            You don’t believe that weathering this storm isn’t going to make the team stronger? Will it make them weaker?

            Brown said he’s never gone through this before. Don’t you think the experience of this is going to make him a better captain and better at understanding what the team around him needs?

          • Not necessarily, no.

            I think if a move needs to be made, better get it over with, rip off the band-aid. What if they whether it out and nothin gets better, and then they have to make a move when it’s not a panic, and at that point the season is lost?

            This all comes back to our primary difference of opinion. You chalk up the King struggles to generic luck or specific bad circumstance an feel that time will simply heal al wounds. I believe there are problems that won’t simply rectify themselves but rather require specific intervention.

        • I wouldn’t risk my multi-million dollar investments on this team with a “seeing if there’s light at the end of the tunnel” mentality.

          Like Bobby said, this is a business and exists for that purpose alone. There’s no way AEG is going to risk an investment this large on hope and optimism.

          Alternatives are abound but the fact remains that regardless of what option is ultimately chosen, it HAS to be chosen soon. The clock is ticking. The seats are already not filling up like they should be. Money is being lost quite rapidly. Seeing where we stand at the end of 82 is like going to sleep during armageddon hoping you wake up.

          • Like Bobby said, this is a business and exists for that purpose alone. There’s no way AEG is going to risk an investment this large on hope and optimism.

            … Honestly, I don’t care about AEG’s opinion in all of this whatsoever. They’ve never been concerned about their hockey product before. They’ve never cared about the Kings winning anything. Why should I care what they think?

            If the attendance goes down, if the hockey income goes down, there will be a move made. Their decisions will be based purely on the team’s level of profit. THAT’s what they care about. If the Kings went 0-82 but sold out every game, AEG would be quite content.

          • The Kings being good and AEG profiting are fairy analogous goals, so it doesn’t really matter if AEG preferred t lose if they profited, because that just isn’t the case.

          • The Kings being good and AEG profiting are fairy analogous goals

            Average attendance per season in Kings’ games, playoff seasons:

            1999-2000: 16,519
            2000-01: 15,813
            2001-02: 16,314

            Average attendance per season in Kings’ games, non-playoff seasons:

            2002-03: 17,570
            2003-04: 17,883
            2005-06: 17,840
            2006-07: 16,859
            2007-08: 16,606

          • And… Are you going to sit here and argue that it is against AEG’s interests for the Kings to get better?

            I can point to a number of things that shows those attendance ratings have nothing to do with the playoffs.

            What about the last two years? Why leave those out?

            LA Live and the team gaining better marketing and getting young exciting guys like Kopitar have as much I do with that as anything. If the team does well in the playoffs, attendance will go up. We live in the biggest fucking bandwagon city on the planet.

          • JT, you act as if attendance is the only source of revenue the Kings have. Faulty ass logic once again. Keep trying slugger.

          • And… Are you going to sit here and argue that it is against AEG’s interests for the Kings to get better?

            … Aaaaaand this is where this line of discussion ends. When you start putting words in my mouth, it’s pretty much over.

          • No it was over when you made a useless post about attendance an insinuated that the team doing well has little to do with AEG profiting. If that wasn’t your point then you needed to actually say something in your post, otherwise it will be taken in context of what you were responding to.

    • “The Kings have been slumping, and they would be slumping regardless of who would happen to be behind the bench or in the GM’s office.”

      And then you do absolutely nothing to support your bold argument.

      I know a good coach would not have let the other team hem us in all night with a strong forecheck without trying to make an adjustment to beat it. We couldn’t get out of our zone all night. Their dump and chase killed us.

      A good coach would not have interrupted a team-record-setting shutout performance for no good reason. A good coach would have handled his goalies better this season. A good coach would not have his team at dead last in the league in total offense. A good coach wouldn’t continue to put Hunter on the power play despite his lack of production, and despite the fact that he already has a “heavy body” out there at the same time (Penner). A good coach wouldn’t play Moreau EVERY SINGLE FUCKING GAME and then abruptly have him waived, over an effective, fast, very versatile, and skilled player like Richardson.

      “They’ve been losing close games where they have played level with or better than their opposition, but are losing because they are effectively beating themselves.”

      We most certainly did not outplay or match Dallas’ level of play last night. Kopitar was almost completely ineffective most of the game. Their strong forecheck prevented us from getting clean breakouts and coming through the neutral zone with numbers and/or speed. Our power play once again sucked major balls. There wasn’t much to like out there. The penalties were a huge issue, and while we did have 1 or 2 calls not go our way, that wasn’t the whole story.

      Scribe, can you fix this gotdamn posting box? Can’t see the words I am typing.

      • I think it’s a Firefox problem.

      • I know a good coach would not have let the other team hem us in all night with a strong forecheck without trying to make an adjustment to beat it. We couldn’t get out of our zone all night. Their dump and chase killed us.

        … Dude, look at the shot chart. Look at the shots the Kings took from between the circles. Look at how many the Stars took from those areas. The Kings had more shots from the high percentage areas.

        And those are the shots for the entire game, which doesn’t account for the fact that the Kings were shorthanded for seven and a half more minutes than the Stars were.

        Tell me again that the Kings were out-chanced. Please. I do not give the first flying fuck about your comments on “dump and chase”, “strong forecheck”, “coming through the neutral zone with speed”, because you’re just throwing them out there to look like you know what you’re talking about when you don’t.

        The Kings and Stars both scored one goal on the rush. When each team wasn’t on the rush, the Kings were getting better opportunities. The winning goal came off of a bad bounce off the post and then off the goalie. Bad luck, but that’s part of the game. Shit happens. The Kings still out-chanced their opposition 5-on-5. The key element that beat the Kings were the nine minor penalties they took, as it prevented them from continuing to play at 5-on-5. Obviously the penalties weren’t the whole story, that’s fucking obvious. It was the biggest part of the story as to why the team lost. Christ.

        A good coach wouldn’t continue to put Hunter on the power play despite his lack of production, and despite the fact that he already has a “heavy body” out there at the same time (Penner). A good coach wouldn’t play Moreau EVERY SINGLE FUCKING GAME and then abruptly have him waived, over an effective, fast, very versatile, and skilled player like Richardson.

        … Murray didn’t acquire Hunter and Moreau. Lombardi did. I’m sure Lombardi didn’t acquire those players with the intention of not having them actually out there on the ice. Murray didn’t waive Moreau, Lombardi did. Murray didn’t hire himself, Lombardi hired him.

        Yes, I prefer Richardson over Moreau myself, and have said so numerous times. But, Richardson hadn’t done a thing offensively before last night, either. It’s not entirely difficult to understand why Richardson wasn’t playing. Personally, I wouldn’t have benched him, but I understand.

        • Dude, look at the shot chart, oh oops, this one, no sorry I meant this one, wait a minute, here’s a good one, oh but that’s not the
          one, excuse me, here ah dammit did this work?, how about this? or this at what point does this stop meaning something?

          I just posted about, I dunno, ten or so games where the result did not reflect the shot chart, sometimes very much so. Often, it also did not reflect the play of the game outside of the statbox.

          Out of 29 games, we’ve scored more than 3 goals 8 times. 8. About 73% of the time we score 0, 1 or 2 goals.

          Hello man, we have struggled to score goals ALL SEASON LONG. The longer our “bad luck” lasts makes it less likely that it is in fact actually bad luck. It makes it less likely that our expected value or good luck is what you think it is. It makes it more likely that it is just a result of HOW WE PLAY. And if that is true, it makes our expectation going forward lower than what you think it should be, and our outlook for this season bleaker. We aren’t “due”, nor should we expect more “bounces” to start going our way, unless you think that “bounces” are dependent on previous “bounces”. Our expectation going forward is slightly better than it is right now, if you assume we are in fact in some kind of bad luck streak. That is still not a very good result. Low percentage opportunities are aplenty in our system and are skewing your analysis because you assume them to be more like the norm for the rest of the league.

          We’re pretty deep into the season already, and there is no indication that we’re playing well enough to regularly break 2 goals a game. We just don’t have that many dangerous scoring opportunities, and certainly not as many as a shot chart would indicate.

          BTW, It’s not like Dallas didn’t have two shots ding the post last night that could have very easily gone in. Did we ring the post at all last night? I do not recall that happening at all. We got some good shots, but the goalie was able to get in front of them. I don’t remember being robbed by Bachman, he just played a very solid game with few mistakes.

          You can post shot charts all fucking day long and it doesn’t prove a gotdamn thing or make my point any less valid (that our coach does not coach well enough). There is loss of information when you take a play on the ice and transform it into a dot on a chart, it is absolutely undeniable. Go ahead and pretend that isn’t true in your utopian sabermetric analysis world. Pretend that this is baseball, with the static, easily quantified game play. Make assumptions that just aren’t true and then base your entire analysis upon them.

          I’m not saying stats are meaningless, I’m saying that there is a lot of variance, there is a lot of loss of information, and I think you terribly overvalue them. Playing better as a team and an individual has nothing to do with looking at stats.

          Later.

          • … OK. As for the links you sent me:

            The Buffalo game – the Kings had some good chances but a lot of them were a bit too close in and were more or less stuff shots. I thought the Sabres got more prime chances from the actual slot area and deserved to win that game for sure

            The Phoenix game – the Coyotes definitely out-chanced the Kings and Quick was just very sharp. I think both S & S feel that Quick stole the Kings that game, actually. I don’t agree but it was a really nice game for him, his confidence was very good and he was feeling it

            The New Jersey game – the Devils had better chances and should have won the game, don’t know what your point is with this one but whatever, have fun

            The Colorado game – the Kings played really well but Varlamov played a terrific game

            The Anaheim game – pretty even game to me, ended on a shootout, again what your point is I have no idea

            The second Anaheim game – again, pretty even to me, Kings won it by one but added an empty-netter, close game

            the San Jose game – Quick stole this one for sure, even I have said as much more than once

            the Florida game – ditto

            the Minnesota game – again, I’m not sure what the point is (or if there even IS a point, maybe you just wanted to practice some HTML coding or whatever) the Kings dominated this game in my estimation, Hackett stole the game for the Wild, if Quick had done what Hackett did people here would be writing love songs to Quick for the next week and change, but as it turned out Quick was very soft in this one

            Again, a lot of these went exactly as they should have. If your point is that I look at raw shot totals for 100% of my analysis, you’re dead wrong on that and if you’d read some posts you’d know that. What I find interesting here is that I get jumped on more often for what I haven’t ever said than for the stuff I have. It’s baffling.

            And I look at far more than just shots on net; what about those that just missed? What about blocked shots? Those tell me a lot about possession time in the offensive zone. The Wild game, for instance, went well beyond just the raw shots on goal, for me anyway. The Kings had so many good shifts inside the Minnesota zone and were able to create time and space to shoot the puck almost at will, but they missed the net more times in one game than I have ever seen in all the years I’ve seen the NHL keep track of that stuff.

            I don’t see where the charts you linked prove me wrong in any of this. Obviously, everyone in the organization is aware of the Kings’ struggles to score, but again it’s been less than 30 games into the season and I don’t think for a second that Murray is actively calling for the Kings to not score goals. The Kings have played Murray’s system for the last couple years and have been in the middle of the pack in 5-on-5 scoring, simply because they executed the offense better then than they have this season. There’s time for all of that to change. I don’t attribute all of the Kings’ problems to bad luck, but it is one factor in all of this. They have to play more disciplined and they have to execute the gameplan better. If they don’t do that, they could have any coach behind the bench and continue to lose.

          • My point was that there is so much noise in shot charts that pointing to a specific one and going, hey, look, this supports my arguments that the Kings dominated (which they didn’t vs Dallas except for the parts of the 1st period they weren’t shorthanded, really), is flawed. Over the long run, sure, I would bet you’d have an edge if you simply looked at shot totals, etc to predict outcomes.

            BTW, that first period shot chart up on ESPN is pretty inaccurate (I attended the game, now watching on TV, I’m a weirdo). Many of the Kings’ shots are plotted too close (and a couple of Stars’ shots were plotted too far away). Lots of them are also on the wrong side of the ice. That cluster of shots near the net for the Kings is pretty much all incorrect, one was even above the dots. They were still good, dangerous shots, however. By the same token, Dallas made a lot of good plays around the net that just didn’t make it on net (a couple sailed just wide, some passes thru slot/crease bounced over sticks). It’s not like this chart really tells you the story of the game.

            I look at the quality of the Kings’ offensive chances/rushes and when the play changes direction (overall this season), and I just don’t see that much opportunity to make good plays because we are constantly facing numbers back (since a lot of the teams fall back so much now). The plays are doomed before they began.

            I feel like we have been trying to force plays (like stickhandling through 5 sticks) that weren’t there, and often give up turnovers and leave the D hanging (since the forwards are often trying to jump in the play too and end up out of position on the turnover). And holy balls, watch the COL game, we gave up about ten of these.

            These turnovers lead to easy zone entries and good rushes against. I also see us looking pretty clueless in the neutral zone. It’s like they don’t know to just get open when the play breaks down a little bit. Lots of standing around isn’t going to help you beat a trap. You can accomplish the same thing (stretch D, open up lanes for others, tip it down to avoid icing) by having two players run a route to each others’ original positions, towards the boards, or towards a seam in the D, and you get speed to boot if everything fails and it ends up being a dump in.

            I just feel like we’re in no man’s land, not aggressive enough, and not conservative enough. Pick one imo. I wouldn’t have had a problem with Murray adjusting more conservatively last night (like dropping a D back to fetch pucks easier since we were getting hammered all night), since it would have helped our breakout and therefore our offensive game.

            Anyways, I’m still concerned the Kings are going to play like shit. I get the feeling there is some tension between the players, and that is never good. I don’t know if Brown is a strong enough individual to snap some players back in line (like Doughty, fer example, if he wasn’t staying on the same page as everyone else). I think the Kings need a strong coach, and I’m not sure DL will make the right choice. Lots of questions.

  8. Taken from Hammond’s blog
    “Second, the subject of ice quality at Staples Center is a regular one. The ice has never been particularly good, but there’s a sense that it’s worse than ever. To that end, Dan Craig, the NHL’s facilities operations manager — a.k.a. “ice guru’’ — visited the arena on Saturday to check things out. It’s not known what he thought or saw, exactly, but one player said this week that the ice quality is awful, and that he often sits on the bench between shifts and notes the bad bounces that the puck takes. This player, it should be noted, also made a point of saying that both teams have to deal with bad ice, and that it wasn’t a reason for the Kings’ offensive struggles.”

    Are you fucking kidding me??? Management, coaches or the players are now blaming shit on the ice surface? Things are really going down the fucking tubes now….

  9. It is clear that this team needs a coaching change. There is simply no other plausible solution at this point. The players are turning on Terry and it’s painfully obvious in every despondent post game interview we’re subjected to these days.

    If Dean Lombardi chooses to “stick with the plan” with such grim and obstinate willfulness as we’ve seen from him over the years, this team is doomed. Sitting at 30th in offensive output for too long will only continue to creep into each and every players’ psyche.

    The immediate and long term future of this franchise is teetering on a powder keg right now, and Dean Lombardi is the only person in sole possession of a fire extinguisher. Whatever happens from this point forward is on his head. This is his team, his head coach, his master plan. There are no more excuses, Dean. I’ve been a staunch supporter of your vision since day one, but if you cannot, or will not, make a change, you need to go, as well.

    This season has been a monumental disappointment. There is no amount of criticism that shouldn’t be levied against management. They’ve had years of unwavering support from ownership and the fanbase to fail this terribly. At a certain point, yes, the burden of success sits squarely on the shoulders of the players on the ice. But if Lombardi continues to handcuff this squad to Terry Murray’s terribly outdated system of “success” then he is not giving this team a chance to carry such a burden.

    Swallow your pride, Dean. Make the coaching change you KNOW you need to make.

    Or go down with the ship.

    Your choice.

    • Long time no see, stranger.

      • I got perma-banned from HFBoards during the whole Kovalchuk fiasco two summers ago for ridiculous reasons I’ve been appealing ever since. I post on LGK and Hammond’s blog occasionally.

        I’ve been quietly watching the Kings since but haven’t been able to keep quiet lately. What’s happening with this team right now is disgusting.

  10. I got perma-banned from HFBoards

    … You too, huh?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,101 other followers

%d bloggers like this: