L.A. Kings Insert A Boot Up Canucks’ Ass 4-1

Greetings L.A. Kings puck heads. Have you heard? It’s 2012. What better way to ring in the new year’s morning than to talk about puck, eh? In 2012, I will be doing the post games in my own loony way. Enjoy.

Scribe’s Three Stars

3. Matt Greene

2. Anze Kopitar

1. Andrei Loktionov

The Great

Mike Richards’ offensive instincts. A joy to watch. He is dangerous. He is captain hustle. Plays that have the look of going nowhere suddenly turn into scoring opportunities. That post he hit…I jumped out of my skin. In our own end, he is every bit as responsible as we knew he could be.

Andrei Loktionov was in beast mode. His energy, that beautiful first step and mid range speed put the Canucks on their heels. His two assists on Richardson and Greene’s goals showed the instincts of a born playmaker.

Kopitar broke his goal scoring drought in style as did Justin Williams. Williams could have scored 3 last night. He had that many scoring opportunities.

Brad Richardson…you sneaky bastard. That little shoulder check on Henrik…Daniel…Henrik…the ugly one after the second goal (which caused the ensuing scrum) was dirty. Secretly, I fucking loved it but, seriously, only do crap like that if it doesn’t put us a man down…which it did not this time.

Willie Mitchell’s long stick. It turns me on.

Darryl Sutter. Putting Richards, Kopitar and Brown on the same line to create a “super line” to counter the Sedins was brilliant and worked brilliantly. Giving Brad Richardson (a constant healthy scratch under Murray) the chance to shine has paid dividends. Last night’s game (and the last four) are a system and style with which Terry Murray is unfamiliar. Puck possession, speed through the neutral zone that sustained itself in the offensive zone and getting pucks to the middle of the ice. Bravo.

The L.A. Kings defense (and not just defensemen) – they were pounding Vancouver’s skilled forwards out there each time they had the puck. We took a page from the Boston Bruins and how they played these bastards.

The Goat

A special acknowledgment to Keith Ballard, Andrew Alberts and Alexander Burrows for displaying their grade A pussy skills on the ice.

The Sedins, well what you can say about the Sedins. All skill in a soft marshmallow wrapping.

Oh and Luooooongoooooo

The Grotesque

Vancouver’s Canucks’ discipline. Hard to come back in the third period down a few goals when you keep taking penalties, eh ladies?

Those yellow, red or orange and what is that, brown, Canucks’ jerseys with a V for Vagina on the front that go back to 1983 or something…if you are going to riot in your city, have the decency to throw all of those into the fires. I refuse to post a picture of one. It would screw up the site’s aesthetics.

Our powerplay still needs work. It was better this game. Hell, we even scored a goal on it. But, there isn’t enough movement away from the puck.

Did You Love?

The playoff intensity of this game?

Pucks to the middle of the ice?

The L.A. Kings looking dangerous each time they were in the offensive zone?

Looking Back & Ahead

No rest for our soldiers. A short but solid ride since Terry Murray’s firing. 4-0-2 under our new coach. The tweaking and changes to our attack are obvious. Even on defense, the regroups and breakouts have changed to reflect an attack mentality by getting the puck up the ice faster. I don’t have much of a voice left this morning, but maybe one of you can ask Dennis Bernstein to write an article about how Terry Murray’s system had little to do with the L.A. Kings’ lack of success…maybe he can get a “stick tap” from a certain blogger.

Up next, we play the Colorado Avalanche at Staples Center. Monday night, 7:30pm start time.

On a personal note, before last night’s match, I got my mojo back…that fever pitched intensity I used to bring to games, which started a lot of Kings’ chants. It’s not the winning that did it. It started during the Jets’ game. Terry Murray’s brand of hockey set the fire low. What I am seeing on the ice, good hockey and the L.A. Kings playing an aggressive offensive style to balance one of the league’s top defenses, is what I expected to see from day one.

GO KINGS!



Categories: L.A. Kings News

Tags: , ,

32 replies

  1. Which blogger are you referring to?

  2. They really worked the shaft last night, in long, tender, loving strokes. Every point matters from here on out.

    But EVERYBODY has games in hand on us. We must, we must, we must improve our bust — I mean, we must continue to WIN games, especially against the futhermuckers in our conference. Against those guys, whether in our division or not, they’re ALL 4-pointers.

    Keep the string going. Come Monday, drive Giguere outa the net, doubting his masculinity.

    • A turnaround from the end of last season when LA was saved by games in hand.

      2-3-4 games, but 5 games? No team other then the Sharks have that…how does that happen?

  3. Agree with your DS assessment. The emphasis on speeding up the transitions and attack, along with the line changes to add speed seem like small changes, but coaching makes a difference. TM did a fine job, but the Kings have needed to move on for the past year.

    (BTW – no need for profanity, your writing & insights don’t require it to be noteworthy.)

    • Welcome aboard. Hope you come back often. Regarding, the profanity, we’re guys…kind of the guys’ guys type (but not the Doughty cup check style of guys guys, not that there is anything wrong with that). This place is like a bar. The patrons are knowledgable Kings and hockey fans. Some of us grew up with the game, playing, watching and living it. So, similar to a bar, we curse – not to do it just to do it but because it’s just how we talk in a bar or, if you prefer, a hockey locker room.

    • “In 2012, I will be doing the post games in my own loony way. Enjoy.”

      profanity is okay, relax its 2012 not 1900. Don’t be a quaker

      • Oh, I wasn’t referring to the cursing. I was referring to the headings in the post games I write. They will, more or less, follow the three stars, great, goats, grotesque etc. format. Surly may adopt his own, borrow or improvise.

    • John,
      Good post. I remember yesterday (actually for a couple of weeks or so) I’ve been posting over on the insider how the Kings have been terrible against Possession type teams this season, and that it has to do “mainly” with the Kings system of slowing down their opponents instead of skating with them.

      Kings were always chasing the play, and taking way to many obstruction, and interference penalties. Sutter seems to have addressed that directly (just as I predicted), and last night, and the Chicago game were the type of tempo changes against Possession teams I was talking about.

      On a side note: It was very fulfilling that before the game I said “skate with them, and attack” and explained my point of view, just to have a poster say the exact opposite “NO SLOW THEM DOWN, DON”T LET THEM BUILD UP SPEED”.

      Felt almost like vindication to have Sutter explain that he wanted more speed, and offensive aggression.

      • Dominick ..for the time I have followed these 2 blogs I have people who’s opinions I read, and others who are passovers.
        You do have opinions worth thinking about. I also validate what you said. I had been thinking some of our opposition teams had picked up speed, and we just could not keep up, or only for 20, not a full 60. The Chicago game was just GREAT! I have been smiling ever since :))

        GO KINGS GO!!!
        .

    • One of the things that makes this site great aside from the outstanding writing by S&S is the ability to speak freely without censorship.

      On that note that was a great fucking game last night. We showed those pussies they weren’t gonna come into our barn and have their way with us.

      • Thanks, Fish. There are only two reasons we do this – to give you our perspective unfiltered and to hear yours in the same manner. I have been directly asked by a couple of people within positions of influence / power, why we don’t set a filter and get the press passes like others have because our writing merits it. My answer was the same – because Surly and I don’t bleat well.

        • I like to think that I had something to do with the freedom of expression on this site.

          • Haha.

            That, or you are just the chief abuser of it. If anyone has tested out our policy, it’s you. Well you an some Jew hating fuck who came an went a while ago.

          • I have no idea to whom you refer but you are more sensitive to that kind of thing, lol. :)

          • It was some guy who came over here with another tale of being banned from Hammond, but his was for turning hockey discussions into anti-Israeli sentiments. I told him he could say what he wants even was a Jew hatin fuck, but to try and keep it hockey related, or something to that effect. I could find the comment if I cared to expel any more energy on it than I already have.

        • Yeah you guys are being sourced more and more lately by national hockey sites and writers. That has to be tempting to go for press access and you guys definitely merit it for that reason. Its great to see your perseverance and commitment to this site paying off with a growing audience. You write from a fan’s perspective and are real man’s men, no pussy footing around, no filter. For that I salute you. Thankfully I don’t ever see you guys selling out and sanitizing the site.

  4. Besides the top guys bringing a great effort, again the deciding factor is all the rest doing two hundred small things to wear a team down. Lewis hustled his ass, forced turn overs. Penner had good intensity and created chances. Cliffords line helped dictate our control and force quick, bad desicions. Hope to see Bernier give Quick a break on Monday, think that is a good game to pencil him in for.

    Also like the new post game format.

  5. I’m really sorry sorry I missed this game. Caught the last 6 minutes, was amusing to watch the Kings skating around knowing they already won. You could tell they just wanted to be done and go party, but they were still fucking with the stupid ass Nucks every chance they could. Also, the Kings clearly worked for every goal they got that night, but Lungoal showed up in full force. haha fucker!

  6. As much as I dislike the Ducks, I fucking hate the Canucks. It’s not a rivalry thing like the Ducks. I want to beat the Ducks because it’s good to rub it in the faces of their smug fans, but the Canucks, I want every little piece of their fragile psyche crushed, be it fan, or team.. The way they played the Kings two years ago in the playoffs, and the crap they pulled last year in the final against Boston just pushed me over the edge. I hate that team. So to see my team treat them like the little bitches that they are, and beat them in ever aspect of the game was one of the greatest things I have seen hockey wise in a long time.

  7. Great Picks!
    As I said on earlier blog ..Lokti had a Great game..maybe he feels more comfortable under Sutter ..he seemed more confident in using his natural instincts and out came his skill and hockey sense.
    Greener’s shot ..that is one of my favorite Hockey shots. LOVE IT!
    Kopi..again free to enjoy playing without the pressure of carrying the whole team. Mikey being back absolutely helps this.
    I had NO voice this morning either…(and had to work) Hope I lose it again tomorrow ..Very proud of our Boys
    GO KINGS GO!!!

  8. … Well, I’m now pretty sure you didn’t see the same game I did on New Year’s Eve, but I’m glad the Kings won the game you saw as well.

    Mike Richards’ offensive instincts.

    … Sometimes it’s instinct, sometimes it’s luck – but he had two terrific chances delivered to him on silver platters and couldn’t score on either one.

    In our own end, he is every bit as responsible as we knew he could be.

    … He’s actually one of the worst (if not THE worst) defensive forward on the team 5-on-5, but hey – it fits the trend of most of the fans to write him yet another love song.

    Williams could have scored 3 last night. He had that many scoring opportunities.

    … Williams played his best game of the season. So did Loktionov. Getting that kind of play from those who largely haven’t provided it was a big key in the game.

    Last night’s game (and the last four) are a system and style with which Terry Murray is unfamiliar.

    … Actually, once again, the Kings scored the same kind of goals they scored during the Murray regime. The game plan hasn’t changed, but the execution and intensity HAS changed. I won’t get too deeply into this, lest I eventually become labeled an anti-Semite again, but they’re still playing the same game plan they always did. I predicted a lot of this would happen, by the way; I knew Sutter would get a lot of credit for “turning the team around” when it was simply a case of the Kings eventually getting some luck to go their way and getting their heads off of their chests and showing some confidence in themselves. They couldn’t stay in a slump forever.

    Again, it’s simple if one bothers to look at how the goals were actually scored. Point shot by Greene, throwaway shot by Loktionov, puck loose in the crease a couple times (luckily), end of a PK where the other team’s PP was at the end of a shift, a PP goal on a deflection of a point shot. These are the kinds of goals the Kings have been scoring for years. The system is still alive and well, and it needs to be that way for this team to be effective.

    Putting Richards, Kopitar and Brown on the same line to create a “super line” to counter the Sedins was brilliant and worked brilliantly.

    … Actually, the Sedin line outplayed the Kings’ “super line” for the game. Again, I’m not sure which game you were watching. I’ve seen Kopitar and Brown play much better games than that, and Richards looked lost in his own zone playing against the Sedins. It’s quite obvious why Richards belongs as a second line center and not a first. It wasn’t pretty to watch.

    The real MVPs of the game were Stoll, Voynov, Loktionov, Mitchell, Penner, Williams, Scuderi, and Richardson. It was the night of the support players, who owned their Vancouver counterparts. Johnson’s backhanded outlet pass to Williams to start the rush on Kopitar’s goal was the highlight of a forgettable evening. Greene, aside from his goal, was rotten – frequently out of position and over-hyped. He needed to be settled down. Greene’s had MUCH better games than that this season.

    The tweaking and changes to our attack are obvious.

    … I will fix your typo here. You misspelled “almost nonexistent”.

    What I am seeing on the ice, good hockey and the L.A. Kings playing an aggressive offensive style to balance one of the league’s top defenses, is what I expected to see from day one.

    … Uhhhh, I don’t quite know how to say this, so I’ll just say it – I wouldn’t get used to this. The Kings were very pumped up to play Vancouver; that goes without saying. They definitely had marked the game on their calendar. Fortunately many of the Canucks’ support players seemed to already be celebrating New Year’s Eve, and the Kings were able to make them pay for it. Good for them. I don’t see this happening on a regular basis at all, but the Colorado game will go a long way toward determining the consistency of this team. It’s easy to get up for the Canucks. Can they maintain intensity against a poor team, or are they going to be rolled over in their own house?

    In unrelated news, remember when I said Minnesota was doing it with smoke, mirrors, and goalies playing over their heads? Uhuh.

    • I don’t want to believe it, as I would prefer to give you the benefit of the doubt Dutch, but you have continually worked to prove over the past 2 weeks that your depth of understanding of hockey strategy extends no further than “a hockey system means goals are scored a certain way”. Your argument has continually been simply that “goals scored by scrums in front of the net and/or off point shots = terry Murray’s system.” you then go on to argue that since the Kings have scored these types of goals, then there must not be any difference in the system they are utilizing to score those goals. It’s like a policeman deducing that the same man must have killed two people because they were both shot in the head.

      Your effective logic is that the end result decides how you get there. I believe the phrase putting the cart before the horse has some small application here, or if we want to get specific, that correlation does not equal causation. Forgetting for a moment the fact that this is a fallacy, I am also astounded by your recent love of the term luck. You used to quote statistics all the time. I don’t see that anymore. Now you revert to saying almost all of the Kings successes and pitfalls rely on luck. I preferred it when you used stats. It’s such an awkward and drastic swing of your argumentative pendulum. Of course you can do whatever the hell you want, but I see your shift in approach to analysis of the game from statistical to luck based as somewhat akin to a meteorologist one day deciding that it rains when god is sad.

      • You used to quote statistics all the time. I don’t see that anymore. Now you revert to saying almost all of the Kings successes and pitfalls rely on luck. I preferred it when you used stats.

        … Well, that’s nice. I know the numbers, and I’ve posted them enough – plenty of them very recently, even. I just don’t feel like posting them every time I make a comment. It’s kind of a challenge, in a way – to get others to step forward and try and contribute something tangible instead of the same dumbed-down, half-assed regurgitated crap that I can hear all day from retards like Mike Milbury and Pierre McGuire.

        It’s like what you’re posting here. It’s never anything pertaining to the game itself, it’s the same old “attack the poster, don’t read the post” stuff you always do. There’s never an explanation of why you disagree, or why you believe what you’re saying is right – only one silly metaphor after another that isn’t related to the topic at all, and it’s frankly boring. Of course, you can do whatever the hell you want, but when you say my approach to analyzing the game has shifted from a statistical base to a “luck” base, you’re essentially saying that you don’t even read most of what I have to say. And that’s your choice, but it’s nonsensical and it’s content-free. So I guess what I’m saying is have fun not reading my posts and just trying out some more nonsensical metaphors to garner the cheap laugh.

        But I AM happy that this time you didn’t accuse me of being anti-Semitic or prejudiced in any way. That’s nice.

        • It’s like what you’re posting here. It’s never anything pertaining to the game itself, it’s the same old “attack the poster, don’t read the post” stuff you always do. There’s never an explanation of why you disagree, or why you believe what you’re saying is right – only one silly metaphor after another that isn’t related to the topic at all, and it’s frankly boring.

          This is provably wrong and I’m appalled you even said it. I have posted specific counterarguments several times to your posts. The thing is you never respond to THOSE posts. So don’t give me this I only attack the poster horseshit. I gave you specific example the other day about how Sutter’s system has changed the Kings’ game and you simply ignored those posts completely. So you can see for yourself, peruse this post: http://lakingsnews.com/2011/12/29/l-a-kings-vs-winnipeg-jets-open-forum-a-cup-check-doughty-inspired-top-10/#comments, where I made 3 separate comments with specific arguments relating only to hockey that you simply did not respond to (and you did make other posts that same night after I responded to you). JT it seems as if every time I have engaged you in specific hockey talk you have bailed on the conversation. It seems that the only time you do actually respond to me is when I make a joke or poke fun at you, so don’t confuse your bull-seeing-red nature of reading my posts as me not actually giving you arguments and only attacking the poster. I’m still flabbergasted that you said it.

          The truly funny thing though is that even in the post you are responding to, you say I am attacking you when I am really attacking YOUR LOGIC, which is in no way an ad hominen attack. Attacking the way in which you make your argument is a completely justifiable method of intelligent discussion. If you can’t defend your logic and simply respond with “there’s never an explanation of why you disagree” well then my friend, you don’t understand the nature of logic itself.

          Also metaphors are a way to make a point, if I choose to infuse humor into them that its just my style and is not part of my substantive point. The fact that you out of hand ignore those metaphors tells me that either A) you don’t have any real interest in engaging me (which can be for a variety of reasons) or B) the underlying meaning of the metaphor goes over your head.

          Speaking of things flying way over your head…

          You completely missed the point of what you are saying are anti-semitic accusations towards you. Let me refresh your memory, I called you the hockey equivalent of a self-loathing Jew, which means not that you loath jews fool, but that you loath your own kind, ie: Kings fans, because you take every opportunity to bash Kings fans as a group. A self-loathing Jew is a Jew who makes fun of Jews and denigrates them. You are a Kings fan who denigrates Kings fans, so its an accurate comparison and nothing to do truly with anti-semitism because it s a comparison. However your response to that comment was Heil Hitler. So forgive me for calling you anti-semitic when your response to me calling you the equivalent of a certain kind of Jew is to say Heil Hitler. My apologies if the common colloquialism of self-loathing Jew (despite its obvious meaning) went over your head.

          And if you have posted stats since the Sutter hiring, I haven’t really seen them. A cursory search of your posts since his hiring shows very few, and if you are going to deny saying that luck has been a big determining factor in the Kings success and failures lately then don’t worry about me reading your posts, start reading them yourself.

  9. I have posted specific counterarguments several times to your posts.

    … Oh for fuck’s sake.

    You’re not dealing with someone who just started watching the games when Sutter was hired. I’ve seen the Kings run two forecheckers deep and I’ve seen them get two guys in front after a successful forecheck (34 seconds in on the first one, 1:10 in on the second one) during the Murray regime. They didn’t do it recklessly, or blindly; they took an intelligent approach and assessed the situation before committing. I’ve seen the Kings crash the net when a puck was loose in front of the crease. None of the things you’re mentioning are new concepts. Hell, for that matter, watch this one. Look at the crease crashing. Look at the two man forecheck (hell, two and a half man forecheck, heh another TV reference). What’s the difference between that game and New Year’s Eve, Jacob? One game they didn’t get many breaks and Quick arguably gave up a soft one, the other game they DID get some breaks and Quick gave up nothing soft.

    The problem was twofold, or even three or four-fold if you want to completely analyze it. First, it was poor execution – an open shot being shanked or shot wide, or a misfired pass. Second, it was poor intensity, as in poor focus – passing the puck instead of simply holding on to it and maintaining possession in the offensive zone, or not knowing what to do with the puck when a faceoff is won in the offensive zone. Proper forechecking starts with proper zone entry, which was few and far between during the Kings’ slump, not because Murray forbade forechecking (how dumb to think that, honestly), but because of the inability to break out of their own zone properly as well as the failure to connect passes in the neutral zone and move guys through the middle of the ice with speed so that they’ll even have the ability to put together a forecheck in the first place. More often than not, the Kings had to stop and get situated at the opponent’s blue line, killing their forward progress and in turn not allowing them to send the puck into the attacking zone with any hope of regaining possession of it. And, lastly, there is the luck factor; where even if the Kings did everything right and got a good quality shot on net, they saw the opposing goalie make a great save or saw the rebound squirt away from where their guys were positioned.

    The difference that we’ve seen (at least in the Chicago game and the Vancouver game) is that the Kings, as a group, are playing with more confidence. That’s going to come with a new coach and the resulting clean slate. When a team’s going bad, and the coach is on the way to losing his job, the players are naturally going to show a bit of hesitation for fear of not making THE mistake to cost the team the game (or the coach his job, as it were). That’s going to lead to situations where focus and intensity get compromised, even though the player’s hearts are in the right place and they want to win just as badly as ever. That, in turn, leads to a scenario where the team looks as if they’re playing not to lose, rather than to win. At the beginning of the season, there were lofty expectations – too lofty if you ask me. The players, of course, were aware of that. There was an added pressure there, along with the reality of new faces in new roles. All of this added up. You and others wanted to talk so much about attitude, right? Well, that’s what was leading to attitudes not being right. With each successive loss and each successive scoring chance thwarted, the Kings dug deeper into their funk. This was clear to see in their mannerisms on the ice, the slumped shoulders, the frustrated slamming of sticks on the ice or the boards, etc.

    Now, with a new coach and a slim chance of making the playoffs available to them, the Kings are playing like they have nothing more to lose – and their mindset seems to be along the lines of “let’s just play the damned game and keep things as simple as possible”, which is what should have been the case when the season started. Combine that with getting a few breaks here and there that they didn’t get before, such as rebounds going right on their sticks instead of bouncing away, or pucks loose in the crease for comparatively long amounts of time; things that simply weren’t happening to the Kings for quite a while. Now, like I said, many people are going to attribute this to the new coach. That’s fine, honestly. But I don’t see specific examples of the Kings doing things differently on the goals they’re scoring, or even on the good chances they’re getting. I don’t ask that you change your viewpoint; only that you understand mine.

    And with that, let’s leave the mudslinging in the past. I’d much rather post about the game with you than about other shit. Deal?

  10. Well this is as awkward as when daddy hit mommy in the kitchen…

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,096 other followers

%d bloggers like this: