The Third Surly & Scribe Show For 04/07/12 – Post Game, Playoffs, Chaos

Here is the 3rd Surly & Scribe Show podcast we recorded immediately after the L.A. Kings vs. San Jose Sharks loss, the final game of the regular season. A few notes:

1. Surly’s mood changes will amuse. The fucker…you know what, I won’t tell you what he did. You’ll just have to listen.

2. The sound issues we have had with Jacob and Timmy did not amuse but Surly is working hard on getting it fixed so you can hear everyone as well as you hear me…and it’s not just because I enunciate well, even though I do.

3. It’s over an hour. They are getting longer.

4. No intro music. We got right to it.

5. We have told you raw and uncut. You take the good with the bad, the funny with the “what the fuck.”

6. We answer the readers’ questions at the end of the show.

Enjoy.

Surly & Scribe L.A. Kings Podcast 4-7-12



Categories: Surly & Scribe L.A. Kings Podcast

Tags: , , ,

139 replies

  1. Honestly the sound issues aren’t bad, and really, I don’t think it matters as long as we can understand whoever is talking. Fuck the intro music, you got down straight to the talking and that’s exactly what was appropriate after such an emotional loss.

    I have to say, you guys calmed me down quite a bit and put things in perspective. Before these past few games, I had been overly confident about this team, even without Jeff Carter. After watching these two losses, it grounded me and I realized that anything can happen no matter how shitty the Kings play or how well the Kings play. As you guys said, it reminded me of last year’s playoff series against San Jose and the painful memories just started pouring in. Yeah, it’s all coming back; the Kings seem to break down against any speedy team when they try to keep up. This isn’t the same Vancouver team we versed two years ago. They have a ton of playoff experience and they play the style that seems to break the Kings down. I really don’t know why they seem to forget everything when the game gets up tempo.

    Maybe you guys are right, maybe they’re getting too excited about having some exciting play, or maybe they’re still a young team that doesn’t know how to cope well when things change from the way they’re used to playing. I feel like the players, coaches, and the entire team aren’t very flexible. Granted, it is a hell of a lot better than it was under Terry Murray, but still. I consider this team a very streaky team, from the individual players to the organization as a whole.

    That being said, since the trade deadline, it seems Jeff Carter has brought that balance you guys talked about. In my eyes, he’s made all the difference in the consistency of the King’s game. I really like Mike Richards. I believe he’s fallen victim to the obvious curse that is placed upon the Kings. I just hope he turns it up during the playoffs, forgets everything he was taught here, and becomes the player we traded for, the guy who was scoring on a per game basis early in the year. I hope our defense slows and shuts down Vancouver’s offensive style. I hope Jeff Carter lights it up. I hope Kopitar goes on another scoring streak while maintaining his defensive responsibilities. I hope Quick plays like the Vezina trophy finalist everyone is pegging him to be. I hope everyone turns it up a notch because we’re going to need that shit. That is a lot of hoping, and those are a lot of ifs. That’s what scares me, not some bitch ass Vancouver team.

    Also, you guys butchered my name worse than anyone. My name is Saro and I’ve been called sourdough, and I didn’t think anyone could top that until sewage. Keep up the great work guys, looking forward to the next one!

    • Thanks brother. Saro? Svrej is Saro? That is awesome. What nationality is that? Sewage was a joke by Surly and I honestly thought it was Sue-rej or saw-rej, phonetically.

      Hope to see you become a regular. I enjoy reading your comments.

      • Oh I know it was a joke, I was laughing a lot. I don’t get mad at stupid things like that. My first name is Saro and my middle name is Vrej. Vrej with a very soft J, I don’t think the sound even exists in English. I’m Armenian but I was born and raised here. What nationality are you? You have a pretty awesome accent.

    • “..too excited about having some exciting play, or maybe they’re still a young team that doesn’t know how to cope well when things change from the way they’re used to playing…”

      IMO, both, young and new system late in the season which allows more odd man breaks against. Both games were winnable, Kings started to pull themselves back in the 3rd but too late—where was the coach between periods?

      Want to think of the “what ifs” had Carter played but oh well. Kings will face a full complement in Vancouver…unlike the last game. I just hope Vancouver has it fire insurance policies paid up. ..regardless of how they do against the Kings.

      Vancouver seems to be hockey’s equivalent of auto-erotic strangulation. A team whose moniker can easily change from “Canack Hockey” to “Carridine Hockey”.

  2. I just wrote this in response to player-x’s blog about the Kings beating themselves by allowing the Sharks to get a psychological edge over them, among other things. That blog is quickly getting outdated though so I thought I’d post the comment here. I’m interested to hear some responses and discuss what I think is a big problem. Here is my comment.

    “I agree with every word of this fantastically written blog. Well done Player-X!

    I’m not usually one to talk about the psychology of a team, or a mental edge, as I believe that’s often overblown. At least, in the case of “Jeff Carter won’t help the Kings because he doesn’t have character!,” that type of thing where I believe small things get overblown and are perceived to have much more weight than they really , I’m not a big believer. But even I was writing about the psychology of the Kings the other day.

    But here’s another angle, just something very simple to think about. And it’s not mutually exclusive to the psychology aspect.

    I know we look at the last two Kings losses as blown leads, where they collapsed, but one thing that seems to be constant, whether it’s a blown lead, or if the Kings fall behind 3-1 instead of going up 3-1 then blowing it, is that we can count on Drew Doughty for a couple major lapses per game that good teams will take advantage of. Because at the end of the day, it may have been psychology and everything we’ve talked about that led to the Kings blowing their lead, but technically, the Kings were still ahead 3-1 briefly even with the Sharks psychological advantage and momentum creeping in. It wasn’t until the puck actually went in the net a bunch for the Sharks that they won.

    In other words, psychology and mental advantages that led to the Sharks scoring 5 goals aside, it was allowing 5 goals that lost the Kings the game. And it’s Drew Doughty’s actual lack of execution physically, on the ice, that seems to cause a lot of these goals. It happened against last night in the Sharks second win, too. He’s good for a goal or two against every big game it seems, when he has to face good teams who are really forcing the issue.

    I’m not saying the mental edge the Sharks have created over the Kings doesn’t exacerbate Doughty’s issues, just that they exist anyway, big time.

    What am I talking about? Drew Doughty was “rushed” to the NHL because physically, and talent wise, in terms of his skating and offensive ability, and explosiveness from the backend, he was ready to play in the NHL. But what this meant was that Doughty never spent the time in the AHL really ironing out all the fundamentals and nuances of the difficult position that most defenseman who aren’t blessed with such great physical gifts have to learn out of necessity.

    And what we have now is a defenseman who, whenever he gets into situations where his natural gifts can’t rescue him, is one of the most fundamentally defensemen to play in the NHL in years. I’ve rarely seen anything like it.

    Most defenseman, even first round picks, spend a couple years in the AHL learning their craft, learning how to properly tie up sticks, learning what angles to take defensively, learning gap control, learning how to defend the front of the net, just learning the fundamentals, which can actually be pretty complicated and take awhile to learn. Then they get to the NHL, and even then, they start out on the second pair or third pair, and they keep learning until they’re 27 or 28 and really develop into a top-pairing defenseman.

    But the Kings have not done that with Doughty. They see that his natural ability is at the level of a top-pairing defenseman, so that’s where they put him. You have the talent to be our top defenseman, so go out there and play against the best players. Except that he is a top defenseman in physical talent, only. In terms of defensive fundamentals in craft, think Willie Mitchell, this guy is still basically just out of junior hockey. No doubt he’s learned some on the job, but it’s not the same. I’m not even sure the Kings, or Doughty himself, realize that he’s so far behind in these areas. They see the top-pairing defenseman talent in the big areas like skating and just assume all the little things are up to par. But not only are they not up to par, they’re ridiculously low. It’s one of the greatest contrasts I’ve ever seen in one defenseman between his talent level and his fundamentals.

    Doughty does not know how to create a proper gap to save his life. Part of this is that his backwards skating seems to suck. He’s not confident at all going backwards. Another crazy, unprecedented contrast. How can such a good forward skater struggle so much at skating backwards? Maybe it makes sense, given that’s it Doughty. He practiced what he was better at a lot because it was easier, and neglected to practice what he struggled at because it was harder. At least that’s what it seems like.

    Those are the two biggest issues for him. His gap control and positioning, and his backwards skating. But especially the first two. He’s just so far behind there. What we have is a top-pairing NHL defenseman in talent whose defensive fundamentals aren’t even NHL third-pairing, they would be below average for an AHL third-pairing defenseman. I’m not exaggerating. He has the fundamentals of a junior defenseman. I watched Brandon Gormley play at the world juniors along with many other junior defenseman, and they are better at creating good gaps than Doughty. It’s crazy but it’s totally true, not exaggerating.

    So my point is, the Kings psychology as a team may be a problem, but even if you fixed that, you’re still going to be in big trouble whenever the defenseman you have out against the Thornton’s and Havlat’s every night has the defensive fundamentals of a junior hockey player. It’s a huge problem I think is being overlooked. Doughty is talented so he can go long stretches of games looking very good and reliable, skating the puck out of his zone, but his defensive issues seem to always catch up with him eventually, which leads to just a couple bad gaffs every game that often change the outcome of the game in the other team’s favor when it’s a closely contested playoff-type game against another good team. So my point is, this needs to be fixed, otherwise I think it’s a ticking time bomb that, if it doesn’t come back to haunt the Kings in game 1 vs Vancouver, will in game 3, or sometime down the line, probably multiple times.

    • 3Team, I’m basically responding right back to you, cause I’m not sure if anyone else will find my response of interest, but I think you might.
      As soon as I read your post I thought ‘right on’! The reason being, I had a personal point of reference. I play guitar as a hobby, not as my life’s work. Years ago while living in Paris a good friend of mine visited – and he was an excellent guitarist. I happen to have a really good year and musical instincts. He said to me ‘your ears are all the way out to the Eiffel Tower but your fundamentals ….. need work’. I just flashed right to that moment.
      So in taking lessons over the next number of years I started to put some of those basics in place… scales, music theory, finger exercises, etc. Not that I’m a fantastic guitarist now, but I can hold my own with a lot of guitarists if I have to. Because I simply had to have a foundation in place.
      I agree with you that Doughty does not have that foundation in place.

      Point No. 2: I’ve stated this before but I think it fits here. When I read his pre draft interviews with Hammond, I distinctly remember thinking ‘damn, this guy just doesn’t sound mature to me’. I still feel the same way. And the maturity to me is a big issue. While Zdeno Chara said recently in an interview that he never watches hockey on tv except when it’s the Wings so he can study Nik Lidstrom, I felt that said a lot. Doughty in the meantime seemed to be putting his focus on being the highest paid whatever. So it boils down to ‘what do you want’? I mean really want? To be the highest paid, to be the best, to develop your craft?
      The answer to these questions aren’t clear.
      I think it’s a brilliant point you bring up about how his natural talent put him in a position (to jump straight to the nhl and help a weak team), but the down side being proper development.

      To be frank, I was thinking about his performance in the Olympics, which everyone agreed was substantial. But I think that was in part because he played a more conservative game, he wasn’t going to embarrass himself in that arena and he was playing with far more gifted players.

      Last point, I remember very very well the scouts saying that Doughty was more nhl ready but that Pietrangelo had the upside, and watching the Blues that’s how it looks to me.
      Agree wholeheartedly that Lombardi should have sent him to the minors for at least a year.
      I was watching Voynov last night and thought that his fundamentals looked great. I have to believe that a part of that is due to the developmental time served in the AHL.
      And as for Doughty, I just don’t know what can be done. HIs offensive game isn’t even as strong as it was before, or so it seems.

      • Meant I have a good ‘ear’….. not ‘year’.

      • I agree with both of you in respect to Doughty. He took the league by storm that first season until his weaknesses were exposed. Not having his fundamentals in place I sense we will see Doughty begin to reemerge around contract year 5.

        Both your opinions are well thought out. And yes, the Sharks have now overcome major deficits in four games dating to last season. Hockey voodoo suggests that the Sharks will continue this pattern at least through the next two generations of KIngs fans.

        It was a major fuck up to squander the chance to build a sense of equivalence much less the appearance of a Kings team passing a rival on its way down.

        • Not having his fundamentals in place I sense we will see Doughty begin to reemerge around contract year 5.
          So does that mean that near the end of this current contract he’ll want to renegotiate for $10M a year? Hey Mom, look how much better I am!!

  3. And what we have now is a defenseman who, whenever he gets into situations where his natural gifts can’t rescue him, is one of the most fundamentally *INEPT (I omitted the word inept in my original comment for some reason, but that’s what it’s supposed to say) defensemen to play in the NHL in years.

  4. Listening now to it. Whoever said that Lombardi built the team on defense and it’s fallen apart in critical moments of big games? Yes. That is clearly true. DL’s de facto whatever is, yeah but it’s a young team. No, it’s not that young of a team. Because Martinez who Is young, and Voynov who Is young aren’t the ones making the mistakes. What does that mean.

    Also Jacob I think talks about them becoming ‘frazzled’. I think it was Jacob. And yes that’s exactly what happens. When the speed starts coming at them they become frazzled.

    I realize it’s a huge responsibility being the GM of an NHL team, but that’s why the GM is paid…. to change a culture and put together each element of a team in the way it needs to be put together.
    Mike Richards, the big trade takes an idiotic penalty last night. Simmer meanwhile as I recall very very rarely made those big mistakes while he was with the Kings in spite of his youth.

    I’m not sold on DL’s moves…. and it comes down to far more than Dustin Penner… and Thomas Hickey and Dan Cloutier. He does some things well and seems to be a better than average NHL GM. I’m not certain though how much more he is than that at the moment.

  5. YAY BOBBY. YAY…. YAY!!! Now you’re talking about Lombardi and I don’t just agree with you. I completely agree with you. And you’re now addressing the team speed issue.
    Love it Bobby. You Get It!!

  6. @Bobby

    Two last points re: Lombardi. 1) How funny, you caught him saying ‘oh boy’ so many times in the Bettman interview. I missed that…. but what I heard was ‘you know’. That makes me very uncomfortable. Watch interviews w Ray Shero and Ken Holland. You won’t hear that sort of speech. It says a lot. Hate to be critical. I am of myself in my own work (too much so) and it just shows a lack of poise.
    2) …. was there a two? …. Oh yeah, now I remember. What you pointed out about the lack of drafting a top six forward. That in effect he was forced to give up core players (And first round draft picks) to get Penner and Carter. It’s like….. yes. Exactly.
    Some have said how wonderful his drafting has been and that enabled him to stockpile and then trade. Nope, that’s definitely, definitely not what happened. Teubert didn’t show signs of greatness and still hasn’t. Forget it. I’m not going into this again. I know that you know and thats all that really matters.
    It’s like a plan that you can poke a bunch of holes in. And if you can poke lots of holes in a plan it isn’t a good enough plan.
    And for those who say ‘hey he drafted Martinez and Voynov’….. well…. like, YEAH, he better have with all the fucking draft picks he got trading away players when he came in as GM.

  7. My take on last nights game and what it means moving forward–

    One of the reasons Southern California may not be the most conducive place for a hockey franchise to thrive is the fact that while we say we demand winners, we are leaders in the area of coddling. Too much money too toss around leads to a shit ton of specialized industries that cater to people looking for quick fixes to their short comings. Pitching coaches for our eight year olds, aroma therapy engineers for our sales staff, emotional hypnotherapists that help us lose weight, support groups for executives who can’t afford their own g6’s, you got a problem we have a billion mother fuckers with candles ready to help hold your balls for you while your cry your way back to mediocrity.

    You know what makes a great hockey player? Someone telling you “ya ain’t good enough.”

    All season long, the analysts, bloggers and fans have talked about the Kings being a disappointment because they have all the right pieces but for some reason just have not followed through. Mike Babbcock (which for the remainder of the playoffs is now ordained Bobs-On-Cock) at least had the nuts to call us out–

    “It’s a hard business. Terry Murray did a great job here. There’s a lot of coaches that have done excellent jobs but everybody in today’s NHL — owners and management — thinks they have a team that can make the playoffs and win the Cup and I hate to break the news to them but for lots of teams it’s not true. Until you’ve been there and you know how good you have to be to win the Cup you don’t realize how far you are away.”

    He is flat out saying it, we are not ready.

    That there is motivation.

    That is the only motivation the team should need. No coddling. No “well we need to improve our such and such.” EVERYTHING NEEDS IMPROVING. EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE 100% FROM HELL I STAB AT THEE WITH MY COCK. Don’t tell me you wanna spend the weekend working on special teams or your intensity. YOU”VE BEEN PLAYING HOCKEY YOUR WHOLE LIFE, YOU KNOW WHAT IT TAKES JUST DO IT EVERY SHIFT. Stop looking for small things to massage. It’s attitude and attitude alone that lost those last two games to those smug(fuck my mouth those fuckers are smug, god damn I wanna bitch clap Joe Thorton’s gay porn beard face) cock-stains. Which is why, I love the fact that we are playing the Canucks.

    We have taken it to Chicago this year.
    We know we can run the distance with St.Louis.
    Vancouver, people are counting us out before we even finished last nights game.

    I love it, that team is Goliath and nothing should inspire an athlete like taking on a giant. I love you Kings, you are not good enough. Go prove me wrong.

    (yes this shit has little to do with the podcast, but I’m an angry fat man and before I eat my feelings and single handedly close down the Simi Valley In-N-Out, I wanted to vent.) Thank you guys for giving us a forum all year to scream in anger, shout in victory and wallow in collective frustration.

      • Thank you, figured the last game of the year warranted me trying to form something resembling a point instead of the usual aimless screaming into the dark. Great job with the website guys, my wife appreciates having some place constructive for me to unleash before I chase the neighborhood kids with a pitchfork.

    • That Was really good stuff. It’s Exactly that. It’s easy to say how good you are. But going back to last years playoffs, if you keep throwing away leads….. against any team and the same scenario keeps repeating, then obviously you aren’t good enough.

      Also, good one quoting Babcock. That guy is great and when he speaks it carries weight.

  8. And happy dead God rising from the ground day. CTHULU lives!

  9. … This podcast was a big fat unnecessary drama bomb, and an excuse to bash some guys (Stoll, Doughty) when it completely wasn’t warranted at all. The Kings’ last game became an exhibition game once Phoenix won the Pacific Division. Regardless of the results of last night, the Kings were going to head out on the road to play a tough team in the playoffs.

    The Kings didn’t play “scared” against the Sharks last night at all, they simply allowed a couple of goals that were inadvertently deflected in off of a couple of their players’ sticks, and that’s what beat them. Shit happens. It was bad luck and nothing more. The Kings didn’t “panic” when the tempo got faster, hell, the Kings attempted 66 shots while the Sharks attempted 41. The Kings were in the offensive zone more often than the Sharks were, and that’s what you want, isn’t it?

    Also, do you research these things before you do them? How do you know the Kings are a better matchup for the Canucks than they are for the Blues? Did you look at the record (5-10-3 without the shootout over the last 3 years) the Kings have against Vancouver? Has Quick really been the most consistent goalie in the league this season? How do you know? Have you done the research on the Vezina to see whether there really appears to be an East Coast Bias? The Kings can’t win a high-scoring game? Did you look at the goals the Kings have put up since the Carter trade, that the Kings have scored 4 or more goals in almost half (10) of their 21 games since that deal?

    Also I like how you bashed the shit out of Doughty and waxed lovingly about the Darling of Los Angeles. Talk about an injustice. At this point I think Richards could go through a season without a goal and take a big fucking dump and wipe his ass on the Kings’ logo at center ice at the end of the season, and 99% of the people in the stands would still give him a standing ovation.

    • ” the Kings have scored 4 or more goals in almost half…”– this is something that has bothered me. The analysts are still saying “The Kings are looking for goals” but obviously they’re not. yes the average for the year is down because the numbers were soooo down for so long, but the numbers have been steady and really fucking good since the trade deadline and it matters what they’re doing now, not back in September.

      I wouldn’t say Quick has been consistent, because the last month and a half he hasn’t been. Averaged over the season, yes his numbers have him in the top 3-4 in most categories. Have other keepers been more consistent over a long period of time? I’m not sure. Lundqua-howeveryouspellthisshit-vist has been having troubles since he hurt his hand, Smith is hot now, but not earlier. I could say that Quick has been carrying the team and keeping us in games for a majority of the season, where as NY has had a great offense in front of him so maybe its arguable that he hasn’t been as crucial to his teams successes as Quick. This shit is hard to measure and is hard to argue one side more over the other.

      • JT, this particular post of yours I can’t say I agree with.
        First of all, Sutter pointed out how important it is to not go into the playoffs with bad habits. Taking unnecessary penalties is a bad habit that they have. Especially Stoll in the o zone to say nothing of Richards ‘what was he thinking’ hit on Couture. Every single nhl player should know that by now; you see their numbers and they’re a few feet from the boards… watch out. If they didn’t know this, his teammate Kyle gave an example in the prior game that earned 5 minutes. So, clearly if they were approaching this like an exhibition then they have even more problems than what I thought they had already.

        Next point: while I think Doughty has some very definite issues to sort out, I felt he was reasonably steady last night. Not outstanding, but steady(ish). On the last goal I don’t know what he did or didn’t do as I turned off the tv immediately.

        Where I feel very different than you though is that I saw a very distinct difference in the ‘movement’ of the game in the 3rd period. The Sharks were flying out of their own end. I have this distinct image of someone (might have been Boyle, might not) just taking charge coming out of his own zone. At that moment I thought, yikes the whole mo of this game has taken a 180, and that’s when it was still 2-1.

        I’m of the school that largely (not exclusively) you make your own luck, and the Sharks made theirs last night…. pucks going in off of sticks that weren’t theirs or not. The issue I have is that there is a distinct pattern repeating with the Kings. They were supposed to have learned something coughing up the 3rd game lead vs Vanc two years ago. Fast forward to last yrs playoffs…. and it was even worse. So now they have Kopi and Richards and – same thing.
        Perhaps it isn’t a cause of concern for you. And when (if) the Kings bounce Vancouver you can come on here and say ‘you see’. And maybe that will happen. But I think that Vancouver is a better team than the Kings, and Quick hasn’t shown in these particular games that he gets a result. No specifics about him playing great, awful or anything in between. So we’ll see.

        • Taking unnecessary penalties is a bad habit that they have.

          … I think that just about every team has this habit, though; if not all of them. The Kings are just one of many. Yes, I think the coaching staff should always be stressing discipline, and have said as much many times in the past. But the fact of the matter is this is going to happen from time to time.

          while I think Doughty has some very definite issues to sort out, I felt he was reasonably steady last night. Not outstanding, but steady(ish).

          … I agree. He was OK.

          Where I feel very different than you though is that I saw a very distinct difference in the ‘movement’ of the game in the 3rd period.

          … There WAS a change of tactics from sending the puck in to carrying it in. The Kings like to play a basic setup, really defense 101 in that they line three guys up on their blue line. The initial response to that is to send the puck in and retrieve it, but the Kings were doing a great job of getting back (as they often do) to contest the players chasing those pucks and steering them off to areas on the ice where their potential for danger is minimized. The Kings are probably the best team in the NHL at taking the proper routes in their own zone to put themselves in the best defensive position, and that’s not surprising because that was Terry Murray’s strong point as a coach. The Kings don’t even think, they instinctively know where to go. The Sharks just adjusted to that, and found some success with it. Kudos to them. They have the personnel to make that adjustment, and they executed it well.

          I’m of the school that largely (not exclusively) you make your own luck, and the Sharks made theirs last night…. pucks going in off of sticks that weren’t theirs or not.

          … Can’t really say anything in response other than I just disagree. The last two goals the Sharks scored went off of the sticks of Mitchell and Scuderi, their best defensive players. It was simply bad luck. 999 times out of 1000, those pucks don’t go into their own net, and I’m glad that bad luck is out of the way now with the playoffs coming up.

          They were supposed to have learned something coughing up the 3rd game lead vs Vanc two years ago.

          … They’re going to have games where teams come back on them. Who doesn’t blow leads in this league? Is ANY team above doing that from time to time? The Kings, if anything, have been excellent compared with the rest of the NHL in preventing this from happening over the course of the season. We’ll see how the team does in the playoffs with a lead, but I don’t want the Kings to stop being as aggressive as they have been since the trade deadline because I feel it’s done more good for the team than harm. Games are going to go back and forth – that’s the nature of playoff hockey. No lead is safe until time runs out.

          But I think that Vancouver is a better team than the Kings

          … I agree, for sure. I don’t see the Kings winning the series, but upsets do happen and I’m excited to see if the Kings can pull one off here.

          • … Can’t really say anything in response other than I just disagree. The last two goals the Sharks scored went off of the sticks of Mitchell and Scuderi, their best defensive players. It was simply bad luck. 999 times out of 1000, those pucks don’t go into their own net, and I’m glad that bad luck is out of the way now with the playoffs coming up.

            Mitchell had a fantastic quote addressing this exact point last night.

            MITCHELL: “I don’t know. You’re so involved in your own game, so you don’t pay attention to that. You try to prepare and do the right things yourself, to try to contribute as much as you can to the team. They played a few more pucks late, against us. They got a few bounces, and that’s hockey. Sometimes it goes your way and sometimes it doesn’t. Tonight, we had some quality chances early on. I think it’s not so much what we did late. I think, maybe sometimes, it’s what you do earlier, when you are taking it to a team, controlling the play. When you’ve got a team down, that’s when you need to finish them and score the next goal. If you don’t, you put everything into the equation. You put luck sometimes. It could be a high stick that changes the game, a lucky bounce similar to what they got tonight, from the point. You put yourself into that situation, where luck comes into the equation. That’s where you need to put your foot on the gas and build on your lead, so it takes belief out of them. That’s something we need to work on, is just keeping on the gas instead of letting up a little bit, and then we’ll be better at finishing these.’’

            He’s essentially saying here that you make your own luck. When the didnt close out these games, drive a stake through the Sharks fucking heart, they allowed light to creep into the Sharks and with it comes luck. I really thought this was a brilliant quote and an awesome way of rephrasing ‘you make your own luck’.

            Those lucky plays either don’t happen OR don’t matter if the Kings learn to drive the stake in nice and deep. Like on Thursday, yes we built up a 3-1 lead, but it should have been 3-0 before the sharks got a goal. In that first period we completely dominated them but left the period tied. That kind of thing give the other team life and luck.

          • … I love the quote from Mitchell. That is awesome and I wish I heard more players this thoughtful about their responses to the media.

            I do agree that he’s in essence saying that you make your own luck, but the Kings were aggressive in the game, and trying to get that 3-0 lead. They didn’t sit back. I understand the concept of putting away a team, but the opponent has some say in that, too. The Sharks played a good, competitive game. If Mitchell says the Kings let up a little bit, far be it for me to disagree with him; he’s out there on the ice. I thought the Kings stayed aggressive for the most part, but also incorporated some positioning and defense in their game with a two-goal lead. And no, I don’t believe that was a bad thing to do.

          • Was gonna reply to JT, but reply to Surly as well.
            I’m afraid Surly and I see it the same way. In fact, Surly thats such a good point you bring up. I remember the shots being 18-3 in the first at one point (saw it on-line) and yet the Sharks come out of the period tied? Are you serious?
            It’s been that way in a number of games for the Kings this year…. outshooting a team but not putting them away.

            If you look at any great player (Federer, Woods, – or team, and I won’t get specific here as it changes from year to year and sport to sport….. though the RedWings and the Lakers from years back come to mind)…they knew how to put an opponent away. No one here can tell me that the Kings have shown they’re capable of that at this point. In fact they haven’t even been able to come from behind this year. I can’t think of one single game where they have come from behind. Not saying they didn’t, but I can’t remember it. Those are mental toughness and maturity issues. So I tend to disregard the luck thing.
            To JT….. yes every team may or may not have penalty issues (though when I watch the Wings I don’t see them take what I’d call poorly timed penalties very often at critical moments of games). And there was really really something when you observe the Timing of Quick’s interference penalty the other night, and then Stoll’s and Greene’s penalties coming on the heals of what was such a needless penalty by Richards. I see a rhythm. Maybe I’m making this all up to fit my vision of these games, but thats what I see. It doesn’t mean you have to agree. Take an effing penalty when a guy has a big step on you and it’s leading to a two on one break, take a penalty when you lose your check and he’s headed towards the slot. Don’t take one by grabbing onto someone’s stick when you have a lead and are in your own offensive zone. If I were a coach (which thankfully I’m not) that’s what I’d tell them.

            Here’s the bottom line. You’re Asking for trouble from a very skilled offensive team, and trouble they got…. in consecutive games. If this team were filled with rookies and 2nd and 3rd yr players I’d probably see it differently, but they have a lot more experience than that now. And tellingly…… tellingly, it isn’t Voynov or Martinez who are taking these penalties. It’s a guy who is supposed to be a leader in Richards. It’s a guy who’s been to the SC finals in Stoll. For me that doesn’t wash.

            Bottom line: Neither Stoll nor Richards has lit it up offensively this year. OK. Fine. Then at least use your brains when you’re out there and Think. I KNOW the game is super fast. But it isn’t as fast for them as it would be for me or others of us as they’ve been doing it their whole lives at the highest levels. Mistakes happen and are ok. Repeated mistakes like that? Fine…. if you’re happy to be a playoff team…. which evidently they are. Me, I’d prefer a Stanley Cup.

    • Thanks for sharing, JT. The fact you think last night’s game was an “exhibition” tells me a lot about where your head is. Also, your reading comprehension seems to match that of your listening. We owned the game in the first period, controlled the second and struggled in the third when it opened up. Things like “shots” on goal and those stats you like to cuddle up with don’t tell the whole story. That is why you actually have to watch the games and pay attention. You apparently heard that we were dominated the entire game although nobody said that nor did they even imply it. Regarding the Canucks vs. the Blues, I said I want to play Vancouver because of the “revenge” factor. The fact is there are good arguments as to why the Blues are a better match up but a big part of that is emotional for me (I want the Canucks head on a platter) and part of it is seeing a Blues team that looks incredible out there on both ends of the ice. Regarding the Vezina, I watch hockey. How do you know he hasn’t been? It’s called an opinion, dummy. Jim Fox shared one last night as well. He also said Quick is his pick. Many pundits have. Pretty sure nobody said we can’t win a high scoring game unless you took that out of context when we talked about a high scoring track-meet game against a much better skating team and without Jeff Carter that brings that balance. That was the whole context of that discussion. It’s not high scoring in isolation (that is where the “comprehension” part of reading and listening comes in), it’s all of those things combined. Sorry we didn’t break it down for you on a spread sheet. Who waxed darling on Richards? We have been shitting on his game for weeks. You mean because we “hope” he turns it on in the playoffs or, to quote Surly on the last podcast, “we got hosed in the trade”? Your obsession with Richards is fun though. Happy Easter.

      • The fact you think last night’s game was an “exhibition” tells me a lot about where your head is.

        … It’s not like I didn’t want the Kings to win, but frankly it didn’t matter whether they did or not. And you know that as well as I do.

        We owned the game in the first period, controlled the second and struggled in the third when it opened up.

        … When it opened up??? There were 20 shots by both teams in the first period, 19 in the second, 14 in the third, and one in OT. If anything, it was more open early than it was late. Watch the first period again and you’ll see what I mean.

        Things like “shots” on goal and those stats you like to cuddle up with don’t tell the whole story.

        … Blah blah blah. Save that line of bull for someone who actually doesn’t watch the games.

        I said I want to play Vancouver because of the “revenge” factor.

        … You didn’t say that the Kings match up better with Vancouver? You didn’t say that you blamed yourself for the loss last night because you had this opinion in your head the entire day? Oh, OK. I must have heard wrong, then. Could have sworn that came from you.

        Regarding the Vezina, I watch hockey. How do you know he hasn’t been?

        … That’s about the worst excuse for not doing any research or fact checking that I’ve ever read. Congrats! I had to check twice that it was you who wrote that because this is the type of thing Jacob likes to say all the time.

        Jim Fox shared one last night as well. He also said Quick is his pick.

        … Oh I AM SHOCKED that a Kings’ employee would choose a Kings’ player who happens to be in the running for an award. No conflict of interest there, at all.

        Pretty sure nobody said we can’t win a high scoring game unless you took that out of context when we talked about a high scoring track-meet game against a much better skating team and without Jeff Carter that brings that balance.

        … Oh, you were misquoted? “We can’t win a 5-4 or 6-5 game.” You didn’t say this?

        Who waxed darling on Richards?

        … All three of you did. You sounded like squealing teenage girls.

        Happy Easter.

        … Thanks. Same to you.

        • Saying that Richards playing well is critical to the team is waxing darling? We said the same thing about Doughty…

          You must be talking about when I said that when Richards is on his game, others follow. Forgive me for pointing out that a guy who has always been a leader throughout his hockey career needs… Wait for it… Lead.

          Doughty isn’t a leader. Never has been. But he is a phenom. Always WAS, hasn’t been. Your expectation level for Doughty is piss poor low and perhaps he has the same attitude about himself that you about him, that being a little bit better than Martinez is good enough, who needs great? Who wants domination? Yes I’m putting words in your mouth, but do you or do you not get upset when we bash Doughty? Well what do we bash him for? We bash him for being less than excellent. It stands to reason then that if you are upset that others aren’t happy with anything short of excellence that you are OK with it. That, or you think he has been excellent. If that’s the case Then we either have vastly different views on what defines excellence or We are watching two different players and One of us is mistakenly identifying the player we are watching Drew Doughty.

          And btw, this whole site is an unnecessary drama bomb. That’s kind of the point. To be emotional and crazy about the team we love.

          Finally, you speak as f we were only talking about last nights game when we mentioned several times that we were talking about the last TWO games. You may call last nights game an exhibition, which is insane, but Thursday was certainly not. Our fate was our own to decide but we instead left it up to others to write our story for us. If that doesn’t upset you a great deal… It should upset you a great deal.

          • Forgive me for pointing out that a guy who has always been a leader throughout his hockey career needs… Wait for it… Lead.

            … OK. Fair enough.

            We bash him for being less than excellent.

            … We had a talk about how much missing training camp affected Doughty, and you were right about that and I was wrong. It has affected him. He has had a subpar season by his own standards. I do think he’s picked up his game in the second half of the season, though, and I don’t see any reason why he wouldn’t perform well in the playoffs.

            Our fate was our own to decide but we instead left it up to others to write our story for us. If that doesn’t upset you a great deal… It should upset you a great deal.

            … I thought the Kings outplayed the Sharks in both games, but tied one and lost the other in OT. They were close, competitive games between two pretty evenly matched teams. The Kings have had a great stretch run just to get into these playoffs. I’m not upset at all. I’m confident the Kings will give Vancouver a run for their money, and I hope they can take the series. I’m excited, not angry.

          • I’m excited now too. My anger always flashes and dies. I just wish that I hadn’t broken my hand when that anger flared up…

            Doughty’s 2nd half has been better than his first half, but I still want more. I do think that Drew is a big game player and we’ll see the warrior come out in the playoffs. I just worry if he is mature enough to keep his head on straight when it does.

            I’m also very excited to see how Kopitar plays since he missed last year’s playoffs. He HAS to be chomping at the bit to make an impact. If he’s not… Well fuck me and fuck Dean Lombari for ever stressing ‘character’.

        • I think Jim Fox has been pretty fair about calling out the Kings and its players when warranted.

          • … His job is still to promote the Kings and their players. It’s one thing to call out a player when he screws up in a game, but he’s not going to say someone else is more deserving of an award when a Kings’ player is in the running. I think the World of Jim Fox, and I don’t blame him for doing his job – but to take that and use it as something to defend an unresearched and half-assed evaluation of a player is just silly.

          • That half assed evaluation of which you speak is based on my observation while yours is based on a myopic bias. Pundits outside of the organization believe Quick to be the deserved winner, Darren Dreger I believe was the most recent, but keep speaking of it as if the issue exists in a vacuum. I realize it’s the only way you can engage in your brand of tortured dialogue

          • And just the fact that he is in the top 3 of nearly 100 percent of every hockey writer and analyst’s pick for Vezina shows how incredibly blinded you are by your self diluted dislike for him. If he won the Vezina, I hope there isn’t anyone around you just so the discharged brain matter doesn’t get all over them

          • Speaking of which. Might be a good time to post a certain article.

          • Pundits outside of the organization believe Quick to be the deserved winner

            … That’s almost mildly interesting.

            And just the fact that he is in the top 3 of nearly 100 percent of every hokey writer and analyst’s pick for Vezina shows how incredibly blinded you are by your self diluted dislike for him.

            … Hahaha I dislike a guy that I’ve gone on record and said was a top 5 goalie, please do go on, tell me more.

          • So you believe him to be a top 5 guy but discredit an opinion that he should win as baseless? Man, you are a beauty.

          • In all honesty I missed where you called him a top 5 goalie. My understanding of your position was that Quick is a slightly above goalie who is having a great year, in large part Because of the D in grit of him, but that he is no Rinne, Thomas, Lundvquist, Luongo, Miller.

          • In all honesty I missed where you called him a top 5 goalie.

            … In all honesty I am not at all surprised to see this.

          • What does that mean?

            I try to read every comment here, but I don’t. It means nothing other than the day doesn’t have enough hours in it.

            That and my memory is once in a while, fallible. Shocking, I know.

          • It’s like the stalking thing he falsely accused player x of – you just have to take it on faith. I don’t recall it either but I hope he did because it makes his point that much more inane

          • What does that mean?

            … Why, it means “In all honesty I am not at all surprised to see this”, which is exactly what I said.

          • Smug bastard. You are so against things that hover below the surface of the empirical that you can’t even cop to your own innuendo! Lol.

          • … Aaaaaand this is why I’m not surprised. Nailed it.

          • Mmmmhmmm. Keep dancin’. That’s a nice two-step.

          • We’re gonna agree to disagree on this one. But I’m right.

            Moving forward, in terms of hard facts let’s look at what Quick did. Four statistical categories goalies are measured by–

            1. Shut outs. Quick is the only one to have double digits this year. So let’s say he wins this round.

            2. GAA. Quick is second with a 1.95 behind Elliot who played less then half a season so isn’t in the running. Third place Scnieder played even less games than Elliot. As the only goalie in the top three to have played a majority of the season, I’m gonna give this round to Quick also.

            3. Save Percentage. Again, Schnieder and Eilliot lead but again, both played less than half a season. Lundqvist and Smith both edge Quick out by a .001. Thin margin, but Quick loses this round. I’m giving it to Smith since he played more games than Lundqvist.

            4. Wins. Here our boy finishes 7th. Rinne walks away with it.

            On pure statistical categories, he wins 2 of the 4 with goalies playing a majority of the season.

            Intangibles. How many times did Quick keep other teams to 1 goal, and we still lost? How important was he to his team? At least as important as other teams who had a balanced offensive effort in front of him.

          • Chris, stop with your half ass analysis. Quick is not deserving of an objective opinion as the Vezina winner. I know this because JT says so. And shame on you for using stats.

          • … Don’t cry to others when you get called out on your lazy analysis. It’s bad form.

          • Fuck you. I expressed an opinion based on GAA, SV%, number of games played, the fact that someone like Henrik has gotten more offensive support on a consistent basis, Rangers are at or near the top 10 in offense, and a defense that is right there with LA near the top of the league. I also have watched every Kings game this season and watch other NHL games on a regular basis including the Rangers. I also read while you wallow in your own sour juices.

          • … And don’t cry to me either.

          • Shut outs

            … Largely meaningless. More often a team stat than an individual stat.

            GAA.

            … Team-dependent.

            Save Percentage. Again, Schnieder and Eilliot lead but again, both played less than half a season. Lundqvist and Smith both edge Quick out by a .001. Thin margin, but Quick loses this round. I’m giving it to Smith since he played more games than Lundqvist.

            … But nothing. Schneider and Elliott don’t get to choose when they go out there. That’s the coaches job, isn’t it? Why penalize a goalie for what he can’t control? Are goalies who play in X amount of games not eligible for the aware? Nope, not at all. The award is given to the best goalie. Elliott has a .940 save percentage. No one is close to him. Why should he not win the award, or be nominated for it?

            Smith doesn’t hold the edge over Quick because of games played, he holds it because the defense in front of him is worse, yet he’s maintained a level of performance at or superior to Quick. Watching Quick and Smith play head-to-head this season only reinforces this, even though that’s a small sample size.

            Lundqvist is every bit as deserving as Quick is, perhaps more so because he plays behind a worse defense as well.

            Wins.

            … That’s a team stat.

            Intangibles.

            … I don’t factor W-L into the equation, so how many times Quick has lost despite holding the opposition to one goal or whatever means zilch to me. What matters to me is how often he stops shots from going into his net, and how often the defense assists him by not allowing shots. That’s it. I don’t care how he does it, I don’t care about style points, I don’t care how he looks in his pads, I don’t care about the offense of his team, I don’t care about “hey let’s vote a West Coast guy in because East Coast bias lulz”. None of that other shit matters.

            Now. All that being said, I wouldn’t be surprised if Quick were nominated or if he did win it. The narrative favors Quick even though the evidence doesn’t. I think Quick is in the top 5. I do believe Elliott is better, Smith is better, Schneider is better, Lundqvist is better. I wouldn’t nominate Quick, but he’s an All-Star and deservedly so.

          • “Schneider and Elliott don’t get to choose when they go out there. That’s the coaches job, isn’t it? Why penalize a goalie for what he can’t control? Are goalies who play in X amount of games not eligible for the aware? Nope, not at all. The award is given to the best goalie. Elliott has a .940 save percentage. No one is close to him. Why should he not win the award, or be nominated for it?”

            Because the best goalie is the one who can be relied upon on a regular basis, not less then half a season. By your standard, if a goalie plays one game, gets a shut out(oh wait, those dont count) and gets hurt for the rest of the season, he would win? You’ll have a cunty little argument for this but it is exactly the basis you have established.

            The most valuable players are ones who are counted upon for a season, not little stretches of it. They reward longevity because that is part of the test of an athlete. Crosby was on track for a record breaking season last year, but got hurt and had to sit out half the year. Didn’t see him win an MVP award.

          • By your standard, if a goalie plays one game, gets a shut out(oh wait, those dont count) and gets hurt for the rest of the season, he would win?

            … This is usually the irrational response that most get when they put forward a rational point that a goalie shouldn’t be penalized simply because a head coach likes to platoon two goalies.

            You’ll have a cunty little argument for this

            … LOL! Holy shit. You and Scribe both, huh? I didn’t know this was so personal to both of you. I apologize.

          • It’s the criteria you specified. Best performance regardless of number of games.

          • Plays behind a worse defense? Are you aware where the NY Rangers are on goals against? I don’t have the ability to check the stats on my phone because those advanced team stats don’t come up but someone educate JT please on where NY is in relation to the Kings on goals against per game average so we can all have a good laugh at his expense. Also pull up PK percentage as well because if they are not 1st, they are close.

            Have you watched a Rangers game this season JT or was that worse defense line pulled out of the same place you pull most of your shit?

          • educate JT please on where NY is in relation to the Kings on goals against per game average so we can all have a good laugh at his expense. Also pull up PK percentage as well because if they are not 1st, they are close.

            … The goalie has an impact on goals against and PK percentage, right? LOL someone educate JT!

            This is the funniest thread I’ve seen here yet. People gettin’ catty in here. All over Jonathan Quick.

          • But that doesn’t apply to Quick right? With Quick, it’s the defense that takes the credit and not Quick in Vezina discussions while with NY, it’s both the goalie and the defense. Still waiting to see where this worse NY defense ranks next to the Kings on goals against average and PK percentage since you professed it in your analysis which I am sure was neither lazy, biased not factually false.

    • J.T., the only way I could be generous about the way you address Bobby here is to say that I think you lose all cognitive function and revert to habitual contrarian behavior the instant you hear anything negative about Doughty.

      You constantly expand, wrongly, other’s positions to a ridiculous extreme in order to justify a point. When you talk about Quick elsewhere, for example, you say he is not worth the 7 million figure and is a darling based on people’s unwarranted admiration for him. Yet, nobody with whom you argue even takes a position on his salary, he has yet to make any known salary demand, but this technique of creating a straw man is your continual crutch.

      You have done the same thing with Richards, this time. Saying a guy is crucial is not saying he is perfect. Nobody says he is perfect. I defy you to find anybody with an opinion about Richards that does not express their opinion without qualifying it by describing the droughts, weird puck handling decisions, soft-ish board play, etc. Yet, you continually refer to him as the darling, the can-do-no-wrong prima donna as if many people speak about him in that way. The only one that does speak about him in that way is yourself.

      Being emotionally vapid gives you no right to deny the existence of emotion, either as a valid foundation for a fan’s opinion or as an element that affects the outcome of games.

      Speaking about players in false extremes of description only makes a gray area fraudulently black and white: when you say Richards is everybodys’ darling, you can then ridicule any balanced support for him as coming from someone who is blind to your personal version of the truth. It’s a cheap, obvious and shallow gimmick to dominate conversation by invalidating the other’s person view with ridicule, based on ground rules set by you which you think we all must adhere to.

      • Pistols at dawn, gentlemen?

        Sorry, I just imagined a Sleestak carefully removing a white glove and smacking someone across the face with it.

      • When you talk about Quick elsewhere, for example, you say he is not worth the 7 million figure

        … I’ve never ONCE mentioned a dollar figure for Quick, so you’re making up things as you go along. Shocking. Yeah, I do think Quick is overrated by a lot of people, and yeah, I have said the Kings will soon sign Quick for a long-term deal for big money.

        Being emotionally vapid gives you no right to deny the existence of emotion

        … There’s another thing you decided to make up. I never have. I’ve actually said that an entire team’s momentum doesn’t carry over from one game to another, and I’ve actually said that execution means more to winning than emotion does. I’ve never said it doesn’t exist or that a team or an individual player shouldn’t ever have it.

        If you’re going to trash me, at least be honest about it, OK? Thanks.

        • Since you lads are on about it, I’ll chime in with my take on Richards. Because of geographical location I’ve probably seen 12-15 games on tele, so I’m going based on that plus seeing highlights on nhl.com.

          I told my friend when the trade was made… geez, between giving up Simmers’ 16 goals, most certainly 10-12 for Schenn to start out with, and Smyth taking his 22 to Edm (plus not resigning Zus) that was about 60 goals going out. And while I know everyone expected big things from Gagne, there was a good reason that Yzerman offered him only one year.
          My friend felt very strongly it was a trade nonetheless that you had to make. But what JT says I have to agree with. Richards ends with 18 goals and a huge drought that makes one forget Kopitar’s. That’s one thing. But when you add in the ridiculous penalty from last night and poor puck handling decisions, to me this one comes right back to the GM.
          Simmer and a pick would’ve even without the hindsight been sufficient. Simmer and Schenn more than sufficient, but of course he threw in our 2nd for this year as well. So I think he got fleeced….. again.

          Now they have Loktionov. Not sure where the hell he fits in in the future. He’s not a third line type of center, not strong enough physically nor on faceoffs. Another thing that bugs me about Lombardi. He makes these moves and then renders others in the system irrelevant unless I’m surprised to see that they have a great situation for him for next year…. but I don’t see where that would be.
          You know how some people see the ice really well? How some music producers just have an innate sense of whats needed to make a track shine (see Dangermouse or whoever else you fancy depending on taste). Well Lombardi doesn’t appear to me to have that knack of knowing where to go in terms of what is needed and when it’s needed. I know what I mean but have no idea if it’s coming across even remotely. But from one pov you see why he makes the trade for Richards….. from another pov you ask if he got even a remote sense of how drastically that would change the dynamic of what it was that he started out building.

          • Drew, I do think the trade looks unbalanced at this point, hindsight is always 20/20. At the time I think the trade was fair. Richards was a beast of a player.
            Played incredible in the finals against the Hawks. He brought exactly what the Kings needed in terms of the passion he played the game with, his past accomplishments and being that true 2nd center which we didn’t have. I do agree that now it looks liek too much went the other way. But its hard to fault DL for that. I blame Richards, I mean where the hell did the old Richards go?? Did he get sucked into that black hole that so many other good players have vanished into when they come to LA?? I see the drive in his game, some descent passes but I don’t see the goals.

            Where’s this guy?? This was the guy who was worth Schenn, Simmonds and a 2nd.
            I hope he shows up to the playoffs. Just follow 18 on this entire play.

    • People are human, emotions run high after a loss. Yes, this game didn’t matter, we verse a tough opponent either way. What I think was important to some people was the fact that this was THE last game of the regular season, nationally televised, all eyes on us must win and they blew it. Yes they were a couple bad goals, yes we sustained pressure the first two periods and it showed on the board. The fact is that the Sharks came out in the third looking to win the game and they did. It was embarrassing on such a national stage. I don’t give a shit about things like this, but I believe a lot of people do. The blew it in that aspect.

      In my opinion, Doughty is an extremely young defenseman developing in the NHL. I don’t know how to explain his season two years ago, but I believe he still may get to that level of play in 5 years.

      Richards was never meant to be a goal scorer. Look at his season statistics. He’s a vicious competitor who gives it his all defensively and offensively, and the guy is gifted with at least a little natural skill. He works hard and loves winning. That’s his game. We all know he has won at every level but the NHL. He turns it up in the playoffs; he’s a lead by example kind of guy. Goddamn I feel like I work for NHL36 or the Kings after that paragraph. …It’s all rehashed information but apparently someone forgot it. (J.T.)

      I’ve been reading your comments for quite a while now and I’m convinced you’re just a pessimist who likes stirring shit up and getting others angry. It’s pretty funny. Keep it up because without you, we wouldn’t have this long comment thread to read and entertain ourselves.

  10. I really, really enjoyed all of the information and analysis, since it opens up so many points that really need the light of day, since it is not possible to find it anywhere else in LA LA land media. If LA King fans really want to get a much more deeper and cutting edge analysis, this is the place to be. No holds barred and no sugar coating anything.

    As for the podcast, somebody forget to mention Captain Brown at all. He was a positive factor down the stretch, and he did some (not enough) damage to SJ on Thursday, and essentially zero damage to SJ last night. When you say what team shows up for round one, we have to be realistic and Captain Brown has to rise to his Captain role. Yeah, we need Richards and Carter badly to take charge, but, equally, if not more, Brown really has to lead and intimidate and charge up matters for 60 minutes. We got to get that war horse, which he can be. He played all 82 games, even down the stretch with one red eye.

    Brown now has some years under this belt, in all kinds of roles and lines and he has to be really hungry by now for him to break through and make the headlines. The man needs to shine and be seen for the full 60 minutes. Brown will need to slow the Cansucks down and make them think twice where they are located on the ice when Brown goes into strong action.

    More than this, Brown could have and should have throttled his team last Thursday, since Sutter did not. The Captain steps up to the plate on the bench and in the intermissions, whatever, to get his players on the same page. We really need that from him now.

    All these playoff teams have strong Captains that are holding that job for good reasons and often participate in so many ways in the wins on ice for their team. Now is the time and place for Brown to put it all together and at least for himself, be an “elite” Captain.

    An honorable mention for Kopi is appropriate, because, he came on so strong in February/March he wound up basically #15 in NHL point scorers.

    Check this out: http://www.nhl.com/ice/playerstats.htm

    He could have done so much better except for the fact that Murray’s system jinxed him and put him out of balance on what he could do. Then, the whole crazy season with a new coach, etc, etc and he nonetheless bounced back strong, becoming a strong quarterback in this win stretch. It appears he is not going to be stopped in the playoffs as he has found his game and desire and stamina.

    There is a lot of ragging on Doughty, which is well deserved. The ragging is well intentioned so that maybe, somehow maybe, the guy can actually pass that threshold and excel at stopping goals when they need to be stopped. If he is on the ice, yeah, he has to stop the other team that has momentum and is doing run and gun stuff. He has to read what is happening around net scrambles and slot situations that are developing and be there to stop it all. Yeah, he has to think and execute at critical times. Whether he can do this is the big reason it is always talked about, because it has not happened yet. Will it happen, or do we have to wait longer in the next year or two to see if it happens?

    As for Lombardi, the reality is that he needs to go somehow and someway. I don’t support GMs that somehow get an 8th seed, and we would not be there even today but for the Dallas skid. GMs need to get teams to a much higher level of production and elite status, and it has not yet happened. The bottom line is that there is really no support for the guy that I can find anywhere. If at a King game day entry turnstile we fans could vote for Lombardo to be dumped, it would be 90% of the fans say “dump him”. The fans should get what we want, which is he goes!

    We gave the Cansucks a hard time two weeks ago. They did not pound us or run away with the game. They got that one goal 3 minutes into the game as Quick overplayed the shot that narrowly found a tiny opening glove side. Otherwise, we frustrated them and kept them contained. So, the Kings can take them out if all of our parts are functioning like they can.

    Because we have Kopi this year, and we have Richards and Carter, we can do it. We have more dimensions to throw at opponents, but, and a big but, is that Quick and the D guys need to shut them down too.

  11. To answer your question, “what was learned against Vancouver two years ago?”
    The Sundins dive and cheat about the net. The refs need constant reminders.

    Last night…Quick was a step behind. He looked tired.

    Clowe “McSorley’s Sticked” the Kings.

    Penner did not recently develop his one handed stick habit. It was there last season and for the first four months of this season.

    Nolan is fine for 4th line at this time. His hockey sense in the O zone is not well developed at this time.

    Fraser will be a key against Vancouver

    • I look at Carter as critical to the Vancouver series. The balance he brings and his understated and under appreciated defensive acumen will be the difference of what JT likes to call luck or a lack thereof. Puck possession is a term often used with control in the offensive zone. It isn’t. It’s in all three zones and a talented wing (converted center) that can play D, read the breakout, can skate, makes and receives passes in stride and has that wicked wrist shot will help with that possession and control we lacked in last night’s third period and throughout the game.

      • On the side…regarding coaching. Having both acted as a league trustee and hockey coach for several years it is my belief that naturally skilled players do not make good coaches as they are often unable to instill their gift(s) of vision and ability upon players. The players who must think and work hard to keep up with the game tend to make better coaches.

        Sounds like you’ll do fine. Just up your insurance.

        • I wonder if this has to do with how they see the game? When someone who understands the game the way Gretzky or other high level players do, maybe for them they naturally understand how to do all the small things and it’s hard for them to communicate certain aspects of the game that come second hand to them. Not saying a great player cannot be a great coach, I consider Larry Robinson a great player who had both great and not so great coaching stints, but it seems to be the exception and not the rule.

          • I believe that is exactly the case, it comes naturally, they don’t think about it nor is it a teachable skill. As a coach Robinson was so-so, Gretzky was horrible.

            The rest of us lugs have to always think in advance about things like angles, anticipating where pucks my end up, etc. just to gain the advantage of a couple of inches or 100ths of a second to make up for age and lack of natural skill/ability. IMO it’s in this process where good coaches learn their trade. The rest is ebb and flow control.

      • The other thing he does is draw attention from the strong D, opening up Richards and King

    • Fraser will be a key against Vancouver

      … I want to mention Fraser, too. His line has been busting their asses, and I have to say it’s done a fine job. I still don’t think Fraser’s all that good of a player, but he’s game out there. He deserves a lot of praise for the way he’s played in this stretch run.

  12. Gentlemen thank you for answering my question about frasers line :) I agree, they haven’t made any costly mistakes in close games

    • Yes, and since you mention it, I’d expect the same from supposed stars like Richards, or veterans like Stoll. DS forgave Greene’s penalty given the way he has to play. And I’m on board with that, but it’s a momentum thing. But good point about Fraser’s line.

  13. I get intimidated commenting on this site because I am definitely not the caliber of fan within this spectrum. I’ll admit I truly started watching hockey when the Hawks won the cup. My sister and I went to Staples and saw the kings lose a playoff game to Vancouver that year as well. Thats where I developed a strong hatred of San Jose. However the Kings are my team and I love them. I get pissed at Pencakes, Fraser, Doughty just like the rest. I also get pissed at myself for investing into a team so much that my mood day to day has been decided by wins and losses. Every time I see one of those stupid NBA champions t shirts I think somefuckingday it will say LA KINGS STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS. I try not to stress the little things such as how much I hate Patrick O’Neal and that ugly blogger.

    The only point I really want to make is that this site has made me a better Kings fan. A more informed Kings fan. I actually saw you both at Staples, the win over the Oilers. I was too shy to say Hello and tell you how much I appreciate the site in person. I am still lost a lot when old players are mentioned and laughs are exchanged in these podcasts. Its an inside joke that I am not going try and understand because I don’t want to sit around and watch archived games. I started listening to the All the Kings Men podcasts as well. These podcasts are great. I hope they keep coming and that they continue to make me laugh. I was going to pose a question to get answered on air but I was too slow. But retrospectively can someone tell me who Mike Johnson is? This NHL network commentator pisses me off. He seems too young to be there. His hockey career too short? Did he get a career ending injury? Then he is cocky to all hell speaking like his opinion is the best and I was just curious as to what you fellas might think of him.

    Also can you get JT Dutch to be on the podcast sometimes too? You guys seem to fight a lot and get into these funny and exhausting exchanges of opinions that are just too fun. Except I am still kind of lost on why he uses so many ellipsis when making his point. You can find out the actual true grammatical use for those things if you type them into google. I know because I did it cause I thought that he was truly using them correctly. I was wrong. That being said I enjoy JT’s insight some of the time. So it would be nice to hear you guys go at it in a podcast.

    Don’t worry about the sound, the drinking, the whatever you are having misgivings about because the podcast is stellar. Keep them coming. Its playoffs baby the best part of the year. I am so excited. Can’t wait to go back to Staples center for some intense playoff hockey.

    Go Kings Go.

    • What a fun comment this was. The innocence was inspiring. Also, this comment of yours…

      “Also can you get JT Dutch to be on the podcast sometimes too? You guys seem to fight a lot and get into these funny and exhausting exchanges of opinions that are just too fun. Except I am still kind of lost on why he uses so many ellipsis when making his point. You can find out the actual true grammatical use for those things if you type them into google. I know because I did it cause I thought that he was truly using them correctly. I was wrong”

      …may be Reader Hall of Fame Worthy

    • Johnson played for about 10 years. Had a decent rookie and sophomore years in the late 90’s then drifted between teams. About two years ago he landed a color job at NHL network and TSN. Johnson has proven himself to many some of the eastern bias that ise typical in the game and often seems to be reading from dates notes of a very general nature when providing analysis.

    • Have no fear, the simple fact that you admit you get pissed at yourself for letting your team frustrations ruin your afternoon is the purest form of fandom.

    • Nice post, I feel the same way! This is only my second season as a Kings/hockey fan.

    • Nothing to be intimidated about here because the bottom line is we all are learning more each day as it relates to the team, management, the sport, other teams, etc, etc.

      Not everybody is right here nor wrong here, since there is really only one final reality, which is did the team win games and progress up the NHL peaking order.

      One thing about hockey, it is not static and has much more changes ongoing than the other major sports. I mean, changes in terms of team rosters, rookies, people coming up from the minors, and the trades, etc. Look at this year, where we have Florida and Ottawa coming up the ladder to some degree.

      One thing about hockey, is that pulling off wins and getting to the cup is without question the toughest competition in the world. It is endurance and skill and confidence and talent that all plays into the mix.

      As was said on the podcast, the LA Kings are really deserving of something after all has been said and done. It was apart of the original six expansion. It has been a long, long time where so many bad things happened to the team, but for other teams, it came more easy.

      Because we feel strongly here in LA that we are overdue, that is why we fans are getting more passionate and critical and praising in all these different ways, as we really want to taste success here in LA LA land.

      I think this team gets one of the best fan supports in the NHL, and now, it is getting time for the payoff that the team really needs to give back. I really therefore will still cheer for them and try to be upbeat and positive thinking until they are defeated. To be a true fan here, just be a die hard, as that is the high road.

  14. Thanks for using my questions guys; love the work and i hope your hand gets better.

    I’m really fucking pissed about the fact that the Kings have gone into 2 games against a hated rival team with a lead in the second and just gave it up in overtime. There shouldn’t have even been an overtime. I stay up until 1AM (I’m on the East Coast) watching these games and I have to cry myself to sleep at night because the Kings always break my heart.

    Kill Vancouver, Go Kings!

  15. It’s the playoffs, anything can happen! I’m glad I get to enjoy watching my team in the postseason.
    This is my second season as a kings fan/ hockey fan in general so I didn’t get a chance to see the series in 2010.
    The second line is going to be critical; as well as the PP. I hope mike and carter perform

    See you all at game 3 !

  16. These podcasts are fantastic. I’m going to be listening to them for the playoff run, however long or short it is.

    I agree that Vancouver is becoming a huge rivalry for the Kings, and we have to play better than we did against the Sharks the last two games to have a hope in hell of competing with them, in any way shape or form in the playoffs, and get past the 1st round.

    I think Quick has been overplayed again this season, and that it will cost us in the playoffs, becaause Bernier is in no way ready to step in and play sound playoff hockey, because he hasn’t been played enough. I think Quick should get Vezina consideration, because without him, we don’t get even a sniff of the postseason, but I agree that he won’t win it.

    I wish Dean Lombardi would get fired at the end of the season, but I kind of doubt that it wil actually happen.

    Just to throw a wild suggestion into this: if Selanne would sign with the Kings for next season, would you take him?

  17. Still no tits and ass?

    If you shitheads won’t take good advice why do you keep pretending to ask for it?

  18. Bobby, give us some more Heidi pictures, like the one you posted a few days ago. We need I think some up lifting pictures of her to raise our spirits and pump us up or part of us up.

  19. First time over at this site. I listened to this podcast and thought it was not only informative but extremely entertaining. You guys are awesome. I can’t wait for your coverage of the Canucks series. Go Kings!

  20. I am home now and looked up the stats discussed earlier. For those just tuning in, JT claimed that Henrik Lundqvist deserved more consideration for the Vezina because he plays in front of a worse defense, which I called bullshit. The New York Rangers are 3rd in the league in goals against per game average. The Kings are second. Technically, that is “worse” right? I am sure that is what JT meant. The Rangers are 5th in PK. The Kings are 4th. How about that? Man, I mean that is so much worse than the Kings, one can easily see why JT would objectively and logically conclude that Henrik deserves a greater Vezina consideration.

    Oh but what of his comment that those NYR numbers are influenced by goaltending and defense? Remember boys and girls that is only partially correct. With Quick, JT would and has told you that Quick doesn’t get the same credit for the Kings defensive stats because Quick plays in front of a great defense while Henrik does get that credit because he is a better goalie. Did you understand that?

    How about the fact the Rangers are 11th in the league in goals scored per game while the Kings are 29th. I am sure that must somehow diminish Jonathan Quick as being the best at his position because he must somehow and someway be responsible for the Kings not scoring goals thereby rendering irrelevant the analysis that Quick is a better goaltender because he has achieved his numbers without offensive support while Lundqvist has had it throughout the season.

    And the fact Quick has played much more games should be dismissed outright.

    This has been a lesson on how and why JT Dutch is not biased against Quick and how my analysis of why Quick should receive the Vezina is, what was that word, oh yes, “lazy.”

    Shit, before I forget, JT also reminded us that Smith gets more consideration as well because he too plays in front of a worse defense. The Coyotes are 5th in goals against per game and their PK is 8th in the league. For how that reconciles with JT’s analysis, see the Lundqvist analysis, above.

    Damn, now I got sarcasm all over my keyboard.

    • Lets see how many Western Conference Vezina winners there has been going back a few years:

      The number to the right represents the number of times the goalie won.

      1991–92 Patrick Roy Montreal Canadiens 3
      1992–93 Ed Belfour Chicago Blackhawks 2
      1993–94 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 1
      1994–95 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 2
      1995–96 Jim Carey Washington Capitals 1
      1996–97 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 3
      1997–98 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 4
      1998–99 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 5
      1999–2000 Olaf Kolzig Washington Capitals 1
      2000–01 Dominik Hasek Buffalo Sabres 6
      2001–02 Jose Theodore Montreal Canadiens 1
      2002–03 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils 1
      2003–04 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils 2
      2004–05 2004–05 NHL lockout
      No winner – –
      2005–06 Miikka Kiprusoff Calgary Flames 1
      2006–07 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils 3
      2007–08 Martin Brodeur New Jersey Devils 4
      2008–09 Tim Thomas Boston Bruins 1
      2009–10 Ryan Miller Buffalo Sabres 1
      2010–11 Tim Thomas Boston Bruins 2

      So, going back 20 years, you can see this is going to an Eastern goalie again this year. Quick maybe could get it this year if the Kings were winners of the West, and Quick had much, much higher stats to present to the East biased people, where it would be outright scandalous to deprive him of the award.

  21. JT claimed that Henrik Lundqvist deserved more consideration for the Vezina because he plays in front of a worse defense

    … The Rangers have given up 26.6 shots per 60 minutes at 5-on-5 with Lundqvist on the ice. The Kings have given up 25 even with Quick on the ice. That’s why I say the Kings have a better defense than the Rangers. Since goalies play at 5-on-5 far more than in any other situation, I’ll go with that. Quick’s save percentage at fives is .933. So is Lundqvist’s.

    Mike Smith has faced 30.1 shots per 60 at 5-on-5, higher than any goalie in the league who’s played thirty games or more. His save percentage at fives is .936. Brian Elliott has seen 24.6 shots at 5-on-5 per 60, slightly lower than Quick’s number, and his save percentage is at .945, which leads the league.

    Quick HAS been better on the PK than Lundqvist, facing more shots per 60 minutes (45.3 to 41.2) and having a higher save percentage (.906 to .903). Teams are on the PK for only about 8-9% of a typical game, though, so how much weight do you give it?

    How about the fact the Rangers are 11th in the league in goals scored per game while the Kings are 29th. I am sure that must somehow diminish Jonathan Quick as being the best at his position because he must somehow and someway be responsible for the Kings not scoring goals thereby rendering irrelevant the analysis that Quick is a better goaltender because he has achieved his numbers without offensive support while Lundqvist has had it throughout the season.

    … Do you want to debate this, or do you want to go and make things up? It’s your choice. I’m not in the mood to defend points I’ve never made. You end your post with “this is a lesson why JT is biased” yet you include this paragraph full of things I’ve never said. In fact, what I actually said (in this very thread, no less) was that offensive support and W-L records meant nothing to me because goalies have next to zero control of how often their teams score.

    • I never said you said the second part about the offense. You are reading into it something never expressed or implied. That was just an additional point I raised because the lack of goal support does have a link to Quick’s prowess at his position.

      Look, here is the bottom line. You came across as a total asshole when you didn’t need to in order to make your point. As such, you pissed me off and I shot back. I actually see both sides of this but, comprehensively, my opinion is Quick should get it for the reasons that have been discussed throughout the comments here and which we have raised before. You seemed to assume that my opinion on the podcast was just something I threw out there. It wasn’t. It was based on my observations the entire season and research on the other goalies who are worthy. That assumption was insulting, especially the way it was presented. You could have asked – “did you do the research on…” and I would have said, “yes and here it is.”

      You do this a lot. It’s one thing to be passionate about your opinion, even head strong about it but for some reason, you are intent on throwing in insults, assumptions and taking things out of context and you don’t need to – bluntly, you are too good for it and, when you play to your strengths, you come across as I have known you to be plenty of times – smart and thoughtful.

      • I never said you said the second part about the offense. You are reading into it something never expressed or implied.

        … Not implied? You said “This has been a lesson on how and why JT Dutch is not biased against Quick” literally right after the part about the offense. How can it be interpreted any other way? Tell me.

        As for how I come across, you were the one who told me to fuck off so you can stick that finger you’re pointing. Don’t lecture me, alright? My passage to you was “Has Quick really been the most consistent goalie in the league this season? How do you know?” and you came back to me with “it’s an opinion, dummy” and what Jim Fox said, instead of saying “yeah, here it is” or “as soon as I get to it, I’ll show you how I know”. So, don’t insult my intelligence. And as for taking things out of context, I defend more shit I don’t even say than the rest of the readers here combined, so I know the score on that one too. I also appreciate that I left for a while to let all of the Player X drama die down and you couldn’t wait to bring it back into play again. Awesome job; thanks for that. So do me a favor, OK? Don’t give me this “OK, JT, we can get along, as long as you know it was all your fault” garbage, alright? Because that shit doesn’t have wings.

        • Your oversensitive, “why always me” reactionary style I am sure can only read that one way. Squat and shit if you wish and stick with “everyone is against me and everyone is wrong” mentality. Whether you stay, go, post, don’t, at this point, I could give a damn. You cause the drama, then leave, then come back and “appreciate” that you left to let the “Player X drama” die down. That’s rich. Moving along, we have a playoff series to discuss on this site.

        • Wow wow wow. I go play one little poker tourney and come back to what I can only describe as possible friction. Sheesh.

          J.T., you often have an abrasive style. I see that you also have excellent debating, and debasing, skills. If you chose to stick with debating and skipped debasing it would be easier to discuss things. Instead, it devolves. I am a party to this, at times, so don’t think I am preaching here, if it sounds like it I am just trying to pass on my view. It is possible, J.T., to disagree with someone and never once sound condescending and abusive. Words like, “but I think” and “well, for me” are more neutral and less adversarial. I doubt whether you’re usually actually surprised that people get pissed at you. Also, you often cherry pick arguments and don’t respond to people’s actual points made, but instead focus on minutae while ignoring the larger point.

          As for the “whole Player-X drama,” for fuck’s sake J.T., you were the one that created that drama. You and you alone made that happen. It passed, for me, and like a kidney stone I might add, the instant I gave you my word about it and you apparently accepted my word on it. That was what I took it to mean when you said, “You win,” at least, although it was in no way a competition, and I felt the “you win” thing was weird and revealing. Nonetheless, it was an ugly attack you perpetrated against me over a lengthy period of time and in multiple instances, so even though the matter is settled, it can still be referred to. It was ugly and you did it, so you own it, just like the ugly shit I’ve done, and everyone else has done.

          • Don’t worry about Dutch’s “abrasive style”. I have smeared my unwiped ass on him MANY times.

            When it comes to condescension, Dutch can’t even find his dick when he and I cross swords. I’ll match my abusiveness with him or any sunuvabitch here.

            So when I tell you that the asshole occasionally forces ME to think about what he’s said, and sometimes AGREE with what he’s said — despite my most vigorous adherence to the basic principle that he’s a worthless piece of shit — you can take my word for it:

            You’re better off NOT griping that he’s impolite or abusive or condescending. All that’s gonna get you is a good laugh all around. Just tell the Dutch motherfucker to stick his facts up his ass and hit him with facts of your own.

            Believe me. That approach will save time and lives and is the only sure-fire method of dealing with him.

          • Not a gripe, it’s a supporting fact to the idea that it is actually preposterous that he would be surprised that people attack him. His feigned surprise was then the basis for a ton of other purely distracting shit that must include dishonesty by others to be accurate. We all know, he makes it personal by his tone, as if people are not only wrong factually about subjective material, but are stupid on top of that, for just being just wrong once if they are wrong at all.

            As far as smearing your unwiped ass, however, that indicates pre-meditation. Do you walk around in “ass-condition: unwiped” looking for a target, or are you able to generate on command?

          • Both.

            “Semper paratis” on the one hand, “stercore in postulant” on the other.

          • That was what I took it to mean when you said, “You win,” at least, although it was in no way a competition, and I felt the “you win” thing was weird and revealing.

            … Let me clarify this for you – I don’t believe you, not for a second. But, you won. You got the people who run this place to believe you. Good for you.

          • There we have it. You sir, have no class. You are not a gentleman.

            I would literally offer you an actual duel, but you’re clearly the type that would accept it and then shoot me in the back as I walked to the agreed place.

            You also insult either the intelligence or the integrity of the site’s founders, who welcome you despite your self-destructive despicability. Maggot shit walks as a human, in you.

            Your sickness is likely dangerous; hopefully to only yourself.

            I will no longer participate in this foolish distraction from actual hockey talk. You are dead to me.

          • … Well, aren’t you just a sore winner?

            And I’m pretty stoked to be dead to you. It’ll be far less annoying and insulting for me that way. I can only hope you actually can keep your word on this.

          • I have found an effective way to respond to JT. Ignore the insults and noise as irrelevant and just respond to the substantive issues he raises. Kill him with kindness. I will try it the next time he writes something of substance.

          • Children, children.

            For the record I don’t believe anything about this because what I have is a lack of vested interest in regards to the amusing feud between the two of you.

            In general I tend To think that most people are lazy and generally don’t go to the trouble that you accuse X of, I also believe the paranoids aren’t out to get you. Not a big conspiracy theorist. On the other, what the fuck do I know? I don’t put your claims outside the realm of possibility. I don’t know X on a personal level and so have little basis to judge his character or perceived lack thereof. even if you are right though, I still don’t particularly care. If I found out that X was swapping IP addresses to log in under different names and torture you, I would laugh. Not with him mind you. At.

            All I do know is that you two bring out the worst in each other. X brings out your paranoia and seems to disgruntle you more than most. Perhaps that is because you bring out the torturous high horse of X. You are both lonely isle personalities and both talk to each other like the other is missing half his brain. The only difference is that while you are unapologetic and accusatory, X deflects and has that guilty altar boy “what did I do?’ approach.

            I don’t choose sides because I don’t need to. I have nostrils to flare and one of you and eyebrows to narrow at the other.

          • ” high horse of X.”

            Thank the heavens I learned my italics now, right Dad? See, I’m learning. And yeah, you don’t know me, probably cuz I didn’t say word one to you when we met and then walked away immediately. Or wait, that was you.

            And, high horse my ass, he hates pot, it just makes him sleepy.

          • Lol. Adrenaline junky horse?

            While I doubt a 12 minute conversation between periods would be the difference between me having a deep understanding of your character and not, you’ll have to pardon my putting my stomach needing food coupled with my being with a close friend I hadn’t seen in many months on his birthday before exchanging pleasantries. Not that I’m feigning offense over nothing or anything. Or wait, that was you.

            Sorry… I’m a petty person. I blame my little sister.

            There’s an easy solution to this though, come to more games!

          • Ha ha. Now you and Surly? I admit I laughed but remember boys, we are all Kings fans and therefore all part of the same family

          • I’m a better Kings fan than any of you guys. My love is more pure, more holy, less tainted by wicked thoughts and foul erotic imaginings.

            Well, maybe it’s not less tainted. But all the same, my smoke rises to heaven while yours curls round on the ground.

            What kinda moderators are you two? Just bitch-slap Dutch and X and let ‘em fight it out in their underwear.

            Do you understand now why dirty words are essential to any intelligent blog-site?

          • What the fuck are you talking about?

          • There’s no “reply” available for your post. Hopefully this comment will be in-line:

            My love IS more pure and more holy than yours. When you or Surly or X or Dutch pray for a hockey stick to be jammed up Luongo’s ass, that prayer arises from cruelty and vindictiveness. When I pray for the same thing, however, it is because I know we must do all righteousness.

            The Lord God of Israel accepts my offering because He knows that justice demands He smite the living fuck out of the Philistine Canucks. Hence, my smoke rises to heaven.

            YOUR offering, on the other hand, derives from base motives — the craven lust for revenge and material gain. Hence, your smoke curls round on the ground.

            You cannot moderate or “referee” X and Dutch. Smack each of them in the punim and drop them both in the shitpit to fight it out. Like all bitches they must scrap in the mire until all the wrath is burned out of them.

            As far as the value of dirty words is concerned, I direct you to Mark twain’s dictum — that profanity affords a relief often denied to prayer.

            Really, Scribe. Must I explain EVERY-fucking-THING ?

    • Quick lost the Vezina on Thursday night.

      All else is commentary.

  22. I really enjoyed the podcast. I still need to go back and listen to the first one, but definitely keep them coming. I also think it would be great to have some guests visit the show from time to time whether it’s JT, or tuan, the sleestak guy, maybe have Jungle Dave with a Monarchs update (what the hell happened to that guy, anyway?).

    As for the Kings, I don’t know what to think going into this series. I’m hoping to see what we overpaid for in Richards. I’m hoping to see what we’re paying for in Kopitar and Doughty. I’m hoping to see some contribution from King and Nolan (can’t believe we wasted so much time on Moreau and Hunter). Lastly, I’m hoping to see someone step up and do to the Canucks what Mikael Samuelsson did to us two years ago in the playoffs.

    I can’t make it to the first two home games. I’m hoping those will be the games that red leather ball will be used on the Sedin sisters. I will be at the third home game. I’m hoping that will be the clincher for the Kings.

    To Surly, I sympathize with you. I smashed the arm of the couch with my fist twice last night in frustration.

    To both of you, keep up the good work.

    Go Kings Go!

  23. WHOA ON THAT COMMENT ABOUT THE ICE CREW. One of my good friends has a gf that is on the ice crew and I’ve had dinner with them after a few games and I can assure you that they are not “fifty footers.” However, they all have boyfriends so it’s kind of a boner kill.

  24. i punched the wall at the bar i work at last night. hand is pretty swollen, but no roasted corn.

  25. I’ve got a question: If you could say one thing, to one of the Kings before the next game, what would you say and to whom would you say it?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,054 other followers

%d bloggers like this: