Around the League '16-'17 Other Teams' Free Agent Frenzy
- Thread starter KINGS17
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud will be upgrading us to version 2.3.5 on March 3rd at 12 AM GMT. This version has increased stability and fixes several bugs. We expect downtime for the duration of the update. The admin team will continue to work on existing issues, templates and upgrade all necessary available addons to minimize impact of this new version. Click Here for Updates
- Status
Frolov 6'3
Unregistered User
Unbelievable.
In 2015 we didnt make the playoffs with 95 points or so.
In 2016 we faced the SC finalist in the 1st round.
In 2017 we were crap.
In 2018 we apparently faced another darkhorse in the 1st round and lost all games by 1 goal.
I think we used up all the luck in 2014.
In 2015 we didnt make the playoffs with 95 points or so.
In 2016 we faced the SC finalist in the 1st round.
In 2017 we were crap.
In 2018 we apparently faced another darkhorse in the 1st round and lost all games by 1 goal.
I think we used up all the luck in 2014.
Yes, they were close enough games were a bounce here and there changes it.
Of course, we could be SJ right, and lose 7-0?
Sleeping Dog
Fan Since ‘68
I had $$ on Creed. Will never forgive him for that loss.
Everyone should probably pump the brakes on laughing at San Jose. One game doesn't make a series.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,592
- 11,781
Dean Lombardi may become President of the New York Islanders.
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
Ziggy Stardust
Master Debater
KingTrouty
Allons!
Good for Dean if he does take the job. The Islanders would be the fortunate ones, great signing for them. Especially with some of the youth on that team. I just wonder how hands on president is, vs being GM. No doubt their GM would go to him for guidance.
Raccoon Jesus
We were right there
Of course not. It's not aggregate scoring and you can only get to 1-0. We learned that lesson first hand.
However, it was f***ing fantastic for the Sharks fans gloating in our face, and for the Kings fans suggesting SJ was just going to handle VGK easily because we are terrible.
bouncesonly
Registered User
The sweep reflects the teams effort. The fact that they were all one goal losses, with two of them being 0-1, was all Quick. Not sure what game you were watching but I went to the last three games and other than the first period of the fourth game, Kings were playing not to lose. They were unprepared for the way vegas played, had 4 games to figure it out, and produced little, except Quick.
I expect much of the same in game 2 for San Jose. Those dicks had all week to see what the Kings did right and wrong. And they decide an 0-7 loss was the way to go. Maybe Jones/Dell stand on their heads and not let in so many goals.
Not sure what that has to do with ANYTHING I said, the games were close enough, that the Kings could have one one, two, of them etc, if you are arguing that they were only close because of Quick? Well..ok....sure, I mean yea, Quick is part of the team, if you want to act like he should be separated out, sure, then you can make that argument.
bouncesonly
Registered User
They were close on a piece of paper. And the only reason why they were close on paper was because of quick. Translated, they had no offense in 4 games. They weren’t gonna find it regardless of how many games they played against Vegas. And if you were banking on bounces for the Kings, then it would have applied to Vegas as well, making your point more moot.
No, they were close during the games as well. It does apply to Vegas as well, they did get some bounces, or do you not realize that? Kings didn't get a single one, that's not saying they would have swept if they did or not, Vegas clearly was the better team, no one is saying they weren't, what I am saying is that with a bounce here or two, in games 1 or 2, they win, that turns into a different series,
If you don't realize that, don't know what to tell you, but if you think the game is 100% about skill and hard work and nothing to do with bounces or looks, then, we definitely aren't talking about the same game.
For the post season you could say "so close and yet so far".
I think that if the coin you are flipping keeps landing on the same side, something is out of balance.
I know what you are saying but you have to create your bounces and increase your chances of good fortune.
bouncesonly
Registered User
I don't realize it, cause the Kings had 4 chances and failed. Apparently best of 7 isn't good enough for you, looks like we need a best of 15 so Kings can get those bounces and use luck to win a series against a "clearly better team."
If the scores were 3-4, 4-5, 5-6....sure, maybe a bounce here or there would have made a difference. But they averaged less than a goal/game for the series with little statistical deviation. That is not a problem with bounces.
Vegas plays like the old Rams teams from early 2000s. No let up at all. You have to match their intensity.
Absolutely agreed, wasn't saying anything different, but to ignore the fact that the games were close, regardless of WHY they were close, is disenguous
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
SJ looked much worse than expected and Vegas looked much better than expected. There is a little bit of both of those facts that impacts the other but, still, I'm going to hold off letting the Kings off the hook and putting the Knights on a pedestal until I see how Game 2 plays out.
That looked like one team ready to play and the other team not ready to play after a long lay off. Of course, Vegas is going to get another Game 2 home game with a key player from the other team suspended--this time actually deserved--so they've got that going for them.
I will say that the narrative of Vegas being made up of players other teams didn't want is complete and total bullshit. The draft rules and the salary cap led to teams parting with players due to cap hits, making trades via forced hands and then still exposing 1-2 more players than would have been in the past.
No way Anaheim wants to just hand over Theodore or LA wants to get nothing for McNabb. They are in no way an expansion team like those that joined in the 90s.
Seriously though: f*** them. Toss in helping out the Penguins for no god damn reason and they can go straight to hell. Good for hockey though if these new fans stick around.
Heh, I never take anything a Sharks fan says seriously. It would be like Horatio Nelson taking advice on how to achieve decisive military victory at sea from an Italian naval commander. As for the self-hating Kings fan, what can you do?
Was really trying to be patient and polite, but you are either being intentionally obtuse, or you are one of the most ignorant person in San Diego.
It's not about best of 7 or best of 1500, it's that in those INDIVIDUAL GAMES, see the caps, trying to spell it out for you, the Kings did not get the bounces needed to win, IF THEY HAD GOTTEN THE BOUNCES, there is A CHANCE, they COULD HAVE WON, maybe not the series, but you HAVE TO HAVE THE BOUNCES as WELL AS THE SKILL to WIN IN THIS LEAGUE.
I capitalized ALL THE PARTS YOU SKIPPED OVER.
So in 4-3 game, you think bounces would have made a difference over 1-0 game? That's just asinine and ignorant.
Another poster said they needed to play better to create more probability of sorts for those bounces, absolutely agree with that, you could have latched on to that, but you literally made your stand on the most idiotic thing I have read, bounces might have made a difference in a 4-3 game vs a 1-0 game, or a 2-1 game, that's just plain out ignorant.
LOL agreed, they really set the table, but man, Vegas did a helluva snow job in FL and Minny as well and leveraged everyone around the league, it was pretty dang masterful.
deeshamrock
Registered User
I agree on some teams get those bounces, instead of hitting the post, it goes in, etc. But that's not what I saw in those 4 games. The Knights had the ice most shifts and the Kings were trying not to lose. That energy and speed the Knights used, all 4 lines, mostly for all 3 periods wasn't something the Kings could match. Hoping for that odd bounce of a puck, might have changed the results in that period, but not the game because you need more than that.
In game 2, in 92 minutes, they Kings had 29 shots on goal. That's not lack of luck . Jonathan Quick was the reason those games were close. The Kings didn't have sustained zone time, cycling or pressure. They didn't have the speed or depth to match the Knights.
All those games in the regular season when they had those 3rd period comebacks, that's nothing to hang a badge on. That's fine if it's the odd game , but not to the extent the Kings needed that to win far too many games. That's not what good teams do. That should have been a red flag. Far too often, they were slow in the 1st and 2nd, and then about halfway thru the 3rd, they'd 'wake up'. That's lack of preparation and leadership.
But they have drafted well last year and will so this year. The youth on the team this year played well, most young players, they need about 240 games of so , to really take root. It's a rough adjustment , coming in to the NHL. Luc and Blake aren't blind, they can see what the makes those teams that are going deep tick. They will do the right thing to make this team more effective and efficient, but it takes time.
Dee,
For the most part, you are right, but, one bounce in Game 2, makes that a 1-1 series, it COULD have changed the outcome, probably not, but possibility, the Kings never tested the mental fragility of Vegas, hands down Vegas walked all over LA, but LA never broke to the point, of...a SJ break lol you know what I mean there?
As far as 3rd period come backs, don't necessarily see that as a red flag per se, I see what you are saying, but, I don't know if it's preparation, or lack of leadership, rather than, lack of confidence per se. It seemed like after two periods the Kings went, ok, yea, we actually can play, and away they go etc.
- Status
