new iteration of the ignore button works way better, if someone quotes an ignored person's post, that's the only time you see anything about them. keeps the board from looking like an unreadable mess with people talking to invisible ghosts
Agree. I have a few people on ignore and I like the UI way more. Before I'd have to either log out or use an incognito browser just to get context of what people are responding to.
It's not about wanna be scouts, that was a tongue in cheek post, you want to discuss Fagemo and his game, absolutely, let's talk about it, he's a Martin Frk right now.....and until he can do better that's what he's going to be....should they try him out? It's hard to argue that they should even though they need offense, if the guy can't put it together defensively, then....what? You place him with Danault and Moore and absolutely neuter that line, not the best decision.
Apologies if it was tongue-in-cheek. This wasn't the first time you brought up the lack of qualifications and so, I took it as serious.
Regarding Fagemo, I think it's worth giving him a shot. But as you pointed out, he has holes in his game. But the Kings, in their continuous effort to chase the cup with the vets of yesteryear, can't afford to take that chance or to see if he's worth carrying. Heck, they can't even afford to healthy scratch him because of how much against the cap they are.
And considering Fiala is just as bad defensively as Fagemo, while giving away the puck a lot more, the line has already been neutered. That's neither here nor there, though.
I don't think Fagemo will solve the offensive issues, but I do think how he's been handled is a symptom of a problem not unique to the Kings but still something that could benefit from improvement. As this is the Around the League thread, I'll try to keep it appropriate - the New York Rangers, as far as having similar results. They are very good with their defensemen, but they need to outsource the forwards in the form of Panarin and Zibanejad to get results. Kakko is very far from his projected status as a second overall pick, and Lafreniere is, in my opinion, underwhelming.
But rereading your point....here we go...."And for another, players get misidentified and handled by other teams all the time. Just take Martin St. Louis for example." 100% they do, Brett Hull before him, Doug Gilmour, so answer me this, why do people act like this is JUST a Kings issue, that if Blake and Robitaille were gone, everything would be magically fixed?
I don't think any rational person seriously thinks this is just a Kings issue. But we discuss the Kings exclusively, as this is a Kings board.
Just like no rational person seriously thinks things will be magically fixed if and when Blake and Robitaille are gone. Blake's on his 7th season though. By this time, people expect better results, particularly when they act like the rebuild is over. If he can't deliver, people are more receptive to giving someone else a shot. Nobody was saying things will be better when Lombardi is gone in 2013 or 2014. He delivered the Kings championships, outlined his vision, and delivered on it.
The next manager may be 100 times worse than Blake. In which case fans will happily eviscerate them more and talk about how Blake, Lombardi, etc. did things better than the next.
I mean f***, man, we were winning against NYI, and the entire game day thread was misery and negativity, which again, I get, LA Kings fan...for over 40 years....doom and gloom is the norm, but man these guys take it to about 100x, and if you point that out, you get the "what do you expect to accomplish"
I can't speak for everyone and their reactions to that game. But there are things such as ugly wins. I want the Kings to win every game, even though I know that's not reasonable or rational. But there are times when the product just doesn't look satisfying on the ice. Every coach has pointed out where they can clean up and play better despite wins. And since a lot of the complaints are stemmed from long-standing issues, I would suspect that also plays into the reactions. For myself - when I complain after a win, it's because I didn't like the play on the ice. There are times I'm more process-oriented than results-oriented: hockey is one of them.
You get bland here explaining why Clarke isn't playing and people want to argue, he's not saying that's how it should be, he's saying how it is, people are too wrapped up in players, and not in the team, if the team is winning then WTF cares how it's winning.....if we beat StL last night 4-3, and 4 goals came off of the literal rear end of players, do we care....? Why would we care, they won, enjoy that....LA Kings and winning hockey is f***ing rarefied air......
I love to follow prospects and I love to watch them grow. That's why I write articles on MM and follow the draft. So, I can't say why others get wrapped into players, but that's why I get hyper-focused on that portion. It's a passion of mine.
But as mentioned above, some people (including myself) are process-oriented. Say a restaurant serves a chicken that ends up not being cooked properly in the middle. It's very possible the customer who eats it won't get sick, not notice, and may even enjoy the meal. But in the end, your chef didn't cook the chicken properly. If you keep overlooking that, someone will eventually get sick. The point is, if there are things being observed we find alarming, it's probably because we're worried it will become an issue or obstacle in the long run.
You sound more results-oriented. Which, hey, if you enjoy what you're watching, that's awesome. I realized it's silly to expect people to watch the game the same way I do. But there's probably going to be a butting of heads consistently while the disagreeing sides don't accept it. Myself included.
