It's a combination of both to me. A good chunk of this roster is the same group that hasn't won anything in what is approaching five years. To me, Stevens is exactly like what the Penguins went through when they hired Mike Johnston after ousting Dan Bylsma.
They then hired Mike Sullivan and things changed dramatically for them with how they attack. Look at the difference in Tampa Bay with Jon Cooper versus that boring, garbage coaching of Guy Boucher. The difference is night and day.
A lot of things with this team has gotten stale, and that includes the players and the coach behind the bench.
A good chunk of this roster is also the same group that DID win in 2012, 2014, so saying it's the same group that didn't win, makes no difference.
As far as Cooper, look at the influx of talent, when he took over, he had Stamkos, an aging Lecavalier and St. Louis, and Hedman,
Next year, they add Palat, Johnson, Killorn, Kucherov
Year after, they add Stralman, Drouin etc,
Is it that Cooper is a better coach, or he was able to reap the benefits of adding more talent, vs Boucher.
I think it's a combination of both, you give Boucher the roster that Cooper had, and he probably succeeds better in Tampa.
I go back to what I said about this Kings roster/system, I think Stevens is trying to install a system that the players aren't familiar with, don't buy into it yet fully, and when that happens, you see the disconnect on the ice.
After the Detroit game, possibly after the Winnipeg game, I think it's EXTREMELY likely that Stevens had a meeting with the players, and told them not to worry about mistakes, to try and be creative, etc, that's why in the Winnipeg game, you started to see some blind passes to the middle, putting pucks to where there is space instead of tape to tape, etc, before, if Kings did that and a turnover happened, they got benched, so you saw it, they were playing rigid, tight, and afraid. The Winnipeg and Montreal game was much much more, loose, not as uptight, not saying they were better, but look at the ice time for the kids since Detroit game, I am talking about Amadio, JAD, mainly.
Detroit
Amadio - 9 shifts, 7:56
JAD - 9 shifts, 7:26
Winnipeg
Amadio - 11 shifts, 6:22
JAD - did not play,
This is where I think the meeting occured
Montreal
Amadio - 19 shifts, 13:16
JAD - 19 shifts, 11:51
Ottawa
Amadio - 20 shifts, 16:43
JAD - 20 shifts, 17:27
That is Stevens adjusting, trusting the kids a bit much, and they have reacted, they have played much better, results might not be there, but when you take it shift by shift, the idea for any youngster is to build on that shift, and that is what they are doing,
Also in the past 4 games,
Detroit
LAK - Giveaways - 12
Winnipeg
LAK - Giveaways - 11
Montreal
LAK - Giveaways - 21
Ottawa
LAK - Giveaways - 15
Completely uncharacteristic of the Sutter teams, but again, you can sense they are playing a bit looser.
As far as everyone complaining about PP entry, and breakouts, every single team in the league is running a version of the PP entry that LA has, the failure is in the execution, not the entry.
As far as breakouts, the breakout isn't the issue, it's the transistion game that is non-existent and that starts with guys like Muzzin, Forbort, and Martinez fumbling the puck, but also has a lot to do with out wingers not being in position etc When the D can make a solid transition pass, you will see the difference, when the wingers are in position you will see the difference.
Right now the game has evolved from short passes to 40-50 feet bomb passes/tip-ins from just above the red line to the far blueline, and the idea is to have 2 guys enter the zone with speed, problem is it's a simple counter, you drop 1 D back, and you have an active goaltender, that will thwart it 90% of the time, and again, the idea is to have a quick transition, and the Kings have none, and THAT is where you guys are seeing issues, not in coaching, not in "systems" etc.
