John Stevens must be launched into the Sun UPDATE: John Stevens & Nachbaur incinerated

[Zegs2sendhelp]

DL is gone man, we're not trying to put together the entire 2003 NHL draft/2008 NHL allstar team anymore!

But we are, give us carter.
Carter getzlaf perry
______ kesler eaves
Just got to find 1 more 2003 top 6 winger, oh what is brown doin nowadays

 

[Reclamation Project]

What the hell did the sun ever do to you? The sun delivers every day, it's a winner (wouldn't want to assume its gender)!

 

[Vamos Rafa]

Get Vigneault before he becomes unavailable

 

[KINGS17]

Get Vigneault before he becomes unavailable

I have no problem switching from Stevens to Vigneault, but what is the rush? The coach is not the biggest problem.

I think the Kings need to find a coach that can teach and work well with young players, because it's the direction they should be going.

 

[King'sPawn]

Get Vigneault before he becomes unavailable

I don't think Vigneault's the answer.

 

[kingsfan28]

I have no problem switching from Stevens to Vigneault, but what is the rush? The coach is not the biggest problem.

I think the Kings need to find a coach that can teach and work well with young players, because it's the direction they should be going.

We need a guy like Sean McVay .

 

[kingsfan28]

I don't think Vigneault's the answer.

Not much out there. Much better than the wildly overrated and godlike awe of Tippet.

 

[Fishhead]

We need a guy like Sean McVay .

Sheldon Keefe? Young, modern coaching style, understands analytics, stresses fast play, is intense, etc. Found this online about him:

"I was told a story recently where Keefe had to spend time in training camp with new players and force them to unlearn cliche concepts of getting pucks deep and making safe plays. Keefe wants a team that values possession of the puck. His teams execute breakouts so well, and do not punt the puck when under pressure in the neutral zone."

 

[kingsfan28]

Sheldon Keefe? Young, modern coaching style, understands analytics, stresses fast play, is intense, etc. Found this online about him:

"I was told a story recently where Keefe had to spend time in training camp with new players and force them to unlearn cliche concepts of getting pucks deep and making safe plays. Keefe wants a team that values possession of the puck. His teams execute breakouts so well, and do not punt the puck when under pressure in the neutral zone."

I don't think this is a guy to bring in during the season, he's the guy you bring in at training camp to teach something new with plenty of time to learn. AV would be the best bet to get them through the season because there's really not a lot out there.

 

[Matt13]

I don't think this is a guy to bring in during the season, he's the guy you bring in at training camp to teach something new with plenty of time to learn. AV would be the best bet to get them through the season because there's really not a lot out there.

No way does any reputable coach come in to a huge shit show to just finish out the season without a promise for the future. It will ruin their other opportunities.

 

[The Tikkanen]

Sheldon Keefe? Young, modern coaching style, understands analytics, stresses fast play, is intense, etc. Found this online about him:

"I was told a story recently where Keefe had to spend time in training camp with new players and force them to unlearn cliche concepts of getting pucks deep and making safe plays. Keefe wants a team that values possession of the puck. His teams execute breakouts so well, and do not punt the puck when under pressure in the neutral zone."

You had me at hello. Fire Stevens, fire the strength and conditioning staff, hire Keefe, make sponsorship with Red Bull, plan parade in June.

 

[johnjm22]

A coaching change can have a huge impact.

In 10/11 the Devils started 9–22–2. After firing McLean and hiring Lemaire, they went on a 22–3–2 run.
In 15/16 the Blue Jackets started 0-7-0-0. After firing Richards and hiring Tortorella they went 34-33-0-8.

But those two teams still missed the playoffs. So what was the point?

Teams usually do play better after a coaching change, but what difference would it make for us? We might go from bottomfeeders to the black hole. No thanks to that. Just hold on to Stevens and let the team tank. Lets not squander this opportunity to draft top 5.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

A coaching change can have a huge impact.

In 10/11 the Devils started 9–22–2. After firing McLean and hiring Lemaire, they went on a 22–3–2 run.
In 15/16 the Blue Jackets started 0-7-0-0. After firing Richards and hiring Tortorella they went 34-33-0-8.

But those two teams still missed the playoffs. So what was the point?

Teams usually do play better after a coaching change, but what difference would it make for us? We might go from bottomfeeders to the black hole. No thanks to that. Just hold on to Stevens and let the team tank. Lets not squander this opportunity to draft top 5.

i remember a coaching change done by the LA Kings that resulted in a Stanley cup... that was a huge difference

the team was playing like crap under Murray so how could we have known that we had, not only a playoff caliber team mind you, but a CHAMPIONSHIP team, until Murray got fired?

but ultimately my point is, firing the coach will allow us to properly determine if it's a staffing issue or a roster issue; you can't be fully confident of this until you root out everyone from the previous administration

and the sooner the better, because you're right if we fire the coach later in the season it might give us a sense of false hope and the Kings go on a good run, make the playoffs and bow out in the first rd

but if we fire Stevens now, and we discover it truly is a roster issue, the Kings will eventually run cold and won't get into a playoff position and give us enough time to do a proper fire sale at the trade deadline

to me, firing the coach asap is a wise decision

 

[Raccoon Jesus]

A coaching change can have a huge impact.

In 10/11 the Devils started 9–22–2. After firing McLean and hiring Lemaire, they went on a 22–3–2 run.
In 15/16 the Blue Jackets started 0-7-0-0. After firing Richards and hiring Tortorella they went 34-33-0-8.

But those two teams still missed the playoffs. So what was the point?

Teams usually do play better after a coaching change, but what difference would it make for us? We might go from bottomfeeders to the black hole. No thanks to that. Just hold on to Stevens and let the team tank. Lets not squander this opportunity to draft top 5.

Depends on the coach.

The point might be to land a good developmental coach before someone else does.

But I'm assuming Blake would be going for an experienced type for an experienced group as a last-gasp.

 

[KingsFan7824]

i remember a coaching change done by the LA Kings that resulted in a Stanley cup... that was a huge difference

Just as easy that a new coach would get fired before he does anything with the team. Just because getting Richards with a flawed roster eventually worked, does that mean Lombardi should've traded for Lucic with a flawed roster?

the team was playing like crap under Murray so how could we have known that we had, not only a playoff caliber team mind you, but a CHAMPIONSHIP team, until Murray got fired?

They were a playoff team with Murray for a couple years. Also, when Murray got fired, that was not the same roster as the one that won the Cup. Not only were 4 new full time players needed, but the captain needed external trade rumors to get him to play better. So really that's 5 spots on the roster that needed re-shaping, plus the coach.

but ultimately my point is, firing the coach will allow us to properly determine if it's a staffing issue or a roster issue; you can't be fully confident of this until you root out everyone from the previous administration

Properly sounds too concrete. You might be able to determine that. This core quit on the coach they won 2 championships with, only months after doing so. For all we know, they quit on him before the 2014 run was finished. You don't start the playoffs that poorly without something going on. Brown's numbers did fall off the cliff at the start of that season, so.

but if we fire Stevens now, and we discover it truly is a roster issue, the Kings will eventually run cold and won't get into a playoff position and give us enough time to do a proper fire sale at the trade deadline

I still think people are expecting too much on that front.

 

[KINGS17]

I don't think Vigneault's the answer.

Any new coach this season would just be a caretaker for the old vets home.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

you guys are funny
even if the roster sucks
Stevens makes bad decisions
he wouldn't be a good coach for Vilardi or Hughes nor is he a good coach for Kopitar or Doughty
so get off that dick!

 

[johnjm22]

i remember a coaching change done by the LA Kings that resulted in a Stanley cup... that was a huge difference

the team was playing like crap under Murray so how could we have known that we had, not only a playoff caliber team mind you, but a CHAMPIONSHIP team, until Murray got fired?

See, this demonstrates how our expectations around here have changed and it's affecting our perception.

They weren't playing like crap under Murray. They were playing mediocre. The coaching change from Murray to Sutter allowed that team to realize its full potential; a Stanley Cup champion.

The current team really is playing like crap. A coaching change might help them realize their potential also; mediocrity.

A good coach can transform a high potential team that's underperforming to a contender, but can only take a bottomfeeder to mediocrity. The Kings are the latter.

 

[King'sPawn]

Any new coach this season would just be a caretaker for the old vets home.

I don't disagree.

I do think Stevens needs to go though. I just don't want to replace him with another coach who has a history of employing an evdn worse defensive scheme

 

[johnjm22]

Depends on the coach.

The point might be to land a good developmental coach before someone else does.

Well yeah that's the thing. Everybody wants the current coach fired, but you actually have to have someone good to replace him with.

If there's a great coach available now that might not be available later, then I can see some logic in making the move now.

But I worry that making that change costs us our opportunity to land a very high pick. To me making the change isn't worth it. Tank now, handle the coaching situation in the off season.

The opportunity to land an elite player in the draft comes very rarely.

 

[johnjm22]

Somewhat off topic, but this situation is why I hate the draft systems in pro sports.

Hardly anyone agrees with me, but I think where you finish in the standings should have no correlation with your draft position. Losing or incompetence should never be rewarded.

As a fan I hate being in the position where I have to root for my team to lose.

Just make the 1st round of the draft an equal weighted 31 team lottery and be done with it.

 

[Fishhead]

Any new coach this season would just be a caretaker for the old vets home.

To an extent yeah, at best they get woken up a little bit. But it would be much easier to get the coach you want now rather than at the end of the season when other teams are looking for them. Especially for a coach with a modern outlook, those are going to be in demand. It might cost a few draft slots, but I think having the coach you want is more important than draft position.

 

[Fishhead]

Somewhat off topic, but this situation is why I hate the draft systems in pro sports.

Hardly anyone agrees with me, but I think where you finish in the standings should have no correlation with your draft position. Losing or incompetence should never be rewarded.

As a fan I hate being in the position where I have to root for my team to lose.

Just make the 1st round of the draft an equal weighted 31 team lottery and be done with it.

I don't really disagree with this, I think the 1-31 might be a little extreme though. Maybe have a couple lotteries, one for teams who missed the playoffs (picks 1-15) and one for teams who made it (16-31). That would be enough to discourage tanking and not having to cheer to get blown out by Buffalo.

 

[johnjm22]

I don't really disagree with this, I think the 1-31 might be a little extreme though. Maybe have a couple lotteries, one for teams who missed the playoffs (picks 1-15) and one for teams who made it (16-31). That would be enough to discourage tanking and not having to cheer to get blown out by Buffalo.

There's lots of ways you can do it, just as long as it's not correlated to where a team finishes in the standings.

Say you have an equal weighted 31 team lottery for the first round (31 balls, each team gets 1 ball). Whatever the results are, you can invert them for the remaining 6 rounds. So if you drafted 1st overall you'd be drafting last in each remaining round and vice versa.

As a fan I want simplicity. I want to watch the game and root for my team to win. I don't want to have to care about how it affects their draft position.

 

[KingPuckChoo]

See, this demonstrates how our expectations around here have changed and it's affecting our perception.

They weren't playing like crap under Murray. They were playing mediocre. The coaching change from Murray to Sutter allowed that team to realize its full potential; a Stanley Cup champion.

The current team really is playing like crap. A coaching change might help them realize their potential also; mediocrity.

A good coach can transform a high potential team that's underperforming to a contender, but can only take a bottomfeeder to mediocrity. The Kings are the latter.

mediocre is crap! and i never said that the Kings should be in a playoff position, but i need some entertainment value to go along with our tanking. Stevens looks satisfied with watching paint dry. Maybe a guy like Vigneault can BRING BACK HOCKEY AGAIN to this f***in team

Thanks though for assuming that anyone that doesn't think like you means they are being manipulated somehow by expectations and is blurring our perception, when in reality it's your own daftness that is blurring your PERCEPTION of what we are really saying

they were crap under Murray, we had a roster with promising young studs who should have been a run and gun team like Columbus was/is the past 2-3 years or the Jets etc

instead we were a low scoring lifeless team that went 139W-136L/OTL under Murray

including a 13W-16L in 29GP we were sitting 9th or 10th when he got fired

MY PERCEPTION, free of what happened after that, was this coach needed to be shipped to the SUN similar to Stevens

bringing Sutter in meant that the roster achieved (and for some exceeded) expectations something that Mediocre Man Murray couldn't do in 4 years

2 first rd exits and missed the playoffs in his first year

Mediocrity is crap; Stevens is a mediocre crappy coach, so is Murray

guys like Sutter, Tortorella, Vigneault are NOT mediocre coaches, even when they have mediocre seasons

if you don't understand this perception, PM me i'll elaborate further