Toggle sidebar

GDT: WCQF Game 4, (1) Vegas Golden Knights vs (WC1) LA Kings @7:30 VGK lead series 3-0

  • Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
In my opinion, the Kings roster is fatally flawed. Too many 30-somethings making too much money, and too much cap space dedicated to the top 5 or 6 highest paid players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Herby
GoldenBearHockey said:
I'm gonna assume you mean if the team is not flawed. The need for change happens with EVERY team that doesn't win, there is a tweak to be made, etc. If you think that all 30 teams that don't win the cup are flawed then changes have to be made.

When I say this team isn't flawed, maybe I misspoke, I view flaw, as it's a fatal flaw, and there is nothing about this team that can't be fixed, except probably for it's bipolar fan base.

Anyone that thinks this team didn't compete in these four games or weren't competitive, again, don't know what to tell you, but the entire hockey world thinks your wrong, and by hockey world, I mean guys who are actually paid to do this etc,

No one is saying they should live in the past, but recognize what the ACTUAL flaws are, not some made up melodrama in fanbase pysche so they can feel good about themselves.

Creating offense isn't their flaw, it's finishing, it's sustaining. They created offense, but couldn't finish it, couldn't translate the creation into results, that's why change needs to be had, be it coach OR players.

But those willing to burn it down just to watch it burn, don't understand that you aren't going to win every game, you aren't going to get every bounce, it's sport, bounces and bad beats happen.
Click to expand...

This is melodramatic in my opinion. This roster has had an opportunity over the last 4 seasons to produce. No one wants to destroy something just to watch it burn to the ground. The bad beats stuff is thick sliced baloney. It's been 4 seasons. The bounces even out. Don't tell me anything more about bad bounces.

No one said certain players on this team didn't compete. That's a false narrative. Kopitar and Quick obviously played their asses off. This team doesn't have the talent to be anything other than a bubble team.
 
KINGS17 said:
In my opinion, the Kings roster is fatally flawed. Too many 30-somethings making too much money, and too much cap space dedicated to the top 5 or 6 highest paid players.
Click to expand...

Disagree only the fact that it's fatally flawed, like I said, I might have misspoken, in terms of using flaw etc, there are changes that can be made, that should be made, doesn't mean I think this team was "flawed"

Part of the problem I think is, we expect our rookies to come in and play like veterans, Kempe, LaDue, Fantenberg, Iafallo, etc, I think they had really good years for rookies, definitely showed signs of promise, I don't know if LaDue ultimately sticks, he might be a tweener at his age, but the other three definitely showed signs of promise
 
KINGS17 said:
This is melodramatic in my opinion. This roster has had an opportunity over the last 4 seasons to produce. No one wants to destroy something just to watch it burn to the ground. The bad beats stuff is thick sliced baloney. It's been 4 seasons. The bounces even out. Don't tell me anything more about bad bounces.

No one said certain players on this team didn't compete. That's a false narrative. Kopitar and Quick obviously played their asses off. This team doesn't have the talent to be anything other than a bubble team.
Click to expand...

Disagree, if you watched the first periods of Game 3 and Game 4, it's CLEAR they had the talent to beat Vegas, they didn't have the sustainability, and that's a seperate issue.
 
Complete waste of career seasons from Brown and Kopitar. Also showed just how many team deficiencies those two were covering up: Kempe no goals in 29, Toffoli no goals since the Cretaceous, Pearson lack of effectiveness, bottom six a black hole, etc.
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
Disagree only the fact that it's fatally flawed, like I said, I might have misspoken, in terms of using flaw etc, there are changes that can be made, that should be made, doesn't mean I think this team was "flawed"

Part of the problem I think is, we expect our rookies to come in and play like veterans, Kempe, LaDue, Fantenberg, Iafallo, etc, I think they had really good years for rookies, definitely showed signs of promise, I don't know if LaDue ultimately sticks, he might be a tweener at his age, but the other three definitely showed signs of promise
Click to expand...
No, some posters here expect the rookies to come in a play like vets. I expect them to play like rookies, which is why I keep saying by the time these guys develop, the core will be 3 years older. Besides we don't have enough of them. As I pointed out in another post the Kings may have only two 21-23 year olds capable of playing in the NHL.

But hey let's keep Carter as his odometer spins from 34, to 35, to 36.
 
DryIslandBartender said:
Lol.
Click to expand...

LOL I might be flippant, but am I wrong? It's Pro Sports, crap happens, again, no one is denying changes need to be made, but the Kings have a solid core, and decent/good youth upcoming, we got beat by a very very very good team who still needed a shit ton of chances to beat us, that's called sport.

If we lost every game 7-3, 8-2, 5-1, etc, then ok, you have a point, every game was closely contested and hard fought
 
KINGS17 said:
No, some posters here expect the rookies to come in a play like vets. I expect them to play like rookies, which is why I keep saying by the time these guys develop, the core will be 3 years older. Besides we don't have enough of them. As I pointed out in another post the Kings may have only two 21-23 year olds capable of playing in the NHL.
Click to expand...

Agreed, we don't have enough of them, I don't know the ages of Brickley, Fantenberg, Iafallo, etc, but Kempe is 21, and he looked great in the playoffs, Iafallo, had a few ups and downs, but has been solid, Fantenberg looked fine, I wouldn't call him a top 4, but he can easily play in a 5-6 role, which allows us to move a Martinez or Muzzin, which is what you want, correct?
 
Top 5 teams in the NHL in no particular order:

Boston
Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh
Winnipeg
Nashville
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
LOL I might be flippant, but am I wrong? It's Pro Sports, crap happens, again, no one is denying changes need to be made, but the Kings have a solid core, and decent/good youth upcoming, we got beat by a very very very good team who still needed a **** ton of chances to beat us, that's called sport.

If we lost every game 7-3, 8-2, 5-1, etc, then ok, you have a point, every game was closely contested and hard fought
Click to expand...

They lost 4 in a row. It’s not much consolation to say we lost by one goal or that they were all close. We got swept.

Sean O’Donnell ripped someone for saying the same thing last night in the postgame, might’ve been Kopitar. You got beat, and it’s not close when you get swept. You can’t say the series was close when you lost all 4 games. It’s laughable.

We didn’t even get swept in a playoff series where Kopitar was out. Think it was against San Jose.
 
KINGS17 said:
Top 5 teams in the NHL in no particular order:

Boston
Tampa Bay
Pittsburgh
Winnipeg
Nashville
Click to expand...

Might wanna try again,

Top 5 in points
Top 4 in Goals for
Top 8 in Goals Against
Top 6 in Differential

Tell me again how they aren't a top team please
 
DryIslandBartender said:
They lost 4 in a row. It’s not much consolation to say we lost by one goal or that they were all close. We got swept.

Sean O’Donnell ripped someone for saying the same thing last night in the postgame, might’ve been Kopitar. You got beat, and it’s not close when you get swept. You can’t say the series was close when you lost all 4 games. It’s laughable.

We didn’t even get swept in a playoff series where Kopitar was out. Think it was against San Jose.
Click to expand...

Watched the CBC feed all series, so didn't get the LA stuff etc,

He's not wrong in the sense, that if you get swept, it's not close, but again, EVERY game could have gone either way, in that way, it's extremely close, and they were very competitive,

It's amazing how people in this fanbase give ZERO credit to the opponent in front of them, they were competitive against a top 5 team in the league,

Horrifying result, no question, but again, it's SPORT.
 
Well, that ride ended faster than I thought. I do think that this was a good season for the most part. Great seasons from Brown, Kopitar and Doughty. Quick, Muzzin, Amart, Lewis and Forbort all had solid seasons. Folin, Kempe and Iafallo stepped in and had good seasons. Could of used a full season of Carter, but poop happens. A lot of positives happened this season for players that there were many question marks about. A handful of players with career seasons. A season where there were more positives than negatives. Heck, we lost 2 games 1-0.
Going out in 4 blows, and it's disappointing. Thought they played hard, but you can see why Vegas led the Pacific. I think all season we needed the younger guys to step up. Kempe did for a stretch. Toffoli somehow got 24 goals, even though I remember only a few. Our bottom 9 needed to step up this playoff series. We needed a Toffoli or Pearson to step up. We needed a Kontos.

Should be an interesting Summer. Curious what tweaks will be made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnjm22
KINGS17 said:
No, some posters here expect the rookies to come in a play like vets. I expect them to play like rookies, which is why I keep saying by the time these guys develop, the core will be 3 years older. Besides we don't have enough of them. As I pointed out in another post the Kings may have only two 21-23 year olds capable of playing in the NHL.
Click to expand...
I’ll go back to my opinion that Toffoli, Martinez, Muzzin, Carter and if possible Brown could/should be moved. That’s not to say the older guys won’t produce but the depth, physicality and obviously the scoring isn’t there. Tyler Toffoli is my biggest disappointment especially with his salary but if people want to bring up his goal scoring then just know they’re as meaning and impactful as Eric Karros’ HRs during his dodgers days! Some still won’t figure that out..
Brown holds value now because of what he did so if you can move him for pennies on the dollar without having to retain salary then you have to consider it.
Carter is going to bring back a 1st and a top prospect because he’s s legit 2C who came back from an Achilles injury and just scored a ppg
But I’d trade him during the season to get more
Toffoli+ id move for a Justin Faulk or similar player
Muzzin and Martinez are likely going to be talking about to gage their markets especially with Brinkley likely getting a bottom 6 role, Fantenberg showing some life as a puck mover and being cheap and maybe even Folin getting a look...
as for the young guys we need, we I think we have more than just 2-3.. Kempe, Amadio, Vilardi, Brinkley and id throw in Iafallo as young depth guys with the upside to do more.. we also have the money to go for a E.Kane ..
Kane - Kopitar - Vilardi ( not a bad way to learn)
Pearson - Carter - Rieder
Iafallo - Amadio - Brodzinski
Clifford - Thompson - Lewis

Forbort - Doughty
Faulk - Phaneuf
Brinkley - Folin/Fantenberg

And still have some kids in the pipeline JAD, Clague, Petersen, draft pick and trade assets plus a few million for DD..,

Is this team a contender.. No!
But with some expect/realistic development/growth and key UFA signings it could be....oh and a Carter trade if need be
 
GoldenBearHockey said:
He's not wrong in the sense, that if you get swept, it's not close, but again, EVERY game could have gone either way, in that way, it's extremely close, and they were very competitive,
Click to expand...

There is a difference though between every game possibly going either way, and every game being competitive. At no time could you really think that the Kings had control. If not for Quick, Game 1 is worse than 1-0. If not for Quick, Game 2 is worse than Game 1. Game 3, came out with a good 1st, and slowly wilted over the next 2 periods. Game 4, same story.

Every game was within a shot or so, but there wasn't an inclination they could keep it going for a full game, or multiple games in a row. In each game, it was a matter of time until Vegas found a way to win. Whether the Kings were up, tied, or down, in 11 of the 14 periods played, Vegas had the upper hand. In the 3 periods of the series where the Kings did something, they got 1 total goal in 60 minutes.

Close games, but for various reasons, not overly competitive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KINGS17
GoldenBearHockey said:
Watched the CBC feed all series, so didn't get the LA stuff etc,

He's not wrong in the sense, that if you get swept, it's not close, but again, EVERY game could have gone either way, in that way, it's extremely close, and they were very competitive,

It's amazing how people in this fanbase give ZERO credit to the opponent in front of them, they were competitive against a top 5 team in the league,

Horrifying result, no question, but again, it's SPORT.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. It was as close a series as possible that is a 4 game series sweep. All games were close, only game Kings didn't deserve to be in was ironically the 5 period game in which any goal could have given the Kings the result, a 1-1 series tie heading home.

Still, a vet Kings squad outplayed the Knights in game 3 and game 4 and as was a constant in the series couldn't buy a goal. Fleury was really feeling it. The saves on Kopitar, Brown, and Toffoli in the 3rd period is really where he was at the entire series. He was fantastic in goal, as was Quick. It was a tight defensive series but the margin being so slim that Kings lost in a one goal game and the goal scorer was McNabb who the Kings lost in the expansion draft. I always thought highly of McNabb. Thought he could be a Willy Mitchell type.

On positive notes since the audition of Phaneuf the Kings D looked as good as its looked since Voynov was here but the difficulty is obviously that the Kings didn't get offensive help for the playoff run. They really needed that one more player that could generate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raccoon Jesus
KingsFan7824 said:
There is a difference though between every game possibly going either way, and every game being competitive. At no time could you really think that the Kings had control. If not for Quick, Game 1 is worse than 1-0. If not for Quick, Game 2 is worse than Game 1. Game 3, came out with a good 1st, and slowly wilted over the next 2 periods. Game 4, same story.

Every game was within a shot or so, but there wasn't an inclination they could keep it going for a full game, or multiple games in a row. In each game, it was a matter of time until Vegas found a way to win. Whether the Kings were up, tied, or down, in 11 of the 14 periods played, Vegas had the upper hand. In the 3 periods of the series where the Kings did something, they got 1 total goal in 60 minutes.

Close games, but for various reasons, not overly competitive.
Click to expand...

You can argue the same, if not for Fleury, game 3 is a win, if not for Fleury, game 4 is a win, if not for fleury, game 2 is a win in OT,

It goes both ways....that's why it was a competitive, close, hard fought series.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drivesaitl
GoldenBearHockey said:
You can argue the same, if not for Fleury, game 3 is a win, if not for Fleury, game 4 is a win, if not for fleury, game 2 is a win in OT,

It goes both ways....that's why it was a competitive, close, hard fought series.
Click to expand...

The skaters in front of Fleury were better on a more consistent basis than the skaters in front of Quick. In 4 of the 6 periods in LA, Vegas was either even or better than the Kings. That's not good enough as the home team, and it was an issue all year long.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RONNIEC, KINGS17 and KingTrouty
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom