My Lombardi-to-English translator appears to be broken
by Quisp on Dec 8, 2011 2:33 PM PST
Email
Print...because usually there's a pretty clear subtext in his interviews, but in this case, he's not giving up much. Mostly, he just reminds us that defense is important and you can't sacrifice it in order to score goals.
Lombardi talks about offensive struggles " LA Kings Insider
Question: When you look at the lack of scoring, [...] [how] do you break down the problem?
LOMBARDI: "[...] [We] set out to put a strong defensive structure in place, because there’s no doubt in my mind that it starts back there and it’s critical for the playoffs. That said, [...] we made a point of saying that we [...] don’t want to lose the foundation we put in place, but if we’re going to be a contender, [we need to] add [offense]. After 27 games, we’re certainly not on a pace to get that done.
Kings 5-on-5 last year, 148 goals. This year, on pace for...109. To find a team that bad 5-on-5, you have to go back to 2005-2006, when the Flames (108) and Blues (103) were worse. But those teams had 84 and 72 PP goals, respectively. Kings PP last year, 45 goals. This year, on pace for 52.
The fact is, the Kings had a problem 5-on-5 last year, so Lombardi went out and got a superstar and another 30 goal-scorer, and then the coaches spent the summer strategizing to improve 5-on-5 scoring -- and the result of all this is 5-on-5 impotence that is within a goal or two of being the worst in the franchise's history. And this is a franchise that has a lot of pretty bleak history. You have to go back to 1969 to find a Kings team with a lower GPG. And, 5-on-5, this season, they are on pace for third worst in the entire league since the lock-out. That's seven seasons worth of thirty teams, or 210 different outcomes, and of those, this year's Kings team is on pace to be 208th on that list.
[LOMBARDI:] Now, in terms of how we rectify this, first off, so many individuals are capable of more. We don’t have any players who should be on the down side (of their careers).
Historically, scorers hit their peak at 27. Kopitar and Richards are younger than that. Williams, Stoll, Gagne and Penner are not. Brown is 27.
We have a number of proven players with a track record in this league of putting up some numbers [...]. [...] [A]ll these players should be able to [...] expect that out of themselves again, without becoming sloppy defensively.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but: why? Why should we expect players to become more responsible defensively and still put up the same numbers they put up when their defensive jobs were easier? I will be happy to entertain supporting examples of offensive players who became defensively responsible yet maintained their offensive numbers. I'm not saying they aren't out there. But common sense -- and my experience of following hockey for several decades -- says that you play a tight defensive game at the expense of offense. If you have the tools to play a run-and-gun game, you lean that way. If you don't, trap. Yes, there is -- or might be -- a middle ground. But the Kings have not found it yet.
But let's look at the players:
- Dustin Brown: numbers have fallen off since he became "responsible." Did better last year when Murray gave him easier matchups (per QUALCOMP)
- Anze Kopitar: same as Brown.
- Justin Williams: isn't very good defensively, but makes up for it by being a solid 30 goal-scorer when healthy. This year he's getting bounced around to different lines, and the results are sub-par. But since he's never been looked to for big defensive minutes, it's hard to say that he has ever maintained his offensive output while playing defense.
- Simon Gagne and Mike Richards: doing great on both sides of the puck, if you ask me.
- Jarret Stoll: a two-way forward by virtue of being pretty good but not great on either side of the puck. He scored 22 goals six years ago and 20 goals last year with top-six linemates. Now he's got bottom-six linemates and shockingly he's not doing as well.
- Dustin Penner: put up consistent 20-30 goal numbers (29 -- with the Ducks -- 23, 17, 32, and then 21 for Edmonton last year before the trade) while playing mostly for a crappy team with no defense. He's been asked to play on both sides of the puck in LA, and the result is 3 goals in 35 games.
[LOMBARDI:] With a number of our younger players, it’s about taking another step. [...] I think a number of them have a lot of upside left, and it’s up to them to take that step, whether it’s Kopi or Jack or Doughty, Clifford, Voynov. All these kids have offensive potential that has yet to, I think, maximize. That’s just part of the development curve. [...]
Kopitar, Doughty and Johnson have a collective cap-hit of about $19MM. I agree that they (had better) have growing to do. But it's hard to talk about them like they're kids when they suck up about 1/3 of the team cap hit. But let's pretend that the guys he mentioned were putting up decent numbers. Well, Kopitar already is, as areJohnson (who is on pace to double his previous high of 8 goals), and Voynov (who has 4 goals, 7 points, in 15 games) but the other guys...who does that leave? Doughty and Clifford? Clifford has one goal, and last year he had seven total, which means to equal that pace he would need to have 2.4 goals to this point. So he's one and a half goals off pace. Oh no.
That leaves Doughty. Doughty has 2 goals. He's on pace for a six goal season. He scored 16 two years ago. I guess if he were to score 20 this year, that would be considered good for him. That would be 6.67 goals to this point. So he's 4-5 goals off pace (and he missed some games).
I don't think I need to point out that if Doughty and Clifford had chipped in 7 extra goals, the Kings' offensive numbers would still be crappy. And still on pace to be unacceptably close to the worst numbers put up by anyone since the lock-out.
Secondly, [...] [i]n terms of supporting each other on the ice -- [...] we’ve talked to the coaches about [it] a number of times — part of producing offense is [supporting] each other on the puck, getting open so that when someone has the puck, you’re open for him in a scoring position. Going to the net and creating space and rebounds is a fundamental part of support. When we’re in on the forecheck, that second man has to be closer and that third man has to be willing to jump. That is something [...] we have to improve on. [...] [Y]ou’re establishing a tempo, particularly in your own building, that you’re going to play in the other team’s end. [...] [And] it’s actually going to make you better defensively, because you’re not defending.
Yes, agreed, they need to support each other on the ice, puck support, anticipation, high tempo, etc.. The question isn't whether or not they need to do these things, it's WHY AREN'T THEY. To some degree, the logic is circular. They aren't scoring because they aren't doing the things they need to do that lead to scoring. It's like saying I'm in a traffic jam because people aren't driving faster.
Thirdly, [this] malaise that has [...] seeped in [...], given that we’re now 30th in the league, we’ve got to get beyond this [...]. [When] Willy scores a goal, [...] we’ve got to get that attitude of, "Yeah, you’re freaking right," and not, "Whew, I scored."
[...] [I]t’s human nature, [...] but we’ve got to get out of that funk [...]. That goes for each individual, and it’s a team attitude. [...] [T]he year we scored 236 goals. When we got down two goals, you never got the sense that this team didn’t think it could come back. But when you start falling into this rut mentally, [...] [we've] got to get rid of that in a hurry.
[...] So to answer your question, you’ve got individual issues, you do have system and support issues, and I think a big thing is attitude. All three of them.’
[...] Question: But when you break it down, to find that attitude, does that fall on the coaches?
LOMBARDI: "It’s both. The coaches have a responsibility and the players have a responsibility. And we do too, upstairs. [...] In the line of fire, though, they’re the ones down there in the trenches, and coaches and players have to find that.’’
The attitude thing, too, is circular. They don't believe they will score because they don't score because they don't believe they will score so they don't score. But, and I'm serious: what if they're right? Yes, it could be that the system works goddammit "if only the players would buy in." But it could also be that the system doesn't do what it's supposed to do, and the players can't make it work on a consistent basis because it doesn't work.
When you're scoring 3 goals a game and as a result you're also giving up more goals-against (gasp), at least when you have a defensive break-down and find yourself down a couple of goals, you know you can come back. As it is, the Kings' system depends on being defensively (near?) perfect and everyone knows it. Because they're not going to score 3 goals. So once there's a breakdown, there's much less chance of recovery.
If the Kings were playing this tedious system and winning New Jersey style (I mean, the old New Jersey), then no-one would be complaining. Or, they would be saying, god this is dull, but at least it works. Right now, it's dull and it's not working. The Kings are not on pace to make it to 97 points, which means, no playoffs. With one of the highest cap hits in the league.
25 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Kopitar is an Example
Of a player who’s offense didn’t lose much at all when he played responsible defensively. But, its hard to differentiate between him getting older/wiser/better and being more responsible.
I’m honestly hoping things start to gel in the next 5-10 games and they start to score. Using Kopi as an example, he had a hard time adjusting to Murray’s system and slumped like mad only to make a push toward the end once he was comfortable. If Penner can continue his strong play and Richards can come back things should get better. But if not, Carlyle?
Kopitar is an Example
Of a player who’s offense didn’t lose much at all when he played responsible defensively. But, its hard to differentiate between him getting older/wiser/better and being more responsible.
I respectfully disagree. We never saw Kopitar’s true offensive potential because he was asked at a very young stage of his career to play responsibly defensively. His numbers have stayed about the same, whereas if he had been allowed ot blossom as the talented, creative forward he could be his numbers would have continued to rise over the last 5 years. He would likely now be an Art Ross candidate instead of being just a very solid offensive player.
by Garrett79 on Dec 8, 2011 3:02 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don’t see how that makes sense at all. You can’t play one side of the puck and win the MVP unless its the 1980s. Even Gretzky put up gaudy +/- when he played in Edmonton.
Look at Kopitar’s +/-. When he scored 32 goals, when he was able to “run free” under Crawford, he was a -15. However, he scored 34 goals – a ton in this day and age – in his second year under Murray, same league, same player, a few years older sure, but more defensively responsible. More goals than when he got to do whatever with Crawford.
On top of that all, you can’t prove what you’re saying to have a shred of proof, neither can I for that matter, because things are what they are and can’t be changed.
Disclaimer: I know +/- isn’t everything but its a decent starting point so I went with it.
by ClashCityKing on Dec 8, 2011 3:55 PM PST up reply actions
First of all, the Art Ross is not for league MVP, but for the top scorer.
Secondly, obviously I cannot prove what I said, but it makes an awful lot more sense than suggesting that Kopitar peaked at age 21 and was never going to put up any better numbers. The fact that he scored a couple more goals, as you yourself pointed out, in his second year under Murray than he did under Crawford actually goes to prove my point more than it does yours. He was an older, more experienced player. Had he not had the defensive onus placed on him he would surely have scored even more points than he did that season under Murray.
The point is that if allowed to play more freely, creative players will score more points than they will if restrained by a defensive system that does not allow them to fully utilize their talents.
If there was one thing I could point to regarding the Kings offensive woes, it is the way they enter the offensive zone. More often than not, it is dump and chase. Very little puck possession into the zone. That leads to more predictable play and is easier for opponent to counter.
by sstephen17 on Dec 8, 2011 2:58 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I thought brown summed it up well in his LAKI interview, however...
I’d like to also add to your point that I don’t see players who are willing to pay the price to recover or stop pucks. To me it seems as though they’re all [broad stroke here I know] letting up in the corners on 50/50 pucks. The result ends up being the opposition with possession of the puck continuing a cycle or breaking out of their own zone.
Over and over and over again… boring [for us] and predictable [for us and our opponents] indeed.
What Would JeZus do?
I wonder if they let up for defensive purposes though. Not wanting to go all in because if they get caught deep, a counter attack is going to be painful.
One man in doesn't help
What I see is tenative zone entry. Its like they can’t decide to dump or skate it in. That leaves everyone at the blue line flat-footer and you can’t get a good chase. You need to hit the red line, dump it in, have defensemen with their backs turned, and players going in hard. The Kings don’t make that happen near enough to be effective at d-n-c.
by ClashCityKing on Dec 8, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions
In fact, I rather agree with you, in the sense that Smyth, Handzus and Simmonds, none of them let up in the corners. I wish to be clear here…. not saying we should have kept any of them per se. That isn’t the point. But if you’re gonna play the sort of supposed forechecking system that the Kings play, I’m not certain that JW and Gagne are those sorts of players.
Maybe Hunter or Moreau, but that equals zero offense and that is given the bit of time that they actually spend in the offensive end.
I would also — as I have many times in the past — point to players like Wayne Simmonds, Alexei Ponikarovsky and Alex Frolov, each of whom saw their offensive production dip (or plummet) when they were given heavy defensive minutes. In each case, we heard the “I need more” speech.
I would point to Steven Yzerman. In 1988-89 he scored 155 points, the most ever by any player who wasn’t Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieuz in NHL history in one season. He followed that up with seasons of 127, 108, 103, and 137 (and 82 in 58 games). And then he was asked to start playing defense, which he did an admirable job of, becoming perhaps the best two-way player in NHL history. But his numbers dropped in half. Excluding the lock-out season, his season numbers fell to 95, 85, 69, 74, 79 (and then he did not play another full NHL season).
You simply cannot be a sound defensive hockey player and still put up the same kind of offensive numbers as you would if you were ignoring the defensive end. Yzerman couldn’t do it, and neither can any of the Kings.
And how many rings did that get him?
I’d prefer the Cups to the points any day of the week and so did Stevie Y.
by ClashCityKing on Dec 8, 2011 3:50 PM PST up reply actions
There is a pretty big difference…
Scotty Bowman was a much better coach than Terry Murray. He understood how to coach offensive players so that they would play both ends of the rink and still have offensive flow to their game.
And it still took Yzerman having Fedorov, Shanahan, Lidstrom, Vernon, Larionov, Maltby, Drury, etc to win those Stanley Cups. He sure didn’t do it himself.
Where is the Kings’ Grind Line? Non-existent. Where is their Shanahan to snipe in some goals? They don’t have one.
The Kings do not play the style Detroit did in Yzerman’s era. Detroit had offensive flow to their game that Murray’s system stifles.
and also
i would point out that we have a good defensive core and according to tsn (http://www.tsn.ca/fantasy_news/feature/?ID=10466), the number 2 goalie in the league.
where would we be without these defensive strengths?
in other words, not only do we suck offensively, we’re lucky to have what we do on the other side of the rink.
Its not luck. Those players were scouted, drafted, and developer. The Kings are as successful as they are based on their stingy defense but that’s not something to decry.
by ClashCityKing on Dec 8, 2011 3:57 PM PST up reply actions
What success exactly?
They have not won more than 2 playoff games in a decade.
The last two seasons they have blown first round playoff series that were theirs to win.
Last season they collapsed down the stretch and gave up what was sure to be a spot in the conference’s top 4.
They haven’t had home ice advantage in a playoff series… ever? (Seriously, when was the last time? Was it ‘92 against Edmonton? That’s 20 years.)
They have lost more games than they have won this season.
They currently sit in 8th in the West, but with 9th place San Jose sitting only a point back with 3 games in hand (in other words, the Kings are not currently legitimately a playoff team).
They are dead last in the NHL in scoring.
They have scored 3 goals or more in 8 of 27 games this season (and twice needed overtime to do so).
This team has had NO success.
The only way they will have success is to tip the scales back a bit and trade some of that defensive responsibility for a touch of offensive “recklessness”. Stop playing not to lose and start playing to win. You cannot win in the NHL if you don’t score, and Terry Murray’s system has de-emphasized scoring to such a point that they almost cannot win.
Garrett, I wanted to respond to your post. Was listening to espn radio ny one morning. Whoever the broadcaster was, was talking about the ny jets and how they needed to develop their passing game (was two yrs ago i think).
His point was that there was a time when the nfl was a running league, and how now it’s definitely become a passing league. He kept hammering that point home. That times have changed and the game had evolved.
It made me think of hockey. How many times have we said that the game has changed. That doesn’t mean you become reckless defensively, but you’ve ….. wait:
You cannot win in the NHL if you don’t score, and Terry Murray’s system has de-emphasized scoring to such a point that they almost cannot win.
I guess that says it. How many times do people have to say that there is no red line anymore? The whole dynamics of the game have changed dramatically, and I fail to see how Moreau, Hunter and at least one or two more guys fit into that. You need some character like that for sure, but not a whole bottom six like that.
I agree with this. It’s painful to watch the Kings play right now, because they will go for long stretches without producing any scoring chances. Teams are able to bottle them up in their own end, and cycle. This is especially bad since Richie went down with the concussion. When you look at how outplayed the Kings were in the Ducks game for example, and then to have a Bettman point in your grasp and lose it in the last minute of the game, calls into question whether or not the Kings are even good at executing a defensive system. After watching Quick stand on his head half the season, you can’t expect that level of play to continue, as he gets worn down.
I look at this as game of dominoes that actually starts not with your 1st line but with your 4th.
-If the 4th line can be effective, this helps the 3rd, which helps the 2nd etc. The 3rd and 4th lines of the Kings are not threatening. They do utterly predictable 3rd and 4th line things, like running around looking to throw checks, and dump and chasing to no particular effect. Other teams are not challenged by the the 3rd and 4th lines right now. This allows other teams to match against the 1st and 2nd lines, and it just becomes a vicious cycle.
i think we have moved beyond...
…TM’s system.
specifically, i feel its a system that needs to be employed when you don’t have the top 6 skill that we now possess.
my gripe is that he seems unwilling or unable to ‘tweek’ his system in order to acheive that balance that we now need.
When the kick out your front door how you gonna come? With your hands above your head or on the trigger of your gun?
Thanks Quisp
i wondered when you’d have a new post. It helps just to read it cause the whole damned thing has become so completely ridiculous. Oh, and by the way, the Leafs were horrible two years ago. It took Brian Burke three years to get them moving offensively. And they do a pretty good job of it..
Now DL’s comments are starting to sound hollow, and while I used to find him pretty straight in terms of responses to questions, it’s now starting to sound like he’s zig zagging.
Maybe everyone is looking at the wrong problem...
Now I’m not really qualified to make this assertion, but.
Everyone has focused on the defensive vs offensive system being the problem. Management and players would all have us agree its nobodies fault (albeit without offering executable solutions). Its not exactly the players, its not exactly the system, its not exactly the coach… etc.
What if its this: too many line changes. Too simple to be the answer? Maybe, but its a big deal. Under TM, the players have no expectations of staying where they are for very long. Maybe they just aren’t being allowed to stay QUITE long enough to figure eachother out.
When I watch the Kings, its obvious there is creativity, there is talent, there is hard work, but you know what I don’t see? Great communication. Instead: missed or ill timed passes, giveaways, unnecessary dumpins and the like. That seems like a symptom of players not finding a rhythm with their team mates.
Now all of you more knowledgeable than I, feel free do disabuse me.
Check the highlights from the Rangers game tonight
It was 2-1 NYR w them on a PP. Late 2nd per I think. Puck is going over the goal line when….. none other than Teddy Purcell swipes it away. Could’ve been game over at that point.
So he can make some big defensive plays. Oh.
Then Rangers on the PP again with 2mins left in the game. Still up 2-1.Dominic Moore going 1 against 2 into the Ranger zone, shorthanded. He dumps the puck in as per usual challenges the 2 Rangers who are back, drives the net and drives a backhander over Lundquist’s shoulder to tie it up.
TB wins finally in a SO. What, you mean you can actually drive the flippin net? Yep. Might pay off.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Jewels From The Crown
Related FanShots on Jewels From The Crown
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
