Somebody else's thoughts on somebody else's system

it’s easier to identify this sort of a problem as key in a 7 game series against the same team, whereas the Kings prolonged losing streak (or streaks) is less one issue and more of a multitude of things. It’s hard to put a finger on it but it feels like, even in games the Kings win, sometimes they’re just treading water, doing just enough to barely win or barely lose. Maybe this is a symptom of the strong defense and weak offense. I never got the feeling like any one of the Kings could just have an explosive game at any point in the season, even Kopitar. It’s like everyone had an even spread for the whole season, contributing enough for their share, but never more than enough on one given night.

At least as far as the players go, I guess maybe that’s a problem I would identify: no heros. For the Sharks at least, it was like “tonight’s Clowe’s night” or “Pavelski took over”, but with the exception a here or there, the Kings offense seemed like ‘just enough to keep their heads above water’ most nights.

I dunno. I’m rambling.

I honestly believe that what we are seeing is a turning point in Lombardi’s long-term plan. It’s part of “build from the back end first.” Just as you solidify the defense corps and the goalies first, you teach a young team defense first. But that’s not the end-goal, it’s an evolutionary stage.

The next stage is to balance out the team by adding offense. In the last two years, Dean has added Schenn, Toffoli, Kitsyn and Vey to the reserve list. These top prospects will have to learn to be responsible defensively, but they were not drafted to be grinders. Plus, Dean has gone on the record numerous times this season as acknowledging that the Kings need to add scoring.

Once that next stage is completed, we will see a Kings team with more balance between offense and defense, and, I believe, a more improvisational team with more ability to react on the fly.

The big question that Dean faces, I think, is, “Is Terry Murray the right coach to mold the team during this stage?” And he’ll have to decide the answer by this time next season. That’s why the exit interviews that I most wish I could have overheard were the coaches’.

Well i think the main problem is that it is suboptimal for a team in the process of developing a large pool of talented prospects to be implementing such a rigid system. It seems to me that you would want more flexibility so that you can properly evaluate all aspects of a players game instead of just being able to evaluate how they fit in this one particular coach’s non-negotiable, non-debatable system.

On the other hand maybe Terry Murray’s system has won more games over the past few years than we would have otherwise which has kind of served to buy Dean Lombardi some time with the fan base so that is not the worst thing. Although it came at the cost of losing Purcell, Moulson, and Boyle. I think TM will be gone though if he starts to fuck with Schenn, Loktionov ,Toffoli etc. The organization has too much staked in the upcoming crop of more offensively capable prospects.

Another thing that is broken is Jack Johnson’s defense. I would trade JJ over any of Martinez, Voynov, Hickey, Forbert, Deslauriers at this point. But I doubt that happens.

Other than those two things everything seems pretty rosy to me.

I think TM will be gone though if he starts to fuck with Schenn, Loktionov ,Toffoli etc. The organization has too much staked in the upcoming crop of more offensively capable prospects.

That is my feeling exactly. The idea that the Kings are somehow stuck with Murray’s limitations because Lombardi won’t change coaches is just nonsensical to me. Dean brought in Crawford to manage the team through the patch-the-holes-in-the-roof phase. He hired Murray to coach the team through the build-from-the-back-end phase. Now that Murray’s limitations are becoming apparent, I won’t be surprised if he hires another coach for the develop-the-offense-and-become-a-perennial-contender phase. But I think it likely that Murray gets one more year to prove himself, based on the success that he has already had with the team.

Purcell, Boyle and Molson are a different matter from Toffoli, Schenn and Loktionov, I think. The first three had the unfortunate luck to come along when the Kings were still in the build-from-the-back-end phase. They didn’t adapt, so they didn’t stick. The second group are coming along at a time when the team will focus on building out the offense; they will have a better chance to shine.

BTW, I would also suggest that Murray is aware that the pressure is on him now. He had two notable crack-ups this season: When he chewed out the home fans for booing the team, and when he chewed out Parse for convincing him to let him play vs. San Jose. I know that some of the LAKI gallery wanted to see more emotion out of him, but I roll my eyes at that. Murray’s most noted asset over the last couple of years was his cool and his patience. Late this season, we saw cracks in that. If his cool is not so awesome after all, then I’d say that limits his value to this team in a very obvious way. So, by letting the pressure get to him, he has, ironically, made it even less likely that he will be retained as coach.

Well i think the main problem is that it is suboptimal for a team in the process of developing a large pool of talented prospects to be implementing such a rigid system.

It’s useful for establishing a defensive structure and getting a young team to gel quickly, especially if, like a lot of young players talented enough to make it to the NHL, they’ve been able to get along on talent alone up to now. The problem is not that Murray’s system was wrong for the team when he was hired, nor that it’s any more inherently flawed than any other system, nor is it that he’s a bad coach.

The problem is that the Kings are at an inflection point in their development where Murray’s limitations as a coach may be having more impact than his strengths. What was good for the team as it was yesterday may not work for the team as it needs to be tomorrow.

A lot of people seem to believe that the case against is air-tight, and that Murray needs to go now. I’m not sold on the necessity. I think Murray is capable of learning from his mistakes, and no more slowly than most people — remember how he defended his decision to ride Quick like a rented mule, right up until the moment when he decided he had been wrong. Last summer, there was some skepticism that Bernier would get much of a chance to play based on how Murray had handled Ersberg. But that turned out to be mostly, if not all, wet.

I’m open to the argument that Kings would be better off with another coach, but there’s uncertainty any time you make a coaching change. Any time you fire a coach who has been successful for you, you better make sure that you have a better replacement lined up (remember the last time the Kings fired a coach named Murray). Otherwise you’re just spinning your wheels. I’m not sure that I’d pull the trigger this summer.

My guess is that Lombardi is inclined to let Murray ride out his contract, but that he’s evaluating — that’s why I would have loved to hear his exit interview. I imagine he hasn’t finished digesting this season yet (the way some of us apparently have come to a definitive judgment on what this season meant). If a coaching change is made, I’d be surprised if it came before August (which is when Crawford was fired and Murray hired, IIRC). And if Murray is fired, it will be an evaluation of where the team is in its development just as much as it is an evaluation of Murray himself.