Willie Desjardins must be launched into the Sun
- Thread starter Axl Rhoadz
- Start date
Herby
Now I can die in peace
Even though you have been saying that since before Blake arrived I'm sure some will accuse you of being a "Monday Morning QB" or "Hindsight is 20/20"
Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 23,304
- 18,959
I've been on the trade Carter train for the last two years. His game was heavily reliant on speed, players like that don't age gracefully.
That's what you as a FAN want to do....GMs, coaches, and players are paid to win hockey games....
You think a GM looking at his team being the #1 D in the league LAST YEAR, but needs scoring....is going to come in and do what....trade scoring? (Carter, Toffoli, Kempe, etc) trade defense?? (Martinez, Muzzin, Forbort etc)
Sure it looks good NOW to say hey he should have done something, but that's not taking into account that NO ONE saw the #1 defense in the league, turn into the 31st defense in the league.....
You absolutely would have a point if defense was 28th, offense was 28th, give him the first off season that he walked into, evaluate, tinker, try to acquire etc, 2nd off season team is 28th D 28th O, then yea, you can argue that SIGNIFICANT changes could/should have been made, that wasn't the case.
You're right, he should have stuck with Steve....oh wait, you were bitching about him......you do realize what the word interim means right?
Are people seriously bitching about the hiring of an INTERIM coach....?
Man....perspective all gets lost once you get on a message board....
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,395
- 11,330
Let them rave on, so others may know they are mad! LOL
Tough one for your Wolverines last weekend. Haskins was just head and shoulders above Patterson, and that was the difference.
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,395
- 11,330
Maybe Sturm didn't want the head coaching job at this time, or maybe Blake didn't want to tie Sturm directly to this season's s*** show?
Better for a coach like Sturm to get a fresh start with a new season.
Sol
Smile
- Jun 30, 2017
- 23,304
- 18,959
who knows? All I know for a fact they didn't get the best coach available, they could have tried out some up and coming coach instead of someone who's failed miserably everywhere he's went in his NHL career
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,395
- 11,330
It might seem like this is a good idea, but I think this roster is extremely flawed. They have the talent to be at a minimum a bubble team. If they were to overachieve, I would say maybe even win a round in the playoffs. I don't think it's a good idea to tie the anchor that is this roster to the ankle of someone who has never coached in the NHL and throw him in the deep end of the pool.
I think it's better, with this team and their crap attitude, to have Sturm sit back and observe and start to formulate plans on what he can do with this bunch going forward. That is if Sturm is going to be taking over next season.
Agreed, the real question will be is how much Blake listens to Sturm...if it gets to that point....
I don't think the roster is as flawed as you think it is, I think a change has to be made because it's stagnant, there's no heart there anymore etc,
Regardless Blake is going to have to make some changes ANYWAYS with the cap, having 6 million cap space and 14 under contract, that means people will be moved etc,
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
You can stop with this "perspective" stuff; however, if you want some real perspective then here you go:
1. Stevens was hired by Blake
2. Blake had to fire Stevens shortly into his second season
3. Blake hires Willie Desjardin, of all people
4. Team still plays like trash
If the roster isn't flawed, then a good coach should be able to turn things around. Blake didn't bring in a good coach, instead bringing a bad one in on an interim basis. The perspective now is now one of the following:
1. Blake realizes the roster is flawed so interim Willie it is.
2. Blake doesn't think the roster is flawed which means either
- He made a bad coaching hire
- He just totally punted on the season for a better
coach later
If he realizes the roster is flawed, then it is admitting he made a giant mistake in his two off-seasons by just rolling it back out there each season. If he still likes this team, then Willie is a horrible choice to try and salvage this season. In the end, however, this is a completely lost season for a "core" that is built upon old guys that will just be one year older and another year removed from doing anything of note as a team. He's wasted depreciating assets and another year of whomever he wants to keep from the "core". The only saving grace for him is going to be if they get a stud with a Top 3-4 pick, Vilardi doesn't retire and he makes the right coaching decision.
It is a complete and total failure by Blake to evaluate what this team really was. It's his job to do so successfully: he gets the blame and the praise as opposed to only the praise for signing UDFAs and keeping 1st round picks but none of the blame for what we are witnessing this season.
As for that coaching decision, I really don't have faith in Luc and Blake. I think these cool, hip LA guys got caught up in the "new" NHL and the belief that Sutter and DL were old dinosaurs that believed in a soon-to-be-extinct version of hockey. While the latter may be true, it doesn't mean that these two chuckleheads know a damn thing about how to implement advanced metrics, new systems and real forward thinking. Now they are probably going to eventually hire Sturm as the HC because he's young and, like, Sean McVay is all the rage right now. Maybe it is the right move and I'm in favor of not picking up a retread like Todd McClellan, but I just don't have faith in these two to lead the franchise because I think they are just trying to follow trends as opposed to having an actual clear vision.
First off, as an LA fan, I don't think anyone trust anyone to do anything good for the team, that's what 60 years now of ineptitude except the 8 year stint that was DL, so sure, I agree with you there.
But again, perspective is key to figuring out why Blake did or did not do, if you think that anyone saw the #1 team in defense turn into the #31 team in defense then we can just stop there because I can flat out guarantee you that NO ONE in the front office did, no one in the locker room did, and no other management saw that coming.
Until you can wrap your head around the fact that seeing that was flat out impossible, you can't pretend to understand exactly HOW he saw the team.
Keep in mind, neither you, nor I, nor anyone else here is in the room, knows what's being said or not being said, nor do any of us have the insight in PRO sports management. I take whatever coaches, managers etc say to the press with a grain of salt, some people on here believe it all, some don't believe any of it.
But knowing that Blake, Stevens, Desjardins, all the players there #1 goal is to win hockey games, not entertain you, not ask you for your opinion, to win hockey games, the moves Blake has made, have MADE SENSE. He looks at his #1 defensive team, determines, offense is needed, he gets offense without giving up picks or youth, it's a risk, sure, so is everything anyone does every day, he then watches his team turn into an absolute train wreck, his defensive team, turn to mush, can't defend peewee players let alone NHL players, he waits, gets information, determine a coaching change is needed, he sees whats out there, doesn't like what he sees, but knows something has to be done, fine, he finds a guy willing to gut it out, has the defensive structure that he thinks is needed, and out goes Stevens, in comes Desjardins....watches the team sputter again....out goes Pearson in comes Hagelin....and that is where we are.
We don't get the option to sim through to see what happens, we don't get the option to rewind and start over to try again, this isn't a video game.
It's perfectly reasonable to think like K17 does that changes should have been made 18 years ago, or whatever it is, the fact that they weren't doesn't mean it's a mistake, it's a difference of philosophy.
It's perfectly reasonable to realize that Blake thought his #1 defensive team would continue that trend, the fact that it didn't, doesn't mean it's an oversight on his part, hell I don't know of ANY GM that would look at last year's defensive team and go, holy shit I need to make wholesale changes because damnit, we were #1 on defense....
It's a moving thing and people are acting like it's one or the other
Choralone
Registered User
I can't criticize Blake for hiring Stevens. The organization had essentially promised him the job for years, and Blake rolled with it. I don't think there were any red flags that Blake should have seen before giving him the job. He fired him as quickly as he could while still identifying the coach he wanted (Sturm) and the coach he could get on short notice (our next cosmonaut). Yeah, coach Q was not coming to join this gong show.
Just curious,
When's the last time anyone has seen in the NHL a full blow up and rebuild....meaning a team that had RECENTLY won...and yes, 4-6 years is recent...recently won dismantle their team for a rebuild etc
When's the last time anyone has seen in the NHL a full blow up and rebuild....meaning a team that had RECENTLY won...and yes, 4-6 years is recent...recently won dismantle their team for a rebuild etc
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
If not making changes earlier winds up being a mistake, then it is both a mistake and the wrong philosophy.
Last year's team led the league in PK% while still being 13th overall in times shorthanded. That's a dangerous game to expect to post another 85% PK rate while taking a good amount of penalties, especially with a full year of old man Phaneuf. On top of that, LA's back-up goalies posted an insane record which one would not expect to carry-over either.
The main thing with relying on 2018 to judge a core that has been here for a long time is you are banking on another Hart-caliber campaign from Mr Hot/Cold Kopitar and for Brown to continue his resurgence. The 2017 team was 6th in the league in goals against so I don't care too much about looking at the the 2018 defense and thinking I can just add a wild card in Kovalchuk and everything will be roses.
Blake ignored 2015-17 and took 2018 at face value, much the way you are by looking back on a backdoor playoff appearance and swift 3-goals-in-4-games playoff exit by saying "But #1 defense in the league!" He did this because he wants to believe they are all the best parts of 2018 because that makes his job easy. Scoring could be better? Add scorer. Now we profit.
Well, they really aren't all the best parts of 2018. I don't disagree that most GMs wouldn't just do what he did but, you know, that is the real f***ing problem here. I don't want just any old GM that is going to do what every other GM would do. The organization can't say that they had to move on Blake because he is such an up-and-comer and they would lose him but then have him be just like any other old dude out there. What he's done so far doesn't paint him as some new savant or anything: he's pretty milquetoast while continuing the Kings tradition of bringing in former superstar/star players that are past their prime.
I agree that we are engineered to expect failure from this organization's management. It's why many of us balked when the Luc/Blake combo platter was announced. It is such a classic LA Kings move. They've done things differently one time and it led to two Cups. Now we're back to just bringing back former Kings to run the show.
I look forward to who Dustin Brown drafts at the 2035 draft. I hope he listens to head scout Kyle Clifford because I'd like a power forward with some edge at what I presume will be pick #13 in the first round.
LOL like the past bit there, sure it's not Nate Thompson scouting?
Anyways, I don't think Blake ignored 2015, 2016, 2017, and just took 2018 at face value, they were a top defensive team those 4 years, no expectations for them to turn into the last place club for defense, keep arguing that point, it's dead wrong.
He saw a need in scoring, and added scoring, he didn't sacrifice picks or youth. The issue isn't that he did the easiest thing possible, is that there was NO WAY TO TELL that the #1 defense would turn into the #31 defense overnight....
What he's done so far is show restraint and patience which is what you want in a GM, he's not even on the job 2 years, and everyone expects miracles...it's insane. Everyone agrees that the team is bad, the coaching is bad, yet in a span of 1.5 year you want Blake to clean it up with a magic wand?
Cmon...
KINGS17
Smartest in the Room
- Apr 6, 2006
- 32,395
- 11,330
Yeah, I will never understand the "no GM in the NHL would do that" drivel. That's why most GMs never win a Stanley Cup. The Kings won two cups with a GM who didn't really operate in "the norm". Outside of Doughty there are no generational talents on this team. Can that be said for the other recent winners? I think Lombardi had some very good players, but I think he knew he had to really change the culture to win something in LA.
BigKing
Blake Out of Hell III: Back in to Hell
Blake didn't agree as he obviously thought the team was good and the coach was good since he hired him to begin with. Hell, even the entire scouting department was good even though they hadn't drafted well in years.
Spending $6MM in cap on a 35 year old player is not showing restraint and patience unless you are talking about signing a 37 year old Rob Blake for mentoring purposes on a fully rebuilding team.
Regardless, you are confusing criticism of Blake for unrealistic expectations of Blake. Nobody expects him to waive a magic wand and have everything fixed; however, many of us expected him to do more than just keep draft picks and sign some prospects while the championship core continues to decline and, for the fifth straight year, come nowhere close to contending for a title.
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
To do what?
Look at what you just typed FFS, you literally have it there..... Blake thought the team was good? I wouldn't go that far, I think he believed the holes were on offense....that the defense was good....everyone in the league thought that......and that the offense needed a boost.
Spending 6M on cap and not giving up a 1st or 2nd, or a JAD or Vilardi to acquire scoring, THATS restraint...now you are just trying to be obtuse.....
After 2017-2018 where your defense was the best in the league and your offense was not....what exactly would you want him to do?
King'sPawn
Enjoy the chaos
- Jul 1, 2003
- 21,970
- 21,055
The issue is the mixed messages.
If WD wants to punish Kovalchuk for not being strong defensively, that's fine. However:
- There have been multiple discussions about the Kings wanting to open things up. So punishing your best offensive player who opens things up is confusing.
- Kovalchuk isn't the only player playing sloppy defense. So it feels like he's being singled out.
- WD said the reason LaDue sat for so long is because a player had to get injured/play himself off the roster. He didn't want to scratch a guy and ruin his confidence. Where does playing a guy 6:20 do?
I get WD wants to win games. I just question his overall judgment and I think there's a major clash in philosophy. The Kings are struggling offensively, and they sit the biggest offensive catalyst because they don't know what to do with him?
It just doesn't make sense and I don't know what coaching and management are thinking.
If WD wants to punish Kovalchuk for not being strong defensively, that's fine. However:
- There have been multiple discussions about the Kings wanting to open things up. So punishing your best offensive player who opens things up is confusing.
- Kovalchuk isn't the only player playing sloppy defense. So it feels like he's being singled out.
- WD said the reason LaDue sat for so long is because a player had to get injured/play himself off the roster. He didn't want to scratch a guy and ruin his confidence. Where does playing a guy 6:20 do?
I get WD wants to win games. I just question his overall judgment and I think there's a major clash in philosophy. The Kings are struggling offensively, and they sit the biggest offensive catalyst because they don't know what to do with him?
It just doesn't make sense and I don't know what coaching and management are thinking.
Herby
Now I can die in peace
Have the coaches of my 2 teams running systems straight out of the 1990's.
Like my college roommate said, "We brought a knife to a gun fight, and we will spend the next 364 days working on sharpening the knife for next year"... same could be said of the Kings the last 5 years.
I am toxic
. . . even in small doses
It's a mystery. Broken into a jigsaw puzzle. Wrapped in a conundrum. Hidden in a Chinese box. A riddle.
Agree on your first bullet point,
Kovalchuk isn't just sloppy D...that would be an upgrade...it's no D and lately no work ethic no hustle....
Huge difference between LaDue and Kovalchuk just as with LaDue and Phaneuf, you aren't going to ruin Kovalchuks confidence because one game he played 6:20 or Phaneuf's because he sat for a youngster etc.
