Murray, on defense

I wish he would actually get specific a little. Other than, "Defense first" and "checking is important" he doesn't say much to this matter.

I'm glad that he sees his style as successful, but man, that is more beating around the bush than DL has ever done.

Nothing he said is wrong, but hey Murray, next time, bring the computer.

Either way, I guess its ultimately only important for the players to know the specifics of the system. I'm sure we'll all figure it out after we've seen a few games.

Still, it would have been nice to hear something even as simple as "I like to play a 1-2-2, or zone coverage, or man on man, or something. Maybe the rest of the sections will have more elaboration.

Thanks Rich for plugging away at the seemingly never ending slew of quotes from the breakfast! I, we, all love it.

JDM -

I think the lack of detail has more to do with the venue than "beating around the bush." Although we would of course love it, I can also see it regarded as some kind of mental illness if he had come in with his laptop and his diagrams, like the SNL joke of Al Gore with his lecturing state of the unions. Or think of the way players and the press and some fans viewed Andy Murray with his homework assignments (I loved Andy Murray).

Also, remember that he hasn't met a lot of his players yet. I don't think he really wants them learning about his system from a blog.

Defense, as a concept, is not especially complicated. But.
If a player's dedication to a system is a knob with settings from one to ten -- ten being total commitment and one being, you know, Petr Klima -- the coach has to show that the difference between a team average of 10 and a team average of 9 is the difference between the playoffs and not. Murray has to convince them that solid defense (from all six players) creates more scoring chances, puts you in the offensive zone more, gives you the puck more, wears down the other team, thus fewer hits against your body, more room for you to skate, more power plays (due to your opponent's frustration and mental mistakes from fatigue). Plus, you have more in the tank because you aren't running around trying to "make things happen." The system makes things happen.

Players, especially offensively gifted players, can't be faulted for making the calculation: "how much [laziness/deviation from the system/doing my own thing] can I get away with in order to maximize my output (i.e. scoring)?" The coach's job is to convince his offensive players that the defensive system will not cause their numbers to go down, but up.

The key of course is that the amount of deviation needs to be, effectively, zero. The aforementioned knob needs to be at 10 for everyone. Fortunately, the Kings are young and Kopitar is a coach's son. Because typically, coaches that attempt to dicipline grown-up millionaires find themselves with a mutiny on their hands (see Ftorek, Robbie).

petr klima...nice. at least he was good for OT winners.

Quisp

It's great when you share your knowledge and the dynamics of the game. You give an inside view of things, that I think is important for all us Kings fans to understand.

Defense is a mindset. You have to me mentally strong and be in fabulous shape to play good defense. Do you guys think, that's why DL went to such extremes in youth. Dedication both mentally and physically will be demanded, where youth, usually serves you better.

Another question Quisp, I know how defensive schemes work in other sports, but not in hockey, so my question is, can you implement you're style (X's and O's) of defense regardless of personal strengths and weaknesses or do you put in a system according to the players you have?

I vote for Quisp for head coach.

Quisp, you definately hit the nail on the head in terms of overall importance regarding defense.

I hope and do think that Murray understands this (as we would hope all coaches would, but clearly don't or can't follow through with).

I guess I was frustrated that Murray's comments here seemed nearly word for word from Rich's earlier interview with him. Can't blame Murray for that though, different audience, different venue as you said, and when asked the same questions over and over most everyone tends to give the same answer over and over.

Duckhunter, to take a stab with my lesser amount of hockey experience at your question. I would think the players need to fit the system regardless. System comes first. I see it in Detroit all the time. While they do draft specific molds of players and acquire in the same manner, they seem to fit everyone and anyone into their system. Those that don't fit get traded, but those are few and far between. I think a good system allows for different types, styles and skills of players however. As a coach you would still want to maximize talents within the system. Could be somewhat of a chicken or egg thing, but I really do think the system is both the chicken and the egg and the players are the chicks in between.

Well, it has been said that certain systems (e.g. traps) are the great equalizers in terms of the (lack of) talent necessary to implement them. Even though that's usually the sour grapes of the trapping team's opponents, I am not a big fan of traps and like rule changes that make trapping harder. Generally though, your defensive style would of course vary depending not only depending on your team's abilities (i.e. some teams have the skills to play a so-called puck possession game, some don't), but on the abilities of each line, or even on the abilities of each opponent. Some coaches change the plan depending on the opponent, some play the same way regardless and let the opponent change to fit them.

Crawford's system (activated d) showed the problem with attempting to implement a coach's style regardless of the personnel. The Kings simply did not have the discipline under Crawford, or cohesiveness, to make that system work. It's a system where one mistake can kill you. Whereas it's obviously possible to play a "game" where there is lots of redundancy built in, where it's not the first mistake, but the second one, or third one, that causes a goal against. In that sense, a more traditional "old school" defense is more protective of weak links. Ideally, with six players playing defense as a unit, any weak links in effect soak up defensive "powers" from the more skilled players. You know, like what happens when players backcheck.

JDM ,let me ask you this, Detroit's system is already in place, so bringing in players to fit their system is a little easier, but what if you trying to establish a system, do you use the same concept.

Duckhunter,

Again, speaking from no hockey experience other than viewing the game (I've tried to skate well enough to play... but alas, I am lame), I would think a similar concept would apply. In general I'm never a fan of hard and fast sticking to any one thing. There are always adjustments to be made and variables to be accounted for. In regards to trying to establish a system it seems to me like it is heavily important to bring in a system that the players need to buy into (obviously), but that you need to evaluate the types and skills of the players at your disposal and then based on that adjust the system to allow for those types to fit in. So it's kind of neither forcing players to fit into the system or basing the system off the players. Its starting with a system that is a solid foundation of concept and theory and then adjusting that to the specifics of Xs and Os based on the roster.

I mean, you can't lead players to believe that if they don't like the system they can just do their own thing. But on the other hand you can't alienate a player if he isn't best suited for your system.

A specific example I guess would be something like this:

Going off of Murray's first few sentences about forechecking and F1, F2 and all that. He outlined a basic system. So take a line like Brown-Kopitar-O'Sullivan. Personally, I would take that system and say ok Brown, since he's the hard-nosed player, is first in with the dump and establishes the forecheck. Kopitar is next in to gobble up the loose puck Brown creates, being a skill player giving him more room and players on either side (Brown already up ice, and O'Sullivan and the D bringing up the rear) to pass to and make a play. O'Sullivan, being the most defensively responsible forward in the 3rd man in, allowing him to read the play and jump into the slot for a pass if we have control, or to put on the breaks and start a back-check or intercept a pass if the opposition comes out with the puck.

That may have made no sense... I apologize if that's the case. I like to think I know what I'm talking about, but that isn't necessarily the case =).

Thanks boys for your thoughts and input. The reason I was asking those specific questions, was because I really (on paper) don't see our personnel fitting into Murray's style of hockey. Just curious, thanks again.

I like the idea, Quisp for head coach. Or at least have your own Kings pre-game show for the fans. That would be a hoot.

In fairness to last year's coaching staff--

They lost most of training camp to the European road trip and the Kings have less time to practice because they must spend more time traveling. At the beginning of last year, the players looked confused at their zone coverages and a little lost on defense. Part of it was a new system, but part of it was probably lack of coaching time.

But towards the end of last year, which coincided with Ersberg, they seemed to figure out the zone: concede the shot from the far angles and cover the middle. The goalie covers the easy shots.

I remember one play early in the year when Dustin Brown and some defenseman I cannot remember which got confused over how far back Brown should come on defense. Both looked kinda lost. And I recall the same type of situation late in the year where both players knew exactly how far back Brown would come into the defense zone to help cover before he turned back to the point. The latter play went quicker and I'm sure was easier on the players--they knew what to do.

Just saying lack of good results is not always lack of effort (or coaching). the players have to learn the zone coverages, which takes playing the coverages with one another for a time and suffering through the inevitable mistakes on the learning curve. Not that I enjoy being a fan and watching players miss assignments so some lame ass forward can do a war dance on our head.

Head coach. Ha ha ha ha ha ha. if anything, I might make a good pee-wee coach. Come to think of it, they're pretty head-strong. Better make it squirts. Yeah, I could probably handle squirts.

Duckhunter --

re whether or not the current Kings fit that kind of system:

I think they do in the following sense: the biggest star on the team is a coach's son. The team is young and therefore coachable. DL has stockpiled leaders. Leaders "get it." They are coachable almost by definition.

I really think that the current defense (assuming we add someone in the next two weeks) + a coherent system + coaches who value defense, will prove to be an improvement over last year's d + activating system + Crawford.

Of course, I am optimistic to a fault.

Quisp

Have you ever coached a hockey team or any team? I've coached a few, here and there and it is a blast. Some of these kids are amazing. Not only are they head-strong, their pretty darn good as well. Also, when you get to old to compete, it helps to ease the pain.:-)

I enjoy your optimism, it's contagious.

I agree with you on the system part of the defense. Team def. is a must to be successful. I'm really nervous about the "parts" we're using, but am excited, to see the system in place and working.

I agree with the "leaders",and the kids being coachable, but not all the "players" are in play just yet. It's going to take a few more years for this to come together. But when it does, look out!!

Who's getting the fantasy league together?