Murray speaks

I hope MURPHY changes some line combinations.
Frolov-Handzus-Simmonds played well last night.

But Stoll-POS-Moller and eespecially Brown-Kopi-Brown, showed little to no chemistry.

Defense & goaltending rocked though.

Things are coming together, players are playing to their potential. If we have a couple players have career years I see us battling for a playoff spot. I like the character and tenacity I see, the grit, the toughness. So much different than Crows version. Even If they dont battle for the playoffs, if they compete every night like they have up until now, I will applaud every night.

Wow, what a 3rd period and OT. It is amazing what a coach with a system in place can do to make players look better. Handzus notwithstanding, who is clearly better due to his health. Priessing and the rest of the D look much more comfortable out there. This team looks way more cohesive after four games with Murray than two years with Crow. Crow's winning formula was " Lets throw Sakic, Roy and Forsberg out there and see what happens" He has been a bust everywhere else. He would have mercilously berated the Kings in the locker room after that 2nd period last night and I bet the team would've responded poorly (See last year)Murray on the other hand, probably employed constructive criticism and pointed out where they were falling out of playing their system and encouraged them to work hard and stick to it and see where the pucks fall.
It is just my supposition,of course but it appears to me that was what took place. If it did, that is one helluva way to keep your team buying into what you are saying and your system. I initially thought Murray was a questioable hire but it looks like DL made a great choice there. The hope for this season seems to increase for me with every game. Hey we're only a couple of disallowed goals away from being 3-1 against 3 solid teams

The only disappointment I have so far this season is the play of Bryan Boyl. He can be so much better if he does the little things out there on the ice. He looks lost out there some times. And looks out of position and reacts late to plays. He should just look at what Simonds is doing. That kid plays the game simple and look at the tremendous success he is having so far this season. It is a shame to have such a gift of size and not utilize it for your benefit or the teams. Boyl, get your head out of the sand and play a simple game, that’s all.

Roger

so Anthony wasn't watching the game obviously because the kopitar, brown, MOULSON (we don't have 2 browns)line scored 2 goals.....how is there no chemistry there, the lines looked fine. if it isn't broke, don't fix it

At one point in the second period the game was 1-3 Carolina and I thought everyone would be calling for Labarbara's head, and sending Moller, Simmonds, and Boyle to Manchester. For the first time the Kings looked like they may just pack it in and take the loss and move on to the next game.

Again the Spirit of this young team picked it up after a few moments of shock, and really positioned themselves to win the OT game. Frolov and Zues had great individual games and seem to be a perfect fit and they stole this game back by building on the great TEAM effort and outstanding play especially by O'Sullivan.

Unlike many, I thought Quincey was merely serviceable and still regret Harrold wasn't given an opportunity to build upon his first strong performance.

I think I saw a Moller-Zues-Frolov pairing on one power play and would like to see more of it. Stoll centering Simmonds and O'Sullivan, and Boyle as a winger with Kopi and Brown are some experiments I'd like to see.

O'Donnel was great tonight and settled the whole game. Doughty is just great and if we had more depth at defense would be lighting it up from the back i think. The only flaw in his game is a possible lack of speed. Is he slow or was he just caught out after a long shift a couple times?

Quisp - I have to credit you with believing in these young guys like Moller and Simmonds. I was very pessimistic on their readiness and ability and I think they've looked strong. Now when you say Loktionov, Voijnov, and Hickey I'm feeling hopeful.

This is the Handzus I remember from Philadelphia. He's got a great partner out there in Frolov who is just sooooo talented. I know its great to sign players for the long term like Greene, but Brown, Kopi, Frolov, O'Sullivan, Johnson, and Doughty are the difference makers. These players should never be lost. Their talents are irreplaceable. I can't help but wish Visnovsky was still here to be a part of this. I think Lubo would be incredible paired with Doughty.

cheers

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but the Kings have played their best hockey since JJ went down with injury (including the 3rd period of the home opener). I'm not even suggesting that JJ is a bust by any stretch of the imagination, but I will say that I'm not buying the hype yet. Doughty has impressed me more in 4 games then JJ has in his 80+ games. Sure, they don't play the same type of game, but based on the hype surrounding both players, Doughty seems far more composed. The fact that he's only 18 blows my mind.

Unrelated but worth mentioning, I really hope management is addressing the problems with the ice. Looked like they were playing with a ball last night. Despite the fact that the Canes out-hustled the Kings in the 2nd period, those 3 goals were garbage. Too bad we didn't get Edmonton's ice crew along with Stoll and Greene!

money - I don't know if Moulson was on for Kopitar's goal. I believe O'Sullivan was out there to keep the puck in the zone just as Carolina were about to clear the zone. On Brown's goal I cannot remember if Moulsen was on, either. I do think Moulsen is a little outclassed on that line, but if the team isn't losing, it's not imperative a change be made. Moulsen has some good qualities and maybe the more he plays, the more comfortable he'll get trying to use what he's got. Heck, even Willsie scored 20 some odd goals playing with Ovechkin, right?

money - I believe for both Brown and Kopi's goal O'Sullivan was on the ice with them. Scratch that, positive. O'Sullivan helped keep the puck in on Kopi's goal and crashed the net, barely missing out on an assist whereas he got the first assist on Brown's goal and can be seen jumping out of the way of Brown's shot.

cristo - If Lubo were here I think he and Greene would make an oustanding top pairing. I'll always miss Lubo, even if Doughty or Hickey effectively replaces him, but it is looking like we at least got good value for Lubo. We are paying (starting next year) about an extra million to have two players who have already shown tey can contribute well in the way they were brought in to do. I only hope Stoll isn't as inconsistent as he has been. First game he looked miserable. Second, decent. Third outstanding. Last night a little meh but not bad.

Murray is so the right man for this team. I just love that he doesn't seem to give a crap about his hair. Maybe that was the problem last year, Crow's slick hair was creating blinding reflections whenever players skated by the bench, and the hair gel suffocated them while they were on the bench.

JDM - Excellent memory. Now I remember O'Sullivan jumping over Brown's rocket in the 2nd.

Also, totally agree about Stoll and Greene. Greene was on for a couple of the goals against, i think, but I'm happy to have him and Stoll has been exactly like you said. Teusday he was a centerpiece, last night he was like the plate's, knives, and forks; you didn't notice him changing the game, but he was instrumental and played an instrumental part.

I've also got to say that the interview with Racheal Hunter made me smile and its great to have a couple doing charitable things for kids of their own accord. I don't know what she and he are really like, but anyone who takes the time to do something selfless and kind for someone else is ok in my book.

cheers

JDM... in absolute agreement about the reflectivity of Crows hair and its affect on the teams performance... it was evern worse than melroses 1994 shoulder length grease-mullet...

Roger... Boyle is a much better player than what we've seen so far... BOYLE NEEDS MORE ICE TIME... and a more skilled line to play with... Boyle will do NOTHING if hes to play with army and ivanans all season... if Boyle plays with Moulson and Simmonds/Moller I see a super-cycle, offensive zone dominating line and Boyle with 25 goals by seasons end...

Nick, great point about Boyle. I'd really like to see that rookie line given a shot.

I think the Kings look like they have the best 4 young forwards in the game, as a group. Kopitar, Brown, O'Sullivan, and Frolov. I have a hard time finding a better group of 4 young hockey players. Thank You Dave Taylor for the 3 you drafted, and Thank You Lombardi for acquiring O'Sullivan. I think he's showing incredible ability to play AND lead.

I agree with Nick in 318.Boyle needs better players around him, and put him in front of the net on power plays, then he will be a large asset to the Kings.

Rich- I noticed something last night on Carolina's first goal of the game that kinda bothers me and I was wondering if you or anyone would shed some light on this. Preissing is praised by Murray, however if you look at the replay, you'll notice that although Preissing has the position on the dump in by the 'Canes, he allows the Carolina player to just skate past him, pick up the puck and move it on behind Barbs. A couple of passes later, it ends up in the back of the net. Was Preissing not supposed to go after the puck or was he just shying away from the physical play? I thought last year he seemed not willing to take the hit to make a play on more than a few occasions which is why I'm not as impressed as Murray is with his play.

Old Man and Nick, Boyle had just over 4 minutes of ice time last night. Even Parros had over 9 minutes in the Ducks victory over San Jose where the got 3 goals from defensemen. Boyle is getting Tukonen-like minutes. Its awfully hard to get involved in a game from the bench.

Good to see you posting again Nick.

I agree that with better linemates Boyle will be more effective, but I also don't think he will be given that opportunity unless he uses however many minutes he gets, whether it be 4 or 40, to show that he can play feisty and use his size to his advantage.

I think everyone knows he is a skill player, so I don't think it's a matter of Murray not knowing he can be effective on the PP or a better line, but rather that he needs to earn those minutes first.

He may be more talented than Simmonds, but Simmonds flies out there and plays 5 inches taller and 10lbs heavier than he is. Boyle really does not look 6'7" at all out there. It'll be interesting to see how much time they give him. I have a feeling that if Moller sticks after his 9 game tryout is up, then Boyle is headed back to the AHL in favor of Purcell.

Now Boyle may never be a huge hitter or anything, but at the very least he could work on his balance and not allow himself to get muscled off the puck by guys half his size. That has nothing to do with his linemates and only to do with Boyle.

That said a Moulson-Boyle-Purcell line would be pretty exciting. It will be interesting also to see how Moulson reacts if he has permanently lost his place on the 1st line. So we see Moulson-Stoll-Moller I guess? That line sounds too small. So perhaps Moulson losing his spot will help Boyle. Since it seems the Fro-Zues-Simmonds line is here to stay, perhaps we see Moulson-Stoll-Boyle? That leaves Moller out to dry with Army and Ivanans. I wouldn't be surprised if Boyle is scratched in favor of Richardson on Monday either.

JDM - I don't think anyone can be criticized if they only get 4 minutes. Even if he thought to himself, "I got outworked last shift and need to get more physical" he has to get back on the ice to do it. 4 minutes is the equivalent of 2, maybe 3, shifts. Its impossible. I can only say that he should possibly be put on the 2nd line with Moller and Simmonds, for at least 1 period. If he's able to play HIS game and learn how to control the game by using his size for puck possession, like Joe Thornton, he could turn into a cornerstone of the franchise. Maybe he'd work on the wing with Frolov and Handzus? 3 giants that have soft hands. They wouldn't exactly punish other teams physically, but they could spend entire periods in the offensive zone cycling the puck and totally frustrating the other team. Boyle is large, but he shouldn't be expected to be a 4th line grinder just because of it. There have been plenty of big men that were not bruisers. Ron Francis, Pierre Turgeon, Malkin, Penner, Rich Nash, and even Thornton (though he's a bit mean when he wants to be).

Its great we're discussing options rather than pulling our hair out because of futility, though, isn't it?

cheers

Cristo- it is definately much more fun this way.

I think you're missing part of the point about Boyle tho. No one is asking him to be a bruiser, but all those players you mentioned use their size in a way Boyle doesn't. Joe Thorton whether he plays one shift or twenty is going to like you said use his size for puck possession. Boyle hasn't done that through 4 games. I believe he was getting cloer to 7-10 minutes the first 3. Still not a ton of minutes I know, but if he went out there and for 30 seconds controlled the puck in any zone, letting a couple of guys bounce off of him, he would see his minutes increase, not diminish. The thought of a Fro-Zeus-Boyle line is intruiging, but that line aint broke, so don't fix it. Really most of the lines are working pretty well. It is not in the team's best interest to break up a good thing for Boyle's sake, so he truly has to show with every second of ice time he gets that he deserves to be there, and honestly as much as I love the guy and want to see him thrive like everyone else, I don't think he has done that. He should be going into the game thinking "the second I step on that ice I'm going to make my presense known." He hasn't. If not for the number on his back I'd have no idea he even played 4 minutes.

I was watching last night's game with my dad, who is less familiar with all the new players. He asked during the third "Whose 22?" "I said Boyle, our 6'7" player." He looked and didn't believe me that he was so tall until after the whistle and Boyle was standing next to Armstrong. He doesn't play to his size, and a guy that size should. He's at the start of his career, so not getting top 6 minutes this year won't destroy his skill set. Forcing him to work and work on a big part of his game that is missing will only help him down the line so that when Stoll and Handsuz' contracts come up, he can step into that 2nd line center role and truly dominate.

But I agree in essence with one thing you said, "Boyle is large, but he shouldn't be expected to be a 4th line grinder just because of it."

This is really the main issue here. Do they just expect him to be a 4th line grinder or is this an NHL gameplay version of a conditioning assignment in a way?

If they think that is the role he is best in, then I have to agree that would be ludicrous misusage of the him. However, if he is being groomed on the 4th line to utilize all his assets, just like was done to Brown and O'Sullivan and Moulson last year, then he needs to be there to learn how to do the other little things.

Also, we don't know what goes on in practice so much. They could be telling him to do this and that and he doesn't even do it there. I have heard this same criticism about not using his size about Boyle before.

I hate to come off like I'm totally ragging on Boyle, but really it's because I want to see more out of him, more of what we saw last year in that short stint, more of what I heard about in Manchester. Sure he will LOOK better playing with Frolov, but will he BE better? The way he has played so far I don't think so. I think he clearly needs to learn how to be the most effective individual he is. Just like Frolov made Army look MUCH better than Army is, Boyle should help make Army look better as well. Again, my best point here is the fact that Boyle has been knocked off the puck so easily so often, which has zero to with the play of his linemates.

I'm still high on Boyle, but he's dissapointing me right now.

I personally like the fact that Murray isn't playing the fourth line much. I've never understood why coaches love to roll four lines, especially on teams that are top-heavy with talent. Let the best players play the most.

Sure, I would like to see more of Boyle, but not at the expense of Kopi, Brown, Sully, Frolov et al.

Come to think of it, Rich, can you settle this by getting coach Murray to comment on Boyle and his role with the team?

So far he has been pretty candid with his feelings about the players and their performance.

Good points JDM and JonG. Just keep in mind that Thornton took a long time to find out how to use his talent and size, and that he's able to possess the puck because he's playing with Cheechoo and ?, not Armstrong and Ivanans. I also have to say I agree that 4 lines during a hockey game can be a little bit much. I don't think its too much to ask that a professional forward average 20 minutes of playing time a game.

It would be nice to hear what Murray says about Boyle and his role. If he's a big, talented center, I want him to do it in LA, not somewhere else where they need a 2nd or 3rd line center.

Great points by all. 2 things

We would not have Greene if we still had Lubo. The Oilers really miss Greene. Lubo has been paired with Souray and the play was fast and fruitful, but Lubo is getting tossed around like a rag doll. Giordano hit Lubo as hard if not harder than Brown's hit on Pahlson. Lubo is not going to last the season unless the Oilers get some muscle.

Second, I still think Boyle is struggling with his defensive assignments. He is not going to get many more minutes until he can handle/understand the D side of the ice. He could benefit from working one on one against Handzus for 5 minutes each practice.

Great game last night, I might be throwing a little cold water on the enthusasm here though.

It's 4 games into the season and there has been only a little bit of consistancy here:
1) New defensive system is working (Unbelievable Improvement over last season)
2) Handzus and his line (best so far)
3) Doughty (Some of you still want Stamkos)
4) Penalty Kill (amazing)

Labarbara has made some great saves, but he has gave up some bad rebounds that could have been goals if not for our defense or a bad shot by the other team. I'd like to see Ersberg get a start.

I actually agree with cristobal and anthony on the first line, I don't think Moulson is bad, he's a first year guy, but Kopi, Sully, and Brown simply change the whole game when they're out there.

As for Boyle, this kid has talent, he belongs in the NHL, he won't be impressive on the 4th line, but needs to outplay Stoll to move up, he hasn't, so he'll need to keep trying

I give props to thus that defended Handzus this past summer. As we pointed out, he could play better and now he is. For those that were so pessimistic and you know who you are, I hope you learned a lesson about the effects of an ACL tear and how that can affect a professional athlete.

Lastly, this team is not a playoff team until we can be more competitive against the elite teams, we got schooled by San Jose and beat a Ducks team playing terribly and Canes team that missed playoffs last year. Let hope they continue to grow quickly, because I really miss the playoffs too

Dellanooch - I was one of the critics of Handzus. I've never had a torn ACL and have no idea what it does to these athletes. I'm delighted that Handzus has made me eat my words and is playing like he was with Philly 'n Phoenix. I'm not saying I wish I didn't make them, I think criticism can motivate, but this is the player he was acquired to be. He's much more than a checking center.

By the way, I don't think Moulsen has been poor, I just think its important to group one complete line that is going to take the game over, like O K B did last night.

I have made a big point of pointing out Dave Taylor's great moves, but Denis Grebeshkov is making that trade-deadline deal for Parrish and Sopel look real bad. It would be great to have Grebeshkov here as part of this rebuild. He's influenced Edmonton's great start, on the stat sheets at least.

Totally in agreement about Grebeshkov. I liked him when I first saw him and hoped he would develop here, because the raw potential was so clear. I hated that trade the second I heard it. Glad he is succeeding though, just wish it was for us. At leas thte Visnovsky trade I saw the upside of and reasons for, but that trade didn't make any sense.

Sobering post DellaNooch, you're definately not wrong. But the impact of #1 on your list is worth its weight in gold. So is the PK improvement. Let's not forget that Ducks and Wild have made the playoffs recently based almost entirely on defense and goaltending. Labarbera has not been amazing, but he has been solid. The rebounds are horrible, but hey, if the defense can clean up after him regularly, it'll do. Though I also want to see Ersberg start soon.

I believe the Ducks made the playoffs last year while scoring the second fewest goals in the league if I remember correctly, right with teams like St. Louis and the Islanders. Difference was that St. Louis and the Islanders played a 'score, score, score, pounce, pounce pounce' brand of hockey, whereas the Ducks took care of their own end.

Dellanooch, I was also one who thought Handzus played very poorly last year. But saying that, doesn't make me a pessimist, I'm just speaking the truth. I also questioned Priessing, and I also questioned all the youth. But what I will also do, is praise you when you deserve it. I will hug you when you do well and kick you in the butt when you don't. On the most resent posts I have given my praises to all the people above. I am happy they are doing well and wish them continued success. I don't mean any disrespect when I write, I just write what I see.

JDM - I think the Kings did too much of bring a prospect up for 4 -6 games and send them back to Manchester or Phoenix RRs in the past. I think it's pretty clear that Taylor wanted desperately to make the playoffs that last year. The Parrish/Sopel deal was him knowing that if they fell short, he was gone. I always wished they'd have kept Grebeshkov with the team because he ALWAYS looked capable.

Part of what IS great about this years team is that these guys aren't going back unless its really clear they aren't ready. I think even the Noah Clakes and Connor Jamses might be able to have challenged for a spot this year - they never looked poor when given a few shifts. Part of this year will be patience, and its better to see Boyle given a shot, even if its on the 4th line, than it is to see Guliano or Zeiler or Chartrand, all of whom have more limited potential despite their GIANT hearts.

It is great to see Grebeshkov doing well, so far, though. Also, I thought Kablerle, another bad decision to trade him, was outstanding last night. Very understated, but so smart and so smooth. If Carolina ever puts him on the block I would hope Lombardi would take a look.

cheers

JDM- Good to be back... I hope to soon be challenging you for supremecy amongst the blogger gods...

#1. Ersberg needs a shot to show he can outplay Babby... his rebound control is a huge difference; a difference that will mean we win a game in overtime rather than lose by 1 goal with 4:23 left in the game on a bad goal... which we've all seen happen with Babs. given, he has been alot better this season, but i'm still not about to jump on the 'Babs for vezina' bandwagon...

#2. I agree about Grebeshkov... wouldve liked to've seen him come through our system and be a stable member of our defensive core... I still think the NHL has yet to see the best of him.

#3. and most importantly... a SOLUTION to the 4th LINE ISSUE WITH BOYLE... how about making the 4th line a productive 4th line... how about having a 4th line that can score and out play the crap out of any other 4th line in the league... how about dropping armstrong and ivanans... let ivanans be the 'healthy scratch' most nights, unless there is a definate need for a fistacuffer... (i mean, how many nights does ivanans NOT get into a fight) instead... why not put Boyle at Center, with Richardson and Clune (when he's healthy) or call up Purcell... perhaps see if we can throw Calder in and salvage his spot on the roster... make the 4th line useful... a hard forechecking, grinding, able to bang in some goals kind of line...

#4. Put Boyle on the PP... the man was born to stand infront of the net... and he's got the hockey sense and hands to be able to hold his own along the boards or behind the net...
-1st PP forwards- Brown/Kopi/Sully
-2nd PP forwards- Fro/Boyle/Zeus-Moller-Moulson

your thoughts? Bring it on JDM

Nick - I wouldn't mind seeing a 4th line juggled around a bit. There's no reason every line can't be an offensive danger. Though I have no "Clune" experience, so I don't know if he should be the one.

Boyle:

Boyle does appear to be in school right now. The subjects are, learn your defensive assignments and use your body (a.k.a. become mean). That said, he's not going to show much of last year's spark while playing on a line with Army and Ivanans. Boyle's previous chemistry was with Moulson and Purcell. I would expect to see them together at some point, with Clune thrown in there. The only potential stumbling block I see is that Murray appears to like to limit the fourth line's ice time, rolling three lines and then throwing the fourth line in every couple of cycles. That suggests that Boyle would have to play his way off the fourth line, but it seems unlikely (barring inj**y) that he would be outplaying Kopitar, Handzus or Stoll any time soon. Maybe Stoll, but I doubt it. Stoll is getting the ice time and has shown flashes of his old self. Boyle has shown nothing.

I do think, though, that Nick in 318 is right that the idea of the fourth line needs to be rethought. Maybe "needs to be" is a little strong. I do think we will be seeing Purcell and Clune in a few weeks. If the top two lines solidify as Brown/Kopitar/POS, Frolov/Handzus/Simmonds (I know Murray calls this line the third line, but I'm sticking with calling it #2 -- especially since it conforms exactly with my preseason prediction that Handzus would return to form and claim the #2 center spot -- hee hee), that leaves lines #3 and #4 to look like this (of course, this is my wishful thinking and reflects my own prejudices, but hey...):

Purcell / Stoll / Moller
Moulson / Boyle / Richardson

Clune and Ivanans as forwards #13 and 14, subbing in for Richardson as needed, and sometimes for Richardson and (maybe) Moulson or Purcell.

I just realized the problem with all this and what is going to need to happen before this can be a reality: Calder is waivable, and will be waived, I think, because no one is going to pick up his salary, and if they do, yippie. But Armstrong has value for the Kings, his salary is low and he is good in his role, so if they were to waive him they would lose him, and they don't want to lose him. Richardson is in a similar position; I get the feeling DL likes this kid and doesn't want to send him down, knowing that he wouldn't make it through waivers. Yes, he's been outplayed by Moller and Simmonds, which of course is what you call a "champagne problem," but that doesn't mean DL isn't going to need Richardson (at least as a trade asset) down the road. Therefore, I think inj**ies may dictate when we see Purcell and Clune, more than anything else. If no one gets hurt, DL will be put in the position of losing an asset he doesn't want to lose. And we all know how DL loves his chess pieces.

It's interesting how different people can have different opinions about a player. My recollection of Grebeshkov is that he was pretty weak on his skates and always a threat to fall down while skating backward. Of course Steve Duchesne had a pretty good career and he often fell down while skating backward.

My other memory of Grebeshkov is that he was very highly touted by Kings management. Perhaps that's why his early deficiencies left such an impression on me.

At any rate, I'm glad for him if he's doing well with Edmonton.

JonG - My memories of Grebeshkov with the Kings were of a good skater that had an above average ability of passing forward from the back. I think the Kings wanted him to make an immediate offensive impact on the score-sheet at the time and would only have kept him up if he exploded into the league. At the time they had guys like Miller, Holland, Dempsey etc. and I dont' think it would have been too much of a drop-off, if any, to have given him a permanent spot. He only ever played 12 games for the Kings and was minus - 12. Not impressive, but hey, it was the Kings in '03 - '04, massive injury problems and just after losing Boucher because he was too expensive (?).

Cristobal - You're probably right about Grebeshkov. However I do distinctly remember several plays where he was completely overmatched. I think the real problem was that he didn't have the instantaneous success that I expected, based on the hype from Kings management.

Boy I had entirely forgotten about Nathan Dempsey. Was that only five years ago? Hopefully it will only take me five years to forget about Brian Willsie.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/LAK/2004.html

JonG - Click on that for a flashback that seems much longer ago than 4-5 years. Its interesting, the Kings seem to have played 38 skaters and 4 netminders for the season. Unbelievable. I don't think the money was ever there for Taylor, really. We had to sign the Brad Nortons instead of the Bouchers.

Thanks Cristobal. There were definitely some duds on that list, but some names that brought a smile to my face too.

I may be in the minority here, but I liked the way Trent Klatt played for us. He gave a good effort every shift, wasn't afraid to get his nose dirty, and usually made a smart play with the puck. Somehow he got tangled up in union issues after the lockout, and he just quit playing. I hope he stays in the game as a coach somewhere.

Like so many big guys, Boyle is a slow-starter.

He had a history in college of playing his best hockey in the 2nd half of the season.

the talent is there.
He just needs time.

He will seem a different player in a year or so, and maybe even later this season.

Right now, he's taking some "special classes" in physical/defensive play.

And 20 games or so in Manchester, if he
got his scoring "cooking" again,
might be the best thing for him.

Like Purcell, he'll just need a bit more time,
before he rocks for us.
======================================================
--Sergei Prozacutov

JonG

Klatt was solid where ever he played. I even think the same of John Sim. He's still plugging away, though Klatt was the more talented of the two.

Yes, a lot of the names I associate with some good memories. The comeback against Detroit was one of my favorite. About 6 minutes to go and down 0-3, but I swear I thought they were the better team and that once one goal was gotten back, it would be "our" series. That was an incredibly fun year.