Murray explains the line changes

Odd explanation from Murray. I don't know the context, but it reads like he's keeping something back regarding putting Patio back on the first line. It's odd because to me, it seems like Patio isn't playing as well now as he was in the first 13 games or so. But what do I know.

Fair enough, lets see if it works! With Zeiler back in maybe Ivanans will have a bit more "clean up work" to do...

Ummmmm in other words, TM is saying he mad a bone head
move and should have left the line together in the first place.
But I like the over all line combos..Lets hope he gives them all a chance to gell the same way he gave it 6 or 7 games to see if his way worked, I guess because he is the coach they are all his way, But you know what I mean.........

Is there a zip code when you live under a rock? What in God's name is this man talking about. I swear there's some sort of odd insanity at work whenever he explains himself.

Well, whatever... we have some offense on board for this game... Let's see if he can stick with it past Thursday.

It's time to see the true 1st line light......ummmm....**** up. Very happy with this move. The Frolov/Stoll/Moller line gives the Kings enough secondary scoring. I can bet all three of Kopitar, Brown and O'Sullivan are very happy with this move.

So how does this sound? Keep the top three lines as they are now. Call up Gabe Gauthier, Moulson and Purcell from Manchester and have that as the fourth line (those guys have been lighting up the AHL for the last two years).

Boyle to Manchester, Armstong to the waiver wire, buy out Zeiler, Richardson and Ivanans as spare forwards for spot duty.

Comments?

@ Mike:

Sorry, but this is a horrible idea. All of these guys are supposed to be scorers, not checkers. Throwing them on the 4th line duty is going to result in two things: their complete failure and ruined confidence. WAS coach refused to play his rookies on the checking lines in the past seasons and look where they are now! Boyle is not the checker either, at least he has the size, reach and experience playing D which makes him somewhat better suited for this. All of them need to wait and establish themselves or join the Brady Murray club.

let the man coach for christ sake. everyone's so quick to crap on murray, like any of us know better. and he admitted a mistake, if only more people in the world could do that... thats why hes coaching a professional hockey club and we are sitting in front of computers. i read this blog everyday, and i never post but the b*tching from "fans" is ridiculous. quit complaining!

b*itch about work, life, whatever. enjoy the game.

thanks rich. go kings.

Rich,

Somewhat of a technical question which might be better suited for an open forum... TM stated "The one move that was the priority, for me, was to get O'Sullivan up on the left side with Kopi."

As far as I recall, Brown used to play on the LW and O'Sullivan - who is a natural center - played mostly RW after displacing Cammalleri. When and more importantly WHY did they get switched? I understand most North American left wingers shoot left and right wingers shoot right, while exact opposite is true for the Euros (see Frolov, Ovechkin and almost all of Detroit wingers). Common sense and basic geometry say that being a right shot on the left wing means less of an angle and shorter distance to the net. I believe it was Jim Fox who also commented on this subject after a couple of typical Hossa moves/shots last time he was here with DET. Any comments from either you and/or Terry Murray?

Also, any news on Semin's injury?

Thanks in advance!!!

@Mike
I think it's too early to give up on Boyle. He's showing signs of toughness and if he's ever given a real chance to be on a scoring line I think he can elevate his game.

Chris Bond & Marc Nathan are correct.
This genius isn't a genius after all.
What he said in two full paragraphs, he could have said in two sentences.
He's a bonehead and he screwed up. He had absolutely no basis to demote Sully. In the first 7 games he played, Sully was a point per game player. Then he got demoted for no reason.
Where's his logic?
There is none.
He went with his instincts.
His plan blew up in his face and now he's spinning around. Kinda like a dog with his tail between his legs.
Mr. Murray, next time when you get these instincts. Do us fans a favor - do the opposite and shut-up.

Oh yeah.
In the process of his bonehead decision:
-Kopi's offense suffered
-the teams offense suffred
-POS's mind and head was messed with
-the team Power play completely tanked.

WOW, is this what NHL experience brings you.

@mask

Brown played LW when Andy Murray was in town, and a bit during Crawford's first year. But, when the top line was put together by Crawford, Brown was always on the right side, even when Cammalleri was there. Crawford had a thing for left-shots on the left, and right-shots on the right, so that's how they played.

Yeah people listen to Anthony he has years of NHL coaching experience....wait a minute does he? I'm just wondering how it's going to be blamed on TM if the top line doesn't start scoring even after several games together. But i'm sure he'll find a reason to skewer TM for it.

@ mask0425la

As I understand the rationales with putting right shots on the right wing and vice versa is at least 2-fold. First, when you are playing on your off-wing, you are generally taking passes on your backhand, which is a little less effective (especially if you want to get off a quick shot in the offensive zone). Taking the pass on your forehand is going to let you get the quick shot off and also makes it easier to control as you stickhandle (especially if you have to make a quick move around an opponent after receiving the pass). There is also a defensive component to how your natural side lines up along the boards, etc., particularly picking up pucks coming up the boards (especially in the defensive zone), etc. Your body position is just a little more natural.

Completely agree with you there rjc76, the tiresome bleating about how horrible it all is will just take a different form../

I think there are a couple things at play here.

1. You have to be careful putting 2 rookies on a line in a defensive system. It's a little better if they have been playing the system for a month and a half, which they have now, but not when O'Sullivan was "demoted" before.

2. If you put all your best players on the Top 2 lines, you can't roll 4 lines and keep everyone fresh.

3. Will the #1 line be able to play defensively enough with those 3 on it?

I'm happy to see POS on the top line, but I am sure that several of the above factors figured into the equation.

PRMan, I think you're right on with your assessment.

Antwatny, you are defiantly a work of art. Look in the mirror and take your own advice.

Anthony, maybe you should take your own statement of "Do us fans a favor - do the opposite and shut-up." to heart.

How many out there think that if anthony had anything intelligent to say, we wouldn't have any of his posts to read? Do you think he has noticed the turnaround in
the defensive aspect of this team? Geez, I wonder who taught that to them.

amen to tony's post!!

Thank you Tony for that post!

"The one move that was the priority, for me, was to get O'Sullivan up on the left side with Kopi."

Almost two months into the season. It didn't seem like much of a priority to me but I'm glad he did it.

Tony, Moondoggie.

Have you two enjoyed the past 2 years of Kings hockey? If so, I'd venture to say you're not very big fans. I don't know of any sport in the world where REAL fans of a team enjoy watching their team humiliated 5 years in a row.
There are plenty of PROFESSIONAL coaches that get fired because the lose the plot. A 4 game winning streak against the worst the league has to offer is nothing to get too excited about.
Tony, you don't have to read the comments if you don't want to. If you feel like people are being too negative, ignore it or post your opinion. A free exchange of ideas is a good thing, right?

Eat/Rich, re: "Have you two enjoyed the past 2 years of Kings hockey? If so, I'd venture to say you're not very big fans. I don't know of any sport in the world where REAL fans of a team enjoy watching their team humiliated 5 years in a row."

What you're asking Tony and Moondoggie is, do you like following a team that's losing? Clearly, that question is self-answering. Nobody likes losing. Then you go on to say, "if so, I'd venture to say you're not very big fans." Well, nobody likes losing, so this applies to nobody. However, as your tone is vaguely accusatory and condescending, it still appears as though you are saying the fans at whom you are directing your comment are somehow not "big" fans, or the right kind of fans, or real fans...for some reason you haven't spelled out, other than to say if they enjoyed the last two seasons, they're not real fans. Which, as someone who was raised by a long line of Cubs fans, I object to. It's certainly possible to enjoy (translation: derive something meaningful from the experience of) following a team that is losing, even one that loses year after year.

Re "win streak against the worst the league has to offer": I guess we'll just have to color you unimpressed. However, I would note that if you win all your games against "the worst" half of the league, and lose all your games against "the best" half of the league, you'll end up at .500, which is within shooting distance of the playoffs.

Re: "Tony, you don't have to read the comments if you don't want to. If you feel like people are being too negative, ignore it or post your opinion. A free exchange of ideas is a good thing, right?"

Yes, but it's not a free exchange if some members of the "society" insist on belittling others, to say nothing of simply sucking all the air out of the metaphorical "room" with the sheer volume of their barely-hinged comments. Nor is it an exchange if nothing is exchanged. And there are many ways to string words together and not express an "idea."

An assault is not an exchange, and an insult isn't an idea.

All I can say is if the coach had to wait this long to see if LaBarbera was gonna be a #1 and to see if Patrick was gonna work his way into the lineup then he is a DIMWITTED SLOW LEARNER!

I don't know why that came through as "anonymous." Sorry. That's me above.

Quisp,

Yes, but it's not a free exchange if some members of the "society" insist on belittling others, to say nothing of simply sucking all the air out of the metaphorical "room" with the sheer volume of their barely-hinged comments.

Funny. You are against belittling others, yet you belittle others in the same sentence. Genius.
Unless you're tony or moondoggie I don't know why you're answering for them. You're passionate about everything except what this blog is all about. If you got half as angry about your team being in the toilet as you do about the comments of others, you'd have a genuine claim to being a BIG FAN. It seems you're anger is reserved for other fans, however.
And no. I'm not impressed by a 4 game win streak against 3 of the worst 6. That's the worst 10% of the league, not 50%.
Would you want players on your team who don't HATE to lose?

Eat, re: You are against belittling others, yet you belittle others in the same sentence.

Who did I belittle exactly? What I said was, just like when you go to a party and some obnoxious person is talking very loudly and condescendingly (insultingly, etc.) and as a result is clearing the room, it is similarly obnoxious to carry on that way here. It's not belittling to say obnoxious people, in general, are obnoxious, any more than it's belittling to say that racist people are racist. I didn't point any fingers or name any names. Frankly, Eat the Rich, I don't even know you.

"You're passionate about everything except what this blog is all about."

Right. I almost never have anything to say about hockey or the Kings.

"If you got half as angry about your team being in the toilet as you do about the comments of others, you'd have a genuine claim to being a BIG FAN."

(1) I'm not angry about the comments of others; I'm sorry if it read that way. (2) I don't think the team is in the toilet. (3) If I did think they were in the toilet, I wouldn't be angry about it. They're not doing it to me. (3a) You seem not only angry but angry that other people aren't more angry. (4) I couldn't care less what your standard of having "a genuine claim to being a BIG FAN" is. Here's mine:

A fan (in the context of a sports team) is someone who follows a team and cares whether the team wins or loses. Some fans watch every game, some don't watch as many. Hell, when I was growing up, you had one game on every week so mostly you read box scores in the paper. Everyone who is a fan is a fan in his/her own way.

A big fan, if you ask me, is someone who watches most of the games, and knows a lot about the team, and probably knows a lot about the history of the team. It's hard to be a big fan if you just started following the team, so it's likely you know some of the history because you have been following the team long enough to have seen some of the history first hand.

A think a good test would be, if you've ever had an issue (i.e. a fight) in your relationship/marriage/etc. about why you have to watch that $%^&^## game, or why you can't miss just one of those games in order to (for example) spend time with your family, or if you've ever been given grief for taping games and watching them later...I'm sure we all have our own painful examples...those are the marks of being a big fan. If you ask me. It doesn't have anything to do with how angry you get, or how happy you are with x, y or z.

I do get angry when I miss a game though. So if you'll excuse me...

However, as your tone is vaguely accusatory and condescending.

Do you even bother to read the comments I'm responding to?

as someone who was raised by a long line of Cubs fans.

Is it always about YOUR experience of life? Some people have a different set of life experiences than you, Quisp. Maybe not everyone agrees with your version of reality.

Who did I belittle exactly? What I said was, just like when you go to a party and some obnoxious person is talking very loudly and condescendingly (insultingly, etc.) and as a result is clearing the room, it is similarly obnoxious to carry on that way here.

You know what? I'm not going to respond to this. If you took my comments to Tony and moondoggie as aggressive, I must apologize. Perhaps my lightheartedness or tone doesn't translate very well. I'm not accusing those guys of 'not being fans,' I'm saying 'don't bitch about people bitching' because it's frustrating when your absolute favorite team isn't something you can be proud of. There's no point in trading insults as we don't even know each other. As far as the team goes, yes, there are positives. But there are also issues and I don't think anyone would deny that. Everyone here wants the Kings to be Cup winners and with this team, in particular, we need to be done being satisfied with bottom of the table finishes and mediocrity (if we get there). I guess .500 is mediocrity for now, but this team should be making the playoffs this year.

Eat -

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. You made a comment to the effect of "if you don't like other people's comments, you don't have to read them." My response was in response to that idea, not to any particular comment of anyone's, certainly not of yours. This blog (as with any popular blog) is full people making comments that rub others the wrong way, and I just don't think anyone wants to participate in a conversation (whether in real life or on a message board) in which the rule is "hey, man, if you don't like what I'm saying, don't listen." Reading people's comments requires a de facto granting of respect to the person whose comment you're reading, just like when you read a book; you are saying, implicitly, "I am interested in what the writer is saying." For the writer to have the attitude, "if you don't like it, f/u!" is a violation of the civilized agreement between the two. In a conversation in the real world, you would just walk away. I frankly don't even know what the point would be of making a comment on a message board if the writer didn't want to communicate something to someone. Anyway, too much information, and now that I reread it, too much analysis, but f**k it, those are my actual thoughts, so in the spirit of "free exchange of ideas," I won't delete.

As far as the "cubs fan" thing: no, I certainly don't think it has to be all about me 24/7. I was just trying to say where I'm coming from. Since Cubs fans are the poster children of resilient loser-ness, I thought it was worth mentioning. I don't think my point of view is the only one.

We agree about the frustration, wanting the Kings to win the cup, etc.. We agree that nobody likes losing. I'm sure there is more common ground between us than not.

i read this blog everyday, and i never post but the b*tching from "fans" is ridiculous. quit complaining! b*itch about work, life, whatever. enjoy the game.

This is the comment I was inititially responding to Quisp. It's why I wrote "ignore it [negative comments] or post your opinion." It was in the same spirit of saying others shouldn't call for certain negative fans to be blocked from posting. Why don't I find you commenting on those posts? I know you must see them.
As far as the Cubs go, I can understand the point you were making about knowing how to deal with supporting a team that seems cursed or that never gets "everything" right in order to win a series. I was a fan of the Rams as a kid. They destroyed their relationship with the fans here. My father was born in Brooklyn and loved the Dodgers. They broke his heart when they moved, and though he followed them to CA 16 years later, he's never liked them again. He will never root for them and they were his childhood heroes. Here fans are on the outside looking in. In England they're a part of the club because THEY built it over the years, not the new a#shole owners. They stick by their team but if things go belly-up, they will let their anger and frustration be known.

Eat -

Yes.

As far as the comment you were responding to, yes, I did see it. I just wrote it off as venting, possibly being more generous to it as the writer said it was his first post or words to that effect...but I see your point in that context. I object to the poster's use of quotes around the word "fans," which I admit didn't register on me before, just as I objected to your definition of "real fans" in your response. Clearly though, your "fans" comment was a response to those quote marks in the original comment, which as I said I missed the first time around.

Yes. We're all fans here. Even Anthony, i pretty sure. Plus, there's positives in losses and negatives in wins, usually. As long as it's all about hockey, we're doing ok, right?

cheers.