Few things seem sure in the midst of the current chaos that is the LA Kings.
But here are a couple points worth looking at…
1) Fans fall into two camps: Those that blame the system for the Kings lack of scoring and those blame the lack of chemistry or drive or grit or leadership or any other term as it relates to the state-of-mind of the team as a whole for the lack of production. I’ll call it swagger.
2) Both sides have very good arguments.
I think reasonable people can agree that it’s a combination of both. But which comes first? And by definition, which one is born out of the other? Does a foundation of success begin with X’s and O’s? Or does it begin with the hearts and minds of the individual players? And who is responsible? The Coach? The GM? Or as Dustin Brown asserts, the players themselves?
Specifically, these are not easy questions to answer. However, I believe there is overwhelming evidence that in life in general, attitude is ultimately ‘king’ and that ‘the way’ or system you use to go about whatever it is you pursue comes second…and sometimes, quite a distant second at that.
By all expert accounts, any system an NHL team implements is quite similar to every other team in the league. Which is why I’m often stumped at how many fans believe a ‘new’ system will garner drastically different results. Why is that? Is it because focusing on systems is easier for some than focusing on swagger? Is it they they believe the players will find their groove if only they were ‘released’ by the oppressive system that chained them down? And that they will somehow flourish when given a new offensive strategy?
Or is it because with matters of the heart, as they often are, present themselves as nebulous -almost undefinable- problems? How do you make adjustments to systems of the mind anyway? Yelling? Benching? Fighting? Words of wisdom like, “Guys have to wake up.”?
The psyche is probably the single most important, yet uncontrollable element in determining success in all sports. The historical landscape of athletics is littered with players who have achieved great things, while not being the most gifted physically.
Which brings us back to the Kings current dilemma and who is responsible for its turnaround.
Ownership: AEG is in the business of making money. It’s safe to say they hired Dean Lombardi with the hope that his plan would result in higher revenues, which it has. They also know that winning is the only thing that will keep those revenues from decreasing. I believe there’s a good amount of length left on DL’s leash in this respect. I suspect that with all he has put in place, he will be given another year to turn this ship around. Ownership has done all it can do for now.
The GM: The ultimate bearer of responsibility for both this collapse and it’s potential cure. He put every piece of the puzzle in place and they simply aren’t fitting together. A rearrangement of the pieces is required to see them securely fall in place. To that end, his next step is to bring in his dream coach…the one guy he covets above all others when it comes to both X’s and O’s as well as the overall approach to the game. Make no mistake, Dean Lombardi is going all in with Darryl Sutter. That much seems absolute.
What is still up in the air is what he will do with the current roster. Does he believe there is still hope with this particular group? Or does he see the need to make changes in hopes of rekindling the kind team he envisioned from the start? Time will tell, but if his statements about player responsibility for the firing of Terry Murray are any indication, we can expect a change in personnel if things don’t get better quickly.
The Coach: For all that has been said about Terry Murray and Darryl Sutter (and it’s been a lot) we need to understand that just as all systems are similar, coaching styles are not. Regardless of your opinion of the system, Sutter is certainly going to bring in a different style.
The Players: By all accounts, the players are ultimately responsible for this debacle. But what hasn’t been determined is whether or not the players simply aren’t talented enough to achieve the lofty expectations placed upon them. Regardless of system or swagger, some teams simply can’t compete with far superior opposing talent.
Was that the case with the recent loss to the Red Wings? Is the realization that the Kings might not be anywhere nearly as good as you, me, they and everyone else thought they were starting to sink in? Are the guys needing to wake up in order to play better? Or are they needing to wake up to the fact that they just aren’t good enough?
For now, the jury is still out on the talent question.
That leads us right back to my opening query: System or Swagger? Many of you will remain unconvinced, but I think I’ve made a strong argument that it isn’t the system that is chaining down player production, it’s their own heads and hearts. It doesn’t matter which leadership style a coach (or player) utilizes. What matters is that everyone follows it.
If one thing is clear in the aftermath of the Terry Murray regime, it’s that not everyone was following the leader -or leaders- as the case may be. And now, with one guy gone, the only constant that remains are the players themselves wondering if perhaps a new change in leadership will be the spark that reignites the fire any team needs if it is to ever lift the Stanley Cup.
It’s also the spark that lives in the heart of every Kings fan who believes that one day, we will be champions of the hockey world. Don’t let us down Kings.
I count 25 question marks in this post. That’s a lot to answer!
Both are definitely the problem. I think both also influence each other to where ‘What comes first?’ can change.
Players are responsible to come to work ready to kick a$$ every day. ‘Swagger’ is (Or should be anyway) in their job description, being in the professional sports industry as they are. It starts in the player’s heads. From there though, So many things can influence player output that is beyond a player’s control, most obvious being the ‘System’ they have to play.
Terry Murray’s system has limits. Some may say that’s not true, but all that has been proven so far is that there ARE limits offensively. If you tell a player ‘Defense first’ and you train him as part of his job to do things a certain way or risk not playing, THAT is not the player’s fault if the ‘System’ is not conducive to scoring. THAT is the COACH’S fault. It’s the EXACT reason why guys like Moulson, Purcell and Boyle all did better in other systems and circumstances. The ‘System’ influenced the ‘Swagger’ with ineptness and failure.
TM had plenty of time IMO to create the offensive system to lay on top of his defensive structure and simply could not do it. He tried….HARD. He was shuffling lines, allowing D-men to jump up, throwing 3 men on board play, I mean, he did try. Problem was, his offensive system did not ‘Fit’ his defensive structure which he (and DL) do NOT want to change one iota. (Part of the problem IMO).
Players have talent and it is their responsibility to have (AND KEEP) the ‘swagger’ NO MATTER WHAT! If you have 5 players with swagger all over the ice, they’re going to get PUMMELED! (See Red Wings Game). That ‘Swagger’ needs structure which is the Coach’s job, hence why TM was (Reluctantly) let go.
The players did stop playing for TM. That’s true. DL lit them up for it. Still doesn’t take away from the fact that TM had run his course with the Kings. He is just not an offense minded coach. This is why the Sutter Hiring is just awful and ridiculous (To me anyway), especially to a multi-year deal with Tippett available at the end of the season and probably very willing to come back.
GM hires ‘Swagger’ and a controller of said ‘Swagger’ (Done)
Players provide swagger (Was done and lost)
Coach controls & directs said swagger to championships (NOT Done)
This is the reason why Coaching is the most thankless job in sports.
So to answer your question, I guess ‘Swagger’ comes first, but ‘System’ wins championships.
@Cynic: I want a detailed response to all 25 questions man!
So did TM’s efforts fail because his tweaks didn’t fit into the predefined defense-first structure? Or because the players tuned him out? And why did the players tune him out? Because Brown couldn’t lead the room? Or because the system sucked so bad they just couldn’t stand it anymore?
And around and around we go…
The ‘buying in’ aspect to all of this needs to come from leaders… both individual drive and a willingness and/or desire to follow the coach or the captain is a prerequisite.
I think during any given year, any system can win though so I don’t think it’s necessarily the structure that wins the Cup but it certainly does play a big part.
The other thing is adapting to the opponent…more defense or play more open…depending on that night or series. Also adapting to the score. Playing back with the lead vs. attacking. And the balance between them all.
Food for thought.
@wavesinair:
How about some multiple choice man, I got work to do here!
Here’s the thing, the Kings players BOUGHT IN. They did it for a solid 2 years and offensively were in the dumper of the league both years. After a while, as a player, I gotta believe it wears thin. Not playing for the coach is NOT the way to handle it, but I can see where the frustrations would lie.
Bottom line though, your comment about any system winning is true, except it is missing a valuable adjective: COMPLETE. Any COMPLETE system can win. TM’s system was not complete. It had no effective parallel offensive structure.
As far as adapting to an opponent, a good system will adapt to pretty much any opponent and the players will know what to do and get instructions how to execute during pre-game. Only the coaches set that up. The in-game, on ice stuff actual execution is obviously more on the players than the coach, but if the system is wrong….who do you go after blamewise?
Honestly, I still think it starts with System. If you fail to believe in your system, you will eventually lose your heart to play it, and that is what I believe we have witnessed here with the Kings.
The system that Murray instilled in this team, is by no means designed to score. It was meant to give a weak offensive team a chance to keep themselves in a game with the big boys, and hope that they might get a lucky bounce to win. Well, those times are over and this team does have the type of players who can score. We haven’t seen it because this system takes them out of the ability to create real scoring chances by being to passive, staying up high, not involving all five players in the offensive zone, and being to safe and deliberate on the breakouts.
The guys on this team have been handcuffed, literally, by a philosophy. The guys on this team are just doing their jobs. They know they aren’t going to score a lot, or at all playing this system, as most have stated at times during TM’s tenure. I’m pretty sure most of the players would be a lot happier and full of enthusiasm if they had more belief that they would be able to score some goals. If you don’t believe that you can score, because your system takes you out of the high percentage scoring areas and places you instead along the boards or high a top the blue line, then you wind up just going through the motions.
If you are only “stepping up” and telling guys to grind harder against the boards, or shoot more from the blue line, well then, what is that going to spark? Probably still isn’t going to spark more goals, or spark enthusiasm.
Change the system, or blow up the team. Personally, I’d just like to see someone with an ounce of an offensive mindset have been hired. Get these guys scoring, and they will play harder than you’ve ever seen them. Keep holding them back, well then here comes the next GM and next 5 year plan. Ahh the life of a Kings fan.
@PP Anybody?: I think us fans get caught in the trap of blaming the system when it’s a system that we don’t personally like. Typically we want more action, more offense. I’m no different. But I do believe that even a defense-first system doesn’t cause players to be unmotivated. The only thing that does that is losing, and winning, as we all know, cures all ills…defense or offense be damned.
Thing is, there are different ways to approach being a defensive club though. Boston is a very good defensive club. But they have a good defense, because they spend so much time attacking the offensive zone, that they keep the puck from their opposition and make THEM defend more. The Kings “system” is just too passive. It is based on holding back, and allowing the other team to take it to them, and hoping for some sort of turnover. In theory, this can work too, but then you MUST press the IMMEDIATE counter. This is where the Kings have completely floundered, and have a flaw in their system. When the Kings create a turnover, they ALWAYS regroup, looking for the careful, methodical breakout. This allows the other team to get back after their mistake, and clog up the neutral zone. The Kings can’t gain speed through the neutral zone with the way they do this, and no matter how much effort or “compete” can change that. It’s purely a philosophic and systemic flaw.
I’m definately in the “System” camp. Always have been. The chicken, or the egg arguement is definately an enigma. Sytem controls how your players react. Then execution takes effect. If it fails, it’s hard to decern which is responsible, unless you look at tendencies to see where decisions are made team wide to figure out if it’s a personal failure, or a team concept that is failing.
In my opinion it is a little easier to decern with the Kings because not only has the over all talent been improved on the teams capabilities, but Terry Murray was a micro manager, and because of his attention to detail, you can see generic systematic patterns in every aspect of the Kings game.
@Dominick: Terry Murray is a micro manager, you nailed it there as far as I’m concerned. I can’t really back this up but that’s what I’ve felt is the problem for a long time. Just getting the sense that TM was happy if a player was in exactly the preferred spot at any given time, or dumped the puck in the right way, or had the exact shift length. Guys looked like robots trying to stick to program.
I’ve been watching very very closely at individual play on a micro level trying to decide if “small” individual mistakes by many players equals losing to opponents. And of course the opposite is true for winning. I am absolutely convinced it does! Try it during tonight’s game for yourself. For example… besides his last couple of goals, Drewisky has made many many poor puck movement choices, that have resulted in an kings offensive attacks being nullified, and or a turn over, with a resulting goal for the other team. And that goes for many of his team mates as well. I am convinced it is a talent issue, or lack there of.
This was so obvious watching the Detroit game of course. How beautiful were those two Detroit slap shots that were laser guided into the back of the Kings net! They did not go wide, they went in…TALENT!!!
I will always remain a Kings fan. Just saying.
It’s all about the SWAG! Did you see Doughty versus TOR? That’s what it is all about. These same players did great under Murray for a couple of years. This year they lost their mojo. Doughty and the rest of the bunch had SWAG their last game. If Trotz can get his players to do all he has, then it really is up to the players to buy into something and do their best. These guys have been playing with little heart and they finally have it back.