So here's a quote from McClellan that id like to dissect a bit, not that it needs a ton of dissection, but just so it's clear what I think he's saying.
I’ve been saying this for 10 games. 12% of our schedule is gone and we still don’t know how we want to play. I would think the experiment of run and gun that we’re trying to play, like how much more evidence do we need that it doesn’t work. There are simple hockey principles, you don’t turn pucks over at the line, you get pucks in deep, you forecheck, short shifts. The penalties that we’re taking are unacceptable, so there’s a lot of game management situations that go into it and unless the group decides as a whole, we’ll experiment for another 10 games. Maybe we will become the run and gun team. I don’t like our chances, but if that’s how we want to play and that’s what we’re going to keep trying, we’re probably going to keep getting the same results.
Just from this one quote alone, it appears easy to understand that the Kings have been practicing one way, talking about certain concepts, and then going out and playing completely different. I think they are stressing some very basic concepts, puck management, style of play, responsibility, etc... and then the guys take the ice and basically do what they want. And in coach's eyes, that's fine... sort of. He's guiding them. He's explaining the structure. He's explaining the responsibilities. But he's not out there skating. The players are the ones that execute. And to coach's point, the team needs to decide how they want to play, because they are the ones playing. Some teams do have success playing run and gun, although he doens't feel that it's going to lead to success for the Kings, as evidenced by their record so far.
So when coach talks about finding their identity, deciding hwo they want to play, it's not because there isnt a plan. It's not because they don't have past experience to draw on. And it' snot because coach isn't setting a foundation. It's because the players have said one thing, but done another. They keep saying they want to play kings hockey. We hear them say they need to play better defense. Manage the puck better. Etc... It's because when they actually go out and skate, they sometimes stop sticking to the plan. Last night, we watched them play a period of near flawless hockey. They absolutely dominated, when they were playing to the plan. As soon as they stepped outside the structure... it went to ****. And the longer the game went on, the more they decided to break from the plan.
That's the problem right now for this team. It isnt structure. It isnt that the Dmen are activating. It's that they arent keeping the structure and plan in mind as they play. There is no predictability (sound familiar?), because some guys expect A, and B ends up happening. I dont think it's a coincidence that the two best lines so far this season are Danault's line, and Lizotte's line. And that's because those two lines, generally speaking, have been playing to their identify and structure. They dont play as flashy. They get the puck in deep. And they utilize offensive possession to deny the other team the puck. Neither line has been mistake free. Hell, i just called out lizotte specifically for two boneheaded plays last night. But on the whole, those two lines look the most like Kings hockey. Because they are playing Kings hockey.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And to be clear, i made this post because ive seen a few comments about the identity comments from coach.
"isnt he supposed to provide the identity?"
"isnt he supposed to tell the team how to play?"
and i think he is. This, to me, is a player problem. Short of benching a bunch of guys, which i dont really see as useful, what else does he do?
