2012 Stanley Cup Final. (6) New Jersey Devils vs. (8) Los Angeles Kings.

**drownwithyou** · 06-11-2012, 11:41 PM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

Check mate, Mate!

Your kind of degrading comment about Penner was actually why I was chuckling at you though.

I just don't like pancakes as much as you do

**lordstanley** · 06-12-2012, 12:11 AM

Long-time Kings fans overcome with emotion:

Richard Flores hails historic King Stanley Cup win -- latimes.com

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 12:11 AM

Is this the weakest cup finals ever? Could it be possible that this is the worst champion the league has ever seen?

**mtutiger** · 06-12-2012, 12:19 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

Is this the weakest cup finals ever? Could it be possible that this is the worst champion the league has every seen?

You vastly underrate the Los Angeles Kings, IMO.

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by mtutiger

You vastly underrate the Los Angeles Kings, IMO.

I believe it was a question not a statement. Note the punctuation.

**Hongbit** · 06-12-2012, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

Is this the weakest cup finals ever? Could it be possible that this is the worst champion the league has ever seen?

The Best 8th seed this league has ever seen.

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Hongbit

The Best 8th seed this league has ever seen.

Not arguing that. Yes, they won the cup. Yes, they are the first 8th seed to ever win the cup. Is that all they are?

The original questions still stand. Is there a reason to believe that the team with the second worst offense in the regular season and the second best goal prevention is the best team? A team with a sub 1 ratio in 5 on 5 goals in the regular season? Was Carter the missing link? Did the entire team under perform all year until it mattered?

**Vonlenska** · 06-12-2012, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

Is this the weakest cup finals ever? Could it be possible that this is the worst champion the league has ever seen?

The worst champion the league has ever seen? They went 16-4. First NHL team ever to be up 3-0 in all 4 series. I realize that was a question and not a statement, but it wasn't a very good question.

**lordstanley** · 06-12-2012, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

Is this the weakest cup finals ever? Could it be possible that this is the worst champion the league has ever seen?

One of the weakest ever regular seasons by a Cup champ but truly one of the greatest playoff seasons ever. The playoff dominance plus the fact they do have stars like Quick, Carter, Richards, and Doughty suggest to me that they were in no way a fluke. You only have to go back a few years to 2009 to find a Cup champ that finished with only 4 points more than the Kings did this year and had a much rougher go of it in the playoffs than the Kings did.

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 01:34 AM

Originally Posted by Vonlenska

but it wasn't a very good question.

Disagree. They had an amazing cup run, but that begs the question of what happened for 82 games leading up to the run.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

I believe it was a question not a statement. Note the punctuation.

More nonsense I agree. Question or statement, you're not exactly on que. So what's your point?

Don't think anyone can argue the 2012 Kings put a exclamation point on a crowning. My Hats are off to them.

EDIT: Even Vonlenska called you out.

**Hongbit** · 06-12-2012, 01:50 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

Disagree. They had an amazing cup run, but that begs the question of what happened for 82 games leading up to the run.

I'm not saying it's so, but some have said that the biggest move was trading anyone for Jack Johnson. Receiving Jeff Carter was a nice bonus but removing the former UofM hockey legend and his horrible attitude was the biggest key. Jack had a false sense of entitlement and his complete inability to take even the slightest criticism led to a total chaos. Jack's constant whining was a huge deterrent to team chemistry and greatly responsible for the lack of quality in the team forum.

**Vonlenska** · 06-12-2012, 02:00 AM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

More nonsense I agree. Question or statement, you're not exactly on que. So what's your point?

Don't think anyone can argue the 2012 Kings put a exclamation point on a crowning. My Hats are off to them.

EDIT: Even Vonlenska called you out.

Even me? Thanks.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:01 AM

I suppose Sag man is trying to say the KINGS are an anomoly and aren't deserving of the cup in 2012, cuz they didnt place comfortably in the top eight. The Team doesn't rate, bunch of slaggards.

**Vonlenska** · 06-12-2012, 02:05 AM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

I suppose Sag man is trying to say the KINGS are an anomoly and aren't deserving of the cup in 2012, cuz they didnt place comfortably in the top eight. The Team doesn't rate, bunch of slaggards.

That's...not even in the stratosphere of what he's saying.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Hongbit

I'm not saying it's so, but some have said that the biggest move was trading anyone for Jack Johnson. Receiving Jeff Carter was a nice bonus but removing the former UofM hockey legend and his horrible attitude was the biggest key. Jack had a false sense of entitlement and his complete inability to take even the slightest criticism led to a total chaos. Jack's constant whining was a huge deterrent to team chemistry and greatly responsible for the lack of quality in the team forum.

I'm amazed at what a team they put together over the last 3 years with trades and other acquisitions. Somebody over there had an idea what it takes to win. Coaching, motivation, sense of destiny all played into it.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:12 AM

Originally Posted by Vonlenska

That's...not even in the stratosphere of what he's saying.

Tell me then, o wise one, what your friend is saying.

**Vonlenska** · 06-12-2012, 02:15 AM

He's not saying anything. He's merely asking if this is one of the worst regular season performances by an eventual champion.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:21 AM

Haha. you solved your friends cryptic message. Thank you o wise one. I didn't get it that way. Course he has never made a lot of sense lately to me. You're good. Thanks for converting it to lay language.

**Mehm** · 06-12-2012, 08:33 AM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

I'm amazed at what a team they put together over the last 3 years with trades and other acquisitions. Somebody over there had an idea what it takes to win. Coaching, motivation, sense of destiny all played into it.

Maybe one day the Wings will learn a few things and win a cup...if only...

**drownwithyou** · 06-12-2012, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

I'm amazed at what a team they put together over the last 3 years with trades and other acquisitions. Somebody over there had an idea what it takes to win. Coaching, motivation, sense of destiny all played into it.

The six seasons in a row of no playoffs accompanied by high draft picks certainly didn't hurt either. Also getting extremely hot at the right time...

**mtutiger** · 06-12-2012, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by sagnam

They had an amazing cup run, but that begs the question of what happened for 82 games leading up to the run.

They underperformed to their capabilities, simple as that. They had high expectations, many selected them to comfortably win the Pacific at the beginning of the season. Which explains why Terry Murray was shown the door some 30 games into the season.

I felt going into the playoffs that they'd be the 8th seed from hell for any team who had to face them. A few others, Don Cherry included, felt that way as well. And their run to the cup may be one of the best I've ever seen, considering the circumstances.

**lordstanley** · 06-12-2012, 10:18 AM

Even if one did agree for argument's sake that they're the worst Stanley Cup champions, this is definitely a case where the noun trumps the adjective. Being the worst Stanley Cup champion is like being the ugliest Playmate, the poorest billionaire or the slowest gold medalist. Fans in Vancouver, San Jose, Philly and Toronto would kill to be in the position of the Kings and their fans this morning.

**lordstanley** · 06-12-2012, 10:22 AM

Games played in 2012 playoffs, LA Kings: 20
Games played in 2012 playoffs, Pittsburgh: 6

Goals allowed in 2012 playoffs, LA Kings: 30
Goals allowed in 2012 playoffs, Pittsburgh: 30

**Motor City Sonics** · 06-12-2012, 10:35 AM

They beat a 1 seed in 5, a 2 seed in 4, a 3 seed in 5 and lost 1 road game the entire playoffs. This team was not a fluke - they are a very good hockey team with a GREAT goalie. So they didn't dominate in the regular season - in the NHL the regular season is overrated.

**drownwithyou** · 06-12-2012, 10:54 AM

Kings had an unreal lack of offense for a deep stretch of the season, didn't they set the record for most games in a row with less than 2 goals or something like that? Just goes to show that getting hot at the right time can make up for a deficient majority of a season.

**Euphdude** · 06-12-2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sonics

They beat a 1 seed in 5, a 2 seed in 4, a 3 seed in 5 and lost 1 road game the entire playoffs. This team was not a fluke - they are a very good hockey team with a GREAT goalie. So they didn't dominate in the regular season - in the NHL the regular season is overrated.

100% agreed. All that matters in the NHL regular is that you make the playoffs. After that it's a pretty equal playing field, and I'd suggest those teams that focused on playing a playoff brand of hockey during the regular season (i.e., defense oriented, slow the game down) have an advantage come playoff time.

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 10:55 AM

Originally Posted by Hongbit

I'm not saying it's so, but some have said that the biggest move was trading anyone for Jack Johnson. Receiving Jeff Carter was a nice bonus but removing the former UofM hockey legend and his horrible attitude was the biggest key. Jack had a false sense of entitlement and his complete inability to take even the slightest criticism led to a total chaos. Jack's constant whining was a huge deterrent to team chemistry and greatly responsible for the lack of quality in the team forum.

I buy into that. I also wonder what happened offensively. It's not like they were winning playoff games 1-0, they scored a lot of goals in the postseason. Was it unrealized potential or just a great run when it counts?

**sagnam** · 06-12-2012, 11:03 AM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sonics

They beat a 1 seed in 5, a 2 seed in 4, a 3 seed in 5 and lost 1 road game the entire playoffs. This team was not a fluke - they are a very good hockey team with a GREAT goalie. So they didn't dominate in the regular season - in the NHL the regular season is overrated.

So you think they will sustain that road record from here forward? Of course not. Nobody doubts they had a great playoff run. Repeating it is not really adding anything.

It's a shame the regular season is overrated.

**Motor City Sonics** · 06-12-2012, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by sagnam

So you think they will sustain that road record from here forward? Of course not. Nobody doubts they had a great playoff run. Repeating it is not really adding anything.

It's a shame the regular season is overrated.

It is.....it's an 82 game play-in tournament. That's the way it is when more than half the teams in the league make the playoffs. If you had four teams per conference that regular season starts to mean a whole lot more.

Who cares about next year? We're talking about this year. And this year was an impressive run for the Kings. If they don't repeat next year it doesn't take away from what they did this year.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:18 PM

Worst champion the league has ever seen? Amazing to me he could pose a question or make a statement like that. As if their playoff run was a fluke or their regular season was for lack of character or motivation or talent by a group of underachieving misfits.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 02:32 PM

I watched over half of all the LAK playoff games and in none of them did the Kings appear unworthy or flukes. What struck me was how poorly the top seeds represented themselves. Kudos to the Kings for fooling lots of folks. Wouldn't be opposed to them sneaking in the back door next year and walking out with the prize.

**Motor City Sonics** · 06-12-2012, 02:37 PM

Give me a break. A fluke? Flukes is what you have in football or college basketball.

You don't go four seven-game rounds of playoff hockey and win it as a fluke.

**mtutiger** · 06-12-2012, 02:43 PM

Originally Posted by skyguy52

Wouldn't be opposed to them sneaking in the back door next year and walking out with the prize.

After the run they had in the playoffs, I wouldn't be surprised if they are kicking down the front door.

**mtutiger** · 06-12-2012, 02:48 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sonics

Give me a break. A fluke? Flukes is what you have in football or college basketball.

You don't go four seven-game rounds of playoff hockey and win it as a fluke.

Agreed... in addition, you don't defeat the first three seeds in your conference while utterly dominating the entire tournament when you're a fluke.

This isn't the 2006 St. Louis Cardinals we're talking about.

**skyguy52** · 06-12-2012, 03:33 PM

Originally Posted by Motor City Sonics

Give me a break. A fluke? Flukes is what you have in football or college basketball.

You don't go four seven-game rounds of playoff hockey and win it as a fluke.

I didn't say their run was a fluke. I was referring to others who are apparently suggesting it was.

**Mr. Bigglesworth** · 06-12-2012, 03:49 PM

Nobody claimed it was a fluke. That is just you guys creating a strawman.

The question was whether or not they were the worst team to win a Stanley Cup.

Somebody has to have that distinction, even if you don't them them a fluke. I mean, nobody is saying they aren't deserving or didn't have an amazing play-off run which suggests they aren't deserving.

**drownwithyou** · 06-12-2012, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mr. Bigglesworth

Nobody claimed it was a fluke. That is just you guys creating a strawman.

The question was whether or not they were the worst team to win a Stanley Cup.

Somebody has to have that distinction, even if you don't them them a fluke. I mean, nobody is saying they aren't deserving or didn't have an amazing play-off run which suggests they aren't deserving.

I don't think they are. They're a fairly well rounded team when everyone is working hard, which is how Sutter had them going. Williams-Kopitar-Brown is a fine first line, decent size and physical presence too. Then Carter-Richards-Penner looked really good at times in the playoffs. Penner was hustling and using his body really well, and Carter/Richards put up a few points. I'd love that second line, Richards is a good two way player too. Stoll is a good third line guy, he can kill penalties and take draws (free agent as well). I was pretty impressed with Dwight King on their fourth line, moves well despite how big and awkward he looks. On defense, Doughty was playing well again. Scuderi was solid. Mitchell, Greene, and Martinez are in the mix too. And of course there is Quick. So I think overall they were a pretty good team, and played like it during the playoffs.