DH26 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 They are better, but you can't discount the decline of Brown Richards and Stoll - all three guys had pretty terrible seasons. Pearson and Toffoli are good offensive players, not sure they are play drivers yet. But Gaborik makes this Kings team definitely better than the 2012 version. Idk I think Quick being basically Hasek in 2012 makes that team better since overall he nearly got them eliminated 3 times and with him as Hasek/Roy/Lunqvist/whoever in 2012 they decimated teams and I think that is worth more than Gaborik when Brown/Richards/Stoll were still good Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triumph Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) Idk I think Quick being basically Hasek in 2012 makes that team better since overall he nearly got them eliminated 3 times and with him as Hasek/Roy/Lunqvist/whoever in 2012 they decimated teams and I think that is worth more than Gaborik when Brown/Richards/Stoll were still good There was no reason to expect Quick to be that good in the Cup Final. We already went through this with J.S. Gigeure - Quick is a good goalie who played like a great goalie in that playoff, but there's no reason why Quick couldn't've played great in the Final this year, and no reason why he couldn't've played poorly in the 2012 Final. Edited June 19, 2014 by Triumph Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ELIAS6 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 rangers stillscare me, speed kills and they have a ton of speed, they are certainly much closer than NJ... theyve been faster than us for a while now.. i think nj has just been a slow team. The kings couldnt keep up with their speed either from what i remember in the first couple periods of the first couple of games Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Satans Hockey Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 (edited) I'd say these Kings were a much stronger team top to bottom than they were in 2012. The Westo was an absolute jungle this season, so it doesn't matter to me that it was a grind for the 2014 Kings to get to the Finals. The 2012 Kings flew through the playoffs, but beating that Vancouver team is now not considered such an accomplishment, and Phoenix was a nice story but out of their league. SH can mention that this team was the 1seed or the 2seed, but that isn't so important when you consider a team as good as LA was the 8 seed. Yes, Quick was not as strong in the playoffs, but he was just as good in the Finals as he was in 2012, so if that's what Derek is debating on, then you have to concede that. Doughty was stronger, Voynov and Martinez are better. Add Muzzin and get rid of Scuderi. Carter is more comfortable in their system. They added Gaborik. Kopitar is a more complete player. Strong young talent in Toffoli and Pearson. King and Clifford are so much better. I like the 2014 Kings in a landslide. You can say seeds don't matter in this scenario but no #8 seed has ever won the cup before. Plus they also went 8-0 on the road. Edited June 19, 2014 by Satans Hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 You can say seeds don't matter in this scenario but no #8 seed has ever won the cup before. Plus they also went 8-0 on the road. The Kings were dominant in the 2012 playoffs. No question. But to me that doesn't answer who was a better team or not. The Colorado Avalanche finished with more points than Chicago and San Jose this year.. Using conference seedings isn't all that important. The regular season can put a great team or an average team in all sorts of positions. I don't plan on arguing with anyone outside this board which team was better and the thought of Devils fans and Rangers fans debating who lost in 5 games to the better team might be the most pathetic thing ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roomtemp Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'll say it this way the 2014 is better on paper but the 2012 team played better. Especially Quick. A better team would have stolen either game 1 or 2 if not both because the Kings were a tired team after the grueling schedule. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zubie#8 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 2012 beter defense, system and goaltending 2014 better offense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'll say it this way the 2014 is better on paper but the 2012 team played better. Especially Quick. A better team would have stolen either game 1 or 2 if not both because the Kings were a tired team after the grueling schedule. Agree 100%. Boston-LA probably would've gone 7 games. Can't imagine being a Bruins fan watching Montreal get absolutely bitch-slapped by the Rangers, they were awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devils Pride 26 Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'll say it this way the 2014 is better on paper but the 2012 team played better. Especially Quick. A better team would have stolen either game 1 or 2 if not both because the Kings were a tired team after the grueling schedule. Best explanation yet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colorado Rockies 1976 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 The 2012 Kings were much better than the 2014 Kings, but butthurt Rags fans want to think otherwise to make themselves feel better. For reasons others have stated, I think the 2014 Kings were a little better than the 2012 Kings (when your goalie is stopping 94.6% of the shots coming his way, you're simply not going to lose a whole lot...that kind of goaltending is going to make a lot of teams look better than they are), but my issue with Derek's statement was him making it sound like the 2014 Kings were light-years better. That I don't see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
devilsrule33 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 (edited) For reasons others have stated, I think the 2014 Kings were a little better than the 2012 Kings (when your goalie is stopping 94.6% of the shots coming his way, you're simply not going to lose a whole lot...that kind of goaltending is going to make a lot of teams look better than they are), but my issue with Derek's statement was him making it sound like the 2014 Kings were light-years better. That I don't see. Th Kings deserve some credit for winning this yar and having played so many games over the last 3 seasons. 2 Cup Finals and 1 Conference Finals. I know there was a lockout, but no way these players weren't feeling it when you add it to the normal playoff grind. I think it's a pretty underrated aspect when looking at careers and what not. Mike Richards is almost 30, and he has played 95 playoff games in the last 5 years. Add in all the long OTs and how much more of a grind a regular playoff game is than a regular season game, and it's definitely going to shorten a career. You could make a case that he has played a season and a half longer than an Oiler or a Sabres player. Jeff Carter...same thing. If the Kings continue to underachieve during the regular season moving forward, it'll be pretty understandable. Eventually the Kings won't be able to add fresher bodies along the way like they have with Toffoli and Pearson and Gaborik, and this team will struggle early in the playoffs because how worn out they are. So the 2015 Kings might be a top-to-bottom stronger team than 2012, but flame out in the 1st round. The playoffs are a damn grind. Their off-season begins now again. Other teams have been off for 2-and-a-half months. Edited June 20, 2014 by devilsrule33 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJ Eco Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I give Derek21 full credit; I wouldn't be able to survive as calmly or long as he has on a rival's message board. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2ELIAS6 Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 I give Derek21 full credit; I wouldn't be able to survive as calmly or long as he has on a rival's message board. im not even sure why you would sign up for a rivals message board or let alone even spend time reading one unless you were specifically looking for something. .. some people have a lot of time i guess Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The 29th Pick Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 im not even sure why you would sign up for a rivals message board or let alone even spend time reading one unless you were specifically looking for something. .. some people have a lot of time i guess yeah the last thing I would do is read your arch rivals forum after you lost a big game or series Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.