Skip to content

Doughty: Kings can ‘easily win’ scoring two goals per game

Jun 7, 2013, 9:05 AM EDT

The Los Angeles Kings have averaged just 2.00 goals per game in the 2013 Stanley Cup playoffs. Only teams who were eliminated in the first round have done worse this year.

Losing forward Mike Richards to what’s believed to be a concussion hurts, but the Kings’ scoring woes predate that injury. Still, Kings defenseman Drew Doughty thinks that two goals per game should be enough.

“It’s enough if we’re playing well defensively and doing the right things that way, but we haven’t been, obviously,” Doughty said after Chicago’s 3-2 victory, according to LA Kings Insider. “We’ve been giving up too many goals. We’ve been relying on Quick to make too many big saves, and we’re not playing the right way.

“We’re not playing the way this team is capable of, and if we’re only getting two goals, we can easily win…games with Quickie back there and our defensive team.”

With the Kings’ anemic scoring, the pressure certainly has been on goaltender Jonathan Quick. He’s only allowed three or more goals in two of his last nine starts and the Kings lost both of those games.

Chicago now has a commanding 3-1 series lead, but the Kings have previously come back from significant series deficits and won while facing elimination in the 2013 playoffs, so they know they are capable of overcoming adversity.

“We’re looking forward to the next challenge,” Doughty said. “It’s a big game Saturday night, and it’s a must-win, obviously. So we have to have everyone rise to the occasion and be a good team.”

Scoring a third goal might help.

  1. pastabelly - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:17 AM

    As a Bruins fan, I believe that the Kings would be an easier route to the Cup for the Bs. As a hockey fan, I think Kings hockey is as bad for the sport as Bruins-Blackhawks is good.

    As far as Mike Richards goes, I still believe his slash on David Krejci in game 3 of the 2010 playoffs is what really cost the Bruins that series. It was the dirtiest of slashes with an intent to injure. Krejci, to that point, owned that series. I don’t wish concussions on anyone, but if someone is going to get one that causes his team an earlier out in the playoffs, it may as well be this turd. Karma is a b!tch. That Bruins team would not have “choked” any 3-0 lead to the Flyers if they hadn’t lost their best player. F Richards and the Kings.

    • sjb6f - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:36 AM

      Three years ago and your memory’s already gone. Clean hit right to the center of Krejci’s body. Unfortunately, Krejci’s arm was too close to his body and it got pinned. That was the turning point, for sure, but there was nothing dirty or malicious about it. Clean hockey play.

      • pastabelly - Jun 7, 2013 at 10:03 AM

        Maybe that play was “officially” clean. He just has too much of a history of blindsides. I have no doubt there was intent to injure and Richards has a reputation as a dirty player who blindsides other players. I don’t think he has any respects for the careers and livelihoods of others. Karma.

    • captn58crunch - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:50 AM

      Mike Richards is what I call sneaky-dirty. He will slash, jab, punch, whatever he can get away with when the ref is not looking or his opponent is not expecting it.

      His blatant slash on David Krejci in that Game 3 did cost the B’s that series. Krejci was their best player up to that point and Richards knew that and intentionally hurt him. I could not believe he was not disciplined for that. The Bruins would have the depth and experience to overcome a loss like this now, but at that time they were not deep enough or experienced to.

      Since that slash, I could care less about Mike Richards. I am glad he is in the West so I don’t have to see him much. Payback is tough, isn’t it Sneaky? You won’t see him the rest of these playoffs and that is a good thing, Kharma is working.

      Only ignorant hockey people would put a thumbs-down on this post. It was well-written and to the point.

  2. tripps3 - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:19 AM

    Yep they sure could – just not against a quick high scoring team like the Hawks

  3. pastabelly - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:21 AM

    Oops, should have said blindside (typed slash by accident). F Richrads.

  4. 19to77 - Jun 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM

    Sure, if their opponent only scored one per game. But they’re up against the Blackhawks. Sh*tty offense might have been enough to beat the likes of the Blues and Coyotes, and the washed-up Canucks, but they barely handled the Sharks and they’re in over their heads against the ‘Hawks. You need to score to win, and the ‘Hawks are MUCH better at it.

  5. galizische - Jun 7, 2013 at 10:15 AM

    Irregardless who wins in the West, they’ll probably sweep the thuggish Bruins.

    • 19to77 - Jun 7, 2013 at 10:42 AM

      Right. Juuuust like the Pens were supposed to. Face it, the Bruins are a juggernaut right now, and Rask is in full-on Thomas mode.

    • comeonnowguys - Jun 7, 2013 at 10:46 AM

      I’m not terribly sure.

      Boston is playing better offensively than LA. Boston wins in six. Five if they can match their scoring in Games 1 and 2 of the ECF.

      The way Boston is handling Pittsburgh may make some think they can handle the offensively-minded Hawks, but I think Chicago’s team defense and Crawford’s play is a little more consistent than Pittsburgh. Still, Boston’s playing well enough as a team to not think they can win at least one. Chicago wins in five or six.

      Just remember I’m completely right. That’s why I’m an anonymous commenter.

      • 19to77 - Jun 7, 2013 at 11:02 AM

        Eh. I’m not buying anyone over the Bruins in less than seven with their play right now. Howard nearly took out the ‘Hawks by getting hot at the right time, and Rask is even better than he was. Plus, they’ve got Krejci, Horton and Bergeron all clutch as hell at the right time and guys like Chara on defense to deal with Chicago’s skill guys – what works on Malkin and Crosby ought to work on Kane and Toews, especially when those guys are both honestly having a pretty weak playoff run.

        The ‘Hawks can win it, definitely – I’m inclined to say it’s 50/50 chances, at least until the first game gives us a sense of how their playstyles match up – but I just don’t see either team winning that easily. Bruins in 7, if I’m forced to call it now, but like I said, it’s coin-flip odds to me.

        Of course, the Kings and Pens can technically both stage epic comebacks too, so there’s that. Heh.

    • comeonnowguys - Jun 7, 2013 at 10:53 AM

      -1 for irregardless, btw.

  6. dt58 - Jun 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

    The problem with winning games with 2 goals is that you have to keep you opponents with less than that…

  7. tripps3 - Jun 7, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    Elimination desperation teams are dangerous – BH know that all too well. Keep you foot on the gas Hawks!!

    • comeonnowguys - Jun 7, 2013 at 11:58 AM

      And your heads on swivels.

  8. loyallakingsfan35yrs - Jun 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

    Keep talking….

  9. tdrusher225 - Jun 7, 2013 at 3:19 PM

    No you can’t Drew. And if you can’t there is something wrong with the NHL. If 2 shots in the 3rd period is acceptable on your team, I hope you get bounced. That is a pathetic way to think, especially when you’re DOWN a goal. No team should make their goalie play have to only surrender 1 goal every night, that is far too much pressure.

Top 10 NHL Player Searches