Beyond Game 4 — The Fourth Period

The Kings can slow Colorado down, they kept games in reach in all three contests. They can get responsible shifts but four goals in three games is not a playoff formula, especially when the other side has MacKinnon, Cale Makar, and enough game-breakers to find one or two moments.

For next season, this cannot just be patched with “more buy-in.” The Kings need more pace through the middle, more dynamic offense off the rush, and more players who can create when the system does not create for them. The absence of Kevin Fiala has been felt significantly. Despite his flaws, Fiala’s ability to create offense highlighted the need for more players with similar game-breaking qualities. His absence has exposed just how much the Kings depend on individual skill to supplement their structured approach and underscores the urgency for the organization to find or develop talent that can elevate the attack when systematic play falls short.

Their defense ranks last in postseason scoring by defensemen but with all top six defensemen either under contract or control next season, (Brandt Clarke is a restricted free agent at season’s end) substantial change will be a challenge.

2. The second-line center question becomes unavoidable

With Anze Kopitar retiring after this season, Game 4 should be viewed through that lens.

This is not simply about replacing a player. It is about replacing the organizational safety net. For years, Kopitar allowed the Kings to play a responsible, matchup-heavy game because he could absorb defensive responsibility and still provide enough offense and control.

Without him, the Kings cannot enter next season hoping committee depth solves the middle of the ice. If Game 4 again shows the Kings struggling to generate from the center lane, that strengthens the offseason case for a legitimate 2C/1B center —  much more likely by trade than free agency — not just another safe veteran.

3. D.J. Smith’s evaluation gets complicated

This is a tough spot for D.J. Smith. He did not build the roster, and the Kings have not looked disorganized. They have looked limited and that distinction matters.

If the Kings compete hard in Game 4, keep structure, and lose because Colorado simply has more finish, you can argue Smith stabilized the group but inherited a ceiling. If they come out flat, undisciplined, or emotionally checked out, then the organization has to ask a different question: did the interim bump have a shelf life?

The coaching question for next season should not be “did he get swept by Colorado?” It should be: does this staff have a plan to modernize the offense? Because the Kings’ defensive bones are there, the question is whether they can become more than a low-event team that needs perfect goaltending and opportunistic scoring.

4. Anton Forsberg’s playoff has bought him credibility — but not a blank check

Forsberg has not been the problem, through the first two games he gave them a chance in two one-goal losses. Game 3 was not a disaster either, with Colorado getting two fortunate deflection-type goals.

But next season’s goaltending question is bigger than “did Forsberg play well in one series?” It is whether the Kings are comfortable building around him as the clear 1A. The coaching staff remained loyal to Darcy Kuemper deep – and likely too deep – into the season before turning to Forsberg. With a goaltending pipeline as full as it’s been since Jonathan Quick was the starter and with one season left on Kuemper’s contract, does next season start with the incumbents or is it time to elevate a prospect?

5. The powerplay and special teams are part of the offseason indictment

The backbreaker in Game 3 was Lehkonen’s shorthanded goal in the third period. That is not just a bad moment; that is the kind of playoff moment that exposes a team’s lack of killer instinct.

When you are offensively limited, your powerplay must be a weapon. For the Kings, it has too often felt like an extension of their five-on-five problem: controlled, deliberate, but not dangerous enough.

Going into next season, the Kings need a powerplay rethink. Personnel matters, but so does philosophy. There needs to be more deception and faster puck movement. With Panarin getting a full training camp and assuming a new team approach there should be more one-touch plays, more downhill pressure and less predictability. The 30th ranked regular season penalty kill has been a perfect 9-for-9 in this series which shows that with the proper level of discipline to stay out of the penalty box and reliable goaltending, it does not need the overhaul the powerplay does.

The Kings find themselves just one game away from elimination, yet it is important to note that they are not being embarrassed by their opponent. While some may have expected them to be overwhelmed in this series, that has not been the case. Instead, the team is being exposed for its construction—they are designed to make strong teams uncomfortable, but not necessarily built to defeat elite teams four times in a playoff series. This distinction highlights the difference between being competitive and being truly capable of contending at the highest level.

Game 4 should not trick the front office either way. One win does not erase the bigger issue, and one sweep does not mean everything is broken. But the series is showing that the Kings’ margin for error is too thin. Colorado can get an odd bounce, a Makar shot, a Lehkonen special-teams play, or an empty-net closer. The Kings need to grind for everything, an approach that is not sustainable if the goal is to move from playoff participant to playoff threat.

Game 4 is a referendum on the future, not the series.