This was the story almost the entire night. The Kings simply failed to deliver the aggressive offence they promised.

And the neutral zone? Yes, the Kings pushed their F1 forward, but everyone else consistently dropped back, surrendering critical ice at their own blueline. Here’s a textbook example of what plagued the Kings all game long: the F1 moves decisively up ice, but watch closely as the puck advances.

Notice the Kings’ positioning. Three players have already retreated deep behind their blueline. This passive setup repeatedly handed the Oilers easy entries and prime attacking opportunities.

The Oilers also helped their cause by continuing to develop attacks quickly. Here are a couple of clips where the Oilers moved the puck up the ice rapidly to prevent the Kings’ forecheck from setting up.

Both instances illustrate how hard it was for the Kings to get into any type of forecheck set-up when the Oilers made plays to get the puck up the ice quickly

In sum, the Kings’ forecheck tone remained very passive in Game 5. Whether it was by design or fatigue, the Kings could not generate more assertive plays on the forecheck.

For the Oilers’ part, the team remained focused on attacking up the ice quickly on transition to make it even tougher on the Kings. This will need to change in Game 6 for the Kings, or the direction of play is going to continue to come at them.

What About The Rush Attack?

This was the biggest adjustment of the series.

In Game 5, the Edmonton Oilers effectively neutralized the Kings’ dangerous rush attacks. As a result, the Kings struggled to generate quality scoring chances.

How did the Oilers accomplish this? Two main ways stood out.

First, Edmonton’s neutral zone structure was exceptional. Every line, from first to fourth, remained disciplined and committed to their roles.

Consider this example featuring Leon Draisaitl: The Kings gain puck possession and attempt to transition up ice. Notice how Draisaitl quickly returns to his defensive position, centred in the neutral zone. His positioning prevents cross-ice plays. When the puck reaches Draisaitl’s assignment, the Kings player is forced into a rushed pass, directly onto Corey Perry’s stick, perfectly positioned to intercept. Perry promptly regains possession, turning defence into offence for the Oilers.

This disciplined approach consistently disrupted the Kings’ momentum and was key to the Oilers’ Game 5 success.

My favourite part about how the Oilers countered the Kings’ rush was simply just beating them back on plays. Watch these three clips without my commentary.

The relentless commitment from Edmonton’s forwards to track back aggressively through center ice completely neutralized the Kings’ rush opportunities. This fierce defensive effort allowed Oilers’ defenders to confidently step up at their blueline, effectively disrupting any momentum the Kings tried to build.

As a result, the Oilers consistently matched or outnumbered the Kings’ attackers on nearly every rush throughout the game. This was the decisive factor in Game 5. Edmonton had already solved the Kings’ forecheck in Game 4, but LA still created chances off the rush.

In Game 5, the Oilers not only eliminated that threat but turned their defensive intensity into explosive counterattacks. This tactical shift was bold, decisive, and unquestionably the most impressive element of Edmonton’s game plan.

Other Notes from Game 5…

The biggest question heading into Game 6 is simple: What do the Kings’ top players have left?

Both teams are facing their sixth game in just 12 nights. Fatigue could be a factor. The Kings’ fourth line has seen very limited ice time, although their third defensive pairing logged valuable minutes in Game 5. This helped rest their top-four defensemen.

In contrast, the Oilers leaned heavily on their star players last game. Will this decision impact their energy levels?
Game 6 will reveal whether the Kings can recapture the energy and urgency they showed early in this series.

Another key factor: The Oilers have a chance to close the series at home. Home-ice advantage means better control over match-ups. This could limit the Kings’ ability to effectively use their full roster.

John Klingberg’s play has been impressive. While he’s vulnerable against quick attacks off the rush, and the Kings tested him in Game 5, his composure and sharp passing in the defensive zone have stood out. Klingberg and Jake Walman were arguably the best defensive pair on the ice last night, which is a major positive for Edmonton.

Equally important is the success of the Nugent-Hopkins, Kane, and Hyman line. Their strong play creates matchup headaches for the Kings, giving Edmonton’s coaching staff more flexibility. They can confidently deploy McDavid and Draisaitl together whenever necessary, trusting this second line against any of the Kings’ top three units.
Evander Kane, in particular, has emerged as a pleasant surprise and a difference-maker in this series.

That’s it for the Game 5 tactical review. We will see you right back here on Friday morning with a breakdown of Game 6. Have a great day.