HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   St. Louis Blues (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   What do the Blues do with Elliott? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1366785)

2 Minute Minor 03-04-2013 01:50 PM

What do the Blues do with Elliott?
 
The team is still trying to rehabilitate Elliott. He's under contract for another year. But I think a large part of the Blues' problems can be traced back to him. I think his subpar play has had a big part in the team's defensive mindset breaking down. Too many guys trying to do too much, other peoples' jobs. And because they didn't have confidence in the goalie behind them. (I don't think that he is the entire problem, but I think a solid goalie would have righted the ship sooner.)

Allen played adequately well on his call up. Not great, like some would claim, but much better than Elliott. At what point this season would the Blues cut bait on Elliott? Would they try to send him through waivers (where, I THINK he'd be claimed, but really not sure). Would they try to keep him in St Louis as part of 3 goalies.

I'd be fine with calling Allen up, but if Halak goes down then you're running the playoffs with just Allen and some schmoe as his back-up. I'd rather take a chance on Elliott improving his form. It would be nice to at least get some kind of return for him, if the team decides to go with Allen as the back-up next season.

Anyway, the Dallas game was really just more of the same from Elliott. Supposedly he's looked better in practice, but there are lots of things said about him (and not said about it) by the team, which I think is intended to help his psyche and not necessarily to reflect the truth.

How long will they run 90% Halak and limp along with subpar Elliott before going with Allen? Does it hurt Halak to be overused prior to the playoffs? Is there reason to think Elliott will work his way into shape (I see no improvement yet, but have I missed something)?

I hope this thread can result in realistic discussion, and not an overhyping of Allen, or ridiculous proposals for how the team would manage/squander its assets. Any thoughts?

Terror91 03-04-2013 02:06 PM

Can we trade Elliott to Montreal for Peter Budaj? Get two Slovaks together and I think we'd see Budaj perform well in St. Louis.

MattyMo35 03-04-2013 02:07 PM

It's very frustrating to watch him play this bad, especially when we've seen him play at such a high level. I think we should let him get a couple of more starts, and if he continues letting in a softie or two per game, we have no choice but to either trade him for scraps or waive him. I feel bad for the guy because he seems like a great guy and a hard worker, but we can't sacrifice the season trying to get him back to a level that he may never touch again. The team in front of him hasn't played well, but there's no denying he's allowed quite a few VERY soft goals, and we just can't afford that.

OCTA8ON* 03-04-2013 02:27 PM

Doesn't matter if Halak goes down during the playoffs. Elliott will still crumble like he did last year against the Kings and the spurt this year. If there is no healthy Halak on the bench, Elliott instantly becomes a below average goaltender. Sure, the team as a whole did not play well during the kings, but Elliott gave up on average of 1 soft goal per game during that series. Here are 3 random soft goals I found that have to be made into saves during the playoffs.








Do we give go ahead and give Elliott a 3rd chance as the last line of defense when Halak goes down this year during the playoffs and see if Elliott can mentally stabilize himself when he couldnt do that during this year's rough spurt? No, I say we use him as a trade piece to get Petro a partner while he still has some value. There is no way we get past the second round if we are playing with Elliott. He is mentally too unstable to handle the same amount of pressure Halak is able to thrive on during the playoffs.

erderuft 03-04-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor (Post 60945817)
I'd be fine with calling Allen up, but if Halak goes down then you're running the playoffs with just Allen and some schmoe as his backup.

This is where the dilemma lies with this situation. What if Halak goes down after we've traded/waived Elliott? We'd have Allen and McKenna as our goalies... No, if we where to get rid of Elliott, we'd need a better Plan B.

HooliganX2 03-04-2013 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by erderuft (Post 60949233)
This is where the dilemma lies with this situation. What if Halak goes down after we've traded/waived Elliott? We'd have Allen and McKenna as our goalies... No, if we where to get rid of Elliott, we'd need a better Plan B.

Allen is a better plan B then Elliott. Most teams is they lose their starter and their backup struggles is in trouble.

PocketNines 03-04-2013 04:19 PM

Goaltending is about confidence. Do we know that Elliott has the physical attributes capable of stopping the puck at an extremely high level? Of course we do, we saw the greatest regular season from a goaltender in NHL history from Elliott last year.

What happened to him was that first period of Game 2 against LA. I know it's fashionable to forget, but Elliott was stellar in Game 1 and got the game's #2 star (behind Quick, who was also great in that game). Then Petro is hurt, the whole team has the sense of doom about it, and the team collapsed. The whole team, not just Elliott. 4-0 after one period in Game 2 due to horrendous giveaways. This was literally his first awful period of the entire season. Neither he nor the team got its confidence back, and LA was rolling and confident. You'd have to be an idiot to think Elliott was the reason the Blues lost to LA. The whole team collapsed in that first period of Game 2 and the season was over. Coming into this year, he didn't play elsewhere and he was rusty and it showed. Knowing he was rusty fed into self-doubt, and he's suddenly fighting the puck everywhere and letting in softies.

Again, it's a function of confidence. ALL goalies go through fluctuations, even Hall of Famers. I'm glad we've avoided listing awful 5-10 game stretches of Hall of Fame goalies because it should be obvious to everyone they all have them at some point in their careers. Not saying Elliott is a Hall of Famer, what I'm saying is goalies who go through terrible stretches don't make that goalie anything but a normal goalie. Halak was absolutely putrid for a similar number of games to start the season last year, and he got his confidence back and finished with a very strong campaign. There was nowhere near this amount of obsession and focus on Halak at that time. It's crazy disproportional.

The question isn't "Can Brian Elliott play well in goal?" We know the answer is yes. The question is "Can he gain his confidence back?" If he does, there are only a few absolute haters here who would still despise the guy (and they would). Most would breathe a sigh of relief. If he doesn't, it's obvious he'll lose his job sooner or later. If the organization feels more comfortable with Allen, they'll call him up and waive Elliott.

Thus what we really are debating is how many more opportunities Elliott gets this year to get his confidence back. Some people say zero more opportunities. They have already decided Elliott will never get confidence back so why risk any more losses?

I'm not in the zero more opportunities camp. I think you give him a game in the back-to-backs for a few more tries before you completely give up on the guy. It hurts that he has to play in front of a mentally weak core group like this, but it isn't going to be easy either way to claw back. Give him a few more tries and then if after about 3-4 more chances he's not responding, give Allen a shot and put Elliott on waivers to Peoria. If he gets claimed, he gets claimed. Next year, Binnington and maybe Lundstrom can split time in Peoria. Binnington can get starter minutes right away.

Bluesman91 03-04-2013 05:06 PM

I'm all for giving Ells till the end of the season to get his act together. We can't forget what he did for us last year. If only the team could get the guy a shutout I think it might put the whole team back on track.

EastonBlues22 03-04-2013 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketNines (Post 60955025)
Goaltending is about confidence. Do we know that Elliott has the physical attributes capable of stopping the puck at an extremely high level? Of course we do, we saw the greatest regular season from a goaltender in NHL history from Elliott last year.

What happened to him was that first period of Game 2 against LA. I know it's fashionable to forget, but Elliott was stellar in Game 1 and got the game's #2 star (behind Quick, who was also great in that game). Then Petro is hurt, the whole team has the sense of doom about it, and the team collapsed. The whole team, not just Elliott. 4-0 after one period in Game 2 due to horrendous giveaways. This was literally his first awful period of the entire season. Neither he nor the team got its confidence back, and LA was rolling and confident. You'd have to be an idiot to think Elliott was the reason the Blues lost to LA. The whole team collapsed in that first period of Game 2 and the season was over. Coming into this year, he didn't play elsewhere and he was rusty and it showed. Knowing he was rusty fed into self-doubt, and he's suddenly fighting the puck everywhere and letting in softies.

Again, it's a function of confidence. ALL goalies go through fluctuations, even Hall of Famers. I'm glad we've avoided listing awful 5-10 game stretches of Hall of Fame goalies because it should be obvious to everyone they all have them at some point in their careers. Not saying Elliott is a Hall of Famer, what I'm saying is goalies who go through terrible stretches don't make that goalie anything but a normal goalie. Halak was absolutely putrid for a similar number of games to start the season last year, and he got his confidence back and finished with a very strong campaign. There was nowhere near this amount of obsession and focus on Halak at that time. It's crazy disproportional.

The question isn't "Can Brian Elliott play well in goal?" We know the answer is yes. The question is "Can he gain his confidence back?" If he does, there are only a few absolute haters here who would still despise the guy (and they would). Most would breathe a sigh of relief. If he doesn't, it's obvious he'll lose his job sooner or later. If the organization feels more comfortable with Allen, they'll call him up and waive Elliott.

Thus what we really are debating is how many more opportunities Elliott gets this year to get his confidence back. Some people say zero more opportunities. They have already decided Elliott will never get confidence back so why risk any more losses?

I'm not in the zero more opportunities camp. I think you give him a game in the back-to-backs for a few more tries before you completely give up on the guy. It hurts that he has to play in front of a mentally weak core group like this, but it isn't going to be easy either way to claw back. Give him a few more tries and then if after about 3-4 more chances he's not responding, give Allen a shot and put Elliott on waivers to Peoria. If he gets claimed, he gets claimed. Next year, Binnington and maybe Lundstrom can split time in Peoria. Binnington can get starter minutes right away.

I think that's about where I am with him as well. If he's still struggling after another 3 or so starts, I think we're pretty much forced to expose him to waivers at that point. The short season just doesn't allow for much more leeway than that.

Yoko Ono* 03-04-2013 06:11 PM

They should have traded him at the trade deadline last season, anyone with any hockey sense knew his run was going to end he is a journeyman goalie at best.

Daley Tarasenkshow 03-04-2013 06:32 PM

We should waive him.

Allen is our backup.

OCTA8ON* 03-04-2013 06:44 PM

I agree about the King's series. Of course the series was lost by the entire team, but I will argue that out of any player on the team, Elliot was the worst player during the whole series. I posted 3 videos I found in 5 minutes of him letting up shots he absolutely has to save during the playoffs although I might be more lenient after investigating the severity of his apparent ear infection he had.

The Note 03-04-2013 08:53 PM

Play him occasionally here or there, see if he can regain his form. If not hope and pray Halak stays healthy and part ways with Elliott at the end of the year

Eazy D 03-04-2013 09:02 PM

I'm with ya, PocketNines. Thanks for the well thought-out post.

JustOneB4IDie 03-04-2013 09:30 PM

And to think Mike Smith was the "other" under the radar UFA goalie back in the summer of 2011 to back up Halak when Smith signed with Phoenix instead... :eek:

Back to Elliott : How many employers grant you a 3 week paid leave to regain your "Confidence?" then put you back out there and you under perform once again? And during the lockout why didn't you play somewhere to stay sharp?

It's not all Elliott's fault. The Blues are not "buying in" most nights this lockout shortened season. However, your goalie is the last line of defense. Sometimes you need a goalie to steal a game or playoff series. Since that LA series Elliot has proven that goalie from last year was a mirage, and not a true barometer to measure, he's just a mediorce at best goalie who had failed previous stops in Ottowa & Colorado. I liked the idea of getting Peter Budaj from the Habs but if you were the the Habs would you do this? :laugh:

Bring up Allen to back up Halak, and get what you can for Elliott, or just waive him. Time to move on.

OCTA8ON* 03-04-2013 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedBlue1967 (Post 60979993)
And to think Mike Smith was the "other" under the radar UFA goalie back in the summer of 2011 to back up Halak when Smith signed with Phoenix instead... :eek:

Back to Elliott : How many employers grant you a 3 week paid leave to regain your "Confidence?" then put you back out there and you under perform once again? And during the lockout why didn't you play somewhere to stay sharp?

It's not all Elliott's fault. The Blues are not "buying in" most nights this lockout shortened season. However, your goalie is the last line of defense. Sometimes you need a goalie to steal a game or playoff series. Since that LA series Elliot has proven that goalie from last year was a mirage, and not a true barometer to measure, he's just a mediorce at best goalie who had failed previous stops in Ottowa & Colorado. I liked the idea of getting Peter Budaj from the Habs but if you were the the Habs would you do this? :laugh:

Bring up Allen to back up Halak, and get what you can for Elliott, or just waive him. Time to move on.

I like this idea or maybe we can play him a few more times like PocketNines said until the trade deadline to see if he is able to regain his form because I will not accept Halak going down in the playoffs again and have Elliott come up and **** the bed again like he always does when Halak is injured. One soft goal per game isn't cutting it. Good, dependable goaltenders let in 1 soft goal every 3 games, not every game. Or in other words, even the Colorado Avalanche wouldn't have won the Stanley Cup if Patrick Roy let in 1 soft goal per game, especially in the playoffs.

sh724 03-04-2013 10:01 PM

There really is not anything they can do with him at this point. If they waive or trade him and something happens to Halak then the Blues are SOL. If you keep him and something happens to Halak and Elliott is still playing poorly than you Play Allen with Ells as the back up. If he is waived and no one takes him then the Blues are still stuck paying him this year and next, unless he is bought out this summer in which case the Blues still have to pay him part of his salary. I think he stays where he is at for the rest of this year, if his play does not pick up at all then you trade him for a mid to late round pick at the draft. With the way the Blues are playing right now even if they make the POs they are not going to go deep. So let Allen play 20ish games in the AHL instead of 5ish games in the NHL. If the team picks up their play and starts playing like they were expected to and they have a chance at doing something special than call up Allen to plat back up.

Halak has to start the vast majority of the games for the rest of the season, if he goes down the Blues are in real bad shape no matter if it is Allen of Elliott in net. Halak will start at least 80% of the remaining games so we are only talking about 5-6 games started by some one else.

When Allen was starting he was doing well, but it was pretty apparent he is not ready to be a started in the NHL, and if all he is doing is sitting the bench there is no reason for him to be on the team. If the Blues were really worried they could always call up Allen whenever they wanted to give Halak a day off and then send him back down after. The only time Ells would play is if Halak was pulled from a game. And that would be quite funny to see a goalie get called up play a game and get sent down once every week or two.

PocketNines 03-05-2013 04:01 AM

I know this. I know (barring pleasant suprise Elliott major turnaround) that Halak is going to get the #1 role for the rest of the 27 games and playoffs starter. We all crap on Elliott. Is Halak a playoff one-hit wonder or is he the real deal? We will find out and Halak has the golden opportunity to become a legend. If somehow he replicated his '10 playoff performance this team is talented enough to get to the Finals behind that kind of play. If he doesn't, let's all agree to admit Halak's not the answer either.

JustOneB4IDie 03-05-2013 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketNines (Post 60994251)
I know this. I know (barring pleasant suprise Elliott major turnaround) that Halak is going to get the #1 role for the rest of the 27 games and playoffs starter. We all crap on Elliott. Is Halak a playoff one-hit wonder or is he the real deal? We will find out and Halak has the golden opportunity to become a legend. If somehow he replicated his '10 playoff performance this team is talented enough to get to the Finals behind that kind of play. If he doesn't, let's all agree to admit Halak's not the answer either.

Well said on Halak, 3.7 million reasons to see if he is the answer or not. :handclap:

PerryTurnbullfan 03-05-2013 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PocketNines (Post 60994251)
I know this. I know (barring pleasant suprise Elliott major turnaround) that Halak is going to get the #1 role for the rest of the 27 games and playoffs starter. We all crap on Elliott. Is Halak a playoff one-hit wonder or is he the real deal? We will find out and Halak has the golden opportunity to become a legend. If somehow he replicated his '10 playoff performance this team is talented enough to get to the Finals behind that kind of play. If he doesn't, let's all agree to admit Halak's not the answer either.

agree. I think E.T. needs to take Elliott home.

Terror91 03-05-2013 01:26 PM

Carolina lost Ward and Florida lost Theo. make a deal?

JustOneB4IDie 03-05-2013 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall Ritchey (Post 61014101)
Carolina lost Ward and Florida lost Theo. make a deal?

Canes will go with Eliis as their number one and Peters backing him up and The time has arrived in Florida for Markstrom with Clemmensen backing him up so no.

Alklha 03-05-2013 01:56 PM

The feeling in the Stars game that if he was pulled then we wouldn't se him again. We'll persist unless he makes that impossible and probably look to move him in the summer.

ExJbeck 03-05-2013 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Randall Ritchey (Post 61014101)
Carolina lost Ward and Florida lost Theo. make a deal?

My first thought as well. I doubt anything happens, but Carolina has to be looking at getting the best goaltender available. Florida has Markstrom so well see about that.

JustOneB4IDie 03-05-2013 02:16 PM

Let's trade Elliott back to Ottowa for Ben Bishop! :sarcasm: :laugh:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:12 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.