HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   St. Louis Blues (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   Offense or goaltending? (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1445387)

ExJbeck 06-11-2013 04:12 AM

Offense or goaltending?
 
First of all Robb's post was from another thread, but it got me thinking.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Robb_K (Post 67302125)
The Blues need one or two significantly better offensive players. They need to create more, and better scoring chances, but they also need to finish better, when they do get scoring opportunities.

The Blues did get a fair amount of shots off. But, a lot of them really had little chance of beating the goalie. The Blues had to dominate play on a level that can't be kept up all game and game in and game out, JUST to keep them in games (outshooting teams 40 to 20). They need to finish better on opportunities in general.

I kind of want to build off of this in a little different direction. Even now when we outshoot teams we still typically are in 1 goal games. I am a firm believer that our goalies are nothing more than average and play behind a defense that limits quality opportunities (blocking shot, low quanity and quality). That being said, if our current goalies aren't capable of making the little number of tough saves a game they fave, is it important to upgrade the goaltender? Jake Allen should be the backup at minimum as far as I am concerned.

Or do we just try and add a better forward who can score/create better opportunities for the offense and not invest assets into a goalie?

So win with more goals scored or less goals against?

Alklha 06-11-2013 05:07 AM

My preference is in goal, but we should be able to do both. It is much easier to upgrade the offense.

What goalies that are available are a certain upgrade? Miller, Luongo and who else? Unless the Canucks have to buyout Luongo, then he isn't an option. Miller is only realistic if he isn't going to cost much; the Halák + Russell rumour would be fine, anything more and I'd be hesitant.

kimzey59 06-11-2013 05:42 AM

Detroit won 4 Cups on the back of an "average" goalie in Chris Osgood because they had a team in front of him who controlled games.
You could argue the same thing about Edmonton with Fuhr, Boston with Thomas/Rask, Chicago with Neimi/Crawford, Pittsburgh with Barasso and later MAF and the Isle's Dynasty with Billy Smith/Rollie Melanson.

"Elite" goalies are not required to win the Cup.
In fact, you'll find more Cup winners who didn't have "Elite" goalies than those that did.

Having said that; the only reason people are even talking about goaltending is because a faction of our fan base is misinterpreting statements to make it an issue. Army said the goaltending situation is cloudy, and said the reason why it's "cloudy" is that Allen is ready for an NHL position. Army has not said one word about bringing a goalie in, just about moving one of the 2 high salary guys that we do have.

Sorry; I do not believe for a second that Army see's goaltending as a problem spot on this team. He's come out and basically said we have 3 guys for 2 spots and I just cannot see him overhauling a position when he's made that kind of statement about it.

On the other hand, Army is directly quoted as saying this:
"If I can find a guy who will come in and help us score goals, certainly we're going to look at doing it."

Hitch was quoted saying this:
"If you want to be a champion, it's not good enough."
"Quite frankly, we need more from the people that are homegrown"
"What we need to do is become a better player in the off-season, not a better athlete,"

Seems pretty obvious to me what is highest on both Army and Hitch's off-season priority list.
Our forwards need to be improved. We need the guys we have here to get better AND we need a little bit of outside help.

bleedblue1223 06-11-2013 07:07 AM

Offense is the biggest need and bigger priority. Any move to upgrade the goaltending situation will be made out of convenience because the market is over-saturated and the cost will be low. Getting Miller will cost the same as Halak-Elliott and if the only added piece is one of the spare defenders, then we basically don't lose anything.

Izzy 06-11-2013 09:46 AM

Should go for a goalie. The current situation isn't working out. Two good goalies, but I still don't feel good about it.

Rizzo90 06-11-2013 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimzey59 (Post 67327953)
Detroit won 4 Cups on the back of an "average" goalie in Chris Osgood because they had a team in front of him who controlled games.
You could argue the same thing about Edmonton with Fuhr, Boston with Thomas/Rask, Chicago with Neimi/Crawford, Pittsburgh with Barasso and later MAF and the Isle's Dynasty with Billy Smith/Rollie Melanson.

"Elite" goalies are not required to win the Cup.
In fact, you'll find more Cup winners who didn't have "Elite" goalies than those that did.

I totally agree on the Osgood point...I've always said detriot won IN SPITE OF Osgood....but I have to ask.....who qualifies as an "elite goalie"? Grant Fuhr's pads from his heyday are in the friggin smithsonian.....not good enough?

kimzey59 06-11-2013 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rizzo90 (Post 67334629)
I totally agree on the Osgood point...I've always said detriot won IN SPITE OF Osgood....but I have to ask.....who qualifies as an "elite goalie"? Grant Fuhr's pads from his heyday are in the friggin smithsonian.....not good enough?


Fuhr was not a bad goalie, but his career numbers are not good.
.887 save Percentage
3.38 GAA


Fuhr made the saves he needed to make to keep his team in the game; but Edmonton won those 5 Cups because they had the most dominant offensive team in NHL history. Fuhr made the HOF based on his Cup count, not because of his career numbers.

HooliganX2 06-11-2013 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Izzy Mandelbaum (Post 67332811)
Should go for a goalie. The current situation isn't working out. Two good goalies, but I still don't feel good about it.

The goalies were not the problem. I don't have any idea how you can say they aren't working out. We didn't score enough to win. You could have a prime Hasek and if you don't score more than 1 or 2 goals a game you will still lose in most cases.

2 Minute Minor 06-11-2013 12:51 PM

Goaltending was a big problem early in the season, and probably the catalyst for a big part of the funk which infected the team for a while. I also think Halak may have burned his last bridge with the front office. His recurring injuries and the way he handled himself, while not openly unprofessional SEEMED to be a bit of a negative. (This is me trying to read between the lines.)

Anyway, despite all the quotes, etc, I could see:
Halak+ traded for Miller. Elliott as the back-up and trade bait during the season. Allen back in Peoria (I know some folks will say Armstrong said he won't go back to Peoria, but I read that basically to say they trust him as an NHL back-up.)

If its not Miller, then I am not so sure what they do, probably run with the current tandem and look for a mid-season trade. Elliott is too cheap and too good of a back-up to trade off. Could he be the starter, trade Halak, and Allen as back-up? That seems a little risky, but would definitely free up some salary. But if someone goes down in goal, things start looking pretty thin pretty fast.

Rizzo90 06-11-2013 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimzey59 (Post 67335061)
Fuhr was not a bad goalie, but his career numbers are not good.
.887 save Percentage
3.38 GAA


Fuhr made the saves he needed to make to keep his team in the game; but Edmonton won those 5 Cups because they had the most dominant offensive team in NHL history. Fuhr made the HOF based on his Cup count, not because of his career numbers.

same question....who qualifies as an "elite" goalie?

Robb_K 06-11-2013 02:03 PM

The offence is the most pressing issue. Regardless of Tarasenko's and Schwartz's probable significant improvements this coming season, The Blues need to add at least one, if not two forwards who can create their own offence, and can make their linemates better.

I have no problem with The Blues trading halak and going with Allen and Elliott.

JustOneB4IDie 06-11-2013 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alklha (Post 67327721)
My preference is in goal, but we should be able to do both. It is much easier to upgrade the offense.

What goalies that are available are a certain upgrade? Miller, Luongo and who else? Unless the Canucks have to buyout Luongo, then he isn't an option. Miller is only realistic if he isn't going to cost much; the Halák + Russell rumour would be fine, anything more and I'd be hesitant.

This. There should have been a "Both" option as well so I'm not voting.

All I am going to say is if Halak and Elliott are our goalies next year it will be 47 years and counting without a cup.

Celtic Note 06-11-2013 02:37 PM

2 Attachment(s)
For those wanting a goalie, please explain why these images prove your point.

bleedblue1223 06-11-2013 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic Note (Post 67344805)
For those wanting a goalie, please explain why these images prove your point.

I don't agree, but I could see someone arguing that a better goalie would make the key difference making saves and that our offense can't be that bad again considering everyone was slumping.

Saying that, I believe it's the offense that needs to change and with our system and defense, we don't need an elite goalie to win it all. It would help, but it's not necessary.

HooliganX2 06-11-2013 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic Note (Post 67344805)
For those wanting a goalie, please explain why these images prove your point.

That's pretty much what I have been stating. We need to score more point blank. Those images prove even with the best GAA in the league at 1.88 you still need to score 2 goals a game to win. We only scored 1.67 goals on average a game. We still would have lost with our lack of offense no matter what goalie we had basically.

Bluesman91 06-11-2013 03:59 PM

How about both? I would have no problem rolling with Elliott/Allen but wouldn't be mad if we got Miller either.

bluesman11 06-11-2013 04:02 PM

Every new thread can be answered with the same response, one or two moves will happen, the young forwards still need to mature, patience.

JustOneB4IDie 06-11-2013 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic Note (Post 67344805)
For those wanting a goalie, please explain why these images prove your point.

2 years in a row - the Kings Goalie Quick eliminated The Blues and Elliott. Elliott was good- not great - in 2013 and did not come up with the big saves for the Blues when the Blues needed it to advance past the Kings in the 1st round. Anyone who thinks Elliott is that Cup winning Goalie here in St. Louis is delusional.

Halak can't stay healthy and does not want to play here. Plus Halak plays better the more shots he sees- a complete mismatch in Hitchcocks system that limits shots.

Get rid of Halak as part of a package to land Miller from Buffalo. Or go after Luongo if he a compliance buyout. Thank you.

ExJbeck 06-11-2013 04:38 PM

Just like everyone else I hope are organization upgrades both, but I want to make the argument that it is not necessary. In a perfect world where we upgrade the offense, we will score more goals. Win more games. If we upgrade the goaltending (Miller is who I am thinking4), less goals go in the net and we won't need those extra goals. Win more games. I don't think we need to be making move to upgrade both. Why waste the assets for the sake of making a super team that should never lose, when a team with improvement in either category would be sufficient? Both can be winning solutions and it's good to see everyone is together in wanting to improve offense. There has to be more possibilities to improve the offense compared to goaltending so hopefully that works in its favor. Thanks for the responses.

Celtic Note 06-11-2013 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BleedinBlueSince1972 (Post 67349453)
2 years in a row - the Kings Goalie Quick eliminated The Blues and Elliott. Elliott was good- not great - in 2013 and did not come up with the big saves for the Blues when the Blues needed it to advance past the Kings in the 1st round. Anyone who thinks Elliott is that Cup winning Goalie here in St. Louis is delusional.

Halak can't stay healthy and does not want to play here. Plus Halak plays better the more shots he sees- a complete mismatch in Hitchcocks system that limits shots.

Get rid of Halak as part of a package to land Miller from Buffalo. Or go after Luongo if he a compliance buyout. Thank you.

I did a statistical analysis earlier this season and there was no statistical significance showing Halak performs better with more shots faced. The analysis included every single game Halak has played in his career. The belief that Halak has a higher save percentage, GAA, or win percentage with more shots faced is simply a fallacy.

BlueDream 06-11-2013 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooliganX2 (Post 67338043)
The goalies were not the problem. I don't have any idea how you can say they aren't working out. We didn't score enough to win. You could have a prime Hasek and if you don't score more than 1 or 2 goals a game you will still lose in most cases.

Halak isn't working out here.

The other two are fine as far as I'm concerned. But when you can't count on Halak to even stay healthy, he's too much of a risk. I'd like to move his big contract before he walks for nothing next summer.

Obviously the Blues could use scoring. I'm not blaming the LA series on Elliott at all, but he sometimes does allow some weak goals at bad times. Even with our lack of scoring, if the Blues had Jonathan Quick, they would have been the ones facing Chicago, not LA, IMO.

I don't think there's a wrong answer here. Neither Halak nor Elliott are really the answer as to who you want carrying your team in the playoffs. I still think scoring is more important, but people who are saying goaltending are not wrong either. Elliott is who he is, a fine goalie, but not really a legit #1.

Celtic Note 06-11-2013 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueDream (Post 67351821)
Halak isn't working out here.

The other two are fine as far as I'm concerned. But when you can't count on Halak to even stay healthy, he's too much of a risk. I'd like to move his big contract before he walks for nothing next summer.

Obviously the Blues could use scoring. I'm not blaming the LA series on Elliott at all, but he sometimes does allow some weak goals at bad times. Even with our lack of scoring, if the Blues had Jonathan Quick, they would have been the ones facing Chicago, not LA, IMO.

I don't think there's a wrong answer here. Neither Halak nor Elliott are really the answer as to who you want carrying your team in the playoffs. I still think scoring is more important, but people who are saying goaltending are not wrong either. Elliott is who he is, a fine goalie, but not really a legit #1.

That might be true, but how many players of Quick's caliber are out there? How many are available? How many can we afford?

Bruv 06-11-2013 06:03 PM

Our offense isn't that good

we need some kind of playmaker

HooliganX2 06-11-2013 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueDream (Post 67351821)
Halak isn't working out here.

The other two are fine as far as I'm concerned. But when you can't count on Halak to even stay healthy, he's too much of a risk. I'd like to move his big contract before he walks for nothing next summer.

Obviously the Blues could use scoring. I'm not blaming the LA series on Elliott at all, but he sometimes does allow some weak goals at bad times. Even with our lack of scoring, if the Blues had Jonathan Quick, they would have been the ones facing Chicago, not LA, IMO.

I don't think there's a wrong answer here. Neither Halak nor Elliott are really the answer as to who you want carrying your team in the playoffs. I still think scoring is more important, but people who are saying goaltending are not wrong either. Elliott is who he is, a fine goalie, but not really a legit #1.

Quick let up some bad goals as well in the series or the goals we should have scored we didn't convert. If we scored 1 more goal a game we could have won.

I could care less about having Halak on our roster next season. I am perfectly comfortable with Elliott and Allen going in to next season.

I really don't understand the Miller obsession he hasn't been a great goalie in years. He may be an upgrade over what we have but even that is not a sure thing. Look at a team like the Rangers who have the best goalie in the league. He has yet to be a difference maker for the NYR to win the cup or even make the finals.

I just don't think we should waste any assets to get Miller as he's not the difference maker we need.

BlueDream 06-11-2013 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HooliganX2 (Post 67353145)
Quick let up some bad goals as well in the series or the goals we should have scored we didn't convert. If we scored 1 more goal a game we could have won.

I could care less about having Halak on our roster next season. I am perfectly comfortable with Elliott and Allen going in to next season.

I really don't understand the Miller obsession he hasn't been a great goalie in years. He may be an upgrade over what we have but even that is not a sure thing. Look at a team like the Rangers who have the best goalie in the league. He has yet to be a difference maker for the NYR to win the cup or even make the finals.

I just don't think we should waste any assets to get Miller as he's not the difference maker we need.

Yeah, I mostly agree. If we could get help up front, I'd be comfortable enough with Elliott/Allen. I would take Miller though if we could get him for something like Halak+Russell which would make us a better team. But no way do I give up a lot for him.

I think Quick is the best goalie in the league though. Guy is unreal in the playoffs. Lundqvist is good but like you said I just haven't seen that kind of play from him when it counts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celtic Note (Post 67352659)
That might be true, but how many players of Quick's caliber are out there? How many are available? How many can we afford?

Right, it's not possible to trade for a Quick, that was just more of me wishing that one day we will have that kind of franchise goalie that we have gone so long without...Of course, your best chances are developing one, so let's cross our fingers that Jake Allen has a bright future.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.