HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Blues @ Ducks 7 Central

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-11-2013, 07:01 AM
  #326
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,155
vCash: 500
Felt like this game could have went either way. I didn't have a big problem with how they played. I'm not a fan of his, but Russell has really picked up his game. 3rd and 4th lines both played a strong game. Anaheim's Getzlaf line just made it happen when they needed to. I guess that's why he gets the big bucks... Good luck paying Corey Perry too. Halak really made some big saves, and I have no fault with the goals that were scored.

I am in the camp that the Blues need another big presence on the blueline. A couple goals were the result of not controlling the front of the goal. The hardest shots to stop are tipped, screened or point blank shots. Please...no mention of Garth Butcher near the trade deadline...Ron Caron...

PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 10:47 AM
  #327
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
Yeah that also makes zero sense to me. If you'd rather see losses like the LA one then you might need your head checked. If the Blues always lost like that I would have quit watching them a long time ago. Those are the worst.
The difference between the San Jose series and the L.A. series last playoffs was watching St. Louis get pushed around. The opposition tries to score in all of the dirty areas and if defense is too shy to keep from them parking down low then why wouldn't they? Polak and Jackman have proved throughout the years they can play that game, Shatty does occasionally but Petro and Russel seemed to be afraid of banging out down low. It's not that I enjoy those losses but I'd rather see them send a message to other NHL teams that they aren't going to be pushed around.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 10:56 AM
  #328
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
I think he meant if the Blues lose. If the Blues lose, I know I'd rather see them go down swinging like against LA and not the kind of performance we got tonight.
That is exactly what I meant. There are only a handful on here that realize St. Louis has some issues with toughness and try not to call it fatigue, line changes or chemistry. The battles down low are embarrassing, I would hate to see how bad it would be without Jax.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 04:43 PM
  #329
Twisted Blue
Registered User
 
Twisted Blue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
That is exactly what I meant. There are only a handful on here that realize St. Louis has some issues with toughness and try not to call it fatigue, line changes or chemistry. The battles down low are embarrassing, I would hate to see how bad it would be without Jax.
Blues lack of "toughness" did NOT lose this game. Ducks did not physically dominate the Blues, in fact I believe the Blues outplayed the Ducks by cycling the puck and dominating the play along the boards. The Blues just took/received way too many penalties and it cost them. Agree that the Blues have played "soft" at times this season but that is not a major flaw that continues to be a problem.

Twisted Blue is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 05:17 PM
  #330
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Lol, apparently "there's only some who understand" that the answer to in-your-face, dirty-areas hockey in the playoffs against a team like LA has to come from within each player on the roster rather than just adding one depth defenseman to take care of all that.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:14 PM
  #331
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
I don't see what's so funny about that. The Blues need every Defenseman to play tougher down low and protect the net.. After all isn't that their job? Seems to me a lot of St. Louis Defenseman seem to take more of an interest in playing the offensive part of the game rather than making sure their goaltender isn't getting overwhelmed by the opposing team whether if it's parking in front of the net or catching odd-man rushes. There is no room for timid Defensemen in the modern NHL.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:17 PM
  #332
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Yes, and you think the answer is add one guy. Add one guy (who'd get ~16-18 minutes) and the Blues have suddenly fixed their problems on D. That's what's funny.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:20 PM
  #333
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Let's not fantasize and pretend that we are every going to see Petro and Russell banging it out down low with larger opponents in order to protect Jaro/Ells/Allen. They have their certain strengths but physical play is definitely not one of them. Like I have said before Jax, Shatty and Polak will engage in that style of play but lacking that style of play with the others is a problem that will be exposed when facing more physical teams. Why wouldn't they want to park in front of the goal if the St. Louis Defensemen are going to allow it to happen?

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:26 PM
  #334
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Lol, apparently "there's only some who understand" that the answer to in-your-face, dirty-areas hockey in the playoffs against a team like LA has to come from within each player on the roster rather than just adding one depth defenseman to take care of all that.
I'm of the opinion that they need two stay at home defensemen for both Shatty and Pietro. We can agree to disagree. I believe you need those kind of players. They create room for everyone. That's what I see through hockey history. Don't get me wrong. You don't have to drop the gloves to be tough, but we are too small on the backline.

PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:27 PM
  #335
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Yes, and you think the answer is add one guy. Add one guy (who'd get ~16-18 minutes) and the Blues have suddenly fixed their problems on D. That's what's funny.
I never said anything about adding anybody... Did I? I'm saying our current Defensemen need to play this way, after all it's their job. Unfortunately only a few are willing to engage in that gritty style of play and it's showing an obvious flaw, toughness in front of the net.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:27 PM
  #336
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
During the summer you wanted to get one guy. Are you advocating changing the roster more than that?

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:38 PM
  #337
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
That was last year.. Right around the same time you were trashing Jackman in favor of landing the almighty Garrison. Sure I would still love to get rid of Russell in favor of somebody that is willing to battle down low. But given what we have right now I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect our Defensemen to protect their goaltender and engage in a little more confrontation.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 06:57 PM
  #338
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
That was last year.. Right around the same time you were trashing Jackman in favor of landing the almighty Garrison. Sure I would still love to get rid of Russell in favor of somebody that is willing to battle down low. But given what we have right now I don't think it's too unrealistic to expect our Defensemen to protect their goaltender and engage in a little more confrontation.
1) "trashing Jackman?" WHAT???? Provide a single link. Just one single link. Or come back and admit you made this up (weirdly).
2) Garrison was a perfect target and the Blues made him an offer, so I guess as the guy who first began advocating that last year I look pretty shrewd, eh?
3) It is very easy to turn you around and argue my point, which is as surreal as it is hilarious. I was making fun of the idea that just getting one guy (your idea from the summer) is the answer. Obviously to beat the Kings in the playoffs the whole team will have to play intense, aggressive, in your face hockey. Which, again obviously, this team is capable of doing. They just weren't prepared for the onslaught from LA after a relatively easy San Jose series, and also losing your best player immediately hurts. They weren't mentally tough and collapsed. But you think it was not having a "crease clearer" that cost us in that series, which is ridiculous. So here I argue that the whole team needs to provide it and you're now tyring to convince me I'm right. Thank you.

Gotta run for a bit, back later.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 09:18 PM
  #339
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
1) "trashing Jackman?" WHAT???? Provide a single link. Just one single link. Or come back and admit you made this up (weirdly).
2) Garrison was a perfect target and the Blues made him an offer, so I guess as the guy who first began advocating that last year I look pretty shrewd, eh?
3) It is very easy to turn you around and argue my point, which is as surreal as it is hilarious. I was making fun of the idea that just getting one guy (your idea from the summer) is the answer. Obviously to beat the Kings in the playoffs the whole team will have to play intense, aggressive, in your face hockey. Which, again obviously, this team is capable of doing. They just weren't prepared for the onslaught from LA after a relatively easy San Jose series, and also losing your best player immediately hurts. They weren't mentally tough and collapsed. But you think it was not having a "crease clearer" that cost us in that series, which is ridiculous. So here I argue that the whole team needs to provide it and you're now tyring to convince me I'm right. Thank you.

Gotta run for a bit, back later.
You specifically said you wanted Jackman to go to free up space for the Garrison deal (who in my mind hasn't lived up to his huge contract) I don't care enough to keep this stuff archived but I know that you and a few others had said it. Every Defenseman in the NHL should put priority on clearing the crease for their Goaltender, why shouldn't they? Yes, I wanted have to have another player that can engage in that kind of play. You could want Petro and Russell to have intensity and aggression but do you honestly see it happening?
In typical fashion you are trying to make me sound as if I meant something different. When I said having another player that is a crease-clearer it didn't mean have "only one" player so nobody else on the team would have to. Why on earth would I not want the whole team defense to play that way?

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-11-2013, 11:21 PM
  #340
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
You specifically said you wanted Jackman to go to free up space for the Garrison deal (who in my mind hasn't lived up to his huge contract) I don't care enough to keep this stuff archived but I know that you and a few others had said it. Every Defenseman in the NHL should put priority on clearing the crease for their Goaltender, why shouldn't they? Yes, I wanted have to have another player that can engage in that kind of play. You could want Petro and Russell to have intensity and aggression but do you honestly see it happening?
In typical fashion you are trying to make me sound as if I meant something different. When I said having another player that is a crease-clearer it didn't mean have "only one" player so nobody else on the team would have to. Why on earth would I not want the whole team defense to play that way?
The bold is a lie. I don't know who you're thinking of but it wasn't me. You have zero idea what you're talking about.

When we got into it this summer you said, Garrison wouldn't be the guy, instead we should get Bryan Allen. Soft, soft (but big) Bryan Allen. As your crease clearer.

As far as now saying you want the whole team to play that way, friggin duh, dude. That's the whole point. You don't go out and get a one-dimensional Garth Butcher who will hurt you in other areas, you just have to realize that hockey is about desire and it's a whole team effort. This entire debate came up during the summer in terms of what player the Blues should target in free agency. Now you're saying the whole team should play like this (as I've been saying all thread). That's such an obvious position it shouldn't be worthy of debate. But it was also the position I had in the summer when you were clamoring for the one-dimensional player. No team can win the Cup without full, total dedication. It's why the Kings won, and it's why we watch the games ... in hopes our team does this.

But the Jackman thing is total BS, guy.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 07:04 AM
  #341
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Lol, apparently "there's only some who understand" that the answer to in-your-face, dirty-areas hockey in the playoffs against a team like LA has to come from within each player on the roster rather than just adding one depth defenseman to take care of all that.
My thoughts rather than a deal for a Giordano, which is a good deal. If the price is reasonable, then I have no problem with it. What about making a move with Pittsburgh who is looking for a cap friendly forward such as an Oshie or Perron for a Simon Despres (big dman), Beau Bennett (up and coming forward), and one of their other stay at home d-men in the AHL that are ready? They have more d-men than they know what to do with. Brian Dumoulin, Joe Morrow, etc. We fill two big holes on defense and have a forward to replace whomever is traded. Make minor deals to unload other defenseman.

PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 08:50 AM
  #342
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
I never said Bryan Allen, not even once.. I said Tim Gleason but that's a big difference, guy. I would think everybody on this board wants the whole team to play aggressive, that's just common sense. Just because you want a player to engage in that style doesn't mean that they are going to. Your priority wasn't an in-your-face player but finding a pairing for Petro, hence your Garrison chase.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 08:56 AM
  #343
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
My thoughts rather than a deal for a Giordano, which is a good deal. If the price is reasonable, then I have no problem with it. What about making a move with Pittsburgh who is looking for a cap friendly forward such as an Oshie or Perron for a Simon Despres (big dman), Beau Bennett (up and coming forward), and one of their other stay at home d-men in the AHL that are ready? They have more d-men than they know what to do with. Brian Dumoulin, Joe Morrow, etc. We fill two big holes on defense and have a forward to replace whomever is traded. Make minor deals to unload other defenseman.
I don't care for the idea of trading away any of our core forwards but you are right we need more stay-at-home Defenseman especially ones that are willing to battle down low. Really even a good two-way Defenseman would be nice, so long as they are willing to trade blows to protect their goaltender rather than shying away when the heat is on.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 09:24 AM
  #344
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Bryan Allen, like Barret Jackman, is exclusively a defensive defenseman. Jackman is better at this job. The same goes for Salvador.

Carle is like getting a less physical Colaiacovo for nearly twice the price (better numbers but not by as much as you'd expect as Philly's far better forward production boosts his secondary assist #s higher).

Garrison is better than Jackman as a defensive defenseman. If you're upgrading Jackman you have to have the guy be better defensively. Otherwise just keep Jackman on the second pairing. My argument for the risk being worth it on Garrison is that Pietrangelo is every bit as good as Brian Campbell as an offensive QB partner (remember, Garrison acted as the defensive anchor on that pairing and benefited from Campbell's offensive hockey sense). Garrison was paired with Weaver last season; with Campbell this season. Pietrangelo is more like Campbell offensively.

I've said before that if everything pans out perfectly with Joel Edmundson in 4-5 years, he'll become what Jason Garrison is now. Big, rock solid defensively, cannon shot.

I recognize that it's not in the Blues' control whether this happens. They could/should look at Suter too. They can think about trades (e.g., Giordano). But if Garrison entertains a Blues offer the Blues should be willing to entrtain this risk. He had 17 goals in 81 games (includes 4 playoff games, he was dinged up) and shot around 9.5%. That accuracy can go up or down year to year but the velocity is there to stay – it's NHL elite. This is not Jay McKee we're talking about here. This is not Eric Brewer, who could carry the puck fluidly zone to zone but became a spastic Jerry Lewis (hey laaaady!) as soon as he gained the blue line. If his accuracy goes down for one of the years, we're talking about, what, 10 goals, ~15 assists, rock solid defense? He's a late bloomer who's just entering his prime. There will be some solid production years which is all gravy over what Jackman brought offensively. He's played for two seasons against the best competition in the NHL and done well. He hits more than Jackman and well more than Colaiacovo. He blocks ~125 shots a season which is barely under Jackman's average (Jackman's a fairly elite defensive defenseman in the league) and way more than Colaiacovo.

Stuart I haven't considered much b/c it seems like he's been pretty open about wanting to be with his family on the West Coast if he's not in Detroit.

EDIT – Bryan Allen is a Carlo Colaiacovo upgrade. I worry that if Petro gets hurt again in the playoffs, and all you did was swap Colaiacovo for Allen, you're still totally screwed. Someone has to provide an offensive element from the back end.
This was the post from last summer. I wasn't even in the discussion when Allen was mentioned but these are YOUR words... verbatim.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 09:32 AM
  #345
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
I don't care for the idea of trading away any of our core forwards but you are right we need more stay-at-home Defenseman especially ones that are willing to battle down low. Really even a good two-way Defenseman would be nice, so long as they are willing to trade blows to protect their goaltender rather than shying away when the heat is on.
Beau Bennett and Simon Despres have played well and could well develop into top 6-9/top 4 players. Pittsburgh is a little closer than we are. Depending on which other AHL seasoned d-man we could get, then we would still have a good shot at making a run. I don't think we are quite there yet. A move like this could put us over the top. Kind of like the Shatty/Stewart deal a few years ago. It would be a tough decision. Just been knocking it around as a possibility.

I think a wake up call is in order for our core.


Last edited by PerryTurnbullfan: 03-12-2013 at 09:40 AM.
PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 10:04 AM
  #346
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
Beau Bennett and Simon Despres have played well and could well develop into top 6-9/top 4 players. Pittsburgh is a little closer than we are. Depending on which other AHL seasoned d-man we could get, then we would still have a good shot at making a run. I don't think we are quite there yet. A move like this could put us over the top. Kind of like the Shatty/Stewart deal a few years ago. It would be a tough decision. Just been knocking it around as a possibility.
Everybody wants big numbers for Defensemen but the basics like burst skating, knowing when to hold the puck and good movement should be just as important as what they are putting up in numbers. It seems that Defense is putting so much priority in offensive puck movement that once turnovers are created it leaves these ugly odd-men rushes. Two things where St. Louis is suffering is physical play in front of the net and more back end protection from the opposition's chip-and-chase play. There really is no defensive strategy to defeat chip-and-chase teams other than just wearing them down and having adequate coverage.

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 10:38 AM
  #347
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,155
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harley83 View Post
Everybody wants big numbers for Defensemen but the basics like burst skating, knowing when to hold the puck and good movement should be just as important as what they are putting up in numbers. It seems that Defense is putting so much priority in offensive puck movement that once turnovers are created it leaves these ugly odd-men rushes. Two things where St. Louis is suffering is physical play in front of the net and more back end protection from the opposition's chip-and-chase play. There really is no defensive strategy to defeat chip-and-chase teams other than just wearing them down and having adequate coverage.
I watch the no interference rule and look at it as an opportunity to run their forwards. Get some big d-men that can skate, let them chip it past the defense, and just paste them into the boards. I see other teams take this strategy. This will wear the other team out in a hurry. I don't like that we just seem to box up right away and not take the chance to take the body.

PerryTurnbullfan is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 10:50 AM
  #348
Harley83
Registered User
 
Harley83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Country: United States
Posts: 294
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
I watch the no interference rule and look at it as an opportunity to run their forwards. Get some big d-men that can skate, let them chip it past the defense, and just paste them into the boards. I see other teams take this strategy. This will wear the other team out in a hurry. I don't like that we just seem to box up right away and not take the chance to take the body.
Bingo, that chip-and-chase offense is tough to go against especially if the opposition has powerful skaters. I think most teams have caught onto that by now like you said. Hitch even said that was St. Louis' key to overcoming L.A. "you just have to outwork the opposition.." You have to know that you are as conditioned as them and have the ability to shut them down in the chase or pray you have a tremendous goaltender. (or you could just blame him and rotate the next one in)

Harley83 is offline  
Old
03-12-2013, 04:04 PM
  #349
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 50
Hey, just want to mention it and I'll let it go (since the previous GDT thread is locked and that's where it came up).

@Harley You said I was "trashing Jackman" and for proof offered a "verbatim" post where during the analysis I said "Garrison is better than Jackman as a defensive defenseman." Well, this is true. If that's your best "trashing Jackman" evidence, that's sad. I like how you ignored that in the same thread I wrote "I've kind of always been a 6 or 7 on a 1-to-10 Blues fan scale running from anti to pro Jackman." Which is true. I have never "trashed" Jackman. Ever. If you think that consitutes "trashing" Jackman I don't even know what to say.

PocketNines is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:24 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.