HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Balancing the Blues

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-22-2013, 01:42 AM
  #51
MattyMo35
Moderator
Schwartz Be With You
 
MattyMo35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 5,811
vCash: 1598
Tarasenko went from Russian Jesus to whipping boy in a couple of months. That might be even more impressive than Stewart's rise from expendable, lazy floater, to untouchable juggernaut. If nothing else, this site is always good for a laugh.

MattyMo35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 01:45 AM
  #52
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,094
vCash: 1691
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 Minute Minor View Post
Wait, now Tarasenko is going to be the new whipping boy?

A rookie making the transition to North America whose training camp was pissed away by the lockout and still made a huge splash? A guy whose showing a great attitude and desire to learn?

I don't disagree that he's been caught floating at times, but if anyone on the roster deserves a bye for a few mistakes its Tarasenko. The guy is going to be a brilliant star, and he'll be defensively sound once he gets adjusted. Anything he does this season is bonus in my opinion....and the way he draws attention should create some more opportunities for other lines.
If it was directed towards my post, I wasn't using Tarasenko as a whipping boy. I was simply stating that while he is a good player, he does still need time adjusting to our system. My post was not a knock at his talent as a player. Just stating my observations of his transfer to the North American game.

Hell I still thinks he wins the Calder just because out of all the rookies, none of them have been spectacular and is mostly a numbers game. I think he will end up top 3 in rookie points, while getting to show off what he can do in the playoffs, which only Brodin, Gallagher, and Galychenyuk may get to see.

Bluesman91 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 05:04 AM
  #53
Slay
Registered User
 
Slay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Krasnoyarsk
Country: Russian Federation
Posts: 1,424
vCash: 500
Not sure about strong complainings on Tarasenko's two way game. He goes all the way to the corners and works fairly well there, won't win every battle, but who will? You should be happy that he is not Zherdev-like, who mainly just stick checks and doesn't put his body in the middle of things. Seems like -7 lightweight Schwartz becomes some sort of a benchmark around here. He might look quicker and flashier but I am not really sold on him being a better player away from the puck especially being this light, which might bring inconsistency. But so far he is consistent on having the worst +/- on the Peoria and on the Blues. Meanwhile Tarasenko is one of the most effective forwards on the Blues, scoring a point every 19 minutes, second only to Malkin among Russian players, and he doesn't have Malkin's linemates.


Last edited by Slay: 03-22-2013 at 05:12 AM.
Slay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 06:12 AM
  #54
kimzey59
Registered User
 
kimzey59's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,548
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Well no, you'd have to get Jackman to play out of his mind in the playoffs. Mitchell was a beast last year. If Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk and a beastly Jackman perform in the playoffs and remain healthy, yeah, the Blues don't really need to add much. Do you think Jackman will be a playoff beast? I'd rather add someone.
So numbers and logic fail and you turn to hyperbole and opinion.
"But Mitchell played so good"?

Willie Mitchell played in the perfect situation for his skill set. He was playing next to Drew Doughty(a legit #1 D man who is one of the best PMD's in the League), typically on the ice with a line featuring Kopitar, Dustin Brown and Justin Williams(3 great puck control players who are also dominant defensive forwards) and had a goalie behind him putting up Conn Smyth caliber numbers(if anybody on that team was a "beast" it was Quick).

Defensive D men such as Mitchell and Jackman are almost always a product of their environment. They have some clear vulnerabilities that teams can take advantage of if things aren't going exactly perfectly right(poor mobility, poor durability and limited puck moving skills).

We've seen that plenty with Polak this year. When our goalies were playing like sieve's and Russell was playing like crap; Polak played like crap. Since Allen came in and Russell has picked up his game, all of a sudden Polak is looking strong again.
Miraculous transformation? not even remotely. The environment changed and went back to favoring Polak's skill set.

It is incredibly disingenuous to tout Mitchell as Elite and playing out of his mind but then turn around and say that Jackman isn't capable of the same thing. Jackman has performed at a higher level for the last 5 years. Put him in that sweetheart environment and he would have been every bit as "dominant" and "Elite" as Mitchell supposedly was last year, probably even more so given that Jackman has put up those better performances in a worse environment. The only area Mitchell has any kind of edge on Jackman is size; and Jackman has proven that his size does not keep him from outperforming bigger guys.

The reason we need a lefty D man to play with Pie is because Shattenkirk needs Jackman to cover his butt. Shattenkirk has a bad habit of going off the reservation trying to make plays, and he needs a great defensive partner to cover for him. Jackman fills that role to a tee, but that leaves Petro's pairing a man short. We don't need a great player for that spot, just somebody who plays a good steady defensive game and steps up physically when things get rough. Not a top pairing guy, not even necessarily a top 4 guy. Just a steady, physical stay at home type. Cole and Redden have both proven they can't fill that role because of their defensive inconsistency.

kimzey59 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 06:24 AM
  #55
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
So numbers and logic fail and you turn to hyperbole and opinion.
"But Mitchell played so good"?

Willie Mitchell played in the perfect situation for his skill set. He was playing next to Drew Doughty(a legit #1 D man who is one of the best PMD's in the League), typically on the ice with a line featuring Kopitar, Dustin Brown and Justin Williams(3 great puck control players who are also dominant defensive forwards) and had a goalie behind him putting up Conn Smyth caliber numbers(if anybody on that team was a "beast" it was Quick).

Defensive D men such as Mitchell and Jackman are almost always a product of their environment. They have some clear vulnerabilities that teams can take advantage of if things aren't going exactly perfectly right(poor mobility, poor durability and limited puck moving skills).

We've seen that plenty with Polak this year. When our goalies were playing like sieve's and Russell was playing like crap; Polak played like crap. Since Allen came in and Russell has picked up his game, all of a sudden Polak is looking strong again.
Miraculous transformation? not even remotely. The environment changed and went back to favoring Polak's skill set.

It is incredibly disingenuous to tout Mitchell as Elite and playing out of his mind but then turn around and say that Jackman isn't capable of the same thing. Jackman has performed at a higher level for the last 5 years. Put him in that sweetheart environment and he would have been every bit as "dominant" and "Elite" as Mitchell supposedly was last year, probably even more so given that Jackman has put up those better performances in a worse environment. The only area Mitchell has any kind of edge on Jackman is size; and Jackman has proven that his size does not keep him from outperforming bigger guys.

The reason we need a lefty D man to play with Pie is because Shattenkirk needs Jackman to cover his butt. Shattenkirk has a bad habit of going off the reservation trying to make plays, and he needs a great defensive partner to cover for him. Jackman fills that role to a tee, but that leaves Petro's pairing a man short. We don't need a great player for that spot, just somebody who plays a good steady defensive game and steps up physically when things get rough. Not a top pairing guy, not even necessarily a top 4 guy. Just a steady, physical stay at home type. Cole and Redden have both proven they can't fill that role because of their defensive inconsistency.
Totally agree... Somebody bribe or blackmail DeKeyser

PerryTurnbullfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 09:31 AM
  #56
Corn Baller
Registered User
 
Corn Baller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Kansas City, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kimzey59 View Post
So numbers and logic fail and you turn to hyperbole and opinion.
"But Mitchell played so good"?

Willie Mitchell played in the perfect situation for his skill set. He was playing next to Drew Doughty(a legit #1 D man who is one of the best PMD's in the League), typically on the ice with a line featuring Kopitar, Dustin Brown and Justin Williams(3 great puck control players who are also dominant defensive forwards) and had a goalie behind him putting up Conn Smyth caliber numbers(if anybody on that team was a "beast" it was Quick).

Defensive D men such as Mitchell and Jackman are almost always a product of their environment. They have some clear vulnerabilities that teams can take advantage of if things aren't going exactly perfectly right(poor mobility, poor durability and limited puck moving skills).

We've seen that plenty with Polak this year. When our goalies were playing like sieve's and Russell was playing like crap; Polak played like crap. Since Allen came in and Russell has picked up his game, all of a sudden Polak is looking strong again.
Miraculous transformation? not even remotely. The environment changed and went back to favoring Polak's skill set.

It is incredibly disingenuous to tout Mitchell as Elite and playing out of his mind but then turn around and say that Jackman isn't capable of the same thing. Jackman has performed at a higher level for the last 5 years. Put him in that sweetheart environment and he would have been every bit as "dominant" and "Elite" as Mitchell supposedly was last year, probably even more so given that Jackman has put up those better performances in a worse environment. The only area Mitchell has any kind of edge on Jackman is size; and Jackman has proven that his size does not keep him from outperforming bigger guys.

The reason we need a lefty D man to play with Pie is because Shattenkirk needs Jackman to cover his butt. Shattenkirk has a bad habit of going off the reservation trying to make plays, and he needs a great defensive partner to cover for him. Jackman fills that role to a tee, but that leaves Petro's pairing a man short. We don't need a great player for that spot, just somebody who plays a good steady defensive game and steps up physically when things get rough. Not a top pairing guy, not even necessarily a top 4 guy. Just a steady, physical stay at home type. Cole and Redden have both proven they can't fill that role because of their defensive inconsistency.
This is the only place I disagree with you. Practically speaking, I think it does need to be a Top 4 guy. I think with the "Top 4" label comes a measure of consistency that the Blues need to be sure that they get. If you don't get that, you're almost not better than just platooning Cole or Redden. I think they need to solve the problem and make sure it stays solved.

Corn Baller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 11:02 AM
  #57
Blue Goose
"Hockey Transplant"
 
Blue Goose's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 343
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corn Baller View Post
This is the only place I disagree with you. Practically speaking, I think it does need to be a Top 4 guy. I think with the "Top 4" label comes a measure of consistency that the Blues need to be sure that they get. If you don't get that, you're almost not better than just platooning Cole or Redden. I think they need to solve the problem and make sure it stays solved.
I think the crux of this argument is that, to me, it seems like there are several fans on this board who feel that we have to use core pieces to go out and get a stud LD to play with Petro (Giordano, Vlasic, Yandle), and there are some of us who feel that we can still be a Cup-winning team, based on the lineup of some of the previous Cup winners, by simply acquiring a veteran stay-at-home guy to complement Petro's offensive game (guys like Mitchell, Scuderi or Seidenberg from past Cup winners; or vets like Regehr, Leopold, Klesla, Tallinder, or even Douglas Murray).

I agree with you that it's a situation that will need to be solved, but I don't necessarily feel that it has to be done during this season. I'm fully content to roll with what we have, and then address the LD situation in the offseason, when we can better assess our roster and acquire that player by trading off complimentary pieces or signing a UFA (many of us wanted Garrison last summer, so why not try for a guy this summer?). My biggest complaint from this season is that I viewed Redden as a depth veteran who would play if there were injuries, and instead, he's getting Top 4 minutes that I feel would be much better served going to Cole, in order to give him experience so that we could determine if HE could be the Top 4 LD that we need and save us from having to go acquire one.

Being a "transition year", I say roll with Petro-Jax, Cole-Shatty, Russell-Polak, Redden as #7, get into the playoffs and see if you can do some damage, and replace Redden in the offseason with a longer-term solution - since there will be better options and we won't be stuck in a trade deadline bidding war in this "seller's market".

Blue Goose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-22-2013, 11:42 AM
  #58
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 kimzey59 View Post
So numbers and logic fail and you turn to hyperbole and opinion.
"But Mitchell played so good"?

Willie Mitchell played in the perfect situation for his skill set. He was playing next to Drew Doughty(a legit #1 D man who is one of the best PMD's in the League), typically on the ice with a line featuring Kopitar, Dustin Brown and Justin Williams(3 great puck control players who are also dominant defensive forwards) and had a goalie behind him putting up Conn Smyth caliber numbers(if anybody on that team was a "beast" it was Quick).

Defensive D men such as Mitchell and Jackman are almost always a product of their environment. They have some clear vulnerabilities that teams can take advantage of if things aren't going exactly perfectly right(poor mobility, poor durability and limited puck moving skills).

We've seen that plenty with Polak this year. When our goalies were playing like sieve's and Russell was playing like crap; Polak played like crap. Since Allen came in and Russell has picked up his game, all of a sudden Polak is looking strong again.
Miraculous transformation? not even remotely. The environment changed and went back to favoring Polak's skill set.

It is incredibly disingenuous to tout Mitchell as Elite and playing out of his mind but then turn around and say that Jackman isn't capable of the same thing. Jackman has performed at a higher level for the last 5 years. Put him in that sweetheart environment and he would have been every bit as "dominant" and "Elite" as Mitchell supposedly was last year, probably even more so given that Jackman has put up those better performances in a worse environment. The only area Mitchell has any kind of edge on Jackman is size; and Jackman has proven that his size does not keep him from outperforming bigger guys.

The reason we need a lefty D man to play with Pie is because Shattenkirk needs Jackman to cover his butt. Shattenkirk has a bad habit of going off the reservation trying to make plays, and he needs a great defensive partner to cover for him. Jackman fills that role to a tee, but that leaves Petro's pairing a man short. We don't need a great player for that spot, just somebody who plays a good steady defensive game and steps up physically when things get rough. Not a top pairing guy, not even necessarily a top 4 guy. Just a steady, physical stay at home type. Cole and Redden have both proven they can't fill that role because of their defensive inconsistency.
Sometimes you put a lot of words out there that have very little meaning, and this is one of those times. It's all premised around the idea that you think I said Jackman "isn't capable" of playing to the same level. For someone so sensitive about "putting words in (your) mouth" you sure are hypocritically guilty of that yourself throughout this debate. I said that if Jackman did what Mitchell did last year (y'know, play over 25 minutes a game and dominate defensively in the playoffs), sure, the Blues would be fine. So we have to sit around and wait for a Cup until Jackman turns in that performance? That's pretty stupid, Kimzey. And you yourself don't even believe that. That's what makes this whole debate really stupid from your standpoint. You got hurt fee-fees because I said Mitchell was elite as a defensive defenseman, which he is. You belittle a far smarter poster than you are's "little list" because you disagree with it. For example, if you understood logic, you'd understand that saying Mitchell is elite as a defensive defenseman, there is no informational content in that statement about Barret Jackman. I could think Jackman is elite or not, but you just leapt to the logical conclusion that I wouldn't list Jackman in that same group. We can bicker back and forth about whether Mitchell is better than Jackman, but here's something incontrovertible: Jackman has never had the kind of postseason that Mitchell had. Blah blah blah it had nothing to do with Mitchell and only to do with everyone else ... because YOU say so? Because it fits your argument to say so? The dude averaged over 25 minutes and was a force himself in the playoffs. Whatever your bias was on Mitchell before that playoff run it was obviously proven wrong when he excelled last year. That's why I said if Jackman happened to do that, awesome, the Blues could go on a long run. Should the team simply assume that kind of performance and hope all goes well? No, I would rather they not do that. But when someone says that the Kings last year in the playoffs were merely a one-defenseman team, it's obviously false, because we just watched it and it was false, because of how Mitchell played. How hard is that to understand? There are risky gambles and calculated risks teams sometimes take. I think assuming Jackman will have that kind of playoff performance is in the risky gamble category more than the calculated risk category. What's even more hilarious is how few posters here have ever tried to argue the Blues shouldn't get another high-quality LHD because Jackman will probably carry the team in the playoffs. So I'm certainly not alone. Have you ever argued that Jackman would carry the Blues in the playoffs? If I missed such a post, please point me to it. And until then, quit with the words-in-the-mouth ridiculousness and circular logic.

PocketNines is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:58 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.