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

OIL! @ Blues

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-27-2013, 06:35 PM
  #276
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,628
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cudi View Post
Allen's a shiny new toy so he gets the easy way out.. if Halak gave up 3 goals on 7 shots this board would lose their minds. I find it hilarious how some people think Allen is already better than Halak with only 11 starts under his NHL career.
I've played goalie for 15 years. I've had my fair share of arguments with teammates leaving me hanging out to dry. I've defender Halak when he's been pulled for goals that weren't his fault. Hitch even said it wasn't Allen's fault but energy needed to be shifted somewhere on the ice.

I'm not sure what you guys were expecting Allen to do on the goals he let up?

If he would have anticipated and cheated over to Eberle who's to say RNH wouldn't have had read his body movement and taken a shot after Allen moved over for Eb's shot or just dropped it back to Hall for a wide open net.

2nd goal he came out to challenge a shot. Eberle is a prolific goal scorer and put it right where Allen couldn't get it, he had great positioning but that shot was a pure sniper, if Stewart or Frank would have done that we would be screaming for joy on what a shot that was.

3rd goal again, what did you want Allen to do? Use his booster pack to get back into the net quicker after being taken out?

There is a complete difference of a goaltender's fault and leaving him out to dry. Cervanka's 2nd goal was similar to Eberle's 2nd goal, both goaltender's had no chance as they were both incredible shots. I'm not sure how you can blame a goaltender for giving up 3 goals on 3 odd-man rushes.

It's not the fact that we are letting Allen get a pass on letting up 3 goals on 7 shots, but just realizing, there was really nothing else he could have done.

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 08:35 PM
  #277
underslept
Registered User
 
underslept's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Poland
Posts: 1,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbet1998 View Post
How sure are you to say that the Blues have scored less than 3 goals per game more than any of the other contenders to call that the issue? Check the stats. The Goaltending and defense is the issue. Scoring is not.

You guys were watching this team give up 3-5 goals every game, right? Do you guys think its easy to score when the other team is up early and they go into a defensive shell? Do you think its easy to score 4 goals every game? Because on this road trip and this game where it seemed every chance ended up in their net, that's what they would of had to score to win.
Is the "check the stats" line something you put in every post despite never providing stats or even the specifics of which stats you're referring to?

While I agree our defense and goaltending were not good last month, I disagree that scoring has not been a problem. My point is that this team scores in bunches so if they start scoring they're hard to stop. If they struggle to score, it's easy to keep them off the board. Thus we are an inconsistent offense.

While I agree it's disheartening to be down in a game early or have multiple (good or bad) goals scored on you, it's certainly no justification for lack of offense. The forwards contributed heavily to the bad play of February with poor positioning, poor back-checking, and most importantly off all, a lack of scoring. I don't think it's easy to score when your team is down or giving up bad goals, but you're not always going to be leading on the scoreboard and this team needs to figure out how to have a good offense under adverse conditions. You can't ignore the offensive woes just because the defensive woes are more obvious.

I do not think it's easy to score 4 goals/game; however, with this team's offensive talent, I feel the offense is currently under performing with weak shots. I'm aware how many shots the Blues have put up in the last two games, but as both opposing teams have shown, it's quality, not quantity of shots that wins the game. The Blues take very few quality shots in a game, thus a goaltender who's in good position and reasonably athletic, can quite easily "stand on his head" against the Blues because regardless of how many shots he sees, they're not going to be challenging. One-timers, low slot play, and screens are things the Blues need to have regularly in the offensive zone. Instead, we see weak shots into the chest when they actually do get below the face off dots and snipe attempts that end up bouncing off the glass. This team is stymied by a good positional goaltender and that is pathetic. Make him move laterally (see Oshie's last goal in Edmonton) and the offense will go from anemic to aggressive.

I did check the stats too.

The Blues have scored more than 3 goals in 12 of their 32 games (roughly 38%) this season. Much like the powerplay, most of the success of scoring more than 3 goals came early in the year (42% of the more than 3 goal games came in January). They haven't been strong offensively for multiple games since January.

Goals For per month
Jan - 28 GF/07 games = 4.00 G/G
Feb - 27 GF/12 games = 2.25 G/G
Mar - 35 GF/13 games = 2.69 G/G (so far)

Goals Against per month
Jan - 14 GA/07 games = 2.00 GA/G
Feb - 41 GA/12 games = 3.41 GA/G
Mar - 34 GA/13 games = 2.61 GA/G (so far)

The goaltending/defense did get bad in February with a GAA for the month 1.41 GA/G higher than the previous month. However, if you notice, the offense dropped 1.75 G/G. So despite your claim the scoring has been fine, the offense actually was worse than the defense. And another note, the goaltending has nearly stabilized itself this month, yet the offensive production only minimally increased.

I won't be surprised if someone claims that's because the defense was so bad the offense didn't have the ability to produce. In my opinion, the offense has struggled since January to be consistent, which has made the goaltending/defense situation look worse than it has been. The gap in production based on which goaltender is in net is more proof that the offense has been a big problem. If this team's offense does not figure out how to start challenging a goaltender and scoring (because the other team's goalie "standing on his head" excuse will get old fast as it is just an excuse so far; we haven't seen a goaltender stand on his head against the Blues recently) it won't matter how good the goaltending gets. Too many talented forwards on this team taking routine shots and calling it "good" effort. There's a reason they didn't score on all those shots last night, they weren't good shots.

underslept is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:12 PM
  #278
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Allen let in 3 goals on 7 shots. If Halak doesn't get the benefit of the doubt for poor defensive play in front of him, why should Allen?

Fact is, by saying, "What could he have done? Oh well, no biggie," people ARE giving Allen a pass.

I'm not saying he could have done better. I'm saying that if Halak **** the bed in Calgary, then Allen pretty much did too in Edmonton. Allen had a 0.571 SV% last night. Halak had a 0.824 in Calgary.

My issue isn't with how Allen played though. It is with the fact that every mistake that Halak or Elliott have made this season has been nitpicked to hell and back, while Allen gets a pass. And there simply isn't any reason for it.

For the season, Halak has a .893 Sv%. Allen has a .906. Neither of those are good enough. But because Allen is 8-3-1 while Halak is 6-4-1, Allen escapes critizim. Guess which goalie has given up more goals for the Blues? That would be Allen, with 27 to Halak's 26.

Allen's succes has had more to do with how the team plays in front of him than Allen's individual play.

Also, there are a lot of good goalies that are struggling this season, partly because of their team, but partly due to the lock-out (my guess.)

Kiprusoff - .879 (16 GP)
Hedberg - .886 (17 GP)
Quick - .895 (25 GP)
Bryzgalov - .898 (30 GP)
Smith - .901 (26 GP)
Luongo - .904 (15 GP)
Pavelec - .905 (31 GP)

Only Hedberg is a back-up. Jake Allen has a better Sv% than all of those goalies. I'd trade Allen for most of them in a heart beat (salary and age considerations aside).

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:29 PM
  #279
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,628
vCash: 2357
Because of the quality of the goals being given up. That is the answer. Not every goal can be stopped. As a goalie, it's frustrating when there is just nothing you could have done. I'm not exactly sure you understand goaltending.

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 10:51 PM
  #280
Bruv
Loveless
 
Bruv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Hamsterdam
Country: Finland
Posts: 53,023
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesman91 View Post
Because of the quality of the goals being given up. That is the answer. Not every goal can be stopped. As a goalie, it's frustrating when there is just nothing you could have done. I'm not exactly sure you understand goaltending.
But if it was Halak he would by no means get a free pass like Allen has gotten. Either way giving up 3 goals on just 7 shots is bad play regardless

Bruv is offline  
Old
03-27-2013, 11:00 PM
  #281
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,628
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cudi View Post
But if it was Halak he would by no means get a free pass like Allen has gotten. Either way giving up 3 goals on just 7 shots is bad play regardless
Can one of you just tell me what he could have done to stop any of the 3 goals. Provide any logical reasoning other than everyone saying the exact same thing "Well if it was Halak everyone would get mad." It was not just because Allen was playing.,

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 12:31 AM
  #282
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 7,225
vCash: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesman91 View Post
Can one of you just tell me what he could have done to stop any of the 3 goals. Provide any logical reasoning other than everyone saying the exact same thing "Well if it was Halak everyone would get mad." It was not just because Allen was playing.,
He could have lunged and blocked the shot out of mid-air with his stick, then caught it in his glove and skated away like it just picked a daisy.

2 Minute Minor is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 02:18 AM
  #283
bluemandan
Ya Ma Goo!
 
bluemandan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,609
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluesman91 View Post
Can one of you just tell me what he could have done to stop any of the 3 goals. Provide any logical reasoning other than everyone saying the exact same thing "Well if it was Halak everyone would get mad." It was not just because Allen was playing.,
You are missing the point.

The point ISN'T if Allen could or couldn't have actually stopped the shots.

The point is, if EVERYTHING was exactly the same, except it said Halak on that jersey instead of Allen, the reaction would be quite different.

Halak let in three goals against Calgary, not all of which were weak goals. And to you, he "**** the bed."

I'm not saying Halak had no chance on the goals in Calgary. I'm not saying that Allen had a chance on any of the goals scored on him. I'm saying that some people have a double standard when it comes to the two goalies.

Three goals on seven shots, and he got pulled. Allen didn't have a good game. He **** the bed.

bluemandan is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 02:27 AM
  #284
Bluesman91
Registered User
 
Bluesman91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 4,628
vCash: 2357
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemandan View Post
You are missing the point.

The point ISN'T if Allen could or couldn't have actually stopped the shots.

The point is, if EVERYTHING was exactly the same, except it said Halak on that jersey instead of Allen, the reaction would be quite different.

Halak let in three goals against Calgary, not all of which were weak goals. And to you, he "**** the bed."

I'm not saying Halak had no chance on the goals in Calgary. I'm not saying that Allen had a chance on any of the goals scored on him. I'm saying that some people have a double standard when it comes to the two goalies.

Three goals on seven shots, and he got pulled. Allen didn't have a good game. He **** the bed.
No that's just wrong. Halak **** the bed because of the 3rd goal he let up, was completely his fault, he blew the game. But Halak's first goal questionably could have been saved just like Allen's first goal. The 2nd goal Halak let up was like Allen's just a snipe that they couldn't do anything about. The big difference was the 3rd goal. The third goal is the difference between ******** the bed and having no chance to save the puck whatsoever.

Bluesman91 is offline  
Old
03-28-2013, 03:08 AM
  #285
frostyflo
#peskyblues
 
frostyflo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Austria
Country: Austria
Posts: 2,898
vCash: 500
It's not Allens Edm game vs Halaks Cgy game at all, its just a fact that some of you guys would find a way to crucify Jaro if he gets 3 out of 7...or even out of 15, no matter how less of his fault this goals may be

And I guess that are the same guys that will look at every Allen goal against under a microscope in about two years from now when Binnington or anyone else new has a few good games

Anyway, I'm not happy with Jaro getting the start tonight after his last game vs LA


Last edited by frostyflo: 03-28-2013 at 04:41 AM.
frostyflo 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 08:22 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.