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

Game 46: St. Louis vs. Colorado "Is this St. Louis?"

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-24-2013, 09:12 AM
  #401
Fluff Master
Registered n00b
 
Fluff Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
I still don't understand the logic of not wanting to get the highest seed possible even if it does mean we would play the kings. The Kings are 12th in the west in goals for. And they are 8-11-4 on the road this year. I don't think they could consistently score on us unless Elliott has another epic collapse. Get home ice against the Kings and I like our chances. I will also say once again, Quick is not the same goalie this year after his offseason surgery. His lateral movement which is probably his biggest strength has suffered. Maybe he will turn it on in the postseason but I doubt it becuase his struggles are physical not mental.
My thinking has nothing to do with a glory road to the cup for me, it's a fact that the higher seed you are the easier road to the cup you have. If anything we should hope we get the 4 or 5 and that a 6,7,8 wins a first round matchup and we avoid the Hawks in the 2nd round. They are alot better team than LA. But as for LA if you wanna crown them then crown em. (Insert Dennis Green clip).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc
The higher teams are seeded absolutely does not mean they will have an easier road over teams. Those teams who have basically been grinding out playoff-style hockey to even get in to the playoffs have a momentum going for them into a series. We were seeded #2 last year and were taken out by a #8 seed. It's the playoffs and anything can happen.

Home ice advantage would be nice for team revenue, but the Blues have been great on the road this year and I would be okay if we placed #5-7. I'm also okay with a loss before the regular season ends if it means our guys have a chance to rest. I get the momentum argument, but the Blues have been bouncing back from a loss pretty well lately.

Fluff Master is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 09:13 AM
  #402
Frenzy1
Christ Follower
 
Frenzy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,644
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
Agreed. Plus if we beat LA in the first round, then I really like our chances moving forward. That would be a huge emotional boost for the Blues and one that could give them the moxie to take us to the Cup.

If we loose to LA in the playoffs, it is more likely to force Army's hand next year. The Blues still have some personnel issues to improve. I would rather us not win a series or two and become complacent with our team.
Armstong has never shown complacency. I don't think he will even if we win a round or 3.

I do think one of oshie or perron wil be gone at the draft. And it will like be to a team like columbus or buffalo for picks.

The fact of the matter is no team will likeky trade a top line center unless shattybis going the other way. And we will not likely find an upgade over what we already have.

On a side note, does anyone else want to keep leopold. That is such a great pairing. Then move cole..... for futures to someone like philli.

Frenzy1 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 09:15 AM
  #403
Vladys Gumption
Global Moderator
Colt55
 
Vladys Gumption's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: St. Louis, MO
Country: United States
Posts: 16,040
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
I still don't understand the logic of not wanting to get the highest seed possible even if it does mean we would play the kings. The Kings are 12th in the west in goals for. And they are 8-11-4 on the road this year. I don't think they could consistently score on us unless Elliott has another epic collapse. Get home ice against the Kings and I like our chances. I will also say once again, Quick is not the same goalie this year after his offseason surgery. His lateral movement which is probably his biggest strength has suffered. Maybe he will turn it on in the postseason but I doubt it becuase his struggles are physical not mental.
My thinking has nothing to do with a glory road to the cup for me, it's a fact that the higher seed you are the easier road to the cup you have. If anything we should hope we get the 4 or 5 and that a 6,7,8 wins a first round matchup and we avoid the Hawks in the 2nd round. They are alot better team than LA. But as for LA if you wanna crown them then crown em. (Insert Dennis Green clip).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc
While it's true that we probably have to beat them to win the cup, I'd still rather not play them in the first round. They have absolutely owned us over the last two seasons. I'm sure it's all mental on the players, but still. I think most of us would much rather play San Jose and roll into the second round with some confidence.

Vladys Gumption is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 10:12 AM
  #404
Freyj
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
I still don't understand the logic of not wanting to get the highest seed possible even if it does mean we would play the kings. The Kings are 12th in the west in goals for. And they are 8-11-4 on the road this year. I don't think they could consistently score on us unless Elliott has another epic collapse. Get home ice against the Kings and I like our chances. I will also say once again, Quick is not the same goalie this year after his offseason surgery. His lateral movement which is probably his biggest strength has suffered. Maybe he will turn it on in the postseason but I doubt it becuase his struggles are physical not mental.
My thinking has nothing to do with a glory road to the cup for me, it's a fact that the higher seed you are the easier road to the cup you have. If anything we should hope we get the 4 or 5 and that a 6,7,8 wins a first round matchup and we avoid the Hawks in the 2nd round. They are alot better team than LA. But as for LA if you wanna crown them then crown em. (Insert Dennis Green clip).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc
Again, home ice against LA is not particularly likely at this point. We either need 4pts or 3pts and LA loses one in regulation and one in OT. They have us on ROW. SJ, however, does not.

I know that the overarching statistics line up with "4th having better chances than 5th/6th", but you're missing the trees for the forest here. As things sit right now, that's assuming that 6, 7 or 8 upset VAN ANA or CHI. 4th or 6th, we're probably still looking at away ice for the rest of the SCP. I'll be far more concerned about the second round or conference finals when we can actually make it there.

Freyj is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 10:23 AM
  #405
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freyj View Post
Again, home ice against LA is not particularly likely at this point. We either need 4pts or 3pts and LA loses one in regulation and one in OT. They have us on ROW. SJ, however, does not.

I know that the overarching statistics line up with "4th having better chances than 5th/6th", but you're missing the trees for the forest here. As things sit right now, that's assuming that 6, 7 or 8 upset VAN ANA or CHI. 4th or 6th, we're probably still looking at away ice for the rest of the SCP. I'll be far more concerned about the second round or conference finals when we can actually make it there.
The playoffs never go chalk. Upsets always happen and will again this year. I am not saying we have a better chance against LA than SJ, but to hope we get a 6 as opposed to a 4 or 5 as many have suggested is stupid. The best case scenario is obviously to get a 4 or 5 and play SJ, but I would still take a 4 and play LA then to be a 6. I can kinda understand why considering our history over the past year against LA but this board is overrating LA big time this year. Watch their games they are not that scary honestly. They rolled everyone last year in the playoffs because they got hot at the right time. Doesn't mean that will happen again this year. Let's remember they barely made the playoffs last year, and have been average this year. You think the blues have trouble scoring goals, go watch a kings game.

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 10:46 AM
  #406
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
Agreed. Plus if we beat LA in the first round, then I really like our chances moving forward. That would be a huge emotional boost for the Blues and one that could give them the moxie to take us to the Cup.

If we loose to LA in the playoffs, it is more likely to force Army's hand next year. The Blues still have some personnel issues to improve. I would rather us not win a series or two and become complacent with our team.
This "emotional boost" you speak of will be negated by the physical toll it will take to knock off the Kings. Dustin Brown by himself is taking out one guy/game right now.

As I keep saying, if someone were to beat LA in the playoffs, they will have merely survived, not won. The Kings will be the hardest team to beat of any of the 16 teams in the dance. End of story. Especially since the lockout gave their fully-in-tact Cup team ample time to rest their playoff wounds compared to a typical Cup winner in a normal season.

If it came to going toe to toe with LA in the Conference Finals then fine, you definitely have to beat the best. But to face that team in the first round? Please.

I don't understand why this is so complicated.

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 10:52 AM
  #407
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
I missed the game but I saw Andy McDonald went to the net.

Wait a minute, Andy McDonald went to the net?

ANDY MCDONALD WENT TO THE NET????

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 10:52 AM
  #408
Fluff Master
Registered n00b
 
Fluff Master's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Country: United States
Posts: 527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pricer502 View Post
The playoffs never go chalk. Upsets always happen and will again this year. I am not saying we have a better chance against LA than SJ, but to hope we get a 6 as opposed to a 4 or 5 as many have suggested is stupid. The best case scenario is obviously to get a 4 or 5 and play SJ, but I would still take a 4 and play LA then to be a 6. I can kinda understand why considering our history over the past year against LA but this board is overrating LA big time this year. Watch their games they are not that scary honestly. They rolled everyone last year in the playoffs because they got hot at the right time. Doesn't mean that will happen again this year. Let's remember they barely made the playoffs last year, and have been average this year. You think the blues have trouble scoring goals, go watch a kings game.
I wouldn't call it stupid, I mean it is what it is: a difference in opinions. I get the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. LA may not be as scary good as they were in the last off-season, but they are scary from the Blues perspective considering the games against them this season.

It seems to me that everyone here is simply looking for the best case scenario for us going into the playoffs. That is our common ground. LA's a different team and so are the Blues. Where we end up is where we end up is where we end up.

Fluff Master is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 11:06 AM
  #409
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluff Master View Post
I wouldn't call it stupid, I mean it is what it is: a difference in opinions. I get the point you're trying to make, but that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with it. LA may not be as scary good as they were in the last off-season, but they are scary from the Blues perspective considering the games against them this season.

It seems to me that everyone here is simply looking for the best case scenario for us going into the playoffs. That is our common ground. LA's a different team and so are the Blues. Where we end up is where we end up is where we end up.
Completely agree. I am just rooting for us to win our remaining games to get the best possible seed and hopefully home ice advantage and I could care less who our first round opponet is. The best team will win the Stanley Cup regardless. What I am not doing is rooting for a first round road series just so we can get 3 home games in the middle as some are wanting.

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 11:18 AM
  #410
Celtic Note
Retro Shanny
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
This "emotional boost" you speak of will be negated by the physical toll it will take to knock off the Kings. Dustin Brown by himself is taking out one guy/game right now.

As I keep saying, if someone were to beat LA in the playoffs, they will have merely survived, not won. The Kings will be the hardest team to beat of any of the 16 teams in the dance. End of story. Especially since the lockout gave their fully-in-tact Cup team ample time to rest their playoff wounds compared to a typical Cup winner in a normal season.

If it came to going toe to toe with LA in the Conference Finals then fine, you definitely have to beat the best. But to face that team in the first round? Please.

I don't understand why this is so complicated.
Just to verify my understanding of this post...

There is absolutely no possible way the Blues can beat LA.

If they did beat LA, then it guarantees they will not make it past the next round.

There is no such thing as upsets or momentum in hockey.

These are facts, not inferences or opinions.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 12:25 PM
  #411
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Rooting to play LA is just the lower EV, lower percentage angle. It's like saying to win a poker tournament you want to start out at a table with the best players in the world, as this would be the only way for you to feel confident going forward if you survive.

There's a corresponding fear that the play-LAers aren't acknowledging. There's the fear that if the Blues don't play LA first, they won't have the confidence rolling when they beat whichever opponent so that later it will be easier for LA to beat them. Shouldn't it be true that if you want to be the best you have to beat the best, shouldn't that be true any old time, first round, second round, third round? Some people are afraid that without playing the best immediately the Blues won't have enough confidence to win future rounds. That is more illogical to me than wanting to play a series of opponents against whom you match up better.

The fact is, this Blues team matches up far better against both San Jose and Vancouver than it matches up against LA. That's just true based on what we've observed. People think LA is only vulnerable in round 1 so that's where we have to catch them? Why is that part of the argument against avoiding LA? That doesn't make any logical sense, it's just fear stuff too. If you really believe the Blues can match up against LA, then what's the problem wanting to avoid them initially? Why would you push back against that? After all, if you believe the Blues are capable of beating this LA team in the playoffs, you wouldn't be afraid of them anytime they could meet. But instead it's being presented as "stupid" to want to specifically avoid them in round 1. Probably because the play-LAers secretly know LA is a beast of a playoff team. I know most of you have seen lots of playoffs so there's no excuse not to understand that some teams are built for the regular season and some teams are built for the playoffs. LA is built purely for the playoffs. They know what it takes to win, and they know the game plan required. Citing not looking quite as potent in the regular season is almost laughable compared to the reality of what changes as soon as the puck is dropped in the postseason. I'm surprised that people who get that playoffs don't go chalk don't get that playoffs are a different season entirely and it heavily favors the way LA is built. But, whatever. I think the play-LAers actually do get it and are scared of playing LA deeper in the postseason. Otherwise why would they object so strongly?

If LA and San Jose both win tonight, the Blues are eliminated from getting the 4 seed. Reason: both teams would be at 59 and play each other, which means one has to get 61, and the Blues' max is 60.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 12:48 PM
  #412
Celtic Note
Retro Shanny
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenzy1 View Post
Armstong has never shown complacency. I don't think he will even if we win a round or 3.

I do think one of oshie or perron wil be gone at the draft. And it will like be to a team like columbus or buffalo for picks.

The fact of the matter is no team will likeky trade a top line center unless shattybis going the other way. And we will not likely find an upgade over what we already have.

On a side note, does anyone else want to keep leopold. That is such a great pairing. Then move cole..... for futures to someone like philli.
When I speak of complacency, I am not meaning to speak in absolutes, rather degrees. I fully realize Army is not a complacent guy, but that does not mean he has an inability to engage in complacency to some degree.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 12:50 PM
  #413
STL Blues Fan
Registered User
 
STL Blues Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 679
vCash: 110
I don't care who we play as long as we win. All the way to the cup!!!

STL Blues Fan is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 12:56 PM
  #414
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,227
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
Just to verify my understanding of this post...

There is absolutely no possible way the Blues can beat LA.

If they did beat LA, then it guarantees they will not make it past the next round.

There is no such thing as upsets or momentum in hockey.

These are facts, not inferences or opinions.
Highlight where I used any of those hyperbolic words or phrases.

I never said anything remotely resembling the Blues "100%, cannot and will not beat the Kings in a playoff series" or if they do they "100% cannot and will not beat the next opponent" in the 2nd round. You seem to be inferring that I'm like an Islanders fan going into their 1993 series against Pittsburgh. I'm not. I just think it would be a horrible draw.

The anti-LA matchup folks have merely laid out rationale arguments regarding why it is best to avoid them in the first round for the Blues to have a better chance at an extended run. Those are opinions.

However, it is not an opinion that LA has the best Fenwick Close in the league. They are a great team to begin with and an even better when they match up against the Blues. Those are facts.

TheOrganist is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:01 PM
  #415
2 Minute Minor
Hi Keeba!
 
2 Minute Minor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Temple, Texas
Country: United States
Posts: 13,019
vCash: 50
The Blues are guaranteed to not get 8th, and thus won't play the Blackhawks in the first round. They're the team that scares me the most right now.

Ideally, LAK and Chicago would face each other and the Blues would only have to play one of them (assuming St Louis can advance). But that's wont' happen either (at least not in the first round).

I think San Jose is a better team this season than they were last season. They're also very confident at home. I think they probably deserve more respect from Blues fans than they're getting.

I don't see much difference between facing Vancouver or San Jose in the first round. They're both tough, and the Blues will have to play better than they have been to win either series.

2 Minute Minor is online now  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:01 PM
  #416
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Just want to say it's probably a good thing for this Blues team to start out on the road. They've been good on the road and getting a 1-1 split to start a series is totally doable for this club. They can win in San Jose, they can win in Vancouver. LA and NJ last year were 8 and 6 seeds respectively. Road starts are less important than matchups to win rounds.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:08 PM
  #417
Celtic Note
Retro Shanny
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
Rooting to play LA is just the lower EV, lower percentage angle. It's like saying to win a poker tournament you want to start out at a table with the best players in the world, as this would be the only way for you to feel confident going forward if you survive.

There's a corresponding fear that the play-LAers aren't acknowledging. There's the fear that if the Blues don't play LA first, they won't have the confidence rolling when they beat whichever opponent so that later it will be easier for LA to beat them. Shouldn't it be true that if you want to be the best you have to beat the best, shouldn't that be true any old time, first round, second round, third round? Some people are afraid that without playing the best immediately the Blues won't have enough confidence to win future rounds. That is more illogical to me than wanting to play a series of opponents against whom you match up better.

The fact is, this Blues team matches up far better against both San Jose and Vancouver than it matches up against LA. That's just true based on what we've observed. People think LA is only vulnerable in round 1 so that's where we have to catch them? Why is that part of the argument against avoiding LA? That doesn't make any logical sense, it's just fear stuff too. If you really believe the Blues can match up against LA, then what's the problem wanting to avoid them initially? Why would you push back against that? After all, if you believe the Blues are capable of beating this LA team in the playoffs, you wouldn't be afraid of them anytime they could meet. But instead it's being presented as "stupid" to want to specifically avoid them in round 1. Probably because the play-LAers secretly know LA is a beast of a playoff team. I know most of you have seen lots of playoffs so there's no excuse not to understand that some teams are built for the regular season and some teams are built for the playoffs. LA is built purely for the playoffs. They know what it takes to win, and they know the game plan required. Citing not looking quite as potent in the regular season is almost laughable compared to the reality of what changes as soon as the puck is dropped in the postseason. I'm surprised that people who get that playoffs don't go chalk don't get that playoffs are a different season entirely and it heavily favors the way LA is built. But, whatever. I think the play-LAers actually do get it and are scared of playing LA deeper in the postseason. Otherwise why would they object so strongly?

If LA and San Jose both win tonight, the Blues are eliminated from getting the 4 seed. Reason: both teams would be at 59 and play each other, which means one has to get 61, and the Blues' max is 60.
I really don't understand this whole play LA in the first round vs. later/confidence argument. Who are the people saying this? Does it matter? The Blues will need confidence against whichever team they play.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:14 PM
  #418
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
I really don't understand this whole play LA in the first round vs. later/confidence argument. Who are the people saying this? Does it matter? The Blues will need confidence against whichever team they play.
I don't understand it either. But the "to be the best you have to beat the best" folks always want to play LA immediately, as if waiting til a later round makes beating them less likely.

What's being overlooked is that all of us who want to dodge LA round 1 openly acknowledge that we'll likely have to meet LA or Chicago or potentially both to get out of the West. It's not like we think we can truly avoid LA. I would much rather play them with more money in the bank so that money can be used to make our favorite team better going forward. We still have work to do building this team into a better and better contender, and that will cost $$. Hard to believe some people are completely ignoring this reality, as if suddenly it doesn't matter any more. It completely matters and will have a direct impact on how much this team can afford to be improved if they get an extra 2-3 home playoff dates because the matchups were more favorable out of the gate. Hard to believe all the play-LA-right-awayers don't acknowledge this reality.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:14 PM
  #419
Frenzy1
Christ Follower
 
Frenzy1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 4,644
vCash: 500
With momentum playing such a large role in hockey, the team I would like to play is the ducks. They are just not playing very well right now (not saying that Ryan, Getz, and Perry wont get her going, but ...). I would also rather play the nucks then either LA or San Jose.

I would also love to see Columbus play the Hawks. That is a team that has the goal tending to steal games, but also plays a mean physical game. I also think that who ever wins the 4,5 series may well be pretty beat up due to the play of both teams.

I hope we finish 6th or 7th. Just from the health perspective. The playoffs are always a war of attrition.

Frenzy1 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:16 PM
  #420
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Again, to play Anaheim the Blues must lose both remaining games and the Wild must win both remaining games. The Blues can even acquire as much as a single point provided neither Wild win is a shootout win.

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:22 PM
  #421
Celtic Note
Retro Shanny
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
Highlight where I used any of those hyperbolic words or phrases.

I never said anything remotely resembling the Blues "100%, cannot and will not beat the Kings in a playoff series" or if they do they "100% cannot and will not beat the next opponent" in the 2nd round. You seem to be inferring that I'm like an Islanders fan going into their 1993 series against Pittsburgh. I'm not. I just think it would be a horrible draw.

The anti-LA matchup folks have merely laid out rationale arguments regarding why it is best to avoid them in the first round for the Blues to have a better chance at an extended run. Those are opinions.

However, it is not an opinion that LA has the best Fenwick Close in the league. They are a great team to begin with and an even better when they match up against the Blues. Those are facts.
I agree that the Kings would be a tough matchup. I don't think many, if any, will disagree.

To be honest, I could care less who we face up against. To get to the Cup we are going to face hard and harder teams. The order they come only maters as the playoffs unfold IMO.

If people want to face LA or not in the first round that is their prerogative. It doesn't make selecting a more desired opponent from either side of the argument more right or wrong. It is just preference. That is why I don't understand all the banter and posts made with so many absolutes.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:26 PM
  #422
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
I think, as always happens every time in these discussions at the end of the season, we're conflating "the attitude Blues players should carry" with "what fans should want." Blues players should absolutely carry the attitude of couldn't-care-less, bring-on-whomever. But we're fans. We're not on the team. We can sit back at some remove and cool-headedly analyze. And by doing this it's not some indictment that we as fans don't have the attitude of bring-on-anybody ... because, again, we're not on the team.

Still waiting for a single play-LAer to come up with a single legitimate rebuttal to the point about needing $$ to fund increasing contendership. It has not happened once so far in any argument. The play-LAers universally dodge this argument. Why is that?

PocketNines is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:36 PM
  #423
Celtic Note
Retro Shanny
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 10,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I think, as always happens every time in these discussions at the end of the season, we're conflating "the attitude Blues players should carry" with "what fans should want." Blues players should absolutely carry the attitude of couldn't-care-less, bring-on-whomever. But we're fans. We're not on the team. We can sit back at some remove and cool-headedly analyze. And by doing this it's not some indictment that we as fans don't have the attitude of bring-on-anybody ... because, again, we're not on the team.

Still waiting for a single play-LAer to come up with a single legitimate rebuttal to the point about needing $$ to fund increasing contendership. It has not happened once so far in any argument. The play-LAers universally dodge this argument. Why is that?
I think the part of the problem is that comments aren't always cool headed or they are not being interpreted as such.

As for the needed money comment, it is such an assumptive scenario. We all can act as though we know whats going on with the business side of the Blues, but we are just trying to piece together evidence, without any real knowledge that we are putting the pieces together correctly. To me I could see the situation working out a few ways...after all the ownership group and front office will have to make it work in some fashion.

Celtic Note is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:40 PM
  #424
pricer502
Registered User
 
pricer502's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Kansas City
Country: United States
Posts: 546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PocketNines View Post
I don't understand it either. But the "to be the best you have to beat the best" folks always want to play LA immediately, as if waiting til a later round makes beating them less likely.

What's being overlooked is that all of us who want to dodge LA round 1 openly acknowledge that we'll likely have to meet LA or Chicago or potentially both to get out of the West. It's not like we think we can truly avoid LA. I would much rather play them with more money in the bank so that money can be used to make our favorite team better going forward. We still have work to do building this team into a better and better contender, and that will cost $$. Hard to believe some people are completely ignoring this reality, as if suddenly it doesn't matter any more. It completely matters and will have a direct impact on how much this team can afford to be improved if they get an extra 2-3 home playoff dates because the matchups were more favorable out of the gate. Hard to believe all the play-LA-right-awayers don't acknowledge this reality.
I dont see many people if any saying they hope we play LA in the first round. Some of us don't care who are opponet is. All matchups in the playoffs are difficult and there are no guarentees we can beat any of these teams. I just find it ridiculous that nobody gives us a chance to beat LA. If we get them in the first round we might as well forfeit according to alot of you.

pricer502 is offline  
Old
04-24-2013, 01:44 PM
  #425
PocketNines
Only a 2 year window
 
PocketNines's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Crested Butte, CO
Posts: 9,298
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
I think the part of the problem is that comments aren't always cool headed or they are not being interpreted as such.

As for the needed money comment, it is such an assumptive scenario. We all can act as though we know whats going on with the business side of the Blues, but we are just trying to piece together evidence, without any real knowledge that we are putting the pieces together correctly. To me I could see the situation working out a few ways...after all the ownership group and front office will have to make it work in some fashion.
No, no it really isn't in any way, shape or form an assumption. That's really a weak argument. If this is the best argument I think the case is officially closed on the play-LAers. Honestly, sorry Celtic, it's that weak. There has to be something better or the play-LAers have flat-out lost the argument right here and now.

Are you seriously disputing these two facts: A) additional home playoff dates are extra bonus millions; and B) the Blues are a budget team?

It sounds like you're saying "who's to say if the Blues are a budget team and not flush with cash?" I can't even respond to that with a straight face.

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 06:46 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.