The Blues defense will improve, Halak will probably play plenty and better in a Hitch system.. Expect low scoring boring games, Hitch once told Hull something about goal scoring is not important...
It's possible he may change his stlye somewhat after his Columbus experience with young players, also,
he's been sitting on his couch for over a year, that's plenty of time to think about the new NHL..
I'm thinking he may turn the ship in SL, lets face it, boring winning hockey is better than losing. I'm hoping he hates Halak and trades (he has a way of making GM's do what he wants) him to Columbus! ( I know the cap stuff but money would go your way)
hahhahahahhaha....yea halak played real well giving up 4 goals and then 2 goals to probably the worst offense in the league. halak doesnt deserve any starts the way elliott is playing unless he needs a breather.
You have done nothing, but make ridiculous statements about Halak. Did you watch any of the games or just look at the box scores?
Don't believe all the speculation that he stunts the growth of young players. He had many young players on the Flyers in 2005-2006 and he led that team to a 100 point season.
Richards
Carter
Umberger
Pitkanen
Those are just a few rookies from that team and they had strong rookie seasons and have continued to have a strong career.
I was expecting that before letting Payne go. Payne had them playing lights out hockey to finish last season. It is far too early in the season to put the onus of this teams problems on the coach, imo.
Don't believe all the speculation that he stunts the growth of young players. He had many young players on the Flyers in 2005-2006 and he led that team to a 100 point season.
Richards
Carter
Umberger
Pitkanen
Those are just a few rookies from that team and they had strong rookie seasons and have continued to have a strong career.
Yeah, I agree, Filatov was just never as good as his hype.
hahhahahahhaha....yea halak played real well giving up 4 goals and then 2 goals to probably the worst offense in the league. halak doesnt deserve any starts the way elliott is playing unless he needs a breather.
Neither of the Goals were on Halak last night. Petro had a horrible giveaway and cola played the 2-1 horribly and essentially made it a 2-0. He hasnt been a world beater but the past two starts he's played well
hahhahahahhaha....yea halak played real well giving up 4 goals and then 2 goals to probably the worst offense in the league. halak doesnt deserve any starts the way elliott is playing unless he needs a breather.
If you think either of the two goals against Halak in Minnesota were his fault, this conversation is impossible.
I thought Halak was better against Edmonton and made a few huge saves, but was not great. He was not tested much by Minnesota, but was following the puck well, controlling his rebounds, and generally looking more composed than he has for the whole year.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the Blues should go with Elliott until Halak steals it back.
I'm sorry, but did I miss a time period where there was a massive amount of players that said they wouldn't play for Hitchcock? And if we're gonna bring up Columbus then let's talk about Philadelphia (where he never finished a season out of the playoffs and the team made it to the Conference Finals) and Dallas (where he missed the playoffs only in his first season and the team went to the finals twice and won a cup). The only young player I can ever remember Hitchcock having a problem with is Filatov. This move is not the end of the world. There will not be a mass exodus of players. He will not be benching the kids for vets (because we only have two). A lot of you are acting like chicken little.
If you think either of the two goals against Halak in Minnesota were his fault, this conversation is impossible.
I thought Halak was better against Edmonton and made a few huge saves, but was not great. He was not tested much by Minnesota, but was following the puck well, controlling his rebounds, and generally looking more composed than he has for the whole year.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the Blues should go with Elliott until Halak steals it back.
It's best just to ignore him, honestly. I think he managed to stumble his way here after the shut down of the official forums and is quickly becoming the new fan in oregon.
As for the move, I actually hate it. The start hasn't actually been that bad. Leaves much to be desired, but I fear this is an overreaction we might pay for when Tarasenko and Schwartz get here. Don't like this move one bit.
I'm sorry, but did I miss a time period where there was a massive amount of players that said they wouldn't play for Hitchcock? And if we're gonna bring up Columbus then let's talk about Philadelphia (where he never finished a season out of the playoffs and the team made it to the Conference Finals) and Dallas (where he missed the playoffs only in his first season and the team went to the finals twice and won a cup). The only young player I can ever remember Hitchcock having a problem with is Filatov. This move is not the end of the world. There will not be a mass exodus of players. He will not be benching the kids for vets (because we only have two). A lot of you are acting like chicken little.
Yep, I agree, it's time we stop babying the players, now they get to deal with Hitchcock, who is a proven NHL coach and won't put up with their bull***.
I was expecting that before letting Payne go. Payne had them playing lights out hockey to finish last season. It is far too early in the season to put the onus of this teams problems on the coach, imo.
They really weren't playing lights out. Their record was just .500 after they acquired Stewart and Shattenkirk. Now, Conklin was terrible, and the Blues were more exciting, but they didn't really come together as a team that learned how to do whatever it takes to win.
Hitchcock may be exactly what the team needs. He is known as a hard ass and expects his players to be responsible. He has coached some great teams in the past, he just did not have alot to work with in Columbus. I think Armstrong is one of the best gm's in the league, if he wanted Hitchcock then its probably a good change.
hahhahahahhaha....yea halak played real well giving up 4 goals and then 2 goals to probably the worst offense in the league. halak doesnt deserve any starts the way elliott is playing unless he needs a breather.
Adding hahahahahahaha at the beginning of your post makes you seem like a troll.... pretending Halak didn't have a great game against the Wild doesn't help either (do you think we would have won with Elliot?).
Anyway, I'm mostly concerned that Hitchcock's biggest success came before the lock-out. Other than that, I'm fine with this move. Obviously i'm not part of that locker room, but motivation to play hard for a full 60 minutes has seemed like a problem from my perspective. And figuring out a way to get the best out of this team is more important than having a player's coach right now.
I can't believe people think Hitchcock is a worse, or even comparable, to Andy Murray. Are they both defensive minded coaches? Yes, but Murray has only gotten out of the first round once in his career, where Hitch, aside from his CBJ days, has been much more successful.
I like the move. I never minded Payne and was genuinely excited when he was first hired (partly due to his coaching record and partly to be free of Murray). But can any of us say that he is not a defensive coach? If were going to play defensive anyways, might as well do it under a coach who has proven he can win. This team needed a shake up, (and perhaps still do on the asst. coach front) but I'm glad the blues front office isn't just sitting on their hands hoping it gets better; they're taking action.
Neither of the Goals were on Halak last night. Petro had a horrible giveaway and cola played the 2-1 horribly and essentially made it a 2-0. He hasnt been a world beater but the past two starts he's played well
Definitely, and his rebound control has been much, much better.
Im warming to the move, Joel Q. was an early season hire in Chicago, and bringing in Lemaire did wonders for NJ last year. Something was certainly off about the Blues play to start the season; yes Halak has been especially bad, but he has gotten zero help from special teams and our best offensive players arent producing. The talent is there, but something has been missing so maybe some added structure will help this team.
Strickland just tweeted that Payne might not be out of the organization just yet, story just keeps getting curiouser and curiouser...
Quote:
Originally Posted by puckheaded1
Here's a novel idea, you change players, change head coaches, and the team still fails at the same simple tasks, then what might be the issue? Maybe inferior and incapable assistant coaches? Long past time for the Blues to rid themselves of the failed efforts of Bennet and Shaw. ANd Hirsch seems to be failing with the goalies, so maybe a clean sweep is on order.
Here's an idea. Keep Payne on as an assistant and fire the assistants aside from Mellanby.
Is this a fair well speech or a step down speech?
Quote:
"It's shocking and it's disappointing, but in the end, you're responsible for all the areas of your hockey team," he said. "There were pieces that weren't firing on all cylinders and it's under my umbrella of responsibility. But I also can say that we were looking at a favorable schedule ahead and ready to turn the corner. That said, if this is what gets things going, then I'm all for it. I wish nothing but the best for the team and this group of guys. They deserve it.
"I'm more than grateful, more than grateful, to this organization for giving me a chance to coach in this league. The things that I learned and will learn from this, I owe a great deal of thanks."
I suppose it won't stop me from supporting the team. I reserve judgement until I see his system. I can't believe we didn't hear earlier rumblings of this.
It seems like whenever a coach benches some players without success, he's fired not too long after.
Davis Payne has been a class act from day one with the Blues. Its tough to see him go, and he injected a lot of enthusiasm at times. But this season has been a bit baffling (especially specialty teams).
Sometimes the head coach gets fired to shake up the team, because you can't do a trade every time and you can't exactly fire a player (although Souray in Edmonton is a near example). I hope Davis Payne goes forward and finds success in his career. Even his quotes after the firing exude class and professionalism.
I think people are under-rating Hitchcock a bit. Was the problem with Filatov really Hitchcock? Or just maybe he was a primadonna player who wasn't going to succeed under any decent NHL coach.
He's been a round a lot of successful teams, a lot of talented players. With Columbus struggling, you might be seeing how much he squeezed out of that team and didn't get credit for. Anyway, I think something had to change. I'm sad that Payne was the partial scapegoat, but it was the most sensible move. I would have expected a bit more time before Armstrong had to pull that trigger, but it is what it is. I wonder whether the ownership situation changed that at all.
Armstrong has repeatedly shown he can be shrewd and act when he needs to. Not afraid to pull the trigger when he needs to. I don't want any other GM in the league. I trust that he knows what he's doing with this move.
Davis Payne has been a class act from day one with the Blues. Its tough to see him go, and he injected a lot of enthusiasm at times. But this season has been a bit baffling (especially specialty teams).
Sometimes the head coach gets fired to shake up the team, because you can't do a trade every time and you can't exactly fire a player (although Souray in Edmonton is a near example). I hope Davis Payne goes forward and finds success in his career. Even his quotes after the firing exude class and professionalism.
I think people are under-rating Hitchcock a bit. Was the problem with Filatov really Hitchcock? Or just maybe he was a primadonna player who wasn't going to succeed under any decent NHL coach.
He's been a round a lot of successful teams, a lot of talented players. With Columbus struggling, you might be seeing how much he squeezed out of that team and didn't get credit for. Anyway, I think something had to change. I'm sad that Payne was the partial scapegoat, but it was the most sensible move. I would have expected a bit more time before Armstrong had to pull that trigger, but it is what it is. I wonder whether the ownership situation changed that at all.
Armstrong has repeatedly shown he can be shrewd and act when he needs to. Not afraid to pull the trigger when he needs to. I don't want any other GM in the league. I trust that he knows what he's doing with this move.
I think a lot of the negative response is from the bad taste left from Murray. That's what I'm feeling a lot of right now.
Funny, Payne's first game was a home-game vs the Blackhawks. And now on Tuesday it will be so for Hitchcock as well. Oh man, I hope we crush them. I still smile when I think of Weaver's rocking hit on Sharp in the neutral zone. (The Blues lost the game, but man was that place rocking.)
Here's a novel idea, you change players, change head coaches, and the team still fails at the same simple tasks, then what might be the issue? Maybe inferior and incapable assistant coaches? Long past time for the Blues to rid themselves of the failed efforts of Bennet and Shaw. ANd Hirsch seems to be failing with the goalies, so maybe a clean sweep is on order.
Does Hirsch only get credit for Halak and not Elliot?
Hasn't the PK consistently been at the top of the league for multiple years prior to this with the same coach?
I'm not convinced there is evidence to support all of what you're asserting here.
That said, we haven't seen a really good PP in St Louis in a long time. Even the year they were 8th going into the playoffs, it wasn't confidence-inspiring (and disappeared when the Blues faced Vancouver).
I'm sorry, but did I miss a time period where there was a massive amount of players that said they wouldn't play for Hitchcock? And if we're gonna bring up Columbus then let's talk about Philadelphia (where he never finished a season out of the playoffs and the team made it to the Conference Finals) and Dallas (where he missed the playoffs only in his first season and the team went to the finals twice and won a cup). The only young player I can ever remember Hitchcock having a problem with is Filatov. This move is not the end of the world. There will not be a mass exodus of players. He will not be benching the kids for vets (because we only have two). A lot of you are acting like chicken little.
Thanks for this post.
If you can't find reason to be optimistic from Hitchcock's record, how about Armstrong's record of all the moves he's pulled since he's been in St Louis? Hasn't the guy showed some sharp judgement and made some great trades? Why would he be unable to evaluate coaching talent?
(Sounds like the Blues may re-assign Payne within the organization. That would be classy, if he wants it.)
( I know the cap stuff but money would go your way)
