The hiring of Ken Hitchcock was a good decision in hindsight! I really like the way he has this team playing and it seems he learned a lot from his time away from the game. This is not the same Hitchcock that led the Columbus Bluejackets.
So far I was wrong about elliott and Hitchcock. I won't admit I was wrong until the Blues are in the playoffs though with Hitchcock. Elliott on the other hand has already won more games in the NHL then I expected out of him.
I was wrong about the Blues' general strengths and weaknesses on offense and defense. With Berglund and Stewie looking poised for breakout years, a healthy McDonald, etc., I figured the team would have no problem putting pucks in the net but was worried about our youth/inexperience on the blueline and the quality of our backup goaltending.
Lo and behold...the second line struggles, Elliott comes out of nowhere, Petro shuts down opposing top lines like a seasoned vet and Shattenkirk does nothing but continue to improve in his own end. All while the Blues lead the league in SA/G and are making a living on shutouts, 2-1 and 3-2 games. I can't think of a single dman who has had more than a couple of truly poor games (unless you count Nikitin). I do give Hitch a lot of credit for solidifying our team defense but I never thought it would be this good.
Going into the season I thought the Blues would be great offensively but only average defensively. My reasoning was, their offensive depth would overwhelm teams but their defense is relatively inexperienced.
Ok so perhaps I thought Elliott should have been beaten out by Bishop. And I maybe thought that Kevin Shattenkirk would suffer a big sophomore slump. And I suppose it's even possible that I thought TJ Oshie's play would continue to frustrate us/coaches maybe even to the point where he'd get traded.
But that whole Backes hitting people thing? Yeah I got that
Bishop should have won the backup position.
D'Agostini would surprise everyone with higher totals than last season.
Stewart was a guarantee for 35 goals.
Berglund wouldn't break out, but that he'd at least hit 50 points again.
I guess I didn't realize so few people favored Elliott as the backup. Was I the only one? I just thought it would be better to get the guy with experience in there since they were playing pretty even. Obviously didn't expect him to start this tear.
I thought the Blues would have no problems scoring goals
I thought Stewart would score a minimum of 35 goals
I thought the Blues would have a very productive power play.
I thought David Backes should be playing RW not center.
Several years back I thought Steve Wagner had more upside while Robb-K thought Jeff Woywitka did. Wagner out of hockey, Woywitka still in the NHL.
Last edited by stlweir: 03-10-2012 at 07:35 AM.
Reason: addition
I was way wrong about Hitch. I also hated the Huskins signing but he was great before his injury and also wasn't huge on Russel, but so far so good with him too.
I guess I didn't realize so few people favored Elliott as the backup. Was I the only one? I just thought it would be better to get the guy with experience in there since they were playing pretty even. Obviously didn't expect him to start this tear.
I was slightly in favor of Elliott because of his experience and the fact that he had put together some stretches of solid play with the Senators and I hoped he might have some untapped potential. But it wasn't a big deal to me which one got the job, as long as they would make a capable backup.
I thought the Blues would have no problems scoring goals.
I thought Stewart would score a minimum of 35 goals.
I thought Elliott would be an adequate backup, but never dreamed he'd be this good.
