He's made a few rookie mistakes sure, but he is hungry. He's a quick learner.
Quote:
And offensively he was pretty much everything you could ask out of a 2nd game Nhler.
When you have to keep qualifying the statement it means there's some serious holes that are being
Quote:
he also made some great defensive plays that stuck out.
I recall one good play and another one in the first which he made the wrong play that still came out right in the end.
Not that I am saying that Schwartz is bad, just that his game is not yet sufficiently rounded to play if the Blues have a fully healthy roster. I think Peoria would have done him some good.
McDonald was never going to miss the playoffs, from the first diagnosis. Then after a few days it looks like he could be back any time. Probably not for a game or two. Probably not tomorrow. But possibly by Phoenix, and if not then soon after.
YES! I hadn't heard anything concrete, so I wasn't sure. This is the best news ever!
I guarantee you PavelDatsyuk could back up what he's saying with a brief compilation of the moments he's talking about. Given the injuries to offensive players at the moment and the team having a gap in the division race, him being in the lineup is not an issue right now. But I could see him not playing playoffs with a healthy lineup. Wouldn't mind him in there over Stewart.
I agree with Easton that he's not going to be in Peoria next year. One reason is they think he's the kind of player whose hockey sense requires teammates who can take advantage of what he can do. That means NHLers, not AHLers. Armstrong has basically said this exact thing, and he's right. He's not the biggest guy but he's not overwhelmed out there, and there are smaller guys doing very well in this league. He'll put in a solid summer of lifting and put on some more muscle and be ready to have a nice rookie season. Would love to see:
Should Corey Perry have gotten an instigator for going after Perron after Halak dumped him?
Instigator reads:
46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.
A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a ten-minute misconduct.
Perry skated from near the goal to near the Blues bench to go after Perron.
No he should not have received an instigator. Players do this all the time.
To me it was actually rather amusing as Perry does not seem to realize Frenchie has more sandpaper than would be realized at first glance. Fun to watch his disbelief and running of the mouth after Perron first face washes him and then gets off a tricky little shot at Perry's chops from around the linesman.
Perry is used to being the only one who gets to do that to the skill players. Only thing that would have been better would be to watch Backes take Perry to the woodshed to explain why messing with certain players gets a rather physical rebuke.
When you have to keep qualifying the statement it means there's some serious holes that are being
I recall one good play and another one in the first which he made the wrong play that still came out right in the end.
Not that I am saying that Schwartz is bad, just that his game is not yet sufficiently rounded to play if the Blues have a fully healthy roster. I think Peoria would have done him some good.
Well I guess I saw a play or two that you didn't....he did a great job of breaking up the puck in the neutral zone once, and he also made a great play in front of our net. There was also a few times that he got caught out of position and didn't backcheck like he should. Again, rookie mistakes. My point was that he's a quick learner, and a true Hitchcock type player, and that IMO right now is a good as time as any to introduce him to the NHL. Also, if he keeps up this offensive play...he may finally give us the option of having 3 legitimate scoring lines. Which could be a huge difference maker for the playoffs. Again, I'm not trying to say who is right or wrong. JMHO
I haven't always agreed with the knocks on Stewart's effort levels, but tonight his lack of effort was all that I noticed about him. He seems clueless out there. If we do get some players back (knock on wood), I would sit Stewart. At least for a game to see how the team gels without him.
This was a game that the Blues could have had, and should have had. I don't think that they played poorly, but they couldn't close it out. I hope Polak isn't out for too long.
Tomorrow's game is really important if the Blues want to keep a lead in the race for the Central. It's against a team fighting for the playoffs with good defense and improved offense after the Carter trade. We'll see how they respond tomorrow.
Sloppy defensive game. Team really missed Polak tonight.
Oh well though. We struggle a lot at the Honda Center, I don't know why, but we have a more important game tomorrow night anyways so hopefully we'll rebound.
Regarding Schwartz's defensive play...my first reaction is that he's playing to high in the D-zone. I dunno if it's where he's supposed to be or not, but it seems like he was a little too close to the blue line in comparison to our other forwards. I could be completely wrong.
Should Corey Perry have gotten an instigator for going after Perron after Halak dumped him?
Instigator reads:
46.11 Instigator - An instigator of an altercation shall be a player who by his actions or demeanor demonstrates any/some of the following criteria: distance traveled; gloves off first; first punch thrown; menacing attitude or posture; verbal instigation or threats; conduct in retaliation to a prior game (or season) incident; obvious retribution for a previous incident in the game or season.
A player who is deemed to be the instigator of an altercation shall be assessed an instigating minor penalty, a major penalty for fighting and a ten-minute misconduct.
Perry skated from near the goal to near the Blues bench to go after Perron.
It's my understanding that the instigator is only applicable when a five minute fighting major has been given.
Ive got to say this...We didn't lose that game last night..;...THEY TOOK IT FROM US. We were physically pushed around throughout the game and we let them get away with it. I know Reaves is not a catylyst on the team overall but I think he is one of the few who would take exception to TAKING RUNS AT PETRO ALL NIGHT!! I kept waiting for one of our guys to get fired up and instead I'm watching corey perry jawing at our whole bench while our guys did nothing to answer him...I don't think gooning it up wins you the cup but matching the intensity of your opponent does!! If that means throwing hands then you do that! Overall I just found it sad that we only laid one decent hit during most of the game....The one Oshie laid on Koivu! They out hit us and out skated us. Could have used a Kelly Chase on the bench stirring the pot!
This GDT is great. Bummed about the loss. Miss watching games because I'm not in my own place yet, so no NHL center ice here. I sure hope for a win tonight. Of course I can only check the score online... anyway just had to compliment the Duck Hunt Edition.
I've only skimmed the last couple pages of this GDT but it seems like a lot are getting on Schwartz for the Smith-Pelly goal but was Smith-Pelly even Schwartz's responsibility? Schwartz is a winger so he'd normally help cover the points while the D-men and center usually share responsibility for covering the front of the net. Where were Petro, Cola & Bergy on that play? I think it was those 3 out there but correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, I wouldn't solely put that goal on Schwartz. A lot of players were out of position on that play.
I've only skimmed the last couple pages of this GDT but it seems like a lot are getting on Schwartz for the Smith-Pelly goal but was Smith-Pelly even Schwartz's responsibility? Schwartz is a winger so he'd normally help cover the points while the D-men and center usually share responsibility for covering the front of the net. Where were Petro, Cola & Bergy on that play? I think it was those 3 out there but correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, I wouldn't solely put that goal on Schwartz. A lot of players were out of position on that play.
Maybe it wasn't his man, but it seems if you're near someone left alone in front of the goal you have to cover him. Maybe not - don't know.
I've only skimmed the last couple pages of this GDT but it seems like a lot are getting on Schwartz for the Smith-Pelly goal but was Smith-Pelly even Schwartz's responsibility? Schwartz is a winger so he'd normally help cover the points while the D-men and center usually share responsibility for covering the front of the net. Where were Petro, Cola & Bergy on that play? I think it was those 3 out there but correct me if I'm wrong. Regardless, I wouldn't solely put that goal on Schwartz. A lot of players were out of position on that play.
It started with a 50-50 puck race at about the top of the circle between Getzlaf and Berglund. Colaiacovo was engaged with his man in front of the net, and Pietrangelo was at that point paired up with a guy in the far corner. Langenbrunner was moving to cover the near point, and Schwartz was covering the high slot and the shooting lane for his defenseman mark.
Getzlaf won the race and made a nice move to go wide around Berglund (who couldn't alter his momentum in time to prevent it) towards the corner. Colaiacovo is still within a few feet of his man (between his man and the puck). Pietrangelo and his man were both coming back into the play, about 10 feet away from the net on the far side. Schwartz was pulling down into the middle slot in response to the shift in puck position. Langenbrunner was guarding a possible reverse of the play back to the point.
Getzlaf hits the corner behind the goal line and starts following the boards towards behind the net. Colaiacovo disengages with his man to step out on Getzlaf. Pietrangelo is guarding the back post of the net and his man who was behind the net in approximately that location. Schwartz reads Colaiacovo stepping out and starts moving to cover the now wide-open DSP who is about 7 feet from the net off the near post to Getzlaf. Berglund is trailing Getzlaf along the boards.
Colaiacovo eliminates Getzlaf but doesn't stop the pass. Schwartz put himself within stick-checking range of DSP, but not close enough to use his body to generate any leverage. When the pass hit DSP, Schwartz couldn't generate enough leverage to hamper the shot in any significant way and DSP made a great shot.
The way I see it, the faults were:
1) Berglund needed to recognize that he wasn't going to win that 50-50 race on a puck that was moving away from him and go in conservatively enough that he could maintain a proper defensive position on Getzlaf once he gained possession of the puck.
2) Berglund needs to take a better recovery route/angle that allows him to get back inside Getzlaf so that he can ensure that Getzlaf can't penetrate the middle of the ice as Berglund closes the gap instead of simply trailing him along the wall the whole way and doing nothing of any significance.
3) Colaiacovo can't bail on a guy in prime scoring position to lay a body on a guy who's behind the goal line along the wall. He needs to stay on his guy and use his stick to harrass the guy with the puck until the calvary arrives. The Blues were in ok shape until this happened.
4) Once Schwartz commits to covering that guy, he needs to get close enough to use his body to do so. He had the time, but all he did was put himself in stick-check range. At this level, an unleveraged stick check simply isn't going to cut it defensively.
If I had to pick a "main culprit" for the play, it would be Colaiacovo. It was his mistake that turned an annoying, but relatively benign, situation into a very dangerous one for the Blues. That's where things really went south, IMO. In reality, though, three people blew it on this particular play and each mistake played its part in the end result.
If I had to pick a "main culprit" for the play, it would be Colaiacovo. It was his mistake that turned an annoying, but relatively benign, situation into a very dangerous one for the Blues. That's where things really went south, IMO. In reality, though, three people blew it on this particular play and each mistake played its part in the end result.
Good play-by-play Easton. That's pretty much what I saw as well. When Schwartz noticed Cola wasn't on his man he clearly hesitated. Again, like I said earlier rookie mistakes. IMO, it's really his reaction time that needs the most improvement. As far as reading the plays....I think he's doing absolutely terrific.
