HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Western Conference > Central Division > St. Louis Blues
Notices

Blues re-sign Kevin Shattenkirk

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-27-2013, 03:23 AM
  #51
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,691
vCash: 500
Saying if we would have won if we had Voynov and they had Shattenkirk is one of the funniest things I've read all week. It's not that clear cut. Who says Shattenkirk doesn't have more success on LA and play like Voynov did?

skilles hit the nail on the head. If they switch places their entire games could change.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 08:33 AM
  #52
BadgersandBlues
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 602
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
Saying if we would have won if we had Voynov and they had Shattenkirk is one of the funniest things I've read all week. It's not that clear cut. Who says Shattenkirk doesn't have more success on LA and play like Voynov did?

skilles hit the nail on the head. If they switch places their entire games could change.
People, use your imagination. The parallel universe we're debating is Shattenkirk's unchanged post-season performance on the Kings vs. Voynov's unchanged post-season performance on the Blues. It's never going to happen like that, sure. But the point I'm trying to make is that in a vacuum, with all things equal, Voynov wins us that series over Shattenkirk, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched the series.

Voynov was for the Kings what we all needed Shatty to be for the Blues, just like Carter was for the Kings what Stewart needed to be, etc. And yes, if you could "swap production" in either of the aforementioned comparisons, without dealing with the repercussions of changing teams, (aka production in a vacuum) we're easily the team moving forward.

BadgersandBlues is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 08:38 AM
  #53
bleedblue1223
OMAHA!!!
 
bleedblue1223's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 19,797
vCash: 50
Voynovs offensive impact still wouldn't have magically made our forwards convert their chances. We would have been better with Voynov but it wouldn't have been the difference IMO.

bleedblue1223 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 08:39 AM
  #54
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleedblue1223 View Post
Voynovs offensive impact still wouldn't have magically made our forwards convert their chances. We would have been better with Voynov but it wouldn't have been the difference IMO.
Exactly. It's much more likely the Blues win the series if Carter replaced Stewart as opposed to Voynov replacing Shatty. Defense is not the problem with this team.

TheOrganist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 09:18 AM
  #55
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 292
vCash: 333
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgersandBlues View Post
People, use your imagination. The parallel universe we're debating is Shattenkirk's unchanged post-season performance on the Kings vs. Voynov's unchanged post-season performance on the Blues. It's never going to happen like that, sure. But the point I'm trying to make is that in a vacuum, with all things equal, Voynov wins us that series over Shattenkirk, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched the series.

Voynov was for the Kings what we all needed Shatty to be for the Blues, just like Carter was for the Kings what Stewart needed to be, etc. And yes, if you could "swap production" in either of the aforementioned comparisons, without dealing with the repercussions of changing teams, (aka production in a vacuum) we're easily the team moving forward.
but you cant just say voynov scored x points as a king so he would score x points as a blue. this is the real world so its pretty pointless to view it in a vacuum. for example voynov scored the game winner in game three for the kings, doesn't mean he would have scored it for the blues. hell shattenkirk probably would have scored that game 3 goal if he were in voynovs shoes.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 11:12 AM
  #56
Steve Doan
Re-sign Elliott
 
Steve Doan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Eureka
Country: Tuvalu
Posts: 9,639
vCash: 50
Well, it seems as if there would be ABSOLUTELY no way to get Voynov, so its a moot point.

Steve Doan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 01:06 PM
  #57
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgersandBlues View Post
People, use your imagination. The parallel universe we're debating is Shattenkirk's unchanged post-season performance on the Kings vs. Voynov's unchanged post-season performance on the Blues. It's never going to happen like that, sure. But the point I'm trying to make is that in a vacuum, with all things equal, Voynov wins us that series over Shattenkirk, which should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched the series.

Voynov was for the Kings what we all needed Shatty to be for the Blues, just like Carter was for the Kings what Stewart needed to be, etc. And yes, if you could "swap production" in either of the aforementioned comparisons, without dealing with the repercussions of changing teams, (aka production in a vacuum) we're easily the team moving forward.
Yep so you're using your imagination, not logical sense. Not surprised.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 01:38 PM
  #58
PerryTurnbullfan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Penalty Box
Country:
Posts: 2,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOrganist View Post
Exactly. It's much more likely the Blues win the series if Carter replaced Stewart as opposed to Voynov replacing Shatty. Defense is not the problem with this team.
Carter would've disappeared as he would have no one to get him the puck just like Stewart did most of this year. Voynov makes no difference over Shatty either. Blues need a couple playmaking centers. They have a team full of shooters and guys who should be playmakers, but choose to try to skate around everyone themselves losing the puck. We need to go send Bernie Federko and some Alums to talk to Vinnie about St Louis being a home for his young family. Blues need a playmaking center.

PerryTurnbullfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:37 PM
  #59
TheOrganist
Don't Call Him Alex
 
TheOrganist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 2,869
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
Carter would've disappeared as he would have no one to get him the puck just like Stewart did most of this year. Voynov makes no difference over Shatty either. Blues need a couple playmaking centers. They have a team full of shooters and guys who should be playmakers, but choose to try to skate around everyone themselves losing the puck. We need to go send Bernie Federko and some Alums to talk to Vinnie about St Louis being a home for his young family. Blues need a playmaking center.
That's a gaping hole in the lineup but the Blues have no one who could take over a game offensively like Carter did at times during the playoffs. And that includes when Richards was out (amazing performance in Games 3 and 4 against Chicago) when his linemates were Tyler Toffoli and Dwight King. A player like Carter, when he's on and engaged, doesn't need others (like a "playmaker") to help him take over a game. You can make a much better argument that the Blues advance with a guy like Carter vs. a player like Voynov.

TheOrganist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:39 PM
  #60
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerryTurnbullfan View Post
Carter would've disappeared as he would have no one to get him the puck just like Stewart did most of this year. Voynov makes no difference over Shatty either. Blues need a couple playmaking centers. They have a team full of shooters and guys who should be playmakers, but choose to try to skate around everyone themselves losing the puck. We need to go send Bernie Federko and some Alums to talk to Vinnie about St Louis being a home for his young family. Blues need a playmaking center.
The Blues need a high scoring center regardless of his style. In the past twenty years, most championship teams have had top three centers who are physical, large, and/or have an outstanding two-way game. There are exceptions, like Krejci, recently, but even he is a fine two-way player. So that's a definite thing to look for. But, in general, those centers are frequently good goalscorers, not just traditional playmakers.

I'm not trying to nitpick semantics, either, so I'll be clear - you seem to be talking about a set-up man. I agree that the Blues' ideal center needs to be a playmaker, but only insofar as he creates plays. If those are plays he finishes, I think that's fine, but it needs to be a player who makes things happen whether he's playing with shooters or passers or whatever.

rumrokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 05:58 PM
  #61
Celtic Note
Moderator
Chi Town Bound
 
Celtic Note's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Country: United States
Posts: 8,594
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
The Blues need a high scoring center regardless of his style. In the past twenty years, most championship teams have had top three centers who are physical, large, and/or have an outstanding two-way game. There are exceptions, like Krejci, recently, but even he is a fine two-way player. So that's a definite thing to look for. But, in general, those centers are frequently good goalscorers, not just traditional playmakers.

I'm not trying to nitpick semantics, either, so I'll be clear - you seem to be talking about a set-up man. I agree that the Blues' ideal center needs to be a playmaker, but only insofar as he creates plays. If those are plays he finishes, I think that's fine, but it needs to be a player who makes things happen whether he's playing with shooters or passers or whatever.
Exactly. A playmaker can either setup plays or finish them, which is the guy we need. People have been talking like a playmaker only sets up plays. I always thought that was a terribly misguided definition and one that caused some people to argue the need for or against that player based on a flawed basis for discussion.

Celtic Note is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:36 PM
  #62
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Celtic Note View Post
Exactly. A playmaker can either setup plays or finish them, which is the guy we need. People have been talking like a playmaker only sets up plays. I always thought that was a terribly misguided definition and one that caused some people to argue the need for or against that player based on a flawed basis for discussion.
You're one of the only people I've ever seen think like this. A playmaker is someone who creates plays with passes ala Joe Thornton.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:46 PM
  #63
rumrokh
I Bleed Blue
 
rumrokh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5,563
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
You're one of the only people I've ever seen think like this. A playmaker is someone who creates plays with passes ala Joe Thornton.
It's a lot more complex than that. Thornton also creates plays by protecting the puck and being in the right place at the right time. Forsberg frequently created plays by sacrificing his body, something that Oates didn't do a lot of. Even among set-up men, there are a lot of ways to make plays.

Crosby is considered a playmaker, but over the last four seasons, his assists/goals ratio is not huge. He creates plays with speed way more than he does amazing passing.

I have no desire to rewrite your impression of what a playmaker is - my point is that it's not a simple term and I think the Blues need a guy who is more well-rounded than a simple set-up man. Again, look at the top two or three centers on the champions for the last couple of decades and you see mostly guys whose goalscoring ability is a large part of their game.

rumrokh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 06:58 PM
  #64
BlueDream
Registered User
 
BlueDream's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Country: United States
Posts: 6,691
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by rumrokh View Post
It's a lot more complex than that. Thornton also creates plays by protecting the puck and being in the right place at the right time. Forsberg frequently created plays by sacrificing his body, something that Oates didn't do a lot of. Even among set-up men, there are a lot of ways to make plays.

Crosby is considered a playmaker, but over the last four seasons, his assists/goals ratio is not huge. He creates plays with speed way more than he does amazing passing.

I have no desire to rewrite your impression of what a playmaker is - my point is that it's not a simple term and I think the Blues need a guy who is more well-rounded than a simple set-up man. Again, look at the top two or three centers on the champions for the last couple of decades and you see mostly guys whose goalscoring ability is a large part of their game.
I agree. That's why I've never been a huge proponent of getting a pure playmaker, I want someone who can finish as well. Perhaps everyone has a different definition of "playmaker" though. But I barely even consider Crosby anything in particular, IMO he's just a superstar that does everything, and we can't really get a guy like that.

BlueDream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-27-2013, 07:01 PM
  #65
nicholas89alex
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 292
vCash: 333
the blues need a way to put pucks in the net. I don't care if its someone who does it them selves or passes it as long as we get someone to help our offense.

nicholas89alex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2013, 06:52 PM
  #66
RR10
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 382
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDream View Post
Saying if we would have won if we had Voynov and they had Shattenkirk is one of the funniest things I've read all week. It's not that clear cut. Who says Shattenkirk doesn't have more success on LA and play like Voynov did?

skilles hit the nail on the head. If they switch places their entire games could change.
Voynov instead of Shatty wouldn't do any difference at all. If you swap Backes with Kopitar, the Blues would beat LA.

RR10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-29-2013, 08:42 PM
  #67
BigMac*
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 59
vCash: 500
Great signing for you guys. Maybe that chatter about the blues not being able to afford everybody will stop now, as it should.

BigMac* is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 07:29 AM.

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.