84% of the voting fanbase wants to replace the guy who was a finalist for the Jack Adams Award last year. I'm not saying one opinion is better than another...but 84%? Really? Jeez this is a fickle bunch.
I didn't nominate him, so why should I have to accept him behind the bench? If you would have asked me the day of the NHL awards if I liked Murray, chances are I'd have said no. At best, I'd have said something like, "Well, It's working for him now..."
It's akin to people complaining about the President. You can't say, "but 11 months ago he won the election!" It jsut doesn't work like that...
I understand why people are frustrated with Andy using Jay all the time. Its gonna be hard to score with a guy like Jay on the ice over a guy like Boyes. I agree you should not play the defense first strategy to no end. But despite my dislike for the strategy being employed for much of the season, thus far, its hard to disagree with Murray's coaching.
You have to think... Jay and his line have created more scoring chances per shift than any of the skill guys. Yeah Jay needs twice as many chances to score than a skill guy, but he has created more than double in comparison. In a sense, that line was keeping the play in the offensive zone longer than the top two lines. Puck possession is key to winning games and the skill guys were being dominated in that facet. Only McClement and Co. were generating multiple shots per time in the opposing end. Then, on top of that, the skill guys were not playing well in the defensive end either. Putting them up against a top line would have been atrocious. That line also had the most energy and was needed to wake the other guys up.
Essentially, McClement's line outplayed our other lines to the point that Murray had no option but to play them the most.
I think we all get stuck thinking about potential and what the team looks like on paper, when in reality its all about the day-to-day and shift-to-shift play. That goes for me too.
I think you can see that as the skill guys have started to find their game, their average ice time has increased significantly. Murray recognizes that he can't play Jay all the time if he has the option to and I think you are starting to see that. BUT, don't expect things to balance out, as far as ice time goes, until everyone has played well for a long stretch.
Yeah Murray favors grinders and vets, but aside from that and a few minor things, he has not done a lot wrong in my book thus far. Thats not to say that I think he will lead us to the promised land, because I don't believe he can. But, its not our time yet...aside from getting really hot and lucky.
I don't understand how this is an issue. If the criticism of Murray is that "great teams don't match lines," therefore, it's bad that Murray is matching lines, the entire argument relies on the assumption that the Blues are a great team.
My only mention of the team without Murray is to be 100% clear about whether or not the Blues could be a great team, even without him. So you're focusing on the wrong point. I apologize if that made my post murky somehow.
Perhaps there's a reason that non-great teams match lines: because they have to do so in order to compete. Perhaps the Blues need to match lines because they are a pretender at this point. Why isn't that a legitimate consideration? Does that paint a clearer picture of why the whole 'great team's don't match lines, so Murray shouldn't match lines' part either assumes that the Blues are a great team or it's irrelevant?
Now, if the intended point is that all teams are better when they aren't matching lines or even that the Blues specifically would be better without matching lines, that's fine; but that's absolutely not what was said. And if that's what was intended, I'd be curious about how that conclusion was reached.
I'm not looking for an argument. A claim was made that I think was flawed. I pointed out the flaw and the responses I've gotten so far are basically: "nuh-uh," "did not," and "you just want to argue." My continuation of the interaction to explain what I see to be a very simple issue is not because I'm just being contrary. I'm actually explaining it and I don't know how I could be any clearer.
I have one more trick in my bag for clarity and I'm not even sure it will help. But here it is, just in case:
The way I see it, the conclusion is: "The Blues (Murray) should not match lines."
The first premise is: "Great teams should not match lines."
The second premise has to be: "The Blues are a great team."
In logic, you'd write it out like this:
No teams that are great teams are teams that should match lines.
All teams that are the Blues are great teams.
∴ No teams that are the Blues are teams that should match lines.
That premise that the Blues are a great team is the only way for that syllogism to remain valid. If you change that premise, you must change the conclusion or you have a fallacious argument.
Eggzakly. Blues077's exact statement was, "One of my problems with Murray is the matching of the lines. Great teams don't match lines. They make other teams try and match their lines. Great teams dictate the game. Prentenders let the great teams make them spend time trying to match lines instead of making plays and scoring goals. Matching lines as Murray does leads to fourth line players getting too much playing time. Leading to less goals scored."
By saying that the Blues should not match lines, Blues077 is implying that the Blues have the talent to make line matching unnecessary. If line matching is unnecessary, that means that the Blues, as currently constructed, are a great team. Blues077 also further implies that the Blues are a great team when he says pretenders let great teams dictate the lines and matchups. And Blues077 never tempers any of the aforementioned by saying something like "the Blues should play MORE like a great team and LESS like pretenders," which would imply that while the Blues aren't a great team yet, they have the talent to dictate matchups more often than not.
I don't see where rumrokh's logic is flawed, it seems perfectly clear to me.
One benefit I can see with this poor start is that players I thought were near locks for the USA olympic team (Oshie, Backes and possibly even EJ) and Berglund for Sweden maybe are playing so badly they may get the olympic rest the rest of the leagues top players won't and we still might salvage this season with another late season surge.
But why is it that the Blues aren’t producing? Could it be the fact that throughout the last ten games, Jay McClement has averaged more ice time than any other forward on the team.
Jay McClement has averaged 21:16 in the last 5 games, while Brad Boyes, is the closest forward in ice time, 18:33. If the Blues plan on scoring goals, it’s not going to be this way.
Jay McClement has 6 points on the season, Boyes has 11 points. So why is McClement averaging more ice time?
Because Andy Murray is continuously matching lines.
Forward B.J. Crombeen is averaging 15:68 of ice time in the last five games. This is more than young forward Lars Eller and Patrik Berglund. Is this acceptable?
Not if you are looking at scoring goals.
Say what you will with regards to there being or not being a suitable replacement coach out there, Murray is coaching "to not lose" games rather than develop the young players. Directly in contrast with Checketts mandate since he took over the team.
Andy Murray isn't the only reason this team isn't winning games or scoring goals or even competing every night but when it all comes down to it, the buck stops with him. The owners and management believe they have the right tools to win and I agree with that.
After reading Andy Murrays comments on St.Louis Today.Com. I think its just a matter of a few days before he is fired or resigns. In the today skate he sounds like a beaten man. I think that they are waiting after Thanksgiving to find somebody else.
Murray won't resign...and I doubt he gets fired any time soon. There are plenty of execs with hockey experience who watch the practices, attend team meetings and are in the locker-room that know how hard Murray is working and how many things he's trying to spark this club. It would be one thing if he were in over his head (like Kitchen was) but I think the front office knows there is only so much a coach can do. The players should be more nervous than the coach, because I see a couple of them moved out before Murray is fired.
I'm getting tired of hearing from Murray and the players about "effort" ...Well yeah your guys are competing, their giving effort, but coach that effort isn't winning us hockey games...Something has to change, effort,players,coaches..I dunno but I don't think JD-Checketts is gonna put up with this much longer..
It's not about coaching harder, but coaching smarter. Obviously Murray doesn't know how to coach up-tempo, offensive hockey. He doesn't know how to run a power play.
I hear all the time about Boyes not scoring on the powerplay, but all his powerplay goals last year were one-timers from the left circle. Guess what! Teams have figured that out and taken that away from the Blues. What has Murray done to adjust? Nothing. Well, maybe he's preaching put more pucks on net and crash the net, but that isn't a set play or anything. That isn't a plan, that's just throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. We have no organization on the powerplay. The players have no plan of attack. They just pass it around the perimeter and let EJ shoot it wide. I hear Murray practices the powerplay every practice. Pray tell, what exactly do they practice?
A powerplay is like a basketball offense. You have to have some set plays, and you need a point guard to run the offense. Andy Murray is like the Quin Snyder of powerplays. There is no plan. It's just run around, pass it around, and hope someone gets open or just heave it up. We need set plays. Okay, teams have taken away the one timer to Brad Boyes. Since they are covering Boyes, that should leave them vulnerable in another area. We need to attack that area. In basketball, the best way to attack a zone is to dribble penetrate to break down the zone and then kick it out to an open man. What we need is for David Perron and Erik Johnson to run the powerplay. David Perron and Erik Johnson should work the puck around. David should then make a quick move, beat his man, and make a move to the slot. Then the penalty kill zone will break down as players scramble to step up to take Perron. Perron should have several reads. If no one takes him, he should shoot. If Boyes man leaves him to play help defense on Perron, Perron should dish to Boyes for the one-timer. If the defenseman steps up, he should look for a back-door pass down low. These options should be worked on and drilled into Perron's head like quarterback reads in football. If they start taking Perron away by giving him room or giving his man help, then have EJ be the second option to run the play. That is what worked with the Blues with MacInnis and Demitra for so many years. I bet if someone brought this type of strategy to Murray it would just blow his mind. That's his problem. He's a defensive coach that has no clue about offensive hockey. It's like a defensive head coach in football with only defensive coordinators.
It's not about coaching harder, but coaching smarter. Obviously Murray doesn't know how to coach up-tempo, offensive hockey. He doesn't know how to run a power play.
I hear all the time about Boyes not scoring on the powerplay, but all his powerplay goals last year were one-timers from the left circle. Guess what! Teams have figured that out and taken that away from the Blues. What has Murray done to adjust? Nothing. Well, maybe he's preaching put more pucks on net and crash the net, but that isn't a set play or anything. That isn't a plan, that's just throwing **** at the wall and hoping it sticks. We have no organization on the powerplay. The players have no plan of attack. They just pass it around the perimeter and let EJ shoot it wide. I hear Murray practices the powerplay every practice. Pray tell, what exactly do they practice?
A powerplay is like a basketball offense. You have to have some set plays, and you need a point guard to run the offense. Andy Murray is like the Quin Snyder of powerplays. There is no plan. It's just run around, pass it around, and hope someone gets open or just heave it up. We need set plays. Okay, teams have taken away the one timer to Brad Boyes. Since they are covering Boyes, that should leave them vulnerable in another area. We need to attack that area. In basketball, the best way to attack a zone is to dribble penetrate to break down the zone and then kick it out to an open man. What we need is for David Perron and Erik Johnson to run the powerplay. David Perron and Erik Johnson should work the puck around. David should then make a quick move, beat his man, and make a move to the slot. Then the penalty kill zone will break down as players scramble to step up to take Perron. Perron should have several reads. If no one takes him, he should shoot. If Boyes man leaves him to play help defense on Perron, Perron should dish to Boyes for the one-timer. If the defenseman steps up, he should look for a back-door pass down low. These options should be worked on and drilled into Perron's head like quarterback reads in football. If they start taking Perron away by giving him room or giving his man help, then have EJ be the second option to run the play. That is what worked with the Blues with MacInnis and Demitra for so many years. I bet if someone brought this type of strategy to Murray it would just blow his mind. That's his problem. He's a defensive coach that has no clue about offensive hockey. It's like a defensive head coach in football with only defensive coordinators.
I think that is a little too dangerous. If Perron has the puck, tries to deke past the defender and fails, that could lead to an instant break-away. EJ has speed to recover, but you loose the setup and possibly 20 seconds off the PP clock at best. At worst you've just given up a SH goal or Mason has to make a very quality save.
If he doesn't have the puck and tries to move past the defender, then the player in that zone will simply back up and EJ losses his passing option pack to Perron. EJ will then be pressured to either shoot or pass to the RW. Either EJ will shoot or the puck will be dished out to the RW (presumably AMac). Either option can be predicted and thus countered.
Having Perron sneak in could be good to keep the opposition guessing, but I wouldn't rely on it as a set play.
Now, if the puck is worked down low by AMac on RW and Perron is able to sneak into the high-slot for a 1-timer, I could see it working.
I think that is a little too dangerous. If Perron has the puck, tries to deke past the defender and fails, that could lead to an instant break-away. EJ has speed to recover, but you loose the setup and possibly 20 seconds off the PP clock at best. At worst you've just given up a SH goal or Mason has to make a very quality save.
If he doesn't have the puck and tries to move past the defender, then the player in that zone will simply back up and EJ losses his passing option pack to Perron. EJ will then be pressured to either shoot or pass to the RW. Either EJ will shoot or the puck will be dished out to the RW (presumably AMac). Either option can be predicted and thus countered.
Having Perron sneak in could be good to keep the opposition guessing, but I wouldn't rely on it as a set play.
Now, if the puck is worked down low by AMac on RW and Perron is able to sneak into the high-slot for a 1-timer, I could see it working.
Perron should be able to beat his man. Even if he can't, he should be at least at the top of the circle. Johnson would be back at the blueline. Either way, if the defender shuts Perron down, he can just pass it off to Johnson, and he can try and make a move to break the zone. The point is that there should be roles and set plays on the powerplay, and each guys should know their role, and know their reads. The other team is a man down, so there should always be a weakness. It's up to the coach to identify and exploit that weakness. Perron is the best bet to break the zone and cause the triangle/box to collapse and open up.
Then what might you suggest? JD and Checketts will not stand for this style of hockey to continue to be played...
They would probably advocate trading someone like Berglund for some proven scoring only to have Berglund flourish elsewhere and probably outscore whoever we trade for since they'd be stuck in Murray's system.
They would probably advocate trading someone like Berglund for some proven scoring only to have Berglund flourish elsewhere and probably outscore whoever we trade for since they'd be stuck in Murray's system.
I hope not. The last thing we need to do is sell the farm like we did to get Tkachuk just to fix our toughness problem.
Then what might you suggest? JD and Checketts will not stand for this style of hockey to continue to be played...
What do you mean "this style"? Lack of results from offense is not a style. If you think JD and Checketts want some kind of run em gun em style like Atlanta or Washington you'll be nothing but disappointed. This is going to be a team built around team defense.
Here's what they really will not stand for...players that are paid big bucks to produce offense and not doing it. This team does not need to subtract defensive play to get more production from the offense. The team has been creating more than enough scoring chances to win games but no one is finishing them on a regular basis. It's not the evil Murray's fault Boyes, Backes, Kariya, McDonald are not finding the back of the net on a regular basis. Those players have enough NHL experience that they should be out there getting it done no matter the line, no matter the coach, no matter the system.
Now I can get behind some complaints on the PP. I understand why Murray is making the big change to being driven soley from the point and it is a necessary change at some point with EJ playing well and Pietrangelo starting to gain NHL experience our high end talent is on the Blueline and we need to accentuate that. I would prefer to see a more gradual change over from what we used last year into this new system, or at least the 2nd unit have Boyes and Berglund so we can at least try the cross ice one timers. Yeah there's room for complaint here. However I do not buy the BS that he doesn't have a system or any set plays on the PP.
However I do not buy the BS that he doesn't have a system or any set plays on the PP.
Pray tell, what set play do the Blues have on the powerplay? Describe a play that we run. Surely after 21 games we would have run a play enough times that you could easily recognize and describe it.
Pray tell, what set play do the Blues have on the powerplay? Describe a play that we run. Surely after 21 games we would have run a play enough times that you could easily recognize and describe it.
EJ passes to d partner or boyes and makes a b-line for the opposite post. Pretty much the exact same thing that got Mike Green 30 goals last year.
you have no idea what Checketts & JD will stand for. If you're expecting a coaching change, you're going to be sorely disappointed.
I don't know what to expect...
Whether Murray is let go, or big name guys are starting to get moved, I don't see JD and Checketts continuing to let this team underachieve with the talent they have, they have the fans back, missing the playoffs this year would be a BIG step in the wrong direction.
You honestly can't sit there and tell me you think this team is capable of going on a run like they did last year? Not me, nor does Dave Checketts, he said it on 101ESPN two weeks ago that last year was a miracle and cannot be duplicated.
