GDT: Game 5 Part 2

[TheDizee]

what a awful night. still cant believe how awful 91 has been. brodziak is outscoring him.

 

[KingBran]

Agreed.

Goalie is the most important position on the ice.

Elliott earned this spot by outplaying Allen by a significant margin. Elliott galvanized the team and has largely been the Blues best player in the PO's. ****, even Allen said so in one of his recent post game interviews.

Hitch wants to prove he's clever so sits his best PO performer for a second game in a row. Changed the narrative from "its a momentum change" to "Jake only let in one goal last game." Hitch was too clever by half.

Hitch's ego cost us this game.

Just curious what you mean by this? Because Allen was absolutely dominant in the first half of the season when the Blues had a NEGATIVE goal differential they were still fighting to be tops of the west (not considering the insane run Dallas went on the first half of the season). It's funny to me how soon everyone forgets how good of a goalie Allen is.

Why is it so bad that Allen got a couple starts? We used a tandem all season.

Elliott had let in 6 goals on his previous 37 shots over 2 games. I don't care who you want to blame there but that is not good. Any self-respecting goalie will tell you the same thing and would not blame the players in front of them for an awful two games. There is no reason to be upset that Allen gets a couple starts here.

Blues have two great goalies. It's a luxury and a curse. It's a luxury because no matter who starts, the team has a real chance to win. It's a curse because your fan base will start picking sides and creating a controversy where there is none.

If Allen had let in 6 goals on 37 shots this forum / twitter / the interwebs would probably explode from Blues fans going insane. But for some reason, the lovable Moose can do no wrong.

Yes, I know the Blues scored 0 goals in that time. But in the 4 losses the Blues had to MIN last season they scored 2, 1, 1, 0 goals. AKA, Allen would have to have posted a shutout in AT LEAST 3 games to get a W there. Yet who was blamed for last years failures? ...Allen.

 

[TheDizee]

its because they have blinders on. whats funny was watching them debate what the score would be if elliott played last night. reminds me of all the debates over if fuhr would have stopped yzermans slapshot in game 7. Newsflash, its irrelevant to talk about and a waste of time.

elliott could have played last night and we still would have lost. We made alot of stupid plays on their goals, followed them up with some terrible performances from people like 91 who had one measly shot on goal and then you throw in some god awful biased officiating too.

we have had TWO great goaltending performances in this series and surprise surprise we won both of those games. its not a coincidence. Games 2, 3, and 5 have had average performances at best and we have dropped all 3 of them. Average goaltending does not win unless the refs hold your hands.

Whats disgusting about last night was that Jones IMO was worse than allen was but was saved by multiple posts and the awful officiating mentioned above. The Blues could have easily extended the lead to 3-1 had the refs ****ed off and stopped calling ticky tack December calls in a conference final game. Thats what pisses me off, we let their mediocre goalie off the hook. If our 40goal player continues to let 4th liners outproduce him, we are done. The ghost of TJ Oshie is alive and well and hes inside #91's head now.

 

[KingBran]

its because they have blinders on. whats funny was watching them debate what the score would be if elliott played last night. reminds me of all the debates over if fuhr would have stopped yzermans slapshot in game 7. Newsflash, its irrelevant to talk about and a waste of time.

elliott could have played last night and we still would have lost. We made alot of stupid plays on their goals, followed them up with some terrible performances from people like 91 who had one measly shot on goal and then you throw in some god awful biased officiating too.

we have had TWO great goaltending performances in this series and surprise surprise we won both of those games. its not a coincidence. Games 2, 3, and 5 have had average performances at best and we have dropped all 3 of them. Average goaltending does not win unless the refs hold your hands.

Whats disgusting about last night was that Jones IMO was worse than allen was but was saved by multiple posts and the awful officiating mentioned above. The Blues could have easily extended the lead to 3-1 had the refs ****ed off and stopped calling ticky tack December calls in a conference final game. Thats what pisses me off, we let their mediocre goalie off the hook. If our 40goal player continues to let 4th liners outproduce him, we are done. The ghost of TJ Oshie is alive and well and hes inside #91's head now.

Well said. 100% agree. I don't normally blame the refs for 'controlling a game' so to speak but they absolutely gave the Sharks every opportunity to get back in the game whenever the Blues scored / were dominant 5 on 5.

It's crazy to see how Tarasenko has become irrelevant by what seems overnight. We all thought him having a kid would have kicked him in the pants.

You see a game like game 4 and the Blues net 6 and you think... Well surely Tarasenko had a great game. Nope. Didn't even have a point. He needs to be better.

I agree with Jones too. He is not some great goalie that's going to steal a game or save the day for your team. But boy the Blues sure are making him look good.

 

[Ranksu]

I put this 5th game lost to Jake Allen. 1st and 2nd goal were terrible. Too soft goals to allow. Now we're facing must win or we're out. Shame that Allen did meltdown in his most important game so far.

 

[fishsandwichpatrol]

Part 2? Sounds like we had some meltdowns haha. Well we only need to win 2 in a row. Not exactly impossible. Put Elliot back in and let's see what this team is made of

 

[Note Worthy]

Elliott had let in 6 goals on his previous 37 shots over 2 games. .

Right, which is why I was fine with starting him in game 4 in San Jose. But he didn't look amazing in that game so Elliott should have been put back in for game 5.

Really, Elliott got us to where we are and he should have the chance to keep us going. I understood starting Allen in game 4 but not game 5.

 

[Alklha]

Just curious what you mean by this? Because Allen was absolutely dominant in the first half of the season when the Blues had a NEGATIVE goal differential they were still fighting to be tops of the west (not considering the insane run Dallas went on the first half of the season). It's funny to me how soon everyone forgets how good of a goalie Allen is.

Why is it so bad that Allen got a couple starts? We used a tandem all season.

Elliott had let in 6 goals on his previous 37 shots over 2 games. I don't care who you want to blame there but that is not good. Any self-respecting goalie will tell you the same thing and would not blame the players in front of them for an awful two games. There is no reason to be upset that Allen gets a couple starts here.

Blues have two great goalies. It's a luxury and a curse. It's a luxury because no matter who starts, the team has a real chance to win. It's a curse because your fan base will start picking sides and creating a controversy where there is none.

If Allen had let in 6 goals on 37 shots this forum / twitter / the interwebs would probably explode from Blues fans going insane. But for some reason, the lovable Moose can do no wrong.

Yes, I know the Blues scored 0 goals in that time. But in the 4 losses the Blues had to MIN last season they scored 2, 1, 1, 0 goals. AKA, Allen would have to have posted a shutout in AT LEAST 3 games to get a W there. Yet who was blamed for last years failures? ...Allen.

I didn't see any outrage that Allen was starting Game 4, I didn't mind it. Some disagreeing voices, but no outrage. After winning and looking fine, Allen deserved to start in Game 5.

The problem is that he looked shaky, gave up 2 soft goals and had done absolutely nothing in his 2 starts to deserve to get the third period start. I'm no blaming Allen for the loss, I'm calling out the hypocrisy of our coaching staff. They dropped, not pulled, Elliott for nothing different.

Discussions of whether or not we win that game with Elliott are pointless. The point is that I want to see this team put in the best possible position to win; going into the third period that was not having Jake Allen in goal. You can dress that up as some sort of bias against him if you want, but it was clearly evident in the first 2 periods. You talk about Elliott's save percentage when he was dropped, but it didn't look much better for Allen going into the third. The difference being Elliott has proven himself during this postseason.

At best it is weak management, at worst it is a blind preference. Easy to pull a goalie 3-0 down, but he was too scared to apply those same standards to a goalie when the game was close.

 

[Alklha]

As for Tarasenko, there is nothing you can really say about his disappearing act.

It all comes down to whether or not he is injured. If he is, then they have enough to show that he is useless out there with the injury and he should be dropped.

If he isn't injured, we just have to endure the ineptitude and hope he wakes the **** up. I'd sooner bet on Tarasenko turning it on in a big game than Rattie/Upshall/Reaves being a difference maker.

 

[ZigZagBluesFan]

The way we've been playing this postseason I expected one of two outcomes from last night's game.

If we won, we'd come out flat in Game 6 and the series would go to Game 7.
Since we lost, we'll play well and take Game 6 forcing Game 7.

That's just how this team operates.

Win Game 6 and go from there.

 

[Stealth JD]

I'm convinced Tarasenko has a bad hand/wrist. That's the only explanation for this performance. Didn't he take a slash earlier in the playoffs that we were all worried about...then he stayed in the lineup and assumed it was no big deal?

 

[Dbrownss]

As for Tarasenko, there is nothing you can really say about his disappearing act.

It all comes down to whether or not he is injured. If he is, then they have enough to show that he is useless out there with the injury and he should be dropped.

If he isn't injured, we just have to endure the ineptitude and hope he wakes the **** up. I'd sooner bet on Tarasenko turning it on in a big game than Rattie/Upshall/Reaves being a difference maker.

The thing is, we don't need those 3 to be a difference maker on the score sheet. Right now, Lehtera's line is a liability with him when he's floating around. Those 3 there while not having the instant offensive threat Tarasenko delivers are players that will battle and compete for the puck. I wouldn't expect any of them to score but they "should" elevate the lines competitive edge some

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I had no problem with Allen starting Game 4. I think starting him again in Game 5 was reasonable. He was shaking the rust off and there was reason to expect that he'd play better as things went along.

I think the reason he wasn't pulled in that game, is that Elliott DOESN'T need to work off the rust. He'll be ready to go next game 100%. Allen didn't play terrible, just not good enough, and not as well as Elliott has been playing. But the team in front of him bears a lot of blame. It was a disappointing effort all around. The early goals in both the 1st and 3rd periods, those are just tough goals psychologically.

Also, my Budweiser goal light quit working. I think I wore out the battery in Game 4. Should I bother to put in fresh batteries?

 

[Oberyn]

I had no problem with Allen starting Game 4. I think starting him again in Game 5 was reasonable. He was shaking the rust off and there was reason to expect that he'd play better as things went along.

I think the reason he wasn't pulled in that game, is that Elliott DOESN'T need to work off the rust. He'll be ready to go next game 100%. Allen didn't play terrible, just not good enough, and not as well as Elliott has been playing. But the team in front of him bears a lot of blame. It was a disappointing effort all around. The early goals in both the 1st and 3rd periods, those are just tough goals psychologically.

Also, my Budweiser goal light quit working. I think I wore out the battery in Game 4. Should I bother to put in fresh batteries?

Congrats, now you have a Tarasenko goal light.

 

[TheOrganist]

I agree with the sentiments on the previous page regarding the goaltending. I can understand attempting to change the dynamic of the series in Game 4 as the series was slipping away but he should've gone back to Elliott. That is not hindsight as I felt that before the game and unlike a few here I'm a big Allen fan. When you tell the press you're going to continue to play Goalie A because the team is relying too much on Goalie B because Goalie B is playing fantastic you sound illogical and ridiculous.
Allen looked like he was struggling tracking the puck all night and just wasn't good. It was a dumb decision. I don't usually harp on the goaltending but last night it felt like the team was one or two saves from taking control of the game. They played really well through 40.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I had no problem with Allen starting Game 4. I think starting him again in Game 5 was reasonable. He was shaking the rust off and there was reason to expect that he'd play better as things went along.

I think the reason he wasn't pulled in that game, is that Elliott DOESN'T need to work off the rust. He'll be ready to go next game 100%. Allen didn't play terrible, just not good enough, and not as well as Elliott has been playing. But the team in front of him bears a lot of blame. It was a disappointing effort all around. The early goals in both the 1st and 3rd periods, those are just tough goals psychologically.

Also, my Budweiser goal light quit working. I think I wore out the battery in Game 4. Should I bother to put in fresh batteries?

I get what you're saying, but I don't think game 5 of the Western Conference Finals is a time when you should be giving a goalie a chance to shake the rust off.

 

[KingBran]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

 

[Ranksu]

I don't understand how people can still blindly defend Allen's last night performance. It was game/series factor and I hope it didn't ruined our changes to go SCF.

Winning goaltender don't allow those kind of goals and after that 1st soft goal team came back and scored couple goals until that 2nd Sharks goal what was also softie.

No doubt, it was right move to give Allen 5th game, but Allen blowed it totally, no excuses. Terrible perfomance.

Zero changes Allen will play until October.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

And how many of those wins did he single handedly account for? A hell of a lot of them. And with the exception of one or two games, even the ones he lost he allowed us a chance to win.

Using win-loss record as the definitive measuring stick is disingenuous and ridiculous.

 

[TheOrganist]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

You can count on maybe 3 fingers the amount of poor goals Elliott has given up this post-season. Considering he's played the Hawks, the highest scoring regular season team and the highest scoring playoff team during this run he's been remarkable. I've felt comfortable with him every single game this playoffs. Last night was literally the first time this playoffs where I had a bad feeling about the goaltender leading into the game. It just felt like the wrong move.

 

[Stealth JD]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

So...you're saying Allen doesn't let in soft goals and the fan-base is just scapegoating him? Most of the people on this site are objective enough and mature enough to call out Elliott for giving up a bad goal. The reason why you see Allen getting called out for bad goals more often than Elliott is simple. Allen gives up bad goals much more frequently than Elliott. It's not difficult to recognize that. Even Allen's biggest critics would be more than happy to heap praise on the kid for stealing a playoff game...but there's a reason you don't see those comments either.

 

[Alklha]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

"Called it!" Are you arguing that Allen put in 2 strong performances and he didn't deserve to get pulled?

Elliott has a losing record in the playoffs this season? Maybe you want to count again.

Whatever metric you want to use, Elliott has been better. That doesn't mean he hasn't given up soft goals and doesn't mean Allen is crap. If you want to rip Elliott for his poor record in Games 2 & 3 and justify him being pulled in game 3, where is the consistency in doing so with Allen?

 

[Note Worthy]

Called it! Anytime Allen loses everyone says "soft goals".

Elliott is 9-8-2 in the playoffs. Losing record. But you will be hard-pressed to find ANYONE to say he gave up a soft goal ever.


I am just coming to terms that Elliott is just a fan favorite career backup that was hot coming into the playoffs but has fallen off. Yet still he is seen as some kind of elite-level goalie that never gives up soft goals even when he allows lots of goals on not many shots.

I was nervous about heading into last nights game because of goaltending. That's the first time I've felt this way the entire postseason.

 

[Evocable Manager]

Resting Elliott in game 4 was fine. Not playing him in game 5 wasn't.

 

[Note Worthy]

Resting Elliott in game 4 was fine. Not playing him in game 5 wasn't.

Bingo. My thoughts exactly.