Line Combos: Hitchcock changing things up; Morrow up to 2nd, Roy to 4th

[Edgar]

Uh...What? Pietrangelo is our best player, period. That includes his defensive play. Just because he's not overly physical doesn't mean he's not a stud in his own end. Plays really similar to Lidstrom. He's always in the right spot and he's incredibly active with his stick. Pietrangelo is way better than Brent Burns every has been or could hope to be.

And I don't think Petro will ever be able to grow a beard as gnarly as Burns'

 

[2 Minute Minor]

lol'd at the fact that Berglund loves to cycle. It's almost smart, because our team often finds the back of the net via the cycle. Berglund has a high hockey IQ, but always seems to use it in slightly the wrong way, and Tarasenko is taking after him. They have both grown to take defensive responsibility (albeit at different rates). While Berglund and Tank 'lil bit' senko are learning to shoot the puck directly at the goalie at the right times, it seems like Stewart would make a good screen... but I like Roy on a line with Stewart because they seem to have a similar 'on the rush' mindset. Our team is so versatile we could argue about line combos throughout a successful season, but i like Sobotka or Berglund centering Tarasenko. With SBO we have a working line, and with RoyStew we have a rush, and with Taraberglo we have a cyclist and sniper who want to befuddle as many lines as they can, in an oddly good way. Schwartz fitz in to all theez

I guess my real point is that Pietrangelo is turning into the next Brent Burns or something. Great player, but dude doesnt play defense.. especially in front of the holy net--- 'maybe i'll try to poke him/it away, but i shouldnt really touch this guy' is always the feeling i get with him and and an opposing forward

Can't decide if this is a serious post, or just an effort to rile up some people.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Not much comment about Hitchcock's quotes about putting a "stop on the puck" guy on each line. He identified: Oshie, Steen and (edit: Schwartz). He also mentioned that Backes needs to stop on the puck more (among other players).

I think that's what he means by "passengers". He wants the forecheck to stop and battle on the puck consistently, from everyone. That being the case, he's not moving Stewart to get him going. He's moving Oshie to redistribute the Steen/Oshie pairing to re-train the team.

I think its wise to do it now. You have to draw a distinction between the outcome and the process. If you make a bad read in poker and go all in with an inferior hand, but get lucky on the river and win the pot...what is your take-home message. It shouldn't be a positive reinforcement to make that same read next time, or you're going to lose a lot of money.

The Blues have been winning games without really playing effectively in the way we've gotten used to seeing. There is enough skill on this team now that they can play below their best and still be an above average NHL team and win a lot (most) games. Great, that means they're a true contender, but they also need to be drawing closer and closer to their desired process as the season goes on, or we're going to have another disappointing post-season. Hitchcock is seeing this, too, and breaking up the forward lines (and using the loss to Tampa as an attention-getter) is meant to get the team playing the style he's implementing, but across all the lines consistently.

 

[PocketNines]

Interesting that they had two wingers in Perron and Stewart, one was great at putting in the effort in the offensive zone and was cheaper and signed longer, and the other is Chris Stewart. They trade the better player and now wonder why they still have Stewart as a passenger.

The thing that's made a difference this year is Steen, Backes, Oshie, and Pietrangelo are the core guys who all came in determined and elevating their game, and it's disguised the fact thus far that outside of the Petro contract, Armstrong ****ed the dog this summer. Roy, the Perron trade, the Shattenkirk contract and the Lapierre signing were all moves ranging from meh to suck.

I guess what I'm trying to say with that is Pietrangelo is the new Burns, because derp.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The Shattenkirk contract was fair and I'm not sure what people were expecting out of Roy. He's on pace for 55 points, which is in the 50-60 range that should have been expected. He was never going to be great defensively and he's on the wing because Sobotka really stepped his game up once again.

 

[PocketNines]

What I was expecting out of Roy was him not to be on this roster and instead being a 4M, 8th-most minutes passenger for another team. So he hasn't underachieved in my eyes, he's just the Derek Roy I thought he was. Which isn't good. If Roy was going to be a left winger (because MPS isn't even a 10 minute player in the NHL yet) then they should have kept Perron, who is better than Roy and cheaper.

The Shattenkirk contract isn't the worst contract ever, but it's below Armstrong's standard for contracts. He got no UFA years, spent more per year than the Kings did on the easily superior Voynov. It's more close to meh than suck.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Fair enough. Roy was clearly the consolation prize, which is good that we got him because Weiss has been a complete bust so far. I think Roy deserves some more time to completely get comfortable in Hitch's system and develop some chemistry. Right now, instead of becoming the playmaking center, he's looking like he could fill the McDonald pre-suck role. He's not as fast, and there were some other aspects that McDonald was better at before 11-12.

It's not unreasonable for Roy to have a 30-30 season with soft minutes.

 

[frostyflo]

What I was expecting out of Roy was him not to be on this roster and instead being a 4M, 8th-most minutes passenger for another team. So he hasn't underachieved in my eyes, he's just the Derek Roy I thought he was. Which isn't good. If Roy was going to be a left winger (because MPS isn't even a 10 minute player in the NHL yet) then they should have kept Perron, who is better than Roy and cheaper.

The Shattenkirk contract isn't the worst contract ever, but it's below Armstrong's standard for contracts. He got no UFA years, spent more per year than the Kings did on the easily superior Voynov. It's more close to meh than suck.

if Roy makes room for others to shine and still pots 50-60 points its still a meh signing but how much could you really expect from that move? and I still think Perron had to go for some reasons so there is not much point in discussing a Roy-Perron thing, even if it makes sense on a hockey standpoint. team wanted to send a message to the core, got the guy out who fits our teams mentality least. pretty ok.

and you really expect (!!) an "Army standard contract" for every contract he signs? and just because one contract is better doesn`t make this a bad one. might better compare it to 20 worse ones than to the Voynov deal, I just thought of it when we played Tampa and Carle...

 

[Celtic Note]

What I was expecting out of Roy was him not to be on this roster and instead being a 4M, 8th-most minutes passenger for another team. So he hasn't underachieved in my eyes, he's just the Derek Roy I thought he was. Which isn't good. If Roy was going to be a left winger (because MPS isn't even a 10 minute player in the NHL yet) then they should have kept Perron, who is better than Roy and cheaper.

The Shattenkirk contract isn't the worst contract ever, but it's below Armstrong's standard for contracts. He got no UFA years, spent more per year than the Kings did on the easily superior Voynov. It's more close to meh than suck.

I don't agree on the Shattenkirk front and don't care to get into it, but I do agree with the Perron-Roy-MPS situation. I also think Stewart should have been the player to hit the road, or package Stew and Perron for a legit 1st liner.

 

[PocketNines]

if Roy makes room for others to shine and still pots 50-60 points its still a meh signing but how much could you really expect from that move? and I still think Perron had to go for some reasons so there is not much point in discussing a Roy-Perron thing, even if it makes sense on a hockey standpoint. team wanted to send a message to the core, got the guy out who fits our teams mentality least. pretty ok.

and you really expect (!!) an "Army standard contract" for every contract he signs? and just because one contract is better doesn`t make this a bad one. might better compare it to 20 worse ones than to the Voynov deal, I just thought of it when we played Tampa and Carle...

So wait, they "got the guy out" who least fit the team (except they didn't, because Perron was waaaaaay more dogged on the puck and put out way more consistent intensity of shift than did Stewart ... think of that scout's up and down assessment of Stewart in the P-D season preview) in order to bring in Roy ... who clearly does not fit the team either?

Say what you want about Perron, Hitchcock gave him more minutes consistently than he gives Derek Roy. And Stewart. This notion that Perron didn't fit the team is one of those things fans do after some fact occurred to rationalize their team's decision being the right one. You can still cheer for a team while thinking they made strategic mistakes.

As for Shattenkirk, I said it was a pretty meh deal now (and at the time). Obviously they had to re-sign him but compared to other Armstrong deals I didn't like the terms as much, which is a fair position to hold and certainly goes in support of my main point, which was that besides the Pietrangelo signing Armstrong didn't have that great a summer. Instead, it's the core players/leaders off to a focused, hot start that has us thinking they turned some kind of corner and are ready to compete. These are not mutually exclusive – if your best players play this way in the postseason then you're probably going far. However, if they have to be diluted into different lines to get passengers not to be passengers and it affects the overall product to where the team is less successful, that's what we're discussing in this thread, the effect of the line changes. Maybe it will work. However, "jump-starting" Chris Stewart has basically never worked. Pucks will go in for him for a few regular season games in a row, and the rest of the time he's the guy we all see (the one who needs to be constantly "jump-started"), but it isn't because they figure out some magical line combo that unlocks his ability. So if Stewart is just gonna be Stewart no matter what line he's on, why break up what works on other lines?

 

[thedustman]

Stewy is playing really well right now, despite not putting up points. Perhaps Hitch is just trying to turn his good play into points. Also, for what it's worth, Perron is currently battling an 'upper-body' injury, and I'd rather have Stewy on the team. The idea that we should have kept Perron if Roy is just going to be used as a winger is valid though. I imagine there will be a lot to talk about after tonight's game with the line changes

 

[bluesman11]

I don't agree on the Shattenkirk front and don't care to get into it, but I do agree with the Perron-Roy-MPS situation. I also think Stewart should have been the player to hit the road, or package Stew and Perron for a legit 1st liner.

Was that deal available?

 

[Celtic Note]

Was that deal available?

Not sure, but I would rather role with Perron over Roy and MPS.

 

[bluesman11]

Not sure, but I would rather role with Perron over Roy and MPS.

I still believe after 12 games, even though they have some similar issues with secondary scoring they're better without him. The guy lacked the intangibles, I don 't why I feel like I see something that others don't, but I felt that way from year one. One year of Roy is better than more years of Perron in my opinion.

They're not done building, they have too add speed to this team and I hope the next move will address this obvious void.

 

[Blues88]

Say what you want about Perron, Hitchcock gave him more minutes consistently than he gives Derek Roy. And Stewart. This notion that Perron didn't fit the team is one of those things fans do after some fact occurred to rationalize their team's decision being the right one. You can still cheer for a team while thinking they made strategic mistakes.

As for Shattenkirk, I said it was a pretty meh deal now (and at the time). Obviously they had to re-sign him but compared to other Armstrong deals I didn't like the terms as much, which is a fair position to hold and certainly goes in support of my main point, which was that besides the Pietrangelo signing Armstrong didn't have that great a summer. Instead, it's the core players/leaders off to a focused, hot start that has us thinking they turned some kind of corner and are ready to compete. These are not mutually exclusive – if your best players play this way in the postseason then you're probably going far. However, if they have to be diluted into different lines to get passengers not to be passengers and it affects the overall product to where the team is less successful, that's what we're discussing in this thread, the effect of the line changes. Maybe it will work. However, "jump-starting" Chris Stewart has basically never worked. Pucks will go in for him for a few regular season games in a row, and the rest of the time he's the guy we all see (the one who needs to be constantly "jump-started"), but it isn't because they figure out some magical line combo that unlocks his ability. So if Stewart is just gonna be Stewart no matter what line he's on, why break up what works on other lines?

You've brought up some great points here. I think essentially breaking up the first line in an effort to get a few other top 9 guys going sort of undermines the effort and chemistry the SOB line has formed this season. For all the analysis of Steen's hot start and the reasons why, I've rarely seen any mention of line consistency and chemistry being big factors. Line juggling is a Blues trademark it seems, and its continued, to an extent, under Hitch.

I too don't see the rationale in breaking up the SOB line, but I'm especially confused as to how Backes is going to get Stewart the kind of looks he needs to be effective. They're a liability defensively, but Roy and Stewart had some early chemistry to begin the season. Roy is the best bet to spring Stewart in my opinion.

Anyway, good points. I'd add more, but you've covered it.

Not sure, but I would rather role with Perron over Roy and MPS.

Agreed.

Not to pile on about the trade, and not to romanticize Perron's time here as he was a frustrating player, but for this team, I'd really like to hear from someone who thought Stewart was a better fit for this system than Perron as I'm curious to know the thinking there.

Stewart had early success here, and rode a hot streak last season into an extension. But we never see Stewart creating his own space. We never really see Stewart winning board battles, forechecking well, or playing solid two way hockey. I don't think its a compete level/effort issue, I just think he's your typical shooter who needs space and someone to get him the puck.

 

[bleedblue1223]

In the end, both will be gone. There was the belief that a playmaking center would improve Stewart. Armstrong made the right decision at the time.

 

[Mike Liut]

Interesting that they had two wingers in Perron and Stewart, one was great at putting in the effort in the offensive zone and was cheaper and signed longer, and the other is Chris Stewart. They trade the better player and now wonder why they still have Stewart as a passenger.

The thing that's made a difference this year is Steen, Backes, Oshie, and Pietrangelo are the core guys who all came in determined and elevating their game, and it's disguised the fact thus far that outside of the Petro contract, Armstrong effed the dog this summer. Roy, the Perron trade, the Shattenkirk contract and the Lapierre signing were all moves ranging from meh to suck.

I guess what I'm trying to say with that is Pietrangelo is the new Burns, because derp.

Stewart makes the Blues bigger, stronger and tougher than Perron does. Without Stewart, the Blues would get pushed around. Reaves can't do all the fighting by himself. Now, if Backes or Polak could fight, I would agree with you, but neither can worth a damn.

 

[OCTA8ON*]

So wait, they "got the guy out" who least fit the team (except they didn't, because Perron was waaaaaay more dogged on the puck and put out way more consistent intensity of shift than did Stewart ... think of that scout's up and down assessment of Stewart in the P-D season preview) in order to bring in Roy ... who clearly does not fit the team either?

You mention that Perron was a lot more dogged on the puck, but going into tight corners, that's not really what players are really supposed to do. It's all about playing the body, and Perron was obviously unwilling to get physical. What Perron does is turn his body and throw his back into defensemen by the boards. That is called being a fairy. Players even from a Bantam level get called out for that opposed to skating in at an angle and putting their shoulder into the defensemen. Even this season, I have seen Stewart attempt to play the body more than I've seen Perron actually do in an entire season. And no, Perron merely taping the defensemen with his shoulder every now and then doesn't cut it; a genuine level of force is required. Secondly, Perron's mentality isn't really congruent with the Blues'. Ever since Hitch came aboard, a culture of 2 way grinding over pure skill in order to achieve success has been implemented. And although Perron developed his defensive abilities a little, you could still tell that he wanted to put his stick handling abilities over grinding when grinding was the safer option during a specific play.

What I do agree with is Roy's lack of ability. He was a horrible signing, and he is really no better than Perron. I hope Roy gets traded because he looks like an average, undersized forward with maybe one nifty pass per game. That's not worth 4 million. Whatever he did to put up 80 points in the East a few seasons back isn't found in St. Louis.

 

[taylord22]

Regardless of what you think about Stewart, I think we can all agree that the focus on optimizing his output are numbered. Hopefully, focus will shift toward optimizing Schwartz and Tarasenko's output. There's something there, but it's violently lacking a piece of glue.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

I don't think either was a fit and yes, I would rather take the chance on Stewart than Perron.

Doesn't appear to be working overall but Perron in what everyone agreed was a more offensive system in Edmonton has 9 points in 13 games, only one more than Roy who people are ripping on here.

Ultimately i agree with 1223, neither is going to be here in the long term.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I didn't really have a side in the Stewart vs. Perron debate. I thought the both had their strengths and weaknesses, and I felt pretty sure one would be moved. My guess was Perron, and it turns out that came to pass, but I wasn't rooting for it to happen.

Perron wasn't a stud defensively, even relative to Stewart, but he had better instincts and some significant tools in his toolbox. His stickwork was extremely good, and he competed hard in battles. Those traits also served him well when forechecking. I like his release, hands, vision, and agility/acceleration all better than Stewart's.

I gave my take on Stewart elsewhere, so I won't rehash that here.

I think what ultimately led to Perron moving over Stewart was that Stewart has demonstrated more coachability and growth in his time here. Stewart's putting in the work to change his game to suit what the Blues want him to be, and the results are showing up on the ice. I'm sure that hasn't gone unnoticed by the coaching staff and his teammates. Perron simply wasn't demonstrating the same sort of growth. The Blues weren't happy with a number of his tendencies on the ice, and things weren't changing.

Ultimately, my guess is that the Blues decided to gamble on the guy with limitations that was growing over the guy with the better instincts/toolbox that wasn't. Maybe that was the right decision, and maybe it wasn't. But I think that's what happened.

 

[BlueDream]

I think Stewart was also the more proven player (take that how you will, but he has scored goals in this league - more than Perron). And he was also probably more of "Armstrong's guy".

 

[SIU LAW]

I respectfully disagree that Perron was favored by Hitch, simply because he use to give him more minutes compared to Roy's current minutes. Sometimes you have to use the ingredients you have on hand. Once they realized that Schwartz and Tarasenko could handle more minutes, it was "see ya" to Perron. Perron just wasn't a fit for Hitch and I am guessing Team Backes (based on some of his past pointed comments during last season, for example suggesting that there were those worried more about stats than playing a team game).

As for Roy, he was obviously a back up plan and not a first choice, but they felt they needed a playmaking center. Not their optimal choice, but they wanted something since they desired more scoring, even if an imperfect fit. If I remember correctly, they went after at least top 6 centers before settling on Roy (Weiss, Flippula, Vinny).

With his demotion to wing, I think it is obvious he was not meeting Hitch's requirements as to a center's defensive abilities, so he promoted Sobotka as a stopgap. As to obtaining a center, at the moment, it appears that gamble is not paying off. With all that said, Roy has put up a respectable amount of points and seems on track to obtain his expected output. He paid has a supplementary piece, and so far he is providing that value, but not checking all the boxes for the Blues at this point in the season. If he racks up his points, he will probably parlay that result into a contract with another team.

 

[Celtic Note]

If a guy like Vanek were brought in for the same return BUF received, what would our lines look like?

I didn't really have a side in the Stewart vs. Perron debate. I thought the both had their strengths and weaknesses, and I felt pretty sure one would be moved. My guess was Perron, and it turns out that came to pass, but I wasn't rooting for it to happen.

Perron wasn't a stud defensively, even relative to Stewart, but he had better instincts and some significant tools in his toolbox. His stickwork was extremely good, and he competed hard in battles. Those traits also served him well when forechecking. I like his release, hands, vision, and agility/acceleration all better than Stewart's.

I gave my take on Stewart elsewhere, so I won't rehash that here.

I think what ultimately led to Perron moving over Stewart was that Stewart has demonstrated more coachability and growth in his time here. Stewart's putting in the work to change his game to suit what the Blues want him to be, and the results are showing up on the ice. I'm sure that hasn't gone unnoticed by the coaching staff and his teammates. Perron simply wasn't demonstrating the same sort of growth. The Blues weren't happy with a number of his tendencies on the ice, and things weren't changing.

Ultimately, my guess is that the Blues decided to gamble on the guy with limitations that was growing over the guy with the better instincts/toolbox that wasn't. Maybe that was the right decision, and maybe it wasn't. But I think that's what happened.

Yet again, another solid analysis.

I agree with the learning/improving bit. It was obvious that the Perron we say last year and the year before was the one we would continue seeing. It just seemed like he was making the same plays and being in the same positions over and over. While that is good for the positive aspects of his game, the areas that needed improvement did see any.

I also think the difference in their attitudes played a role. Stewart seems to be more of a group guy where Perron was more of a loner. There were a lot of little nuggets that made this pretty clear from a distance.

One of the other things that probably played a role was Stewart was brought in by Armstrong. While I have a feeling some people will defend Armstrong and say they doubt it. I still feel like it could be the case. Armstrong has not been afraid to move players, but he hasn't move any of the ones he brought in.

 

[PocketNines]

He did move Kris Russell after bringing him in for Nikitin. But Stewart was a major blockbuster trade acquisition, so a bit different category.