Is Doug Armstrong The Right Man To Lead The Blues?

Garyboy

Registered User
Oct 31, 2010
2,193
227
Toronto
Informative read, thanks. Looking forward to see what he does on draft day. Do you think Thomas will make the squad next year? Will be fun tracking him during the Memorial Cup starting on Friday.
 

Bluesguru

Registered User
Aug 10, 2014
1,957
823
St. Louis
At this point in time I would of liked a new GM to lead the team but it is what it is.

The last 2 years have been wasted IMO. Blues could of remained a contender and still accomplish the "youth replenishment" that they are currently striving for. You can't have a Rocket Richard candidate in Tarasenko and a Norris Trophy Candidate in Pietrangelo, who by the way is spearheading an elite defense, and just be a team biding its time, which is what the Blues have been doing the past 2 years.

We'll see what DA does this off season as the kids are now getting closer to maturity and the revelation has sunk in with Ownership that missing the playoffs and not contending is unacceptable.
 

Bluesnatic27

Registered User
Aug 5, 2011
4,712
3,209
Okay, first off, there are some inaccuracies that I think needs to be addressed.

Concerning the Shattenkirk trade, the Blues received a 2017 1st, Zach Sanford, and a conditional 2019 2nd round pick, as well as a secondary pick that was incredibly convoluted. The conditions for the 2nd in 2019 were not met due to Washington not reaching the Eastern Conference Finals, and thus the only remaining assets from the trade were Sanford and a 1st. I just find it odd that Sanford was never mentioned in the article and the 2nd was.

Secondly, I feel as if there were too many speculative statements that were phrased as facts. For example, saying that Shattnkirk was traded because he and, "The Blues could not come to an agreement for a new contract..." needs to have some level of evidence. It portrays a situation that the Blues had every intention of re-signing Shattenkirk, but it was he who decided not to stay. I believe evidence is needed because it could call your credibility into account if that situation is actually false. The same goes for Stastny not being part of the Blues roster next season. That statement needs to have some level of proof or logic behind it.

Besides a few spelling errors (It's Stastny, not Statsny), those were my two main gripes with the article.
 

Gareth Moyse

Registered User
May 14, 2018
8
1
Okay, first off, there are some inaccuracies that I think needs to be addressed.

Concerning the Shattenkirk trade, the Blues received a 2017 1st, Zach Sanford, and a conditional 2019 2nd round pick, as well as a secondary pick that was incredibly convoluted. The conditions for the 2nd in 2019 were not met due to Washington not reaching the Eastern Conference Finals, and thus the only remaining assets from the trade were Sanford and a 1st. I just find it odd that Sanford was never mentioned in the article and the 2nd was.

Secondly, I feel as if there were too many speculative statements that were phrased as facts. For example, saying that Shattnkirk was traded because he and, "The Blues could not come to an agreement for a new contract..." needs to have some level of evidence. It portrays a situation that the Blues had every intention of re-signing Shattenkirk, but it was he who decided not to stay. I believe evidence is needed because it could call your credibility into account if that situation is actually false. The same goes for Stastny not being part of the Blues roster next season. That statement needs to have some level of proof or logic behind it.

Besides a few spelling errors (It's Stastny, not Statsny), those were my two main gripes with the article.
noted. thanks for the feedback
 

Gareth Moyse

Registered User
May 14, 2018
8
1
Informative read, thanks. Looking forward to see what he does on draft day. Do you think Thomas will make the squad next year? Will be fun tracking him during the Memorial Cup starting on Friday.
I'm hoping he will start off by centering the 3rd line but with what we are seeing at the moment he has the potential to center one of the top lines.
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,261
6,796
Central Florida
"Do these articles serve a purpose?" - An article by Majorityof1

Recently, a couple articles have been linked on HF Blues board by an author for a website called Runner Sports. They ask a question at the outset, and they give some very basic information. They continuously re-phrase the main questions throughout. Do they do more than convey basic information?

The articles do not contain much in the way of cutting edge insight or in-depth analysis. The article in this thread fails to look into Armstrong's management track record in Dallas, or really any moves he made outside the last 2 years aside from mentioning a few current contracts signed before then. It fails to identify Armstrong's plan, or lack thereof, and how those moves fit into it. It doesn't discuss letting Backes walk, or trading Oshie. It merely lists two trades and a few contracts, asking if they were good moves. Does this article provide any new or little-known information?

What analysis there is, actually seems to be contradictory between the two articles. In the article on the PP, the author seems to indicate the loss of Shattenkirk played a big role in the drop in PP productivity and that drop played a big role in our season outcome. Yet in the Armstrong piece, the author seemed to hint that losing Shattenkirk was no big deal. Are the facts slanted toward the authors preferred opinion on the question at hand?


In the end, the articles re-phrase the question asked at the outset, yet they never answer it, not even giving an opinion. The information seems slanted toward an opinion, but its never made clear. Is the slanted information enough to be considered an opinion piece?

At the end of the day, the reader is left with no new information, and no clearly stated opinion. Does this article serve a purpose in their life?
 
Last edited:

Gareth Moyse

Registered User
May 14, 2018
8
1
"Do these articles serve a purpose?" - An article by Majorityof1

Recently, a couple articles have been linked on HF Blues board by an author for a website called Runner Sports. They ask a question at the outset, and they give some very basic information. They continuously re-phrase the main questions throughout. Do they do more than convey basic information?

The articles do not contain much in the way of cutting edge insight or in-depth analysis. The article in this thread fails to look into Armstrong's management track record in Dallas, or really any moves he made outside the last 2 years aside from mentioning a few current contracts signed before then. It fails to identify Armstrong's plan, or lack thereof, and how those moves fit into it. It doesn't discuss letting Backes walk, or trading Oshie. It merely lists two trades and a few contracts, asking if they were good moves. Does this article provide any new or little-known information?

What analysis there is, actually seems to be contradictory between the two articles. In the article on the PP, the author seems to indicate the loss of Shattenkirk played a big role in the drop in PP productivity and that drop played a big role in our season outcome. Yet in the Armstrong piece, the author seemed to hint that losing Shattenkirk was no big deal. Are the facts slanted toward the authors preferred opinion on the question at hand?


In the end, the articles re-phrase the question asked at the outset, yet they never answer it, not even giving an opinion. The information seems slanted toward an opinion, but its never made clear. Is the slanted information enough to be considered an opinion piece?

At the end of the day, the reader is left with no new information, and no clearly stated opinion. Does this article serve a purpose in their life?
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
"Do these articles serve a purpose?" - An article by Majorityof1

Recently, a couple articles have been linked on HF Blues board by an author for a website called Runner Sports. They ask a question at the outset, and they give some very basic information. They continuously re-phrase the main questions throughout. Do they do more than convey basic information?

The articles do not contain much in the way of cutting edge insight or in-depth analysis. The article in this thread fails to look into Armstrong's management track record in Dallas, or really any moves he made outside the last 2 years aside from mentioning a few current contracts signed before then. It fails to identify Armstrong's plan, or lack thereof, and how those moves fit into it. It doesn't discuss letting Backes walk, or trading Oshie. It merely lists two trades and a few contracts, asking if they were good moves. Does this article provide any new or little-known information?

What analysis there is, actually seems to be contradictory between the two articles. In the article on the PP, the author seems to indicate the loss of Shattenkirk played a big role in the drop in PP productivity and that drop played a big role in our season outcome. Yet in the Armstrong piece, the author seemed to hint that losing Shattenkirk was no big deal. Are the facts slanted toward the authors preferred opinion on the question at hand?


In the end, the articles re-phrase the question asked at the outset, yet they never answer it, not even giving an opinion. The information seems slanted toward an opinion, but its never made clear. Is the slanted information enough to be considered an opinion piece?

At the end of the day, the reader is left with no new information, and no clearly stated opinion. Does this article serve a purpose in their life?
Ever the soft touch. :laugh:

You make some good points, though.

I'll add that it's tough to craft constructive feedback without knowing exactly what the end goal happens to be, and what sort of variables are involved. Who is the target audience? Is the goal to inform and let readers draw their own conclusions, or to provide an informed opinion for the readers to digest? Is it to provide deep, insightful analysis on a selection of topics (learning more about the technical game, strategies, or other things not easily understood), or to lightly touch on and draw attention to a broad scope of topics (to keep informed about what's generally going on around the league)? What sort of article volume is one expected to produce, and what sort of time constraints does one have while writing them?

Even the most basic Blues articles would be "informative" to a whole lot of non-hockey fans, to most non-Blues fans, and even to a large number of casual Blues fans. That same group is also probably more interested in what's generally going on than in more deeply understanding the game. I'd wager presenting informed opinions on topical issues with some basic underlying reasoning/facts laid out in support would generally work well with that group. The ones who know nothing will be looking for an opinion, not to make up their own mind, and those who know something will find themselves engaged by either agreeing or disagreeing. As long as you're presenting well-reasoned arguments in a generally entertaining manner, you should be fine.

The more hardcore and informed Blues fans here, though, are generally looking for a higher level of discourse and are more interested in learning something they don't already know. An article that would appeal to that subset of fans is probably too overwhelming and detailed to engage non-fans, and even many casual fans.

Both types of articles have their place in the world.

My general advice to the author would be to do what you can to continue to grow your knowledge about the game. That knowledge will come through in your writing, regardless of intent or audience, and it will lend you credibility and authenticity. If your goal is to inform, try to find something to unique to share (or give it your own unique touch). You're more likely to build a following if people know that they'll get something new by reading what you have to say. If your goal is to engage, then don't be afraid to present an informed opinion. People respond to those.
 

Bluesguru

Registered User
Aug 10, 2014
1,957
823
St. Louis
Ever the soft touch. :laugh:

You make some good points, though.

I'll add that it's tough to craft constructive feedback without knowing exactly what the end goal happens to be, and what sort of variables are involved. Who is the target audience? Is the goal to inform and let readers draw their own conclusions, or to provide an informed opinion for the readers to digest? Is it to provide deep, insightful analysis on a selection of topics (learning more about the technical game, strategies, or other things not easily understood), or to lightly touch on and draw attention to a broad scope of topics (to keep informed about what's generally going on around the league)? What sort of article volume is one expected to produce, and what sort of time constraints does one have while writing them?

Even the most basic Blues articles would be "informative" to a whole lot of non-hockey fans, to most non-Blues fans, and even to a large number of casual Blues fans. That same group is also probably more interested in what's generally going on than in more deeply understanding the game. I'd wager presenting informed opinions on topical issues with some basic underlying reasoning/facts laid out in support would generally work well with that group. The ones who know nothing will be looking for an opinion, not to make up their own mind, and those who know something will find themselves engaged by either agreeing or disagreeing. As long as you're presenting well-reasoned arguments in a generally entertaining manner, you should be fine.

The more hardcore and informed Blues fans here, though, are generally looking for a higher level of discourse and are more interested in learning something they don't already know. An article that would appeal to that subset of fans is probably too overwhelming and detailed to engage non-fans, and even many casual fans.

Both types of articles have their place in the world.

My general advice to the author would be to do what you can to continue to grow your knowledge about the game. That knowledge will come through in your writing, regardless of intent or audience, and it will lend you credibility and authenticity. If your goal is to inform, try to find something to unique to share (or give it your own unique touch). You're more likely to build a following if people know that they'll get something new by reading what you have to say. If your goal is to engage, then don't be afraid to present an informed opinion. People respond to those.

So well written - extremely nice :thumbu:
 

Majorityof1

Registered User
Mar 6, 2014
8,261
6,796
Central Florida
Ever the soft touch. :laugh:

You make some good points, though.

I'll add that it's tough to craft constructive feedback without knowing exactly what the end goal happens to be, and what sort of variables are involved. Who is the target audience? Is the goal to inform and let readers draw their own conclusions, or to provide an informed opinion for the readers to digest? Is it to provide deep, insightful analysis on a selection of topics (learning more about the technical game, strategies, or other things not easily understood), or to lightly touch on and draw attention to a broad scope of topics (to keep informed about what's generally going on around the league)? What sort of article volume is one expected to produce, and what sort of time constraints does one have while writing them?

Even the most basic Blues articles would be "informative" to a whole lot of non-hockey fans, to most non-Blues fans, and even to a large number of casual Blues fans. That same group is also probably more interested in what's generally going on than in more deeply understanding the game. I'd wager presenting informed opinions on topical issues with some basic underlying reasoning/facts laid out in support would generally work well with that group. The ones who know nothing will be looking for an opinion, not to make up their own mind, and those who know something will find themselves engaged by either agreeing or disagreeing. As long as you're presenting well-reasoned arguments in a generally entertaining manner, you should be fine.

The more hardcore and informed Blues fans here, though, are generally looking for a higher level of discourse and are more interested in learning something they don't already know. An article that would appeal to that subset of fans is probably too overwhelming and detailed to engage non-fans, and even many casual fans.

Both types of articles have their place in the world.

My general advice to the author would be to do what you can to continue to grow your knowledge about the game. That knowledge will come through in your writing, regardless of intent or audience, and it will lend you credibility and authenticity. If your goal is to inform, try to find something to unique to share (or give it your own unique touch). You're more likely to build a following if people know that they'll get something new by reading what you have to say. If your goal is to engage, then don't be afraid to present an informed opinion. People respond to those.

In sculpting, there is a place for the chainsaw and a place for the finest scalpel . I was the former, knowing you could come in as the latter. :laugh:

But, yes, you summed up what I was trying to get across. The ultimate goal is to get clicks. Posting here is a good way to do so, as we are rabid for new information and discourse. However, without providing something that we can appreciate, those clicks will dry up and will be very hard to win back. I will never again click on a Last Word article, as they have never been worth while. If someday they step up their game, they will have already lost a very rabid subset of fans. So by posting articles that don't appeal to this demographic, you are getting clicks today at the expense of potential future clicks when your style develops.

But as Easton pointed out, the article isn't perfectly suited for the uninformed fan who is probably looking for an opinion leader to help form their opinion on a subject they don't spend as much time thinking about. They want to read something to parrot back at the water-cooler to sound informed. This article gives no such help as it doesn't answer the very question it poses.

Were I to write for one of these sites, I would probably have different lines of articles that catered to each. You can write an article like this, only have it come to a solid stated opinion for the general masses. But don't link it to a forum of people who have debated the topic over hundreds of pages of vastly more in-depth analysis and facts. When you come across a topic you feel comfortable really digging into, label it as "Deep dive" or "In depth" to differentiate it for your different audiences, and link those more in-depth articles to the more informed audience. Just make sure it truly offers something new, or is truly a comprehensive summary. Otherwise you risk alienating a large portion of your future audience.

Either way, good luck to the author. I hope no offense was taken with my chainsaw approach to critique. I felt the approach would definitely get your attention and illustrate my points more so than soft-handed critique. I knew others could offer those much better than I as well.
 
Last edited:

PiggySmalls

Oink Oink MF
Mar 7, 2015
6,107
3,516
D. Armstrong has not only built what should be a short term strong roster but long term as well. I know we all have been burned by getting exciting about this team but it’s becoming hard for me to control my excitement after seeing the new players and young players so far this preseason. So far DA has damn sure justified his extension he has received.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mike Liut

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->