Playoff Analysis and Future Thoughts

[BadgersandBlues]

Hey everyone. So I started writing these threads a couple of years ago, and it took me a little longer then before due to the holiday weekend.

First off, a link to last year's post (Which also contains a link to the previous two years' posts)

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1887391&highlight=

So here goes:

First off, I want to state that I'm overall pretty happy with the season. I'm happy with the season because, let's face it, winning is fun. It doesn't matter how you get there, how dominant you were, if you got all the puck luck in the world, because at the end of the day winning is winning. I live in Chicago, and nothing made me happier then the two weeks after game 7. In addition to simply getting to enjoy winning for once, Tom Stillman finally made some money, and the experience of this run for our younger players is gold.

However, this success has also left me with some trepidation, mainly that we will use this success as a justification for a roster/coach that I think is still very flawed. I still think the best course for this team is a one-year mini-rebuild/reset.

So here goes:

Ownership

Once again, couldn't ask for anything more from Tom Stillman. Checketts was the owner we needed, Stillman is the owner we deserve.

Management

Still not super happy with DA. Wasn't happy the last two years, and frankly, he didn't do **** this season to change anything. He traded Oshie for Brouwer, and Brouwer responded with a Bickell-esque performance that NO ONE in their right mind would have possibly predicted. Once again, I'm happy we got where we did, but I personally don't think Armstrong deserves much, if any, credit for this. I don't want this to turn into an Army bashing thread, so I'm going to stop here, as this has been discussed ad-nauseam in other threads, but I simply don't trust Armstrong to direct this franchise where it needs to go, or make the right decisions regarding value of UFA's/trade targets.

Coaching

It's time for Hitchcock to go. In fact, I personally think it's time to replace the entire coaching staff sans Corsi. There just comes a time when a new voice is what's needed. Our coaches have given all they have to give at this point. Think about it like this. Every person has a specific amount of knowledge that is unique to them. Once they have offered it to those around them, it's not a bad thing seek out others to continue a person's education. Would you want the same teacher instructing you in every topic in high-school/college? Throughout all 4 years? Of course not. We have hit the point with this coaching staff where our players have learned as much as they are going to from them. It's time to bring in some new people with different experiences/perspective, to further everyone's personal development.

Before I go any further, I do want to say that our franchise has been helped immeasurably by Hitchcock. He came on at a time when we were looking down two very different paths as a team. We could become the team we are today, or we could end up like the Oilers. (Or some bastardized hybrid of the two) I truly believe that Hitch's lasting legacy here will be that he helped mold our team into a professional, disciplined hockey team that made winning THE priority.

If teams still played like 2009, Hitch might still work out. But they don't anymore. Teams understand that there are certain times where the risk/reward (or cost/benefit) works out so greatly in their favor that they are silly not to do it. Hitch cannot grasp this. He believes that every team still wants to play the way he does, which is up the boards on the break-out, up the boards in the neutral zone, along the boards into the offensive zone and in the offensive zone. As recently as 5 years ago, he was right. But then Chicago and to a lesser extent other teams showed that this isn't the only way to play in today's NHL. They started taking risks. Not CRAZY risks, but appropriate risks. These include:

1. Using the middle of the ice on a breakout, allowing for speedier transition through the middle of the ice. This leads to using the middle of the ice to enter the zone, which leads to greater scoring chances in more ways then I want to enumerate here. For specific examples, go watch any moment of the series where the Pavelski line had the puck and entered the zone against us.

2. Blowing the zone early in the defensive zone. (1 player) This actually goes hand in hand with the above. Chicago obviously perfected this, but honestly, it's almost crazy that every team doesn't use it. San Jose scored the first goal in game 6 directly thanks to this sort of mindset. As soon as the defense got the puck, Thornton flew the zone past our D looking for a homerun pass. Pavelski went from along the boards (Where we break out) to the middle of the ice in-between our two point men. Their D made a hard pass that Pavelski actually missed, but because our two D were so focused on him, they didn't realize that Thornton was behind them until the puck got to him. This leads to a breakaway and the first goal.

Now here's what I mean by cost-benefit. The play worked, and turned into a breakaway. But what happens if it doesn't? What happens if the puck jumps Pavelski's stick and goes straight to AP or Jay-Bo? Well, now we have our two point men covered by one guy, with Thornton likely heading back as fast as possible to make up the difference. So what do we get out of it? Probably a point shot, maaayyybe if we have the correct personnel we turn it into something a little more dangerous, such as a pass to the open point man, who walks in and makes a nice pass/shot, and maybe we just dump it back down low to cycle some more. But at the end of the day, the most likely outcome is a point shot. So the risk is a point shot, probably the lowest potential scoring play in hockey, vs a breakaway, probably the highest potential scoring play in hockey. Teams are crazy not to make that trade EVERY SINGLE TIME. How many times do we make it? What's Never for $200 Alex? I know we all clamor for more speed on this team, but we HAVE guys who are fast. Fabbri, Schwartz, and Tarasenko are all fast imo. We simply don't play a scheme where they are allowed to shine.

3. Activating the defense in the offensive zone. Our D should have the total green light to go as deep into the offensive zone as they want, pretty much anytime. This includes when we have a forward with the puck rotating out high, as Tarasenko likes to do. We need to trust our forwards to keep control of the puck and make the smart play in those situations. Far too often Tarasenko cycles up high and our D stand at the blueline, which allows a smart defensive player to apply more pressure to the puck carrier, as he knows he has help near him. Watch Kane do the same thing, the D from Chicago all move to give him passing options, and the defensive player must respect that, giving more space to the puck carrier.

These are all simple, yet effective ways to generate a ton more offense. For a team that got literally caved in on possession in this playoffs (Seriously, go look at our Corsi/Fenwick numbers in "close" situations) we need an offensive system to help, because our forward talent isn't as high as other teams. We don't need a Martz-esque super sophisticated system no team has seen before. But we do need a guy who doesn't think that, "Checking is what won San Jose the series. When you have buy in like that, it's like gold." Go home Hitchcock, the game has passed you by.

Goaltending

Pretty simple. Keep both guys, unless someone blows you away with a trade offer sometime between now and next TDL. Elliott proved what pretty much everyone here thought for the last 4 years, which is that goaltending isn't the issue. Our team is supposed to be built on depth, but we had to rely on our goalie putting up a 93 save percentage to even get to game 7s in the first two rounds. That's simply unacceptable for a team that doesn't pay a single goalie over 3 million. If we can convince someone to give us a top 15 pick for Allen or Elliott, I'd jump at that offer. Calgary, Arizona, Ottawa, or Carolina -might- be potential partners. Otherwise, no reason not to go into the season with this duo and hope that Allen can start showing some signs that he could potentially become the 55-60 start guy for our franchise.

Defense

Woof. For a team that's supposed strength was the blue-line, they sure looked like crap for the majority of the post-season. The performance as a whole from this group was simply unacceptable in the playoffs this year, with the exception of AP. However, it's hard for me to give a definitive guide to what I'd like to see us change personnel-wise without knowing what changes will occur to the coaching staff. Obviously Parayko is a stud, he slowed down at the end of the year, but that's to be expected of a guy playing that many games for the first time. Him and AP are the core moving forward. I think Gunnarsson is a solid 2nd-3rd pairing tweener, and with his cap hit there's nothing wrong with that. I think Edmondson will bounce back, he was a young guy that made a terrible gaff and I think it effected him the rest of the way.

Shattenkirk and Jay-Bo are the real issue. Jay-Bo bounced back from a down season last year to have a respectable regular season, but he looked simply over-matched most nights in the playoffs. Not really sure what to do there, as he's clearly lost at least 2 steps and we can't trade him due to his contract. Shattenkirk is not good defensively. He's just not. He was terribad two years ago against Chicago, he was bad last year, and he's bad this year. He's awesome at offense though, which is pretty hard to find. However, he did not drive possession at all this playoffs, for a guy who started in the offensive zone 2/3 of the time, that's simply unacceptable. I do not want to sell low on him at all, but it's time for him to go. If we trade him, however, we now have the potential to have a **** 3rd pairing, unless Gunnarsson or Edmondson can step up higher then they have, or we find a cheap replaceable puck mover in FA. I do NOT want to see a Bortuzzo/Edmondson pairing next year. I DO NOT. Glad to see that we do have a lot of homegrown talent making a difference on the NHL club now, with more in the pipeline to come. Hope we can flip Shattenkirk for the best futures package out there.

Forwards

I'm so sick of the idea that we're going to "out depth" teams. That **** never happens. The best teams, the ones that win the Cup, are the ones with the stacked top 6s that also get meaningful contributions for the depth players. Not the teams that set out to balance the scoring through three lines. Pitt has a crazy good third line, true, but they didn't plan it like that, it simply happened. They also have two of the top 5 forwards in the world that can generate offense with anyone at anytime. San Jose has a stacked top 6. So does Chicago, LA, Dallas, Tampa, and Anaheim. It's what works, not this whole, let's expect our third line to be the difference! If you want to win in the playoffs, your best players have to be your best players. That didn't happen nearly enough this post-season for the Blues.

First off, the good. I'm so in love with Fabbri words can't even describe. What a player. I absolutely believe he becomes our 1C, just not for another 2-3 years. No reason to rush him, let him grow into his body and work on playing Center during training camp/pre-season/short periods as an injury filler. Berglund had a respectable playoffs. He did what he's supposed to do, which is be a third line player. This goes back to the same thing I spoke about earlier though, he didn't play -that- much better then any other team's third line players to make "the" difference, but then again, any reasonably person shouldn't expect him to. Upshall and Brodziak were both great all season. I'd have liked to see Brodz score a few more goals in the playoffs, but that's nitpicking. I hope we retain both of those guys. Sobotka can go back to the 4th line LW spot replacing Ott. He becomes our in-game super-sub again. Brodz and Reaves round out the 4th line. Upshall can be our primary depth guy, with either Rattie/Jaskin/MPS/league minimum UFA as the other.

Tarasenko and Schwartz need to be better. Both of them had FAR too many offensive zone starts for the numbers they put up, be they regular or fancy. Tarasenko started almost 80% of his 5v5 shifts in the offensive zone, yet didn't even manage a 50% Corsi-close. Unacceptable. I will say, in his defense, that the San Jose series turned on one save. If Tarasenko scores on that incredible individual effort in the early part of the game the day his son was born, who knows what happens to our team, as I think he becomes a totally different, and scary player. But after that save he sat on the bench for like 5 minutes due to penalties, then he didn't touch the puck his next 2-3 shifts, and then after that you could just see all the fire that he had early in the game was gone. It's one of those hidden plays probably no one will remember in 10 years, but to me, it's the difference in the series.

I'm all for Backes coming back, but Brouwer can go. He had his Bickell playoffs, now some team will overpay him like crazy when his shooting % was like 250% better then his career average. Cuz yea, that's happening again next year. Backes can either slide in with Fabbri and Stastny and play a more offensive role, or he can slot in on the third line to help turn it into a defensive/puck possession line. I'm hoping that Jaskin can fit into Brouwer's spot, I still have really high hopes for the kid. I think a line of Fabbri-Stastny-Jaskin would do work, Jaskin is the prototypical powerforward. He isn't going to generate his own chances, and he isn't going to look useful on the rush. The lack of PP opportunity also hurts his production. But if you give him a chance to plant himself by the net, and you let others (Fabbri, Schwartz, Stastny) do the work behind the net, he can produce. How often do you see Lucic or Backes generate shots on their own? Pretty much never. They need linemates to make it happen. Jaskin is no different. He needs to work on his skating, for sure. But I think this off-season will do him wonders. By the end of the season, he looked as if he had no confidence left. That's something that's easily correctable.

Steen I'd trade. I advocated trading him last year and the year before, and now we have even more reason to. Schwartz and Fabbri are absolutely our top 6 LWers for the next 2 years, and Steen sucks at Center. This pretty much closes the window age-wise for the effectiveness of Steen. Steen also (quietly) doesn't produce in the playoffs. He simply doesn't. He's done a lot for us these last couple of years, but we need to move on.

Lehtera is simply not good enough. He's got vision, and he could benefit from a full off-season of conditioning, but his play all season was lacking, especially in the playoffs. For a guy with a 40 goal winger in his pocket, as well as the zone starts we give him, we can't afford to have a guy like him anchoring us down. I'd like to see us move on from him as cap relief.

Stastny. Stastny just bothers me. He's talented for sure, but he -never- seems like he's capable of being a gamebreaker. I hope a lot of that has to do with Hitch's system and our usage of him, but I'm not sure anymore. Nothing we can really do about it other then hope for the best, as no one is trading for him, nor would we be able to replace what he does bring.

This off-season we have one hole on the RW, and if we move Lehtera, we have a hole at Center, or two holes at RW if we move Backes back to the middle. There are a fair amount of attractive UFAs, but I really don't want Eriksson. I think he had a career year for his age, and will decline rapidly.

I'd love to load up our top 6, but it's simply not going to happen unless we get lucky with Stamkos. We are pretty much locked in to bringing back the majority of our team again, which sucks, because I think this veteran core needs to start transitioning out. How many more chances are we going to give them? This isn't like the Sharks, Marleau and Thornton were some of the top players in the league during their prime, and Thornton is a sure-fire Hall of Famer. I'd like to see us take a page out of Boston's book, honestly. If we miss the playoffs next year, then so be it. But I want to load up on picks and prospects who can become impact scorers in the NHL in the next 2-3 years. Basically, I want like, three more Fabbri's. Yea, I get that it's a tough road to plow, but it's what needs to be done. We were 10-10 in the playoffs this year, and we rarely looked dominant. The series against Dallas vs. the series between Nashville and San Jose was eye-opening. I think we lose to Nashville if we played them in the WCF honestly, they were just on a different intensity level compared to us (I think I've heard that before cough Wild series cough)

Finally, I will not accept fatigue as a reason for this team failing. The Sharks were incredibly healthy all season long, with their top players missing almost no time outside of Coture. We only played two more playoff games then they did, and our games against the Stars were FAR more lethargic then anything I saw from the San Jose/Nashville series. The dominance of the Sharks came down to the simple fact that they tailored their strategy to clamp down on the walls in the offensive zone and our breakout couldn't adjust. If I had a nickel for every time we gained possession only to throw the puck up the wall to no one in particular, leading to San Jose throwing it back down our throats, I'd be a rich freaking dude.

Anyway, I hope you all enjoy, and had a great Memorial Day. Feel free to tell me where I'm wrong

Click to read more...

 

[rumrokh]

Management

Still not super happy with DA. Wasn't happy the last two years, and frankly, he didn't do **** this season to change anything. He traded Oshie for Brouwer, and Brouwer responded with a Bickell-esque performance that NO ONE in their right mind would have possibly predicted. Once again, I'm happy we got where we did, but I personally don't think Armstrong deserves much, if any, credit for this. I don't want this to turn into an Army bashing thread, so I'm going to stop here, as this has been discussed ad-nauseam in other threads, but I simply don't trust Armstrong to direct this franchise where it needs to go, or make the right decisions regarding value of UFA's/trade targets.

I kinda don't care if you don't want to turn this into an Armstrong thread because I think you stumbled right out of the gate with this one.

Armstrong is not perfect, that's for sure. But Armstrong changed a third of the roster and the Blues got considerably faster, as they had to do after struggling against quick teams like Chicago and Minnesota. Armstrong did very well to identify what the team had in Fabbri, Edmundson, and Parayko (all are good skaters), and then bring on faster, responsible players like Brouwer, Upshall, and Brodziak. And his big signing of Stastny paid off for sure this season once Paul got healthy.

Drafting under Armstrong and roster turnover and management is possibly the biggest reason for the Blues' improvement this season. If you can't recognize the difference just from last season, that makes me very suspicious of your ability to analyze much about the team.

 

[Majorityof1]

Nice analysis Badger. I pretty much agree with all of it. There are a few minor conclusions I might disagree with (Keeping Allen/trading Steen), but those are minor in the grand scheme of things and dependent on outside factors (what is offered).

 

[BlueDream]

I kinda don't care if you don't want to turn this into an Armstrong thread because I think you stumbled right out of the gate with this one.

Armstrong is not perfect, that's for sure. But Armstrong changed a third of the roster and the Blues got considerably faster, as they had to do after struggling against quick teams like Chicago and Minnesota. Armstrong did very well to identify what the team had in Fabbri, Edmundson, and Parayko (all are good skaters), and then bring on faster, responsible players like Brouwer, Upshall, and Brodziak. And his big signing of Stastny paid off for sure this season once Paul got healthy.

Drafting under Armstrong and roster turnover and management is possibly the biggest reason for the Blues' improvement this season. If you can't recognize the difference just from last season, that makes me very suspicious of your ability to analyze much about the team.

Fabbri, Parayko and Upshall are pretty fast. The others not so much. Bringing in Brouwer and Brodziak was absolutely not "getting faster". Those players were brought in to get heavier. Armstrong even said it himself after the moves were made. His philosophy has long been about being a heavy team. He doesn't talk about prioritizing speed.

The Blues, overall, really did not get much faster in the offseason. And judging by how they looked against Dallas and San Jose, they still have a ways to go.

Hopefully they continue to work on that because right now it's maybe the biggest problem with the current roster.

 

[Majorityof1]

I kinda don't care if you don't want to turn this into an Armstrong thread because I think you stumbled right out of the gate with this one.

Armstrong is not perfect, that's for sure. But Armstrong changed a third of the roster and the Blues got considerably faster, as they had to do after struggling against quick teams like Chicago and Minnesota. Armstrong did very well to identify what the team had in Fabbri, Edmundson, and Parayko (all are good skaters), and then bring on faster, responsible players like Brouwer, Upshall, and Brodziak. And his big signing of Stastny paid off for sure this season once Paul got healthy.

Drafting under Armstrong and roster turnover and management is possibly the biggest reason for the Blues' improvement this season. If you can't recognize the difference just from last season, that makes me very suspicious of your ability to analyze much about the team.

The only move Armstrong made after realizing we needed to get faster was bringing in Brouwer and signing Brodziak, Upshall and Gomez. None of those would have fixed our top 6 speed issue as they were all pegged as bottom 6/depth guys. There is no proof he realized Parayko and Fabbri would be as good as they were. In fact, he made depth moves as insurance if they weren't (which is smart). He lucked into having young guys step up way above and beyond what could be expected. The credit for that is on the scouting department and luck. Bill Armstrong joined the Blues before Doug, so Doug can hardly take credit for finding the guy who found the real talent on the Blues roster. And as was pointed out by Badger, there is no way anyone could have expected Brouwer to show up like he did. Most of this board thought Brouwer was a bad pick-up the week before he was put on a line with Fabbri and Satstny. They would have kept thinking it if Fabbri hadn't have emerged like he did. So once again, Armstrong benefits from a rookie's unplanned break-out making his only non-depth move look good.

 

[rumrokh]

The only move Armstrong made after realizing we needed to get faster was bringing in Brouwer and signing Brodziak, Upshall and Gomez. None of those would have fixed our top 6 speed issue as they were all pegged as bottom 6/depth guys. There is no proof he realized Parayko and Fabbri would be as good as they were. In fact, he made depth moves as insurance if they weren't (which is smart). He lucked into having young guys step up way above and beyond what could be expected. The credit for that is on the scouting department and luck. Bill Armstrong joined the Blues before Doug, so Doug can hardly take credit for finding the guy who found the real talent on the Blues roster. And as was pointed out by Badger, there is no way anyone could have expected Brouwer to show up like he did. Most of this board thought Brouwer was a bad pick-up the week before he was put on a line with Fabbri and Satstny. They would have kept thinking it if Fabbri hadn't have emerged like he did. So once again, Armstrong benefits from a rookie's unplanned break-out making his only non-depth move look good.

Why doesn't Armstrong get credit for assembling and managing the scouting staff and assessing the possible contributions of developing players?

I can see the rationalization for chalking any given move up to luck, but as a whole, the roster changes are what improved the Blues. And they weren't insignificant. Armstrong didn't just trade Oshie for Brouwer and cross his fingers. And I really don't care what "most of this board" thought. If I went by that, I'd be foaming at the mouth and ignoring myself at the same time.

The roster did change significantly. I'm not saying Armstrong is great, but I'm inclined to give him more credit than you are.

 

[Celtic Note]

I think we are mostly on the same page Badgers. I said last year that we should have retooled with a combination of Oshie, Backes and/or Steen. All three are valuable contributors, but also are biggest assets to address team needs, outside of Shattenkirk.

DA and Hitch would have been jettisoned last year in my plan for the team. I said before the season that the worst thing that could happen is if we advanced beyond the second round, because it would allow both to stay.

 

[Celtic Note]

Why doesn't Armstrong get credit for assembling and managing the scouting staff and assessing the possible contributions of developing players?

I can see the rationalization for chalking any given move up to luck, but as a whole, the roster changes are what improved the Blues. And they weren't insignificant. Armstrong didn't just trade Oshie for Brouwer and cross his fingers. And I really don't care what "most of this board" thought. If I went by that, I'd be foaming at the mouth and ignoring myself at the same time.

The roster did change significantly. I'm not saying Armstrong is great, but I'm inclined to give him more credit than you are.

I would give DA credit if he brought in the scouting team, particularly Bill Armstrong. But he didn't. That group was passed on from Pleau, who wasn't as bad as some suggest.

 

[rumrokh]

Fabbri, Parayko and Upshall are pretty fast. The others not so much. Bringing in Brouwer and Brodziak was absolutely not "getting faster". Those players were brought in to get heavier. Armstrong even said it himself after the moves were made. His philosophy has long been about being a heavy team. He doesn't talk about prioritizing speed.

The Blues, overall, really did not get much faster in the offseason. And judging by how they looked against Dallas and San Jose, they still have a ways to go.

Hopefully they continue to work on that because right now it's maybe the biggest problem with the current roster.

Brouwer is faster than Oshie is and Brodziak is a much better fourth liner than they'd been using and is a good skater. Edmundson is absolutely a good skater.

The Blues, as a whole, got faster. They aren't Pittsburgh fast and I don't think they're fast enough, yet, but pretty much every change in the roster was for a quicker player. After getting embarrassed by Minnesota's speed, I don't think that's a coincidence. It seems like that's what a lot of Blues fans want to do, though. The Blues draft Fabbri after many other teams passed on him - luck. Edmundson and Parayko are ready to contribute - nobody could have known, no credit to management. The Blues go deep in the playoffs, it's not because of the coaching staff or management. The Blues get faster - the GM did that by accident.

 

[Majorityof1]

Why doesn't Armstrong get credit for assembling and managing the scouting staff and assessing the possible contributions of developing players?

I can see the rationalization for chalking any given move up to luck, but as a whole, the roster changes are what improved the Blues. And they weren't insignificant. Armstrong didn't just trade Oshie for Brouwer and cross his fingers. And I really don't care what "most of this board" thought. If I went by that, I'd be foaming at the mouth and ignoring myself at the same time.

The roster did change significantly. I'm not saying Armstrong is great, but I'm inclined to give him more credit than you are.

Bill Armstrong was promoted to head of scouting at the same time Doug was promoted to GM. Not sure if that was Doug's decision are not. The moves are right on top of each other. But Bill Arsmtrong was already working for and doing well in the organization before Doug joined. bill manages his own staff. I am honestly not sure how much Doug has to do with it. If he has anything, then he should get credit for that. However, that's not to say another GM couldn't have done the same as Bill Armstrong was already in place.

My real problem with Doug is his lack of coherent vision and how he makes moves that are seemingly at odds with other moves. We need to improve at goalie, then Miller fails and we re-sign Elliott and go with the Elliott/Allen tandem. We need to get faster, then we trade for Brouwer and do not much else. The moves I would consider successes were no brainers. Signing Stasny was. Fabbri and Parayko were much hypoed coming into training camp this year, and earned their spot. Its not like Doug took a chance on them and stuck with them as they struggled because he saw promise. They came in and marked their claim to a roster spot. So I am not sure what Doug did to allow them to succeed.

As for Brouwer, the trade was a bad move. Despite Brouwer's playoff success, I firmly believe he had negative value versus an average player. Any average NHL player would have put up goals and points playing with Stas and Fabs. But they wouldn't have taken so many bone-headed penalties that cost us dearly or flubbed so many golden opportunites when we needed them most. If Upshall played on that line, I think he would have as many points or more.

 

[EastonBlues22]

I'm still giving myself time to settle before I start trying to figure out what I want the Blues to do, but it seems like the impending Hitchcock re-signing is accelerating that particular facet of the conversation.

The first question that comes that I think they need to answer for is this: What's the point of assembling an offense/transition friendly defense if your default offensive game plan is to convert your controlled zone exits into "getting the puck deep" (i.e. non-controlled zone entries), and if you aren't particularly invested in maximizing the utility of your defensemen in the neutral and offensive zones?

Follow-up question: What's the plan for generating more offense low in the zone (beneath the hashes)? That seems like it should be the Blues default approach, as prevents teams from over-playing the points (or punishes them if they do). It has multiple other secondary benefits that play into the Blues greater philosophy, such as forcing the other team to travel the entire length of the ice to score after a turnover, allowing the heavier Blues forwards to consistently wear down the other team's defense low in the zone, reducing the other team's breakout options on a turnover, etc. Consistently working the puck back toward the points allows the wingers to share more of the burden on the boards defensively, naturally drags coverage towards the points, opens up a whole world of transition possibilities for the defense when the puck is turned over higher in the zone, etc.

Third question: How do you plan to revamp the breakout pattern to more effectively counter teams sending two men deep on the forecheck?

At the moment, I'm more worried about how these questions are going to be addressed than I am about the overall talent level of the team. Given that the same GM and coaching staff will be in place, I'm not currently all that optimistic that they'll be addressed in a particularly satisfactory way.

 

[Vladdy the Impaler]

I'm still giving myself time to settle before I start trying to figure out what I want the Blues to do, but it seems like the impending Hitchcock re-signing is accelerating that particular facet of the conversation.

The first question that comes that I think they need to answer for is this: What's the point of assembling an offense/transition friendly defense if your default offensive game plan is to convert your controlled zone exits into "getting the puck deep" (i.e. non-controlled zone entries), and if you aren't particularly invested in maximizing the utility of your defensemen in the neutral and offensive zones?

Follow-up question: What's the plan for generating more offense low in the zone (beneath the hashes)? That seems like it should be the Blues default approach, as prevents teams from over-playing the points (or punishes them if they do). It has multiple other secondary benefits that play into the Blues greater philosophy, such as forcing the other team to travel the entire length of the ice to score after a turnover, allowing the heavier Blues forwards to consistently wear down the other team's defense low in the zone, reducing the other team's breakout options on a turnover, etc. Consistently working the puck back toward the points allows the wingers to share more of the burden on the boards defensively, naturally drags coverage towards the points, opens up a whole world of transition possibilities for the defense when the puck is turned over higher in the zone, etc.

Third question: How do you plan to revamp the breakout pattern to more effectively counter teams sending two men deep on the forecheck?

At the moment, I'm more worried about how these questions are going to be addressed than I am about the overall talent level of the team. Given that the same GM and coaching staff will be in place, I'm not currently all that optimistic that they'll be addressed in a particularly satisfactory way.

Easton, can you just submit an application to be GM of the Blues when Army/Hitch go down with the ship next year? Is that how it works?

Honestly though, you always have such remarkable insight and perspective, I always learn something new about the game from your posts.

 

[lakai17]

Schmaltz should start getting his feet wet this upcoming season.

 

[execwrite]

Doug Armstrong is one of the elite GM's in the NHL and every other team in the league would grab him if available.

 

[Renard]

I kinda don't care if you don't want to turn this into an Armstrong thread because I think you stumbled right out of the gate with this one.

Armstrong is not perfect, that's for sure. But Armstrong changed a third of the roster and the Blues got considerably faster, as they had to do after struggling against quick teams like Chicago and Minnesota. Armstrong did very well to identify what the team had in Fabbri, Edmundson, and Parayko (all are good skaters), and then bring on faster, responsible players like Brouwer, Upshall, and Brodziak. And his big signing of Stastny paid off for sure this season once Paul got healthy.

Drafting under Armstrong and roster turnover and management is possibly the biggest reason for the Blues' improvement this season. If you can't recognize the difference just from last season, that makes me very suspicious of your ability to analyze much about the team.

I was just looking at the Blues playoff roster from the 2013-2104 season. We had ten skaters that were not with the team for this year's playoffs (including Sobotka, who might be back with us next season). Changing out half the team in two years seems a lot, to me. And we are a significantly better team. How do Armstrong and Hitchcock not get credit for this improvement?

I would have never imagined Hitch playing an NHL season with three rookies in the lineup, two of them defensemen. People used to complain about Hitch's tendency to trust old Dallas Stars (Jason Arnott, Jamie Langenbrunner, Jason Morrow) over Blues prospects, but that criticism is forgotten now.

 

[Spektre]

Everyone thinks Shattenkirk will be traded. I can't wait to see that happen and what is coming to the Blues. The Blues aren't trading Shattenkirk + Bouwmeester + Steen + Lehtera + letting one of if not both Backes & Brouwer walk. It's just too much turnover barring a complete rebuild. The Blues definitely aren't in a full rebuild mode.

Shattenkirk definitely had his worst playoffs. Bouwmeester was bad all year long so his playoff performance wasn't a surprise.

Here's a perspective that is rarely mentioned if at all. Every team's defense should look a little worse in the playoffs vs the regular season. The Blues played 14 games in a row vs Chicago & Dallas and then another 6 vs SJ. No team is forced with that kind of competition during the regular season. The playoffs force you to play the best of the best forwards night in and night out. This isn't an excuse to deflect from some of the bad plays on defense. It's just plausible to think at times every defense will get beat in the playoffs.

 

[TruBlu]

Everyone thinks Shattenkirk will be traded. I can't wait to see that happen and what is coming to the Blues. The Blues aren't trading Shattenkirk + Bouwmeester + Steen + Lehtera + letting one of if not both Backes & Brouwer walk. It's just too much turnover barring a complete rebuild. The Blues definitely aren't in a full rebuild mode.

Shattenkirk definitely had his worst playoffs. Bouwmeester was bad all year long so his playoff performance wasn't a surprise.

Here's a perspective that is rarely mentioned if at all. Every team's defense should look a little worse in the playoffs vs the regular season. The Blues played 14 games in a row vs Chicago & Dallas and then another 6 vs SJ. No team is forced with that kind of competition during the regular season. The playoffs force you to play the best of the best forwards night in and night out. This isn't an excuse to deflect from some of the bad plays on defense. It's just plausible to think at times every defense will get beat in the playoffs.

You are right, but I think what everyone was so upset about is that it tended to be the same people that kept making mistakes when we'd get beat. Edmundson has an excuse as he's a rookie and I think did a lot better than most people would do with his limited experience in his position. Shatty is an offensive defenseman and they tend not to be elite defenseman, just because of the very nature that they are often more engaged on the offensive side and aren't always in a good spot to transition when there is a turnover, etc. Bouwmeester was the weakest link, in my opinion, as he just seemed to lack the ability to keep up with his guys, make quicker mental decisions as plays developed, etc. I won't completely bag on him as I doubt we have anyone else who could play the minutes he does and, if they did, might be as mistake prone as he was. It is just unfortunate because there is no way to realistically upgrade him without retaining salary, in turn hurting our cap.

 

[Ranksu]

Everyone thinks Shattenkirk will be traded. I can't wait to see that happen and what is coming to the Blues. The Blues aren't trading Shattenkirk + Bouwmeester + Steen + Lehtera + letting one of if not both Backes & Brouwer walk. It's just too much turnover barring a complete rebuild. The Blues definitely aren't in a full rebuild mode.

Shattenkirk definitely had his worst playoffs. Bouwmeester was bad all year long so his playoff performance wasn't a surprise.

Here's a perspective that is rarely mentioned if at all. Every team's defense should look a little worse in the playoffs vs the regular season. The Blues played 14 games in a row vs Chicago & Dallas and then another 6 vs SJ. No team is forced with that kind of competition during the regular season. The playoffs force you to play the best of the best forwards night in and night out. This isn't an excuse to deflect from some of the bad plays on defense. It's just plausible to think at times every defense will get beat in the playoffs.

Reading Stillman 'letter' and knowing how they have sell it next season. ALL-IN, WE WAN'T CUP. I doubt they would trade Blues most productive blueline dmen away and big impact of our powerplay.

Quite frankly I think Hitch gamestyle is holding back Shattery's one good attribute, skate with fairly high speed and carry the puck.

I think 2015-16 roster would have been dominante force under other coach, who could use our assets right way. More friendly with keeping the puck and find 'smoother' transition style. Our neutral zone transition was and I think its going to be horrendous next year also. Nothng will not change.

Aaah, I won't go bash mode, but I just don't see bright future while we have Hitch coaching, waste another year of our prime guys and prime years, Pietro, Tarasenko, Schwartz, Shattenkirk. Maybe Backes out. This team is not going to be as good as we're this year. Not in paper. I just don't believe Armstrong can do any right upgrades. Hitch want more grit, vet etc. bs.

 

[fishsandwichpatrol]

I think we should trade Allen. I think a rebuilding team would love him to help them get back into the playoffs. But I just don't think he has the mental side to win in the playoffs. Ride Elliot for a few years and let our multiple young prospects fight it out.

 

[TruBlu]

I think we should trade Allen. I think a rebuilding team would love him to help them get back into the playoffs. But I just don't think he has the mental side to win in the playoffs. Ride Elliot for a few years and let our multiple young prospects fight it out.

Goalies take longer to develop than any other position. Allen already plays very well for his experience and position. If you let him go, you will most likely be saying the same thing about Copley and Binnington when they are around Allen's age and experience. Elliott is far older and no one would have considered him a great goalie until recently.

 

[Ranksu]

I'd not trade Allen nowhere, Elliott/Allen both are stud's and I bet its not wrong to say they are NHL best goaltender tandem now.

I'd be very shaky feeling if we'd ride next season Elliott/one of youngsters Husso/Binnington/Copley and Nilsson. Imagine if Elliott gets injured, we're totally screwed.

So trading Allen would be my last option.

 

[BlueDream]

I was just looking at the Blues playoff roster from the 2013-2104 season. We had ten skaters that were not with the team for this year's playoffs (including Sobotka, who might be back with us next season). Changing out half the team in two years seems a lot, to me. And we are a significantly better team. How do Armstrong and Hitchcock not get credit for this improvement?

I would have never imagined Hitch playing an NHL season with three rookies in the lineup, two of them defensemen. People used to complain about Hitch's tendency to trust old Dallas Stars (Jason Arnott, Jamie Langenbrunner, Jason Morrow) over Blues prospects, but that criticism is forgotten now.

Because every new player brought in isn't because of Armstrong or Hitchcock. This has been beaten to death but certain people will ignore it.

 

[StLHokie]

Because every new player brought in isn't because of Armstrong or Hitchcock. This has been beaten to death but certain people will ignore it.

Then whose responsibility is it? Doug Armstrong assembles the entire staff and has the final say on all trades, signings, and draft selections. Everything that has changed is directly due to Doug Armstrong saying yes or no.

 

[Celtic Note]

Then whose responsibility is it? Doug Armstrong assembles the entire staff and has the final say on all trades, signings, and draft selections. Everything that has changed is directly due to Doug Armstrong saying yes or no.

Pretty sure that Bill calls the shots on the draft selections. That much was said during the draft insider videos a few years back. Armstrong decides if he wants to acquire or move picks. That could have changed or been a bunch of BS, but that was what Army said.

 

[StLHokie]

Pretty sure that Bill calls the shots on the draft selections. That much was said during the draft insider videos a few years back. Armstrong decides if he wants to acquire or move picks. That could have changed or been a bunch of BS, but that was what Army said.

And Bill Armstrong is on the staff that Doug assembled. So anything done by Bill is due to Armstrong having him involved on the staff...