Reckless vs Buy in

[Girth Butcher]

Whether you like Hitch or not, he's got a very high Hockey IQ. Lets suppose he puts less focus on the old-school structured systems he's falling on the sword over, especially in the playoffs, and implements a high-risk, high reward free-wheeling offensive zone system that opens up the game. Many of the posters on this site (including myself) are frustrated with the results of his buy in or bye-bye attitude (Perron, Paajarvi, Cole), but I want to believe he's capable of developing a fast attack offense, that utilizes the playmaking skill of guys like Statsny, Leherta .There was too much "get it deep and hunt it down" or "5 man unit play". With the Puck Moving Defenseman we have, the defensive forwards we have, what if it meant keeping a Tarasenko, or Schwarz out of the D zone entirely? Kind of a modified "Cherry Picker" where 1 player is already deep in the neutral zone and forcing the other team give up the Blue-line to cover that player. You would basically be playing 4 on 4 in your zone, and when you gain possession in your zone, the first pass is the home-run stretch-pass variety, forcing the other team to rushback to defend the odd man rush.

I would like to see some personnel changes, but Army isn't going to give players away if other teams know he's selling off. He's got to free up cap space and

So my question is...could it work if we have to keep most of the same core? Can we play reckless by exploiting removal of the 2 line pass rule and no touch icing? I would rather start play after an offside call than an icing call! Can we change from a 200 foot game, to a 2 zone game Thoughts?

Click to read more...

 

[BadgersandBlues]

I've really enjoyed watching Tampa Bay this post-season. One thing I've noticed that I really like about their system is that when they are in the defensive zone, the second it looks like they are about to win possession, the weakside winger just sprints out of the zone. It really opens up their breakout and honestly, it doesn't hurt them defensively. I have yet to see them give up a goal where that weakside winger would have made the difference.

That's one change that is pretty low risk-high reward I feel we should implement.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Reckless is such an ambiguous term that it can almost be interpreted to mean almost anything.

Does that mean the Blues need to play more physically?
Play more aggressive within the system?
Play a more aggressive system? If yes: With or without the puck? In what zone(s)/sitution(s)?

Is it a psychological commentary that implies that the Blues have been playing scared?

It seems like a nice word to get people excited, but ****ed if I know what they believe is really the problem.

 

[Dbrownss]

What if they buy in to being wreckless?

 

[Total Bender]

What a **** show!

 

[BlueDream]

Hitchocock is spewing ******** with both terms. Lapierre was traded because he was too reckless and Goc was more stable, and now we need more recklessness apparently.

It's just a cop out for this team not playing good enough.

I do think our team needs to play more borderline dirty, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

 

[PerryTurnbullfan]

Hitchocock is spewing ******** with both terms. Lapierre was traded because he was too reckless and Goc was more stable, and now we need more recklessness apparently.

It's just a cop out for this team not playing good enough.

I do think our team needs to play more borderline dirty, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Maybe we will forecheck 1-1/2 forwards in the offensive zone and dare I say put someone within the perimeter of the front of the net? Maybe Petro will at least snarl and somebody like the Sedin sisters when they run him over? Maybe they will make Lindbohm his partner and he will go after anyone who runs him? Seems he and Bortuzzo are the lone rangers sticking up for their mates on the blue line. That was the BEST line up on D when BOTH of them were in the line up. Hitch has watched the game pass him by....just like Keenan. I'm going to pay a whole lot more attention to the prospects and Wolves this year and close my wallet until Hitch is gone. If it's free, then I may watch them. One fan showing his disapproval waiting for changes that should have been made a long time ago.

 

[ManyIdeas]

Everyone knows how this is going to play out, right?

Do well all season playing "reckless" and have success. Playoffs come, opponent realizes common patterns and counters them. This continues for 4-6 games and the Blues lose without making a single adjustment, as obvious as it may seem.

 

[Celtic Note]

Reckless is such an ambiguous term that it can almost be interpreted to mean almost anything.

Does that mean the Blues need to play more physically?
Play more aggressive within the system?
Play a more aggressive system? If yes: With or without the puck? In what zone(s)/sitution(s)?

Is it a psychological commentary that implies that the Blues have been playing scared?

It seems like a nice word to get people excited, but ****ed if I know what they believe is really the problem.

My thoughts exactly. It's just a new buzz word that Army and Hitch came up with to seem like we are not going to have the status quo. During their interviews they danced around questions about what needed to change by saying things that was supposed to sound like they knew what to change to be a better team.

We hear things like they need to be faster off the rush. Great. What took so long to realize this? How are you going to make us faster without changing personell? The answer? We can. My response...so you don't really know.

Hitch says we need to be more aggressive in the defensive zone. No ****. Again, what took you so long?

Hitch and Army say we need to be more reckless. Fist off, no we don't need to be reckless. That term implies we don't follow a system and run around like idiots. For a fan of words, Hitch sure picked the wrong one to discribe what needs to happen.

If Hitch means we need to take more high risk plays, then I disagree. He let Lehtera and Tarasenko do that a lot this year and others followed suit. It created a ton of odd man rushes. That isn't a winning formula with this group of players. We don't have the speed to get back and break up plays and our goalies are not the kinds that do well in that setting.

If he means we need to play more ceative in the offensive zone then I agree. But it needs to be structured creativity. Hitch makes it seem like its the players fault for holding on to the puck and making simple plays. However, the problem is the coaching. It is blatantly obvious that our offensive strategies are limiting creative options. We have one of the most basic offensive schemes in the game. It doesn't have layers. It doesn't have options. Do the players can try to be creative, but no one is going to be on the right place for it to succeed unless they completely vacate their prescribed position. As a result of that move and the fact that our scheme doesn't have safety nets for those moves, we get odd man rushes.

If Hitch thinks reckless means hounding down pucks recklessly, then we are back to where we were two years ago. I agree that we didn't win board battles and 50-50 pucks as much as we should this year. However, simply winning more pucks doesn't change the result. It didn't work against LA, nor Chicago. There are serious coaching strategies and personell deficiencies that cost us those rounds.

Another thing. Army has to set a direction for this franchise and make it happen. That means big moves that actually make sense.

We still don't have a high end number one center. But we paid a player like he is one.

Our goal tending has not been more than a secondary problem at best, nor has out defense for the past few years, yet Army is constantly changing them with moves that I think are tinkering without direction. We are wasting assets on those moves, without resolving the problems. Now I wonder if we have enough assets to get us over the hump without compromising the future.

So yeah, buy in and reckless. These are buzzwords that really don't mean anything, because there is no true nor promising durction behind them.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Everyone knows how this is going to play out, right?

Do well all season playing "reckless" and have success. Playoffs come, opponent realizes common patterns and counters them. This continues for 4-6 games and the Blues lose without making a single adjustment, as obvious as it may seem.

Win the Conference this time maybe? Then get matched up against the Kings back in the playoffs and look like a mundanely average team for a few games before dusting off the golf clubs. Maybe. But I think the team is going to struggle to pull away and be in danger of missing the playoffs. I'm just not sure this team has the emotional fortitude to bring the necessary effort, again, for a full season. Maybe that changes if you make the right trades, but I sure as hell don't know what they are.

I sure hope Fabbri ends up being a special player and future HOF talent. That kind of injection of life could go a long way.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

My thoughts exactly. It's just a new buzz word that Army and Hitch came up with to seem like we are not going to have the status quo. During their interviews they danced around questions about what needed to change by saying things that was supposed to sound like they knew what to change to be a better team.

We hear things like they need to be faster off the rush. Great. What took so long to realize this? How are you going to make us faster without changing personell? The answer? We can. My response...so you don't really know.

Hitch says we need to be more aggressive in the defensive zone. No ****. Again, what took you so long?

Hitch and Army say we need to be more reckless. Fist off, no we don't need to be reckless. That term implies we don't follow a system and run around like idiots. For a fan of words, Hitch sure picked the wrong one to discribe what needs to happen.

If Hitch means we need to take more high risk plays, then I disagree. He let Lehtera and Tarasenko do that a lot this year and others followed suit. It created a ton of odd man rushes. That isn't a winning formula with this group of players. We don't have the speed to get back and break up plays and our goalies are not the kinds that do well in that setting.

If he means we need to play more ceative in the offensive zone then I agree. But it needs to be structured creativity. Hitch makes it seem like its the players fault for holding on to the puck and making simple plays. However, the problem is the coaching. It is blatantly obvious that our offensive strategies are limiting creative options. We have one of the most basic offensive schemes in the game. It doesn't have layers. It doesn't have options. Do the players can try to be creative, but no one is going to be on the right place for it to succeed unless they completely vacate their prescribed position. As a result of that move and the fact that our scheme doesn't have safety nets for those moves, we get odd man rushes.

If Hitch thinks reckless means hounding down pucks recklessly, then we are back to where we were two years ago. I agree that we didn't win board battles and 50-50 pucks as much as we should this year. However, simply winning more pucks doesn't change the result. It didn't work against LA, nor Chicago. There are serious coaching strategies and personell deficiencies that cost us those rounds.

Another thing. Army has to set a direction for this franchise and make it happen. That means big moves that actually make sense.

We still don't have a high end number one center. But we paid a player like he is one.

Our goal tending has not been more than a secondary problem at best, nor has out defense for the past few years, yet Army is constantly changing them with moves that I think are tinkering without direction. We are wasting assets on those moves, without resolving the problems. Now I wonder if we have enough assets to get us over the hump without compromising the future.

So yeah, buy in and reckless. These are buzzwords that really don't mean anything, because there is no true nor promising durction behind them.

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, other than to note that if they have identified personnel issues/changes, they aren't going to talk about them in an interview. Armstrong will quietly work on trades, and its unlikely we'll know more about it until the trade is announced, or maybe a credible rumor of a potential deal surfaces.

I was kind of disappointed Hitchcock was brought back, but I didn't have a strong preference once McLellan was scooped up. Then I listened to the news conference and got a bit of positive impressions that there really would be some changes, and that Hitchcock is motivated. But its wearing off, and I'm starting to expect same song different verse again next year.

It sure would be nice to find a Tyler Johnson laying around, or some other fiery young player to get excited about. I fear the expectations for Fabbri are too high, I know mine are.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Controlled recklessness.

 

[Vladdy the Impaler]

High powered, high flying, aggressive offense.

We need more buy in to our reckless style of play.

 

[Celtic Note]

I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, other than to note that if they have identified personnel issues/changes, they aren't going to talk about them in an interview. Armstrong will quietly work on trades, and its unlikely we'll know more about it until the trade is announced, or maybe a credible rumor of a potential deal surfaces.

I would give them more benefit of doubt, if it were not for two things.

1- There was way too much talk from both sides about being able to get this done with the players already here. When asked if it was a personell issue or if there were traded to be made Army started making excuses about marketplace and not knowing what it would bear. That coupled with the overall emphasis of meaningless terms, regular season being critical, and bringing back the same coach, I don't see any evidence of positive change. Could Army have a great off season? Sure, but it isn't promising given my second point.

2- Army hasn't shown the ability to correctly assess the needs of the franchise and properly address them with the right people. I don't trust him to do what is needed.

 

[Art Lippo]

So many excuses

It's frustrating that a Hall of Fame coach just had an epiphany that this team now needs to play reckless and fast. Guess he was in a food coma the past 4 post seasons.

 

[carter333167]

Reckless is such an ambiguous term that it can almost be interpreted to mean almost anything.

Does that mean the Blues need to play more physically?
Play more aggressive within the system?
Play a more aggressive system? If yes: With or without the puck? In what zone(s)/sitution(s)?

Is it a psychological commentary that implies that the Blues have been playing scared?

It seems like a nice word to get people excited, but ****ed if I know what they believe is really the problem.

Hitch has been preaching inconsistent messages for almost the last two years. Sometimes we are too conservative..sometimes we are too reckless, sometimes are aren't reckless enough?? This tells me that Hitch has lost any confidence that he knows a consistent recipe for success for this team which is precisely why I wouldn't have brought him back. Honestly, I never know what Hitch might say in a post-game presser b/c he really is all over the board in his own analysis at this point.

Compounding all of this is that the players literally appeared to quit on him in the Wild series (probably b/c they are confused at attempting to follow mixed messages).

Don't get me wrong...we have problems with certain players but it would be silly to say that Hitch isn't a relatively large part of the problem.

In sum, Hitch saying that we need to be more "reckless" seems only to confirm in my mind that he still really has no idea how to take us to the next level in the playoffs.

 

[Chippewa]

When I first read this "reckless" stuff, I was like.......what?

I could see this coming from some over-enthused college coach recently promoted to the NHL, but Hitch? Mr. Play-the-right-way? What, he's finally seen the light regarding offensive struggles?

Nah. The far simpler answer is that these two have little to no idea how to effectively challenge and beat the top teams in our conference, and now they're basically throwing **** at the wall and seeing if it sticks.

I have very little hope for this season, consequently. I just hope we're left in a better position than Dallas was when Army was canned there.

 

[STL BLUES]

"RECK-LESS"


Here's a couple of examples of the word reckless:

As in this team needs to reck less in the playoffs!
This team needs to stop making reckless trades.
This team is being managed recklessly!

Reading all the above posts one gets the feeling that the term "Reckless" is not a hockey term nor is used around the rinks as some kind of hockey strategy.

Do the sports reporters really understand hockey? Do they know when the wool is being pulled over their heads? Reporters need to ask hitch to describe the hockey strategy "Reckless".

Ask ten hfboards posters to describe the hockey strategy "Reckless" and you will get ten different answers.

When you watch the Ducks Hawks game tonight. Ask yourself; Are these two teams playing a "Reckless" hockey strategy or are they very purposeful in their breakouts, forchecking, and passing?

Honestly, this reckless man is digging a deeper hole.

 

[Lakewood]

Hitch has been preaching inconsistent messages for almost the last two years. Sometimes we are too conservative..sometimes we are too reckless, sometimes are aren't reckless enough?? This tells me that Hitch has lost any confidence that he knows a consistent recipe for success for this team which is precisely why I wouldn't have brought him back. Honestly, I never know what Hitch might say in a post-game presser b/c he really is all over the board in his own analysis at this point.

Compounding all of this is that the players literally appeared to quit on him in the Wild series (probably b/c they are confused at attempting to follow mixed messages).

Don't get me wrong...we have problems with certain players but it would be silly to say that Hitch isn't a relatively large part of the problem.

In sum, Hitch saying that we need to be more "reckless" seems only to confirm in my mind that he still really has no idea how to take us to the next level in the playoffs.

That's spot on Carter. Hitch may be a great hockey mind, but I don't think he is a good coach on the fly at all. I think he looks at film and processes, but as things are happening he lets the guys play and then gets on them for big gaffes, which makes him hard on young defenseman and grind out safer guys. Other than that he has been trying to change and getting in his own way. I don't think the players even listen to him anymore.

 

[StLAvsFan]

My thoughts exactly. It's just a new buzz word that Army and Hitch came up with to seem like we are not going to have the status quo. During their interviews they danced around questions about what needed to change by saying things that was supposed to sound like they knew what to change to be a better team.

We hear things like they need to be faster off the rush. Great. What took so long to realize this? How are you going to make us faster without changing personell? The answer? We can. My response...so you don't really know.

Hitch says we need to be more aggressive in the defensive zone. No ****. Again, what took you so long?

Hitch and Army say we need to be more reckless. Fist off, no we don't need to be reckless. That term implies we don't follow a system and run around like idiots. For a fan of words, Hitch sure picked the wrong one to discribe what needs to happen.

If Hitch means we need to take more high risk plays, then I disagree. He let Lehtera and Tarasenko do that a lot this year and others followed suit. It created a ton of odd man rushes. That isn't a winning formula with this group of players. We don't have the speed to get back and break up plays and our goalies are not the kinds that do well in that setting.

If he means we need to play more ceative in the offensive zone then I agree. But it needs to be structured creativity. Hitch makes it seem like its the players fault for holding on to the puck and making simple plays. However, the problem is the coaching. It is blatantly obvious that our offensive strategies are limiting creative options. We have one of the most basic offensive schemes in the game. It doesn't have layers. It doesn't have options. Do the players can try to be creative, but no one is going to be on the right place for it to succeed unless they completely vacate their prescribed position. As a result of that move and the fact that our scheme doesn't have safety nets for those moves, we get odd man rushes.

If Hitch thinks reckless means hounding down pucks recklessly, then we are back to where we were two years ago. I agree that we didn't win board battles and 50-50 pucks as much as we should this year. However, simply winning more pucks doesn't change the result. It didn't work against LA, nor Chicago. There are serious coaching strategies and personell deficiencies that cost us those rounds.

Another thing. Army has to set a direction for this franchise and make it happen. That means big moves that actually make sense.

We still don't have a high end number one center. But we paid a player like he is one.

Our goal tending has not been more than a secondary problem at best, nor has out defense for the past few years, yet Army is constantly changing them with moves that I think are tinkering without direction. We are wasting assets on those moves, without resolving the problems. Now I wonder if we have enough assets to get us over the hump without compromising the future.

So yeah, buy in and reckless. These are buzzwords that really don't mean anything, because there is no true nor promising durction behind them.

Yeah, this whole "reckless" buzzword is a bunch of baloney. Who do Hitch & Army think they're fooling? Look, Ken Hitchcock has preached a low risk, grind-it-out, defensive-oriented style of hockey for his entire career, so for him to now start shouting to the heavens that he's "seen the light" as a proponent of reckless, run & gun hockey is patently ridiculous. It's just his (and management's) way to try to keep the fans from getting pissed at his retention & seeing ticket sales drop. Hitch can't change the style he expects his team to play any more than a tiger can change its stripes. Expect more of the same next season folks: a great regular season followed by yet another 1st round playoff fizzle. LOL.

 

[StLAvsFan]

And by the way, how 'bout them Hawks? Now that's a team that can play a structured "reckless" style when the opportunity presents itself. God help the Blues if they try to copy the Hawks gameplan, coz it's gonna be a disaster.

 

[kimzey59]

1- If you guys haven't noticed the shifts in our style of play since Hitch took over then you aren't paying attention.
Hitch's 1st year we were all about the forecheck and hard work. We weren't endlessly cycling the puck, we were "funneling the puck towards the net", getting bodies in the crease and hoping for bounces.

Every year we have trended more towards puck possession and conserving energy. It culminated in this year where our players weren't even trying to get the puck on goal at times and practically refused to go to the front of the net.

2- "Reckless" doesn't just mean throwing the body around. I know that's the image everybody gets, but it doesn't stop there. It also means taking hits to make a play. It also means blindly firing the puck on goal instead of resetting the cycle. It also means trying to split the D with puck skills. It also means trusting players to win 1 on 1 battles along the boards while others start the breakout. It also means pinching in on D at the risk of an odd-man break the other way. It also means making high risks outlet passes.

This team has progressively gotten away from a lot of those things under Hitch.
There are a ton of ways this team can be more "reckless" without even changing players. Put a foot in Oshie's butt and tell him to start hitting people again. Drop a bit of the cycling and start funneling pucks again. Have players step up to 1 on 1 challenges instead of waiting for support before engaging.

Last year Hitch catered to the players and let them play a more "skill" game. The result was a team that wanted to play catch with the puck instead of making high risk plays. When a player did make a high risk play, it stood out so much that it changed our view of the player. Tarasenko broke the Rag's D and was an instant superstar overnight. Lehtera feathered some passes and people started to think he could be a top line center. Lindbohm and Bortuzzo leveled some guys at the blueline and they became better options than Jax, Gunnar and Michalek. Shattenkirk timed some pinches right and became an Elite offensive D man. Schwartz won some board battles and became a future star/Captain in the making.

There are ways to get more players to play like that and not completely lose defensive focus. If there is any coach who can design that kind of balanced system, it's Hitch. There isn't a better tactical coach in the League. Getting the buy in is on the players and their leadership group.

 

[Celtic Note]

1- If you guys haven't noticed the shifts in our style of play since Hitch took over then you aren't paying attention.
Hitch's 1st year we were all about the forecheck and hard work. We weren't endlessly cycling the puck, we were "funneling the puck towards the net", getting bodies in the crease and hoping for bounces.

Every year we have trended more towards puck possession and conserving energy. It culminated in this year where our players weren't even trying to get the puck on goal at times and practically refused to go to the front of the net.

2- "Reckless" doesn't just mean throwing the body around. I know that's the image everybody gets, but it doesn't stop there. It also means taking hits to make a play. It also means blindly firing the puck on goal instead of resetting the cycle. It also means trying to split the D with puck skills. It also means trusting players to win 1 on 1 battles along the boards while others start the breakout. It also means pinching in on D at the risk of an odd-man break the other way. It also means making high risks outlet passes.

This team has progressively gotten away from a lot of those things under Hitch.
There are a ton of ways this team can be more "reckless" without even changing players. Put a foot in Oshie's butt and tell him to start hitting people again. Drop a bit of the cycling and start funneling pucks again. Have players step up to 1 on 1 challenges instead of waiting for support before engaging.

Last year Hitch catered to the players and let them play a more "skill" game. The result was a team that wanted to play catch with the puck instead of making high risk plays. When a player did make a high risk play, it stood out so much that it changed our view of the player. Tarasenko broke the Rag's D and was an instant superstar overnight. Lehtera feathered some passes and people started to think he could be a top line center. Lindbohm and Bortuzzo leveled some guys at the blueline and they became better options than Jax, Gunnar and Michalek. Shattenkirk timed some pinches right and became an Elite offensive D man. Schwartz won some board battles and became a future star/Captain in the making.

There are ways to get more players to play like that and not completely lose defensive focus. If there is any coach who can design that kind of balanced system, it's Hitch. There isn't a better tactical coach in the League. Getting the buy in is on the players and their leadership group.

1- Hitch has certainly changed the style the style of the team this past year. Unfortunately, there wasn't much direction in that style. It was more or less the same offensive scheme with more leniency for the players to do what they wanted. Thus all of the turnovers and odd man rushes. There was no defensive support in place to allow our players to move the puck freely. That's a major coaching strategy flaw.

The previous years were simple variations of his original approach. For all the talk about funneling pucks to the net, they spent a ton of time cycling. And, they didn't do a good job of funneling when defenses tightened up. That happened when the team was still committed to winning battles. Yet another coaching strategy flaw.

2- This has already been discussed. It was a terrible use of terminology and is a catch phrase used to put a blanket over the eyes of fans.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

This is a good thread, with several good posts. I'm trying to latch onto something that leads me to believe the Blues will be fundamentally different next season....and so far nothing.

 

[superblues]

This is a good thread, with several good posts. I'm trying to latch onto something that leads me to believe the Blues will be fundamentally different next season....and so far nothing.

The Blues aren't going to be fundamentally different next year. The Blues were fundamentally different when Payne replaced Murray, and again when Hitch replaced Payne. They may not have showed it right away, but the Blues were fundamentally different after the EJ/ Shatty trade.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but expecting the Blues to be fundamentally different at this point seems rather hopeless. The only significant changes we've seen so far are a new Asst GM (Marty) and a new catchphrase (#reckless). As has been said countless times, with the same coach, same coaching staff, same GM, same players, same ownership, and same mentality, it's foolish to expect anything to be "fundamentally" different next season. If you want fundamentally different, Toronto and maybe Buffalo might be worth watching. They're making significant changes, not just adding new catchphrases and junior executives.

We still have yet to see what roster changes the offseason brings. But short of another blockbuster trade, I expect the Blues to be different, the kind of different that comes from fine tuning, not an overhaul.