What Constitutes Success in the Playoffs?

[sbkbghockey]

The Cup, anything less failure.

Anything the ends is getting swept, or eliminated on 4 straight defeats won't be considered acceptable to me. If we make the WCF, and lose a tough series, then I can be relatively happy with the clear inprovement.

Success is a Cup Win for sure! Anything else is progress but not success.
Absolute failure is not winning a series.
Big failure/collapse is winning Rnd 1 then falling flat in rnd 2.
A 2nd rnd or WCF appearance is scary because it would likely be enough for Army and Hitch to stay so that makes even just getting to those steps worse than a first round exit followed by clean sweep of GM and coaching staff.

Also I agree with Alk, any embarrassing defeat, such as a 4-game sweep, is a failure no matter what round. I want to at the very least see this team battle and give 100% in every 7-game series they play.

 

[Chippewa]

Success is a Cup Win for sure! Anything else is progress but not success.
Absolute failure is not winning a series.
Big failure/collapse is winning Rnd 1 then falling flat in rnd 2.
A 2nd rnd or WCF appearance is scary because it would likely be enough for Army and Hitch to stay so that makes even just getting to those steps worse than a first round exit followed by clean sweep of GM and coaching staff.

Also I agree with Alk, any embarrassing defeat, such as a 4-game sweep, is a failure no matter what round. I want to at the very least see this team battle and give 100% in every 7-game series they play.

Totally agree with this.

I too have been having the "Blues make the second round, Army and Hitch stay" nightmare.

It simply would be the most Blues thing to happen.

 

[TheDizee]

SCF Appearance

But in all honestly it depends on how things go in each series. If they go up in the SCF 3-0 and then lose the series 4-3, i would view that as a disappointment too.

 

[Frenzy31]

You know what is truely funny to me is everyone complaining about Armstrong and then saying a WCF appearance would be successful. If Armstrong was as bad at putting teams together as some pretend, then we would be marking first round playoff win.

 

[Renard]

In the recent past, the Blues have lost to some better teams in the playoffs. Chicago and Los Angeles to be specific.

I was especially disappointed in the Minnesota series last year. But Minnesota had the best record in the league in the second half of the 2014-2015 season. I remember reading predictions going into the playoffs, and at least some pundits picked Minnesota to win.


I think this is Hitchcock's best team here in St. Louis. We have more scoring ability than we have had in the past, our defense and goaltending look solid, and we are healthy. Stastny has been a better player lately and he is important to how we do offensively.

But I'm not going to jump off a cliff if we don't win in the first round. It depends on who we play and how we play. If we play a really good team, play well against them, but just get aced out at the end, I'll be able to live with it.

 

[KingBran]

I believe they need a cup.

Their time is now, the fans have been waiting and they deserve it. Yes, they probably have at least 5 more years of this level of play if they are willing to keep spending to the cap.

I want at least one cup out of this era. But they should be good enough to win multiple. It will be easier to swallow if they at least make it to the WCF but they need to win a cup for me to say the season was any kind of success. Just done with the "they played really good though!" mentality, I want results.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

I would consider making the conference finals a success even if we lose, as long as it's a long and hard fought series. That would mark significant progress.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

I was especially disappointed in the Minnesota series last year. But Minnesota had the best record in the league in the second half of the 2014-2015 season. I remember reading predictions going into the playoffs, and at least some pundits picked Minnesota to win.

They also got smoked by the Blackhawks in 4 games in the next round. Never even led in the series. We just played very bad hockey early on and then Allen blew it later on.

I think this is Hitchcock's best team here in St. Louis. We have more scoring ability than we have had in the past, our defense and goaltending look solid, and we are healthy. Stastny has been a better player lately and he is important to how we do offensively.

Completely agree but a lot depends on Fabbri's return. That Fabbri-Stastny-Brouwer line is fantastic. We need a hot line with great chemistry like that going for us in the playoffs. It won't carry us but it helps prevent so much line juggling that has occurred in the past. They're a big reason why scoring is up over the past month+. They helped steady the forward group.

But yeah, this lineup is still just missing that #1 center but the defense is awesome. Parayko was a huge addition, literally. We needed a big body to step in and play 20 minutes. Our top 4 was way too soft. Parayko doesn't lay big hits but I think forwards fear what he could do. Edmundson over Jackman is also a great change on the 3rd pairing.

It's incredible to look at the 2012 team that went to the 2nd round and that we thought could win it all as a 2 seed and then look at this team and see how much better it is.

But I'm not going to jump off a cliff if we don't win in the first round. It depends on who we play and how we play. If we play a really good team, play well against them, but just get aced out at the end, I'll be able to live with it.

Not going to jump off a cliff. Just going to sit back and watch the end of the Hitch/Army/Backes/Shattenkirk era. It would be coming. Hope it doesn't. Hoping for a Cup!

 

[BlueDream]

You know what is truely funny to me is everyone complaining about Armstrong and then saying a WCF appearance would be successful. If Armstrong was as bad at putting teams together as some pretend, then we would be marking first round playoff win.

I don't think anyone is denying that Armstrong has built a good team here, that's why there is so much frustration that the team can't get past the 1st round.

But I think a lot of the criticism on Armstrong comes from the fact that he can't put the team over the top. Guys like Steen, Backes, Pietrangelo, Allen, Berglund, Lehtera (drafted) were already in the organization before Armstrong took over. And even though he had to trade for the pick for Tarasenko, he along with Schwartz, Fabbri, Parayko, Jaskin, Edmundson were all drafted by either Jarmo or Bill Armstrong. As you can see, that is most of our best players in those two groups.

He's tried and has brought in some good players like Stastny, Bouwmeester, Elliott and Shattenkirk but has also missed on some (Miller, Paajarvi, Halak, Stewart).

He's gotten a lot of help in building this team. Our drafting, compared to other teams, has actually been pretty great. People want to see him put these assets to better use.

 

[KingBran]

I don't think anyone is denying that Armstrong has built a good team here, that's why there is so much frustration that the team can't get past the 1st round.

But I think a lot of the criticism on Armstrong comes from the fact that he can't put the team over the top. Guys like Steen, Backes, Pietrangelo, Allen, Berglund, Lehtera (drafted) were already in the organization before Armstrong took over. And even though he had to trade for the pick for Tarasenko, he along with Schwartz, Fabbri, Parayko, Jaskin, Edmundson were all drafted by either Jarmo or Bill Armstrong. As you can see, that is most of our best players in those two groups.

He's tried and has brought in some good players like Stastny, Bouwmeester, Elliott and Shattenkirk but has also missed on some (Miller, Paajarvi, Halak, Stewart).

He's gotten a lot of help in building this team. Our drafting, compared to other teams, has actually been pretty great. People want to see him put these assets to better use.

I personally would not say Halak or Miller were misses. Would have been perfectly fine if we still had Miller just didn't want to pay him as much as he wanted. Halak was a little injury prone but neither were problems for this team. Scoring was is and has been the problem for this team under Hitch.

That said, I am very happy with our current situation in net and Allen / Elliott are great for this team.

 

[Louie the Blue]

I personally would not say Halak or Miller were misses. Would have been perfectly fine if we still had Miller just didn't want to pay him as much as he wanted. Halak was a little injury prone but neither were problems for this team. Scoring was is and has been the problem for this team under Hitch.

That said, I am very happy with our current situation in net and Allen / Elliott are great for this team.

I do agree that the Halak trade wasn't a miss. He simply was injured at inopportune times.

However, please explain why the Miller trade was not a failure. He got off to a great start with the team, then promptly played like **** after his undefeated streak went to the gutter. He also posted below a 90% save percentage in the playoffs. Granted, the Blues were icing a team with a bunch of AHLers before the POs as well as having like a 5 or 6 game losing streak before playing Chicago. But Miller's play definitely was not of the caliber that Armstrong thought he was going to get when he made the trade.

 

[SteenMachine]

Went with make it to the SCF because if we got that far clearly "Anything can happen" is in full effect. The team finally has some freaking chemistry! All year long we've been waiting to figure out if the beginning of the season was false hope or a glimpse of everything running at full speed.

Our best players being healthy for when we need them most is going to always be just as important as who scores and who chokes. If Keith is getting a short leash right before the playoffs it's one more player who attacks our best guys getting told to back off or miss games.

 

[KingBran]

I do agree that the Halak trade wasn't a miss. He simply was injured at inopportune times.

However, please explain why the Miller trade was not a failure. He got off to a great start with the team, then promptly played like **** after his undefeated streak went to the gutter. He also posted below a 90% save percentage in the playoffs. Granted, the Blues were icing a team with a bunch of AHLers before the POs as well as having like a 5 or 6 game losing streak before playing Chicago. But Miller's play definitely was not of the caliber that Armstrong thought he was going to get when he made the trade.

No doubt. I do agree with that about Miller. Just going back to the time and at the time I wanted to keep him for the right price (Less than $5mil/year for maybe 2 years) but to keep him away from the west-coast and his wife I knew it would take more than that. So I was fine with him leaving.

My only problem was we gave up so much for him without thinking too hard about if it didn't work out how would it look? Turned out to be worst-case-scenario as we bombed out, didn't sign him in time so lost all the picks (There was a conditional that if we signed him by Jul 1st or something we didn't have to give an extra 3rd rounder or something. I may have that wrong), Stewie and Halak. Was never upset as losing Stewie but I was a big Halak fan and I really think he would have been our franchise goalie with Allen waiting in the wings. Did not expect Elliott to be on this team ready to start the 2016 playoffs.

But like I said, I am happy with how things turned out. That's why I can kind of brush that trade off as not that big of a deal even though it really wasn't that great.

 

[Louie the Blue]

No doubt. I do agree with that about Miller. Just going back to the time and at the time I wanted to keep him for the right price (Less than $5mil/year for maybe 2 years) but to keep him away from the west-coast and his wife I knew it would take more than that. So I was fine with him leaving.

My only problem was we gave up so much for him without thinking too hard about if it didn't work out how would it look? Turned out to be worst-case-scenario as we bombed out, didn't sign him in time so lost all the picks (There was a conditional that if we signed him by Jul 1st or something we didn't have to give an extra 3rd rounder or something. I may have that wrong), Stewie and Halak. Was never upset as losing Stewie but I was a big Halak fan and I really think he would have been our franchise goalie with Allen waiting in the wings. Did not expect Elliott to be on this team ready to start the 2016 playoffs.

But like I said, I am happy with how things turned out. That's why I can kind of brush that trade off as not that big of a deal even though it really wasn't that great.

I don't think anyone would believe you if you said in 2014 that between Miller, Halak, and Elliott that Elliott would be the last one remaining.

But man that season makes me sad thinking about it. I'd argue that that team was Hitch's best, but injuries took a toll on the team before the playoffs. I think that series was the only time under Hitch in which I thought the team was screwed.

As for PO success, SC appearance.

 

[trevorftw]

No doubt. I do agree with that about Miller. Just going back to the time and at the time I wanted to keep him for the right price (Less than $5mil/year for maybe 2 years) but to keep him away from the west-coast and his wife I knew it would take more than that. So I was fine with him leaving.

My only problem was we gave up so much for him without thinking too hard about if it didn't work out how would it look? Turned out to be worst-case-scenario as we bombed out, didn't sign him in time so lost all the picks(There was a conditional that if we signed him by Jul 1st or something we didn't have to give an extra 3rd rounder or something. I may have that wrong), Stewie and Halak. Was never upset as losing Stewie but I was a big Halak fan and I really think he would have been our franchise goalie with Allen waiting in the wings. Did not expect Elliott to be on this team ready to start the 2016 playoffs.

But like I said, I am happy with how things turned out. That's why I can kind of brush that trade off as not that big of a deal even though it really wasn't that great.

You have that wrong unless I'm misreading. We would have given a first instead of a third if we had resigned miller. I think somebody's lower round pick would have come back though. It was a weird condition.

 

[Halak Ness Monster]

But man that season makes me sad thinking about it. I'd argue that that team was Hitch's best, but injuries took a toll on the team before the playoffs. I think that series was the only time under Hitch in which I thought the team was screwed.

I think the team has been improving each year since Hitch arrived. Namely with the growth of Schwartz and Tarasenko as top line forwards but also the signing of Stastny, the trade for Bouwmeester, and now with the arrival of Parayko on D and Fabbri up front.

It really is crazy how much better this team is than the 2012 team that finished 2nd in the West. Our D had Colaiacovo/Cole on the 3rd pairing and Polak/younger Russell playing 2nd pairing and our top 6 included Perron and Stewart at times.

Now our defense is so well rounded, the goalies are playing great, the top 9 is deep. Unfortunately we still lack a true #1 center. Swap Lehtera out for Anze Kopitar and this would be an amazing, complete team.

 

[KingBran]

I don't think anyone would believe you if you said in 2014 that between Miller, Halak, and Elliott that Elliott would be the last one remaining.

But man that season makes me sad thinking about it. I'd argue that that team was Hitch's best, but injuries took a toll on the team before the playoffs. I think that series was the only time under Hitch in which I thought the team was screwed.

As for PO success, SC appearance.

Exactly.

I think everyone also thought all the Blues needed was a solid experienced goaltender and the rumors of Miller to the Blues started. I thought for sure we were keeping Halak though and using Miller for a couple years and Halak would learn from him and get that experience and confidence back. Alas we traded Halak but I thought the cup was ours to lose once we traded for Miller.

You have that wrong unless I'm misreading. We would have given a first instead of a third if we had resigned miller. I think somebody's lower round pick would have come back though. It was a weird condition.

Yeah that sounds right. I didn't think I was remembering it correctly. I just remember sitting on my phone reading JR's like 5 part tweet about it over and over and over again trying to understand it.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

I would consider making the conference finals a success even if we lose, as long as it's a long and hard fought series. That would mark significant progress.

I agree with you on this. WCF appearance with a long, hard fought final would be major progress. If we lost a hard fought 7 game WCF then it would show that the mental toughness of the team has improved. Losing any series early in 4 or 5 games would show the team needs change in coaching and some of the old core players.

 

[Oberyn]

WCF - only if it involved us beating one of the Hawks/Kings/Ducks on the way there. If we get the Wild in the first round and the Preds in the second round, but then we get lambasted by the Hawks/Kings in the WCF, then I would not consider it a success.

 

[Borderbluesfan]

WCF - only if it involved us beating one of the Hawks/Kings/Ducks on the way there. If we get the Wild in the first round and the Preds in the second round, but then we get lambasted by the Hawks/Kings in the WCF, then I would not consider it a success.

At some point, we need to get over our fear of the Hawks, Kings, etc. in the playoffs. Hawks and Kings are teams that we should be able to beat. I know it is tough in the West, there are some pretty good teams. This is probably the weakest Hawks team we have seen the last few years. Kings didn't really scare anyone this season.

 

[BlueDream]

I personally would not say Halak or Miller were misses. Would have been perfectly fine if we still had Miller just didn't want to pay him as much as he wanted. Halak was a little injury prone but neither were problems for this team. Scoring was is and has been the problem for this team under Hitch.

That said, I am very happy with our current situation in net and Allen / Elliott are great for this team.

Jaroslav Halak played one full playoff game for the Blues in his tenure. At the time of the trade, if people knew that was going to happen, nobody would have really been happy with it. Because one of the main reasons why people were excited about the trade is what he did in the playoffs for Montreal in 2010. That's literally the only reason he was hyped up. Now I agree the trade itself wasn't bad because who cares about losing Eller, but neither Halak or Miller performed how people thought they would in STL. Miller especially was a dud, especially when you consider that we gave up a 1st rounder and decent prospect (at the time at least) to get him. That hurt, when Elliott could have done just as good of a job, in hindsight. Miller was obviously a miss.

 

[Vladdy the Impaler]

Cup or bust.

 

[Oberyn]

At some point, we need to get over our fear of the Hawks, Kings, etc. in the playoffs. Hawks and Kings are teams that we should be able to beat. I know it is tough in the West, there are some pretty good teams. This is probably the weakest Hawks team we have seen the last few years. Kings didn't really scare anyone this season.

Nothing in my post indicated that I'm scared of those teams, I'm confused as to why you quoted me.

 

[Stealth JD]

Nothing in my post indicated that I'm scared of those teams, I'm confused as to why you quoted me.

 

[Girth Butcher]

We should start talking about the series and what we expect.

Personally, having to face Chicago in the first round suits me just fine. It saves me money not having to buy Round 1 playoff tickets just to watch them beat by an inferior team, only to get eliminated by the Hawks in Round 2. Having said that, I'm ALL IN for the Blues getting past the Hawks in a tight series.

I'd like to see a new post that looks like this.

How do we beat the Hawks? - Comments about line/player match ups, overall game plan/strategy, should we play physical vs finesse, keys to winning. How many lineup changes will we see, not caused by injuries?

How do we lose to the Hawks? - Will our special teams under-perform, will our players lack the "extra" effort, will we get out-coached? Will our rookies get exposed and crack under the pressure?

What are your thoughts about the series???