Blues 3 Stars - Game 6

[Stealth JD]

Tarasenko, Gomez, Elliott

HM: Jaskin, Upshall (for nothing else than sticking up for JBo and going after Fuglien), JBo, Petro, Lehtera

 

[Vincenzo Arelliti]

Tarasenko
Elliott
Gomez

HM: Upshall, Bouwmeester, Parayko, Edmundson, Jaskin, Brodziak, Gunnarsson, Pietrangelo

 

[2 Minute Minor]

No question

Elliot - Kept us in it early. Stopped every shot he could.

Jaskin - Had primary assists on both two goals and was a big reason for both goals. Hell of a pass on Upshall goal and drew coverage away from Tank on his goal.

Tarasenko - Should just rename these threads 2 stars and Tank. Has anyone not voted for him every game?

HM - Jbo, Edmundson, Upshall. But those 3 above stood out head and shoulders above in my mind.

Honest question, and looking for hopefully an honest answer. Would those who voted for Gomez still have voted for him if Panger wasn't pointing out every little thing he did all broadcast? That type of thing automatically makes me sour on someone. So I might be biased against. However, others might trust Panger and think he was better than he was. While he was good, he didn't look THAT special out there. He had a nice assist (which would have been an innocuous cross ice pass if Tarasenko wasn't so deadly) and a steal to start the rush on Upshall's tally, but not much else that I could see.

For a guy who barely made the team I thought Gomez has played remarkably good hockey. He has been a difference maker and I can't really point to a collection of times he has been a liability, which I would have predicted would be the case. Really didn't notice anything unusual with Pangs commentary.

 

[Majorityof1]

For a guy who barely made the team I thought Gomez has played remarkably good hockey. He has been a difference maker and I can't really point to a collection of times he has been a liability, which I would have predicted would be the case. Really didn't notice anything unusual with Pangs commentary.

I totally agree with the first sentence. But there is an important clause of "for a guy who barely made the team". When we had the extended delayed penalty where Tarasenko scored, Pang said something along the lines of Gomez was the absolute best person to bring out for the 6th man. Turns out he was right, as Gomez got an assist. But are you telling me Gomez is better than Schwartz in that situation? Or the Edmundson, to Jaskin to Upshall goal. Gomez had a nice steal to start the play but it was Jaskin's pass that caused it. Pang talked for 30 seconds after the goal about Gomez praising his effort and play-making skill. I honestly thought Gomez made the primary assist with how Pang was talking until I saw the replay. He only mentioned Jaskin for passing when he did the play-by-play over the replay of the goal. There were 4-5 more times Pang talked about Gomez in depth when he didn't do anything. Honestly, it seemed like he spoke in depth about Gomez the entire time he was on the ice.

I don't know. Maybe I am reading too much into it. I am a crotchety old man (whose not even old, just crotchety). It just kind of bugged me. I felt like Pang was trying to create a feel-good story about the washed up guy finding a role and contributing. In the process he ignored praising other players who deserved it (Jaskin).

 

[Ranksu]

Gomez dear jesus christ.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I totally agree with the first sentence. But there is an important clause of "for a guy who barely made the team". When we had the extended delayed penalty where Tarasenko scored, Pang said something along the lines of Gomez was the absolute best person to bring out for the 6th man. Turns out he was right, as Gomez got an assist. But are you telling me Gomez is better than Schwartz in that situation? Or the Edmundson, to Jaskin to Upshall goal. Gomez had a nice steal to start the play but it was Jaskin's pass that caused it. Pang talked for 30 seconds after the goal about Gomez praising his effort and play-making skill. I honestly thought Gomez made the primary assist with how Pang was talking until I saw the replay. He only mentioned Jaskin for passing when he did the play-by-play over the replay of the goal. There were 4-5 more times Pang talked about Gomez in depth when he didn't do anything. Honestly, it seemed like he spoke in depth about Gomez the entire time he was on the ice.

I don't know. Maybe I am reading too much into it. I am a crotchety old man (whose not even old, just crotchety). It just kind of bugged me. I felt like Pang was trying to create a feel-good story about the washed up guy finding a role and contributing. In the process he ignored praising other players who deserved it (Jaskin).

I think you're hearing something from Pang that I'm not hearing. He is highlighting a new player to the team, appropriately. Gomez is going to be a healthy scratch again soon when Stastny is back in. (Yeah, if this bugs you you do come across as grumpy. Seems pretty inconsequential.)

Its just a nice surprise, and hopefully a guy who can contribute in his spots as the year goes along. I never heard Pang say anything that would contradict that outlook.

 

[Majorityof1]

I think you're hearing something from Pang that I'm not hearing. He is highlighting a new player to the team, appropriately. Gomez is going to be a healthy scratch again soon when Stastny is back in. (Yeah, if this bugs you you do come across as grumpy. Seems pretty inconsequential.)

Its just a nice surprise, and hopefully a guy who can contribute in his spots as the year goes along. I never heard Pang say anything that would contradict that outlook.

It bothered me on the Jaskin goal, so I was more attuned to it after that. Then coming on the boards after the game and seeing people give Gomez a star over Jaskin made me think. It wasn't a huge deal. I was just curious if people let the commentary affect their votes, not that many would admit if it did.

 

[Ranksu]

I'll give forgive Hitch this was roadtrip, but if there is change to call-up from Chicago, Rattie should go first then Gomez.

I'll repeat myself.

If Stastny is still away 'cus injury when Blues come back home and Gomez play up ahead of Rattie I'm done. I'm tired of mediocre vet, debt bs what Hitch Army presents. Give young gun(s) opportunity to play up. I'm fine Lindbohm will waste one year downgrading in AHL, but if there is change to give Rattie needed opportunity to play up don't hold him down and give old-timer fox blow youngster change. We know where Gomez stands, priority need to be different. Rattie's contract ends after this season, they need to be sure and <10GP isn't enough.

 

[Ranksu]

It bothered me on the Jaskin goal, so I was more attuned to it after that. Then coming on the boards after the game and seeing people give Gomez a star over Jaskin made me think. It wasn't a huge deal. I was just curious if people let the commentary affect their votes, not that many would admit if it did.

I think here HFboards ppl (users) follow blinfolded some posters and cannot create own opinion and if they will you get toasted and bashed down.

 

[Jeeper]

Tarasenko, Gomez, and Elliot. HM (and Latte's and Scones) for everybody else. Hard, physical game, 3rd game in 72 hours...(or something like that)...

 

[jura]

I think here HFboards ppl (users) follow blinfolded some posters and cannot create own opinion and if they will you get toasted and bashed down.

a moderator should just open the poll thread and disable posting

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I think here HFboards ppl (users) follow blinfolded some posters and cannot create own opinion and if they will you get toasted and bashed down.

That is contradicted by the fact that this board is full on nonstop debate over even the smallest issues. There are plenty on here who like to argue just for the sake of argument. It can be tiresome.

Having Rattie plus Gomez in the system this year is better than Rattie only. We ALREADY have needed that depth. I find criticizing Armstrong for bringing in depth is an odd argument.

Let's see how many NHL games Rattie and Lindbohm get this year before assuming its zero and complaining about it. I expect both to play, but it depends on injuries and timing to some degree.

 

[Majorityof1]

That is contradicted by the fact that this board is full on nonstop debate over even the smallest issues. There are plenty on here who like to argue just for the sake of argument. It can be tiresome.

Having Rattie plus Gomez in the system this year is better than Rattie only. We ALREADY have needed that depth. I find criticizing Armstrong for bringing in depth is an odd argument.

Let's see how many NHL games Rattie and Lindbohm get this year before assuming its zero and complaining about it. I expect both to play, but it depends on injuries and timing to some degree.

"Some people argue just for the sake of argument. I hate it. Now let me argue with you." -2MM

I tease, I tease Yes, I argue a bunch on here. And yes, I enjoy it. But it takes two sides to argue. And lots of time the people complaining loudest about the arguments are right in the thick of them.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

"Some people argue just for the sake of argument. I hate it. Now let me argue with you." -2MM

I tease, I tease Yes, I argue a bunch on here. And yes, I enjoy it. But it takes two sides to argue. And lots of time the people complaining loudest about the arguments are right in the thick of them.

I'm not arguing for the joy of simply arguing. I'm arguing (probably not the best word) because I have a different opinion and want to explain the rationale for it. That was the distinction I was trying to point out. But the notion that there is a uniformity of opinion on this board kind of made me laugh.

I wasn't invoking you specifically with my comment, btw.