Pre-Game Talk: Blues Ducks: Quack Attack

[ezcreepin]

He's been looking much more confident out there over the past few games from what I've seen. Looks like he's gone from being passive to playing a far more active role out there. I loved seeing him find a gap in the high slot in the 3rd and banging his stick because he wanted the puck when the game was still tight.

I still don't know what to expect from him long-term, but I've gone from wondering if he'll be able to cut it at the NHL level to fully expecting him to be a solid middle-6 contributor for us. Really pleased with what he's shown since camp started until now, aside from his slow start in the A. He's shown a level of compete that I wasn't sure he had in him.

Super excited to see what he does in camp next year. I don't know if he needs much more seasoning; I think he's shown that he can absolutely keep up in the NHL. My only criticism right now of him is that if feels like he is either anticipating a play and positioning himself in the wrong spot, or (and this is just speculation) he is confusing different winger assignments. I only say this because sometimes he's too high, too low, or in a weird spot when the puck is on the walls. He isn't running into anyone on the ice, but I feel like he's been close a couple of times. Other than that, I think he has been pretty impressive.

I've always been confused about the "boom or bust" label and the idea that he lacks compete. When he was drafted, one of the primary scouting reports was that he was tenacious on pucks. You could see it in video, too. But then people who haven't seen a QMJHL game for over a decade say it's a no-defense league for floaters and suddenly that seed is planted. The French Canadian prima dona stereotype doesn't need much fuel, apparently, so he doesn't get leeway for not making the WJC team. I hope all of that put a real chip on his shoulder and he keeps getting better, because I've never seen a low motivation or low compete or soft player in Bolduc. Just like I've never seen a low skill player in Neighbors or an AHL-only player in Kessel.

It could be one of those things where we are using compete interchangeably to mean 1) he is ONLY an offensive winger and will not contribute on both sides of the puck, a la Vrana, or 2) he is not capable of keeping up and despite his hounding nature, he just never gets to the puck in time to hound. Alexandrov was touted as a good 2-way player in junior but I've never thought "man this guy hounds on pucks". I'm hopeful, though I do worry that Dean will suffer from Alexandrov syndrome ie. has the potential to be a good player but will come up short.

So you actually think Armstrong doesn't have the final say in who we draft?

Not to get into the weeds, but although yes Armstrong does make the final say, I think he's said explicitly many times he trusts his scouts and will let them decide. Idk if there's ever been a situation where they can't make a choice, but if there is that scenario, then yea I think he will choose the player.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think there were some genuine concerns about his compete, but I don't think those concerns were enough to be that concerned. His compete was questioned at poor Canada WJC camp performances, and poor Blues trainging camp performances. The team Canada could've been political or that they were looking for certain types of players and since he plays a more skill game, he wouldn't have fit that since other people were ahead of him, and for the Blues training camp, it's possibly he never had the right mentality, since he was never truly competing for a roster spot.

Whether his compete was bad in the past, I don't really care, I'm not a Canadian fan for WJC and since he wasn't really competing for a roster spot in the past, I don't really care about those camp performances. He has been showing that he's ready now, and he is making plays to get on the score sheet too. Hope he keeps it up and has a strong finish.

 

[Xerloris]

Not to get into the weeds, but although yes Armstrong does make the final say, I think he's said explicitly many times he trusts his scouts and will let them decide. Idk if there's ever been a situation where they can't make a choice, but if there is that scenario, then yea I think he will choose the player.

I mean that literally changes nothing about what I said. He trusts guys he hired and chooses to keep on staff and trusts their opinion. What a shocker, right? I don't know why some people are trying to argue against this.

 

[BlueDream]

I mean that literally changes nothing about what I said. He trusts guys he hired and chooses to keep on staff and trusts their opinion. What a shocker, right? I don't know why some people are trying to argue against this.

Is anyone arguing against that? You’re the one who is trying to start an argument for no reason by making ridiculous statements. Other people are trying to explain to you how the drafting process works, but you won’t acknowledge that because you’re mad at people who have criticized Armstrong in the past. That’s all that is happening here.

 

[ezcreepin]

I mean that literally changes nothing about what I said. He trusts guys he hired and chooses to keep on staff and trusts their opinion. What a shocker, right? I don't know why some people are trying to argue against this.

I think I could be swayed to either position. Obviously Armstrong hires people to make decisions he doesn't have time to make; it's part of being a good business person (delegating tasks). So by extension, Armstrong should get some credit for prospects we draft. But also, Armstrong is doing very little, if any, scouting on these players. Which is why Feltrin and his staff should probably receive most of the accolades for getting guys like Kyrou, Thomas, Thompson, etc. Not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying because I'd have to admit that yea, Army did in fact hire these dudes so ignoring that fact is kind of stupid.

I guess the question is how far do we take that line of reasoning? Does Stillman get full credit for the Blues winning the cup since he employs everyone as well as kept Armstrong at the helm once he became majority owner in 2012? Again, not disagreeing with you about the credit Armstrong should get, but people are going to take this pretty far to illustrate the point that it can become meaningless to just say the guy who hired the other guys should get credit.

 

[Xerloris]

I think I could be swayed to either position. Obviously Armstrong hires people to make decisions he doesn't have time to make; it's part of being a good business person (delegating tasks). So by extension, Armstrong should get some credit for prospects we draft. But also, Armstrong is doing very little, if any, scouting on these players. Which is why Feltrin and his staff should probably receive most of the accolades for getting guys like Kyrou, Thomas, Thompson, etc. Not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying because I'd have to admit that yea, Army did in fact hire these dudes so ignoring that fact is kind of stupid.

I guess the question is how far do we take that line of reasoning? Does Stillman get full credit for the Blues winning the cup since he employs everyone as well as kept Armstrong at the helm once he became majority owner in 2012? Again, not disagreeing with you about the credit Armstrong should get, but people are going to take this pretty far to illustrate the point that it can become meaningless to just say the who hired the other guys should get credit.

I get your point and Stillman should get credit for hiring or in the case of Armstrong, not changing GM's when he took ownership and stepping back and not interfering in the process. Some people are just not going to be happy anytime Armstrong can get credit for anything, no matter how trivial it is and it's pretty pathetic and shockingly embarrassing. They want him to get no credit but take all the blame for everything.

 

[bleedblue1223]

You get credit to the extent of the things you are responsible for and for the things that you oversee. In my view, Stillman has been a very good owner so far, and I can judge him by comparing him to previous owners. Checketts did a very good job in purchasing this club when value and interest wasn't great, he helped get us back on track, but the Stillman group has definitely provided more business stability in my view. Compared to Laurie, Stillman has been better in letting the hockey guys make the decisions, instead of getting overly involved. Stillman is sort of a hybrid between the 2. Stillman's test will be if we ever get to a point where it's obvious that Army should go, and he doesn't make a move, we aren't at that point yet.

For Army, as President of Hockey Ops, of course he's going to get some level of credit for every hockey decision that gets made, and of course he's going to give more credit on scouting and drafting to the scouts. Part of that process is scouting and finding guys that fit our system, that have the on-ice and off-ice traits that we desire, and while that's a group effort, that's going to be led by Army. A Bluesy type pick is an Army type pick. A quality scouting department is when all areas of the organization are in sync. Being in sync is a pretty important aspect in the role of President of Hockey Ops.

Should Army get significant credit for the individual picks we make? Maybe not, but he should get credit for putting the infrastructure in place to make those picks.

 

[ezcreepin]

I get your point and Stillman should get credit for hiring or in the case of Armstrong, not changing GM's when he took ownership and stepping back and not interfering in the process. Some people are just not going to be happy anytime Armstrong can get credit for anything, no matter how trivial it is and it's pretty pathetic and shockingly embarrassing. They want him to get no credit but take all the blame for everything.

Yea, it's hard to argue for Army when he's constructed the roster the way it is now, but he's also been the guy who essentially built the team during the 2010s and will build this 2020s team. I can't really think of another GM I'd rather have over Armstrong than maybe Brisebois or Yzerman. I guarantee being a GM is much more complicated than just saying "Yea I'll sign this dude, that dude, and bam we're competing." I also don't like the revisionist history when we look back on the 2010s. Lots of competitive teams right now (Boston, Tampa, Dallas, Colorado, LA) were pretty sporadic in making the playoffs and not while the Blues remained pretty much the same the entire time.

Blues had 25 consecutive seasons of playoffs, missed 5 out of 6 years, then went on a 10 for 11 season playoff berth starting in 2011-2012. At some point we were going to be bad again, but I do have faith in Army.

 

[BleedBlue14]

We really really suck at tanking

 

[BlueDream]

In this video, Doug’s very first sentence: “(Tony) can explain the players in a little bit better detail than me … the guys put a lot of work into that list.”

Yet some fans think he’s the one telling the actual scouts who to draft, when they’ve seen way more of these prospects than he has. The delusion is comical.

Tony Feltrin is running the Blues’ draft. Just like Bill Armstrong and Jarmo did. This is common knowledge.

And no, nobody has said Armstrong doesn’t deserve credit for assembling a good staff. So you can throw that desperate argument in the trash.

 

[Drubilly]

Yet some fans think he’s the one telling the actual scouts who to draft, when they’ve seen way more of these prospects than he has. The delusion is comical.

I haven't read this on this board but maybe I'm delusional.

 

[joe galiba]

Neighbours channeling his inner Holmstrom tonight.

Neighbors had a really good game all around, other than the net front stuff he had not been playing as well, to my eyes, over the last month or two

 

[Blueston]

In this video, Doug’s very first sentence: “(Tony) can explain the players in a little bit better detail than me … the guys put a lot of work into that list.”

Yet some fans think he’s the one telling the actual scouts who to draft, when they’ve seen way more of these prospects than he has. The delusion is comical.

Tony Feltrin is running the Blues’ draft. Just like Bill Armstrong and Jarmo did. This is common knowledge.

And no, nobody has said Armstrong doesn’t deserve credit for assembling a good staff. So you can throw that desperate argument in the trash.

That anyone would want to deny credit to the guy who built the scouting team, oversees the scouting meetings, sets tone on what we are looking for in prospects, and has ultimate authority shows that they are pushing an agenda. Army doesn’t make individual pick, but he oversees ALL of them. Whether we draft well is direct reflection on him and the job he has done.

 

[kimzey59]

In this video, Doug’s very first sentence: “(Tony) can explain the players in a little bit better detail than me … the guys put a lot of work into that list.”

Yet some fans think he’s the one telling the actual scouts who to draft, when they’ve seen way more of these prospects than he has. The delusion is comical.

Tony Feltrin is running the Blues’ draft. Just like Bill Armstrong and Jarmo did. This is common knowledge.

And no, nobody has said Armstrong doesn’t deserve credit for assembling a good staff. So you can throw that desperate argument in the trash.

Conversely, all of them(Army, Jarmo, BA, Feltrin) have been following the same process that Larry Pleau implemented following the "loss" of Ted Hampson.

 

[BlueDream]

That anyone would want to deny credit to the guy who built the scouting team, oversees the scouting meetings, sets tone on what we are looking for in prospects, and has ultimate authority shows that they are pushing an agenda. Army doesn’t make individual pick, but he oversees ALL of them. Whether we draft well is direct reflection on him and the job he has done.

And that’s why I put that last paragraph in there, because it is directed at people like you who A.) apparently can’t/didn’t read and B.) use the same argument constantly.