GDT: Ducks at Blues

[BlueDream]

In a completely random direction, the Blues will bring up Porter with Langs going on IR, right? I wonder what kind of role he will play.

That's what I'm assuming. He's playing well in Peoria with 6 points in 7 games and we know he brings speed and physicality. So IMO he's a better 4th-line option and an upgrade over Langenbrunner.

Andrew Murray (16 pts in 32 games + physicality) and Cracknell (22 pts in 36 games) are other good depth guys in Peoria. But since we're most familiar with Porter (and combined with the fact that I really don't think he deserved to be in Peoria anyway) I'm sure he'll probably get the call.

 

[sbet1998]

If you look at my reply, I was replying to that specific challenge. I made a statement, the statement was received with incredulity, I replied with facts to show that my statement had merit. Pretty straightforward. I don't know what you're saying about the evidence proving the opposite, and yes that does seem rather silly.

The sole debate – THE SOLE DEBATE – I'm having is that while I agree with everyone that Elliott is turning Blues wins into losses and we're all mad (grrrrrrr, right?) about this and berating him and piling on etc., Halak was ALSO costing the Blues wins last year. He was turning wins into losses. Had Halak not been repeatedly letting in softies every one of those games the Blues would have won games that they wound up losing. This is all true. It happened. I have no freaking idea why you somehow think reminding people of Halak's performance in a bunch of those games is actually evidence that proves the contrary (that he wasn't costing them games?), but god speed.

That's very hypocritical. You had no problem showing us Elliots stats to start last season to compare to this season. Those had no relevance, but you used them anyways.

Every season is different. The Blues went from one of the best defensive teams in history to one of the worst in a hurry. Obviously, its more than just the guys in the net and everyone, including yourself, are using very small sample sizes. Everything could change in a heartbeat.

 

[ToniJ1960]

More bandwagoners this season, that's all...

I started following the team in the early to mid 70s so I know you dont mean me.

What my argument is based on,last year I wasnt feeling Halak was playing real well but didnt feel he was terrible and deserving of a lot of the criticism he was getting. I wont say it was the number of or lack of games where he gave up five goals, just how I felt and how I feel now.

If numbers are presented to make an argument (and they did to a certain degree) someone may very well reinterpret those same numbers you supply in another way. Thats all I was doing.

 

[Big Al 2]

Blues won the game in ot. I won't be at the next few home games so my bad luck has time to wear off

 

[sbet1998]

In the first five games of last year, the Blues outskated and heavily outshot Nashville, Dallas and Anaheim and lost all three games because of soft goals allowed by Halak. Halak had a meltdown game (very much like the one Elliott had tonight) in LA in the sixth game and the Blues were never in the contest.

Meanwhile, only this Anaheim game in the recent three game dismal stretch do I think the Blues, in spite of their flaws, deserved to win the game. Elliott was terrible against Nashville and Detroit too but he didn't turn wins into losses, he turned losses into blowouts.

Nobody's defending Elliott. But it's very fair to compare how our fans reacted to each guy. I do think that what's different year to year is expectations. So maybe there's more loaded anger when the raised expectations aren't met.

I dont have the energy; so I'll just say this:

No one wants to see this team fail around here, but they are at this moment and no one cares about what someone did last season. Its all about the here and now. What have you done for me lately type attitude.

 

[PocketNines]

That's very hypocritical. You had no problem showing us Elliots stats to start last season to compare to this season. Those had no relevance, but you used them anyways.

Every season is different. The Blues went from one of the best defensive teams in history to one of the worst in a hurry. Obviously, its more than just the guys in the net and everyone, including yourself, are using very small sample sizes. Everything could change in a heartbeat.

LOL. Wut?

I feel like this discussion is borderline insane and now it's down goofy and silly tangents.

Bottom line is this team has to get better goaltending and still make improvements in their team defense or they're going to squander a season where they could really be contenders. And none of us are happy about that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I started following the team in the early to mid 70s so I know you dont mean me.

What my argument is based on,last year I wasnt feeling Halak was playing real well but didnt feel he was terrible and deserving of a lot of the criticism he was getting. I wont say it was the number of or lack of games where he gave up five goals, just how I felt and how I feel now.

If numbers are presented to make an argument (and they did to a certain degree) someone may very well reinterpret those same numbers you supply in another way. Thats all I was doing.

Not anyone in particular, just in general. It is very obvious at the games.

 

[ToniJ1960]

Yeah but I'd just reply that "numbers against the numbers" being 5-goal games isn't really useful analysis. It's just a random slice. For instance I could point out that in actuality Halak lost the Blues MORE games last year at the outset than Elliott has lost them this year at the outset. He's been brutal in 3 straight games but Halak lost them more than that to start last year. So that would be a random slice of data that isn't fair either, though I'd argue it's more fair than an arbitrary 5 goal standard.

Honestly my main reason for bringing it up is to point out that each of our goalies has now been awful to start a season and it cost the Blues games. Elliott's poor play has cost the Blues games, Halak's poor play cost them even more games early on last year. Yet there wasn't all this "Halak you POS" back then. It's a valid issue to bring up, that our fan base has different standards to which each goalie is held. Seems unfair to me.

Allright then, how about saying the only game in those first six games Halak played in last year that you listed that the Blues scored more than two goals in they won with Halak? Is that a useful analysis?

 

[PocketNines]

Cole was good tonight. I'm glad to see that kind of game from him after being a healthy scratch. Still have to remember he's only played 57 regular season games over three seasons. I can't say he's really had lots of opportunity to settle into the lineup.

 

[Celtic Note]

In the first five games of last year, the Blues outskated and heavily outshot Nashville, Dallas and Anaheim and lost all three games because of soft goals allowed by Halak. Halak had a meltdown game (very much like the one Elliott had tonight) in LA in the sixth game and the Blues were never in the contest.

Meanwhile, only this Anaheim game in the recent three game dismal stretch do I think the Blues, in spite of their flaws, deserved to win the game. Elliott was terrible against Nashville and Detroit too but he didn't turn wins into losses, he turned losses into blowouts.

Nobody's defending Elliott. But it's very fair to compare how our fans reacted to each guy. I do think that what's different year to year is expectations. So maybe there's more loaded anger when the raised expectations aren't met.

Another thing to consider is the people here are different. Not all, obviously.

 

[ToniJ1960]

Cole was good tonight. I'm glad to see that kind of game from him after being a healthy scratch. Still have to remember he's only played 57 regular season games over three seasons. I can't say he's really had lots of opportunity to settle into the lineup.

I hope they play him more regularly he was good tonight and the first few games of the year.

 

[PocketNines]

Allright then, how about saying the only game in those first six games Halak played in last year that you listed that the Blues scored more than two goals in they won with Halak? Is that a useful analysis?

Not to the analysis as to whether Halak's soft goals in those games were the difference between a win and a loss, no.

11-12 Halak clearly cost them three games that would have been wins but were losses. 13 Elliott's cost them one game that would have been a win but was a loss. There's one back atcha.

We can keep playing little cute games on the irrelevant side points, and I'll definitely win more of those, but they're still irrelevant to fan reaction about goalies turning Ws into Ls being different for each guy.

 

[Celtic Note]

Cole was good tonight. I'm glad to see that kind of game from him after being a healthy scratch. Still have to remember he's only played 57 regular season games over three seasons. I can't say he's really had lots of opportunity to settle into the lineup.

I think had more time to settle into the lineup than the the games played suggest, but I agree that it hasn't been much, but that seems to be by-design.

The Blues have decided to be very patient and cautious with Cole. Overall, it is the right move to make IMO. He is the kind of player that really needs the NHL level coaching to develop properly, but playing in the NHL too early could have been detrimental to his success. Hitch is correct that he needs more consistency in his game. Cole faces a similar problem as Brewer, being he tends to get out of line when he starts over thinking. Re-framing those habits takes a ridiculous amount of time and dedication, but it seems like he is getting there, albeit slowly. His game tonight was solid and I think he has more than earned his shot at a few more games, but the leash will be tight.

 

[PocketNines]

I think had more time to settle into the lineup than the the games played suggest, but I agree that it hasn't been much, but that seems to be by-design.

The Blues have decided to be very patient and cautious with Cole. Overall, it is the right move to make IMO. He is the kind of player that really needs the NHL level coaching to develop properly, but playing in the NHL too early could have been detrimental to his success. Hitch is correct that he needs more consistency in his game. Cole faces a similar problem as Brewer, being he tends to get out of line when he starts over thinking. Re-framing those habits takes a ridiculous amount of time and dedication, but it seems like he is getting there, albeit slowly. His game tonight was solid and I think he has more than earned his shot at a few more games, but the leash will be tight.

I agree. I don't think Russell should displace Cole. I'd sit Russell another night but if I played him I'd sit Redden.

 

[PocketNines]

This recent stretch of games makes me grateful for Amendment 64 here in Colorado.

 

[Celtic Note]

This recent stretch of games makes me grateful for Amendment 64 here in Colorado.

That definitely got a laugh out of me. Well played sir.

 

[PocketNines]

Liked Stewart's play tonight. Thought Petro was more responsible defensively than he has been to start the season, but you can tell he still wants to be heavily involved in the offense.

 

[BlueDream]

Still beyond frustrated Hitchcock didn't use McDonald, our best shootout player, in the shootout. Berglund? Seriously? Just a stupid decision. He should get flack for that.

 

[Big Al 2]

I don't know that Elliott would have ever made a stop so who ever shot for us was irrelevant

 

[moolah3i4]

Just ****ing tough! Elliott is lookin like ****ing Michael Leighton.

 

[BlueDream]

I don't know that Elliott would have ever made a stop so who ever shot for us was irrelevant

This post is so wrong. Elliott stopped the first 2 of 3. McDonald should shoot 1st or 2nd every single time along with Oshie.

So yes it is relevant.

 

[Big Al 2]

4 out of 6 scored, last 3 in a row. He could have won it with a save twice. Also Tarasenko got unlucky

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

Honestly I'm not confident in either goalie at all right now. You guys can argue who's better and who's fault it is but they both aren't making the game easier for the team.

I agree, but at least Halak has 2 shutouts this season. Hitchcock has said that Allen will start against the Kings if Halak can't go. Let's see what the youngster can do, anybody but Elliott...

 

[BlueDream]

4 out of 6 scored, last 3 in a row. He could have won it with a save twice. Also Tarasenko got unlucky

Shootout might not even get to the 2nd round if Hitchcock puts in the reliable McDonald over rookie Tarasenko. He judged that poorly. Not sure why Berglund went either.

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

I started following the team in the early to mid 70s so I know you dont mean me.

As did I ToniJ1960, When John Davidson was our 1st round draft pick, 1973.