Goaltending and Coaching: Last two areas to address

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,680
14,072
Another potential issue is that we lost our entire penalty kill from last year . 6 of our top 7 players in total PK TOI from last year are gone. The only one remaining is Steen at 3rd. Brodziak (1). Sobotka(2),Upshall (4), Stastny(5), believe it or not Paajarvi (6) and Berglund (7) are gone. Schenn, Sundqvist and Schwartz got about 40ish minutes. But that doesn't compare with the 142 Brodziak had, which dwarved anyone else. ROR was good on the PK, so that's one. I would prefer not to run Schwartz, Schenn and RoR out on the PK. I don't think Sundqvist will be dressed much. Someone who hasn't done it much will need to step up. I'd say Soshnikov, Barbashev, ROR and Steen, with Schwartz Schenn as the lesser used 3rd pair, but we shall see.

Its a minor concern but one I found interesting that kind of was ignored in the joy of getting ROR.
Yeah I was thinking about this too. A lot of our skilled guys can kill penalties, because even Perron has started doing it. ROR, Steen, Schenn, Schwartz will of course all be really good.

This is the year Dmitrij Jaskin really needs to start killing penalties. People rave about his defensive stats - OK, go out there shorthanded then. Along with Soshnikov and Barbashev. It'll be interesting to have this type of 4th line because they're going to need to still play gritty roles that maybe they aren't as used to.
 

LGB51

2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ST. LOUIS BLUES!
Oct 9, 2013
7,004
2,418
Arcola, IL
Five thousand six hundred and twenty five minutes
It's five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes. And I got it right off, my wife made me watch that awful movie five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred times :help::biglaugh:

*edit* And I see Easton beat me to it already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Note in MI

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
16,836
5,560
Another potential issue is that we lost our entire penalty kill from last year . 6 of our top 7 players in total PK TOI from last year are gone. The only one remaining is Steen at 3rd. Brodziak (1). Sobotka(2),Upshall (4), Stastny(5), believe it or not Paajarvi (6) and Berglund (7) are gone. Schenn, Sundqvist and Schwartz got about 40ish minutes. But that doesn't compare with the 142 Brodziak had, which dwarved anyone else. ROR was good on the PK, so that's one. I would prefer not to run Schwartz, Schenn and RoR out on the PK. I don't think Sundqvist will be dressed much. Someone who hasn't done it much will need to step up. I'd say Soshnikov, Barbashev, ROR and Steen, with Schwartz Schenn as the lesser used 3rd pair, but we shall see.

Its a minor concern but one I found interesting that kind of was ignored in the joy of getting ROR.
This is a good point. I would say overall our defensive capabilities probably took a hit at forward. Stastny, Berglund and Brodziak were all very good defensively and Sobotka was a bit above ok. Though in Sobotka’s case, he should have been better based on his first stint in the NHL.

Getting ROR is an upgrade defensively on Stastny. But, Bozak is a big drop from Berglund. Perron and Sobotka is close to a wash. I would assume Brodziak’s replacement is Barbashev, which is a downgrade defensively. Though Barbie isn’t bad and I think he will grow defensively. So, overall not a huge drop in defensive prowess, but certainly a drop in my book. Thomas could help level that out a bit more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simon IC

Stealth JD

Don't condescend me, man.
Sponsor
Jan 16, 2006
16,678
7,944
Bonita Springs, FL
Yes, that's true. I didn't double check and assumed he got the #s right. Or maybe there is another quote with whatever he said and I am way off.

It's five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred minutes. And I got it right off, my wife made me watch that awful movie five hundred twenty five thousand six hundred times :help::biglaugh:

*edit* And I see Easton beat me to it already.

I was like...'what's the significance of one-fourth of 375 days'? lol
 
  • Like
Reactions: STLomacneko

The Note in MI

Bow to the pyramid
Aug 21, 2013
3,151
991
Muskegon, MI
Thomas is a fantastic penalty killer. He very frequently would make steals at the point and hold the puck in the corner for periods of time. I think he would be a great penalty killer at the NHL level. The question being is he capable this year or will it come with time. I would definitely say that the remainder of the guys as mentioned above will likely be on the penalty kill. Soshnikov would likely be a good choice but I’m not sure how much experience he has. Barbashev obviously is a good choice for this, Jaskin is really good at breaking up playsalong the boards but he is terrible in terms of foot speed so I think he would be a poor choice for the kill.

Bozak has quite a few highlights on YouTube showing him as a penalty killer and scoring short handed. Seems a bit of a pick pocket up there so perhaps he will step in as well
 

BlueDream

Registered User
Aug 30, 2011
25,680
14,072
This is a good point. I would say overall our defensive capabilities probably took a hit at forward. Stastny, Berglund and Brodziak were all very good defensively and Sobotka was a bit above ok. Though in Sobotka’s case, he should have been better based on his first stint in the NHL.

Getting ROR is an upgrade defensively on Stastny. But, Bozak is a big drop from Berglund. Perron and Sobotka is close to a wash. I would assume Brodziak’s replacement is Barbashev, which is a downgrade defensively. Though Barbie isn’t bad and I think he will grow defensively. So, overall not a huge drop in defensive prowess, but certainly a drop in my book. Thomas could help level that out a bit more.
Thomas will be an upgrade on Thompson big time as far as rookies go. So that's another plus.

So, yeah, losing Brodziak could sting but the added offense is much more important (I know you weren't arguing against this, just saying).
 

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,740
Another potential issue is that we lost our entire penalty kill from last year . 6 of our top 7 players in total PK TOI from last year are gone. The only one remaining is Steen at 3rd. Brodziak (1). Sobotka(2),Upshall (4), Stastny(5), believe it or not Paajarvi (6) and Berglund (7) are gone. Schenn, Sundqvist and Schwartz got about 40ish minutes. But that doesn't compare with the 142 Brodziak had, which dwarved anyone else. ROR was good on the PK, so that's one. I would prefer not to run Schwartz, Schenn and RoR out on the PK. I don't think Sundqvist will be dressed much. Someone who hasn't done it much will need to step up. I'd say Soshnikov, Barbashev, ROR and Steen, with Schwartz Schenn as the lesser used 3rd pair, but we shall see.

Its a minor concern but one I found interesting that kind of was ignored in the joy of getting ROR.

Perron didn't do much PK work in Vegas, but he averaged a little over a minute on the PK every night when he was with us in 2016/17. I'd wager that he will get pretty consistent PK time this year. ROR will absolutely get PK time. He got 1:33 PK minutes per game last year and was above 2 minutes a night in the two previous seasons. He played 20:49 a night last year and was well above 21 minutes a night in the 2 previous years. He can log minutes and should be able to handle either top or secondary PK duty. ROR, Steen, Perron is a good amount of "skill" guys to spread through the PK and I'm comfortable with Schenn/Schwartz getting the 30-40 seconds of PK time they played last year. I wouldn't be surprised to see Thomas eased in to the PK throughout the first half of the season and we will need to craft a 4th line while keeping the PK in mind. Jaskin needs to prove that he can kill penalties if he wants to be an everyday NHL player on this roster.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Note in MI

Brian39

Registered User
Apr 24, 2014
7,029
12,740
As for goaltending, Jake Allen will almost certainly be the guy next year and it is his last chance to prove that he can be that guy.

I just hope that Yeo learns how to manage his goalies and gives up this nonsensical notion that Allen should be starting 65 games. Allen indisputably lost his starting job for a solid 5 week stretch last year. From 12/30/17 to 2/8/18, Hutton started 13 of 17 games. After that, Allen started winning his job back, splitting the next 10 games 6 starts to 4. That's a 2 month stretch where Allen played only 10 games while Hutton played 17. Despite that 27 game stretch, Allen still started the 14th most games in the NHL. I understand why we rode him at the end, but his workload until the end of December had him on pace to start 65 games. 3 goalies finished with 65 starts last year.

There is zero reason to insist on running him out like a workhorse starter. He can't handle that workload and that's fine in the modern NHL. There is nothing wrong with only getting 50-55 games out of your starter. Pace him for that number all season instead of riding him until he collapses, sitting him for a month and watching him still hit 55 starts. The workload isn't Allen's only issue, but I'm confident that it is a very real component of his wild inconsistency. Between Johnson and Husso, we should be able to confidently keep him at a 50-55 start pace and I think we'll see a difference in his play.
 

c-carp

Registered User
Mar 3, 2002
9,824
18
Illinois
Visit site
Sorry for double post, I was going to delete first one because of the language thought I had thought better of deleting it didn’t think it was that bad and reposted
 

shpongle falls

Ass Möde
Oct 1, 2014
1,737
1,267
The Night Train
As for goaltending, Jake Allen will almost certainly be the guy next year and it is his last chance to prove that he can be that guy.

I just hope that Yeo learns how to manage his goalies and gives up this nonsensical notion that Allen should be starting 65 games. Allen indisputably lost his starting job for a solid 5 week stretch last year. From 12/30/17 to 2/8/18, Hutton started 13 of 17 games. After that, Allen started winning his job back, splitting the next 10 games 6 starts to 4. That's a 2 month stretch where Allen played only 10 games while Hutton played 17. Despite that 27 game stretch, Allen still started the 14th most games in the NHL. I understand why we rode him at the end, but his workload until the end of December had him on pace to start 65 games. 3 goalies finished with 65 starts last year.

There is zero reason to insist on running him out like a workhorse starter. He can't handle that workload and that's fine in the modern NHL. There is nothing wrong with only getting 50-55 games out of your starter. Pace him for that number all season instead of riding him until he collapses, sitting him for a month and watching him still hit 55 starts. The workload isn't Allen's only issue, but I'm confident that it is a very real component of his wild inconsistency. Between Johnson and Husso, we should be able to confidently keep him at a 50-55 start pace and I think we'll see a difference in his play.
Dude yes 100% agree. It drives me nuts that in the past they have insisted on giving Allen so many starts in a season, he can be a quality goalie but his workload needs to be shortened a bit. Also this will keep him fresher for the playoffs which so key imo.
 

LGB51

2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ST. LOUIS BLUES!
Oct 9, 2013
7,004
2,418
Arcola, IL
A question for my fellow Blues fans most of you being far more knowledgeable about the game than I somewhat embarrassingly admit. I might have already asked Easton this before, but I don't remember if he responded...Anyway so here goes. I understand what makes a good coach during practice or at least how a good coach makes a difference in learning for sports I played in my younger days (football, baseball, track, golf, & boxing) and can see how that would more than likely hold true in hockey at the practice rink. But in a game so fluid and fast like hockey & similarly soccer/football how can you tell if a coach is good or not? I mean in American football the coach calls the plays from the sidelines, the skipper uses signals from the dugout, but players don't take their eyes off the ice to look for signals. How can you tell who's a good coach or bad coach in this game where players on the ice aren't receiving coaching as they are playing? What does Yeo do wrong that makes him a fairly consensus "bad coach" by both Wild & Blues fans?
 

Chief Steele

Registered User
Jun 26, 2018
260
108
A question for my fellow Blues fans most of you being far more knowledgeable about the game than I somewhat embarrassingly admit. I might have already asked Easton this before, but I don't remember if he responded...Anyway so here goes. I understand what makes a good coach during practice or at least how a good coach makes a difference in learning for sports I played in my younger days (football, baseball, track, golf, & boxing) and can see how that would more than likely hold true in hockey at the practice rink. But in a game so fluid and fast like hockey & similarly soccer/football how can you tell if a coach is good or not? I mean in American football the coach calls the plays from the sidelines, the skipper uses signals from the dugout, but players don't take their eyes off the ice to look for signals. How can you tell who's a good coach or bad coach in this game where players on the ice aren't receiving coaching as they are playing? What does Yeo do wrong that makes him a fairly consensus "bad coach" by both Wild & Blues fans?


For me its how the team reacts to him on the bench. You are correct eyes are always on the ice.. but so are the coaches and they have to make moves in real time line shuffling and things like that. in between periods they can do a game plan change if needed. IMO that is where Yeo lacks.. making the adjustments as needed.. but its my opinion..
 
  • Like
Reactions: STLomacneko

Ranksu

Crotch Academy ftw
Sponsor
Apr 28, 2014
19,661
9,296
Lapland
We're just fine with goaltender aspect. If Allen fails it will most likely given change to Husso. and FINALLY we'll see his calm and stonewald show in the NHL, when he's given change I doubt he'll lose that opportunity back. Watch out Allen not to suck. :sarcasm:

Blues only problem is can Yeo fix powerplay? I don't believe it, but with that kind of player group it will naturally be better then last season 30th spot in NHL:
It gives me grey hair if Yeo can't work out team Canada's powerplay at World Championships with guys like, McDavid, RNH, ROR, Schenn, Eberle, Schwartz, Vlasic and Parayko.
 

EastonBlues22

Registered User
Nov 25, 2003
14,807
10,496
RIP Fugu ϶(°o°)ϵ
A question for my fellow Blues fans most of you being far more knowledgeable about the game than I somewhat embarrassingly admit. I might have already asked Easton this before, but I don't remember if he responded...Anyway so here goes. I understand what makes a good coach during practice or at least how a good coach makes a difference in learning for sports I played in my younger days (football, baseball, track, golf, & boxing) and can see how that would more than likely hold true in hockey at the practice rink. But in a game so fluid and fast like hockey & similarly soccer/football how can you tell if a coach is good or not? I mean in American football the coach calls the plays from the sidelines, the skipper uses signals from the dugout, but players don't take their eyes off the ice to look for signals. How can you tell who's a good coach or bad coach in this game where players on the ice aren't receiving coaching as they are playing? What does Yeo do wrong that makes him a fairly consensus "bad coach" by both Wild & Blues fans?
There's a lot that goes into coaching, and a whole lot of it happens off the ice. Organizational skills, time management (both for staff and players), prioritizing, interpersonal skills, diagnosing problems (both on and off the ice) and solving them, game-planning, etc.

On the ice a coach is responsible (with the help of his staff) for juggling a lot of different things at once like governing specific match-ups, providing timely feedback to players, adjusting/tweaking things for better performance (whether lines, game-plan, exploiting tendencies, etc.), keeping players focused (in the moment and on task), etc.

Once the game starts, it's kind of like trying to influence a flood once a levy has been breached. There's a lot of chaos and a constant struggle to generate positive momentum. You can have an effect in real time but it generally won't be bigger than all the preparations you made prior to the breach. Mostly you're trying to get people where they need to be, plug holes as best you can, and keep the chaos at bay.

There are a lot of different possible styles, and more than one style can be successful. The thing is that most coaches have to work their way up to the NHL by taking the long path (coaching at lower levels and assistant coaching), so they develop their own styles that "work" for them and then refine them along the way. While coaches are constantly trying to adapt/tweak to gain an edge or improve, it's very rare to see someone completely discard a style that has brought them some extended measure of success to adopt a completely new and untested one at the NHL level where the stakes are highest and job security is most tenuous. It's just not natural for people to radically change like that under pressure.

Fans usually have their personal preferences for what type of coaching personality and philosophies they prefer, but IMO the "best" coaches are ones whose styles are well-matched to the strengths and weaknesses of the players on the roster, the current state of the game in general, and to the administrative staff they'll be working with. A coach who has very detailed and involved on-ice plans isn't going to have much success with players who can't absorb that level of detail or who are prone to paralysis by analysis, a coach that prefers an open style of play isn't going to be a great fit for a team of plodders and grinders, etc.

The spectrums aren't as black and white as I'm painting them to be for illustrative purposes, but a coach is far more likely to find success if his philosophies naturally complement the players at his disposal and the current state of the game than if the fit is a bit more forced.

A fan's analysis of a coach is naturally going to be pretty subjective affair based off (at best) incomplete information even if it's informed. For many, it might be as simple as a "good" coach is one that is winning and a "bad" coach is one that isn't. Perhaps a bit simplistic and results oriented, but not necessarily wrong. At the end of the day that's probably what matters most to their employers, and a lot of good coaches have been fired because they weren't winning. A good coach that's a bad fit can certainly be a "bad" coach for a specific situation.

There's room for more nuanced evaluations as well, and a lot of those will focus on things like how well he seems to be leading the team, how well the team seems to adapt to and overcome adversity, how well the team's style holds up against other teams, how consistently the team plays from night to night, how organized the team is on the ice, whether the team is generally over/under-performing, etc. All are usually based off inferential observations and semi-informed speculations in the short term, but over time patterns can be regular enough that they can become solid evidence.

I don't want to speak for anyone else with regards to Yeo, but I think there are some valid criticisms out there about him. With regards to his fit for this roster...well, the roster has changed an awful lot in the last couple of weeks, with more possibly to come at training camp, so perhaps it is time to reevaluate some of those opinions as the previous ones might be a bit outdated.
 
Last edited:

LGB51

2019 STANLEY CUP CHAMPION ST. LOUIS BLUES!
Oct 9, 2013
7,004
2,418
Arcola, IL
There's a lot that goes into coaching, and a whole lot of it happens off the ice. Organizational skills, time management (both for staff and players), prioritizing, interpersonal skills, diagnosing problems (both on and off the ice) and solving them, game-planning, etc.

On the ice a coach is responsible (with the help of his staff) for juggling a lot of different things at once like governing specific match-ups, providing timely feedback to players, adjusting/tweaking things for better performance (whether lines, game-plan, exploiting tendencies, etc.), keeping players focused (in the moment and on task), etc.

Once the game starts, it's kind of like trying to influence a flood once a levy has been breached. There's a lot of chaos and a constant struggle to generate positive momentum. You can have an effect in real time but it generally won't be bigger than all the preparations you made prior to the breach. Mostly you're trying to get people where they need to be, plug holes as best you can, and keep the chaos at bay.

There are a lot of different possible styles, and more than one style can be successful. The thing is that most coaches have to work their way up to the NHL by taking the long path (coaching at lower levels and assistant coaching), so they develop their own styles that "work" for them and then refine them along the way. While coaches are constantly trying to adapt/tweak to gain an edge or improve, it's very rare to see someone completely discard a style that has brought them some extended measure of success to adopt a completely new and untested one at the NHL level where the stakes are highest and job security is most tenuous. It's just not natural for people to radically change like that under pressure.
Fans usually have their personal preferences for what type of coaching personality and philosophies they prefer, but IMO the "best" coaches are ones whose styles are well-matched to the strengths and weaknesses of the players on the roster, the current state of the game in general, and to the administrative staff they'll be working with. A coach who has very detailed and involved on-ice plans isn't going to have much success with players who can't absorb that level of detail or who are prone to paralysis by analysis, a coach that prefers an open style of play isn't going to be a great fit for a team of plodders and grinders, etc.

The spectrums aren't as black and white as I'm painting them to be for illustrative purposes, but a coach is far more likely to find success if his philosophies naturally complement the players at his disposal and the current state of the game than if the fit is a bit more forced.

A fan's analysis of a coach is naturally going to be pretty subjective affair based off (at best) incomplete information even if it's informed. For many, it might be as simple as a "good" coach is one that is winning and a "bad" coach is one that isn't. Perhaps a bit simplistic and results oriented, but not necessarily wrong. At the end of the day that's probably what matters most to their employers, and a lot of good coaches have been fired because they weren't winning. A good coach that's a bad fit can certainly be a "bad" coach for a specific situation.

There's room for more nuanced evaluations as well, and a lot of those will focus on things like how well he seems to be leading the team, how well the team seems to adapt to and overcome adversity, how well the team's style holds up against other teams, how consistently the team plays from night to night, how organized the team is on the ice, whether the team is generally over/under-performing, etc. All are usually based off inferential observations and semi-informed speculations in the short term, but over time patterns can be regular enough that they can become solid evidence.

I don't want to speak for anyone else with regards to Yeo, but I think there are some valid criticisms out there about him. With regards to his fit for this roster...well, the roster has changed an awful lot in the last couple of weeks, with more possibly to come at training camp, so perhaps it is time to reevaluate some of those opinions as the previous ones might be a bit outdated.
Thanks for the detailed explanation Easton, I usually ask you when I want to understand something about the game better than I do and you never disappoint.
 

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
16,836
5,560
I don’t disagree with Easton’s comments, but to me a good coach needs to do two things. He needs to maximize the impact of his players through development techniques and systems. He also needs to be able to make adjustments both in response to his own team and his opposition. You can’t be a good coach without those two things.
 

carter333167

Registered User
Apr 24, 2013
6,958
3,120
The opinions in this thread from the summer are pretty darn interesting. I think many posters saw this coming...just not to the extent that it has occurred but we knew that the coach and goal prevention could be issues. For example, Brian hoped that Yeo would stop riding Allen so hard....but Yeo has continued to do so. Anyway, pretty interesting.

The good news is that the PP and the offense in general are playing well. We are getting a lot better in limiting HDC as well. I do think Yeo needs to go asap (thought he should have been gone a week ago) but that's just my opinion.
 

Ted Hoffman

The other Rick Zombo
Dec 15, 2002
28,856
8,110
I will say this much on Yeo.

I don't love him, I don't hate him. I don't think he's a difference maker, I think he's about as good as the team in front of him. He's not going to elevate a pretty good team into an elite one, he's not going to take an average team to below average. But I think it's pretty clear from some of the early games this season that he's probably not the solution for this team. The guys have already put in a pair of "this gets a coach fired" performances, and he's still here. So, I think you have to start wondering what the GM sees in Yeo that keeps him behind the bench, and ask yourself "what now has to change to suddenly make things different that the trigger gets pulled?"

Short of some crater-scraping run, I think even limping along the cutoff line for a while doesn't do it. No, a couple wins doesn't make him a better coach. Even some 7-2-0 run that gets us back into 8th in the West doesn't magically fix his faults. It's chewing gum plugging the inevitable dam failure. However, as long as nothing catastrophic happens, there's no real reason to change, so expect the status quo and lots of blind faith that "this time, it's different" until it becomes apparent it's not.
 

Celtic Note

Living the dream
Dec 22, 2006
16,836
5,560
Trying to get a handle on financial impacts that the coaching situation has on the organization is interesting. Granted this is all theory since I have no empirical data.

Anyway here are my thoughts:
- Losing games costs the club revenue
- Yeo is due a guaranteed salary on the remaining term of his contract
- Yeo probably has a fairly low salary as far as coaches go
- A new coach like Q or AV will very likely cost more than Yeo
- They will also likely want some decent term

So if we get a new higher end coach you have a higher coaching salary in comparison to Yeo and you have to add it to Yeo’s salary.

That can add a big chunk to your payroll. You are already at the cap for player salaries and in years past haven’t made much money doing so. But even making that little profit required playoff revenue.

With all that setting the table, there are some questions:
How much money do you lose if you keep this currently coached team and miss the playoffs?

What is your financial situation if you hire a new coach and miss the playoffs?

Do you make money if you hire a new coach and make the playoffs or are the margins too slim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: mk80

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->