Goaltending

[Falco Lombardi]

It could be better, but we've seen the team fail to score for a few seasons in a row now, and after watching what happened when we brought in a goalie, I'm glad they decided to allocate the money towards helping the offense.

 

[Dbrownss]

Agreed on offensive boost. And honestly.....what other option was there. We tried a stud goalie and still failed. If your not scoring 3 goals a game...your not going anywhere

 

[JustOneB4IDie]

Elliott's failed when the Blues needed him to steal a game, let alone a series, in playoff losses to the Queens in 2012 and 2013. Why should anyone think Elliott will suddenly do this 2 years later in 2015? The Blues decided to go once again on the cheap with the last line of defense behind a soft defense to boot and that will be exposed once again in the spring of 2015. I long for that day when Armstrong traded Bishop to Ottowa.

Allen is the so called "Savior" of the Franchise now.

 

[Kyrul]

The only thing that worries me is if one of them gets a serious injury and misses a lot of time, I guess we would bring up Binnington but I don't think he is ready, but if both stay healthy I'm completely fine with it going into the season

We could give a call to Jeff Tyni again.

 

[Majorityof1]

Elliott's failed when the Blues needed him to steal a game, let alone a series, in playoff losses to the Queens in 2012 and 2013. Why should anyone think Elliott will suddenly do this 2 years later in 2015? The Blues decided to go once again on the cheap with the last line of defense behind a soft defense to boot and that will be exposed once again in the spring of 2015. I long for that day when Armstrong traded Bishop to Ottowa.

Allen is the so called "Savior" of the Franchise now.

Wow. Elliot really is a horrible goalie. Thank you for pointing that out. I mean if he can't even beat the Kings in the playoffs, he shouldn't be in the NHL. He should just hang his pads up as that is such an easy task, especially with the amazing goal support the Blues gave him. I mean 15 regulation goals in 10 games. He only had to keep under a 1.5 GAA average vs one of the two best teams of this decade. Pffft, child's play.

While we are at it, let's kick Lundqvist out of the NHL as well. It is time for him to retire. The Kings were worn out from playing 3 7-game series when he faced them, and he couldn't get it done. That is worse than Elliot. Who would want Lundqvist as a goaltender? Also, Brodeur's ticket to the hall of fame should be revoked. Couldn't even beat the Kings in '12. What kind of hall of fame goalie is he? Crawford is borderline. I mean he is the only one goalie who has beat the Kings in their 11 series over the past 3 years. But he also lost. So maybe he can be a backup somewhere. He is definitely better than Lunqvist though because he passed the Kings yard stick test once. But Luongo and Mike Smith are right out. They lost as well. Those guys suck.

Hopefully you get the point and I can stop with the sarcasm. Expecting Elliot to beat a team who won the cup 2 of the past 3 years is silly when he gets less than 2 goals a game in support. The Blues got beat, not Elliot. As we are a better team, and should hopefully get better goal support, he may have a shot. And if he doesn't, well some other damn fine teams have lost to the Kings.

 

[LGB51]

Wow. Elliot really is a horrible goalie. Thank you for pointing that out. I mean if he can't even beat the Kings in the playoffs, he shouldn't be in the NHL. He should just hang his pads up as that is such an easy task, especially with the amazing goal support the Blues gave him. I mean 15 regulation goals in 10 games. He only had to keep under a 1.5 GAA average vs one of the two best teams of this decade. Pffft, child's play.

While we are at it, let's kick Lundqvist out of the NHL as well. It is time for him to retire. The Kings were worn out from playing 3 7-game series when he faced them, and he couldn't get it done. That is worse than Elliot. Who would want Lundqvist as a goaltender? Also, Brodeur's ticket to the hall of fame should be revoked. Couldn't even beat the Kings in '12. What kind of hall of fame goalie is he? Crawford is borderline. I mean he is the only one goalie who has beat the Kings in their 11 series over the past 3 years. But he also lost. So maybe he can be a backup somewhere. He is definitely better than Lunqvist though because he passed the Kings yard stick test once. But Luongo and Mike Smith are right out. They lost as well. Those guys suck.

Hopefully you get the point and I can stop with the sarcasm. Expecting Elliot to beat a team who won the cup 2 of the past 3 years is silly when he gets less than 2 goals a game in support. The Blues got beat, not Elliot. As we are a better team, and should hopefully get better goal support, he may have a shot. And if he doesn't, well some other damn fine teams have lost to the Kings.

Damn you just torched his ass

 

[2 Minute Minor]

We could give a call to Jeff Tyni again.

I'm thinking really hard about getting a Tyni jersey. I think it would be cool. He and I would be the only people on the planet with one.

 

[BlueOil]

Elliott and Allen are no worse than Elliott and Halak.

Upgrading the goaltending would be a waste of assests. I can't wait for the season to start either, but let's not make mountains out of molehills.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Elliott's failed when the Blues needed him to steal a game, let alone a series, in playoff losses to the Queens in 2012 and 2013. Why should anyone think Elliott will suddenly do this 2 years later in 2015? The Blues decided to go once again on the cheap with the last line of defense behind a soft defense to boot and that will be exposed once again in the spring of 2015. I long for that day when Armstrong traded Bishop to Ottowa.

Allen is the so called "Savior" of the Franchise now.

Yeah you're right. It was Elliott's fault that our offense fizzled against the Kings in 2013. We did so much better with Miller, that we got literally the exact same result. I'm seeing a pattern here, and it's not a goaltending issue.

 

[gumption]

i feel perfectly content with our goaltending. i trust armstrong's decision, and we always can trade before the deadline if we need to. i think elliott/allen will make an outstanding tandem.

 

[DeuceNine]

The only thing that worries me is if one of them gets a serious injury and misses a lot of time, I guess we would bring up Binnington but I don't think he is ready, but if both stay healthy I'm completely fine with it going into the season

We'd have to get someone. Vokoun or another capable guy that nobody will sign in the offseason...

 

[Stealth JD]

Elliott and Allen are no worse than Elliott and Halak.

Upgrading the goaltending would be a waste of assests. I can't wait for the season to start either, but let's not make mountains out of molehills.

I don't know if i can agree with this. You're basically saying Allen = Halak. Halak is pretty decent when he's healthy (which obviously wasn't often enough). I'm not sold on Allen at all, and have a feeling that the Blues will have a new back-up to Elliott before his 3-year deal is over.

 

[GrandPapillon*]

Wow. Elliot really is a horrible goalie. Thank you for pointing that out. I mean if he can't even beat the Kings in the playoffs, he shouldn't be in the NHL. He should just hang his pads up as that is such an easy task, especially with the amazing goal support the Blues gave him. I mean 15 regulation goals in 10 games. He only had to keep under a 1.5 GAA average vs one of the two best teams of this decade. Pffft, child's play.

While we are at it, let's kick Lundqvist out of the NHL as well. It is time for him to retire. The Kings were worn out from playing 3 7-game series when he faced them, and he couldn't get it done. That is worse than Elliot. Who would want Lundqvist as a goaltender? Also, Brodeur's ticket to the hall of fame should be revoked. Couldn't even beat the Kings in '12. What kind of hall of fame goalie is he? Crawford is borderline. I mean he is the only one goalie who has beat the Kings in their 11 series over the past 3 years. But he also lost. So maybe he can be a backup somewhere. He is definitely better than Lunqvist though because he passed the Kings yard stick test once. But Luongo and Mike Smith are right out. They lost as well. Those guys suck.

Hopefully you get the point and I can stop with the sarcasm. Expecting Elliot to beat a team who won the cup 2 of the past 3 years is silly when he gets less than 2 goals a game in support. The Blues got beat, not Elliot. As we are a better team, and should hopefully get better goal support, he may have a shot. And if he doesn't, well some other damn fine teams have lost to the Kings.

Great sarcasm, bro. It'd be nice if you had some facts to go with it.

Brian Elliott has appeared in 18 playoff games in his career.

His team has dropped 4 games in a row on 3 different occasions.
He has given up 3 goals or more in 8 of those 18 games.
He has given up 4 goals or more in 6 of those 18 games
He has failed to save 90% of the shots against in 10 of those 18 games.

Was scoring an issue against LA? Absolutely. But doesn't some of the credit for our scoring issues have to go to Quick for stealing games and making big saves? Brian Elliott on the other hand, didn't do so well in shutting down the Kings. (See numbers, above) This is probably the cause of some of the uneasiness in leaning on Elliott again come playoff time. Your comment that "the Blues got beat, not Elliott." seems to set Elliott aside as not part of the problem and absolve him of all guilt for the defeat. Based on numbers and memory of those games, I don't know how in the hell you can do that. Is it unfair to put all of the blame on Elliott as the lone gunman in our postseason collapses? Probably. However, let's not pretend that the man wasn't even holding a gun.

 

[gumption]

Great sarcasm, bro. It'd be nice if you had some facts to go with it.

Brian Elliott has appeared in 18 playoff games in his career.

His team has dropped 4 games in a row on 3 different occasions.
He has given up 3 goals or more in 8 of those 18 games.
He has given up 4 goals or more in 6 of those 18 games
He has failed to save 90% of the shots against in 10 of those 18 games.

Was scoring an issue against LA? Absolutely. But doesn't some of the credit for our scoring issues have to go to Quick for stealing games and making big saves? Brian Elliott on the other hand, didn't do so well in shutting down the Kings. (See numbers, above) This is probably the cause of some of the uneasiness in leaning on Elliott again come playoff time. Your comment that "the Blues got beat, not Elliott." seems to set Elliott aside as not part of the problem and absolve him of all guilt for the defeat. Based on numbers and memory of those games, I don't know how in the hell you can do that. Is it unfair to put all of the blame on Elliott as the lone gunman in our postseason collapses? Probably. However, let's not pretend that the man wasn't even holding a gun.

let me say this: jonathan quick is a goalie on a whole different level with a whole different level of defense than the blues were. with elliott's failure, that is a team thing. yes, a goalie can carry the team on their back at times, but those times, the whole team wasn't together. if the whole team is cracking under pressure, or performing poorly, the goalie most likely will too.

 

[Majorityof1]

Great sarcasm, bro. It'd be nice if you had some facts to go with it.

Brian Elliott has appeared in 18 playoff games in his career.

His team has dropped 4 games in a row on 3 different occasions.
He has given up 3 goals or more in 8 of those 18 games.
He has given up 4 goals or more in 6 of those 18 games
He has failed to save 90% of the shots against in 10 of those 18 games.

Was scoring an issue against LA? Absolutely. But doesn't some of the credit for our scoring issues have to go to Quick for stealing games and making big saves? Brian Elliott on the other hand, didn't do so well in shutting down the Kings. (See numbers, above) This is probably the cause of some of the uneasiness in leaning on Elliott again come playoff time. Your comment that "the Blues got beat, not Elliott." seems to set Elliott aside as not part of the problem and absolve him of all guilt for the defeat. Based on numbers and memory of those games, I don't know how in the hell you can do that. Is it unfair to put all of the blame on Elliott as the lone gunman in our postseason collapses? Probably. However, let's not pretend that the man wasn't even holding a gun.

First of all, Elliot is a much better goalie than he was in Ottawa. The numbers he put up there were awful and are severely skewing your data. I am sure you know that which is why you used them. Elliot is a 2.18 GAA and .910 save percentage in the playoffs for the Blues. That is pretty damn good. Consider that Quick had a 2.58 and a .911 this past playoff and won the cup. Elliot's numbers are much better on the GAA side and only .001 worse on save percentage. So Elliot has played well enough to win it all as a Blue. So yea, the team let him down, not the other way around. He let in soft goals, yes, but ever goalie does. His overall numbers are solid. If we can't win with a goalie who lets in 2 goals a game, we don't deserve it.

 

[GrandPapillon*]

First of all, Elliot is a much better goalie than he was in Ottawa. The numbers he put up there were awful and are severely skewing your data. I am sure you know that which is why you used them. Elliot is a 2.18 GAA and .910 save percentage in the playoffs for the Blues. That is pretty damn good. Consider that Quick had a 2.58 and a .911 this past playoff and won the cup. Elliot's numbers are much better on the GAA side and only .001 worse on save percentage. So Elliot has played well enough to win it all as a Blue. So yea, the team let him down, not the other way around. He let in soft goals, yes, but ever goalie does. His overall numbers are solid. If we can't win with a goalie who lets in 2 goals a game, we don't deserve it.

I used his Ottawa stats because they are relevant to his career playoff resume. Subtracting those numbers, he still

Has failed to save above 90% of his shots in 7 of 14 games for the Blues

Has let in 3 or more goals in 5 of 14 games

Has let in 4 or more goals in 3 of 14 games

Even subtracting his brutal Ottawa run, he still hasn't exactly been stable. So far, I have no doubt that Elliott can be dependable in the regular season. He's proven that. In the playoffs, he's proven to be a coinflip of if he can keep you in a game or not...for the Blues. For his career, he's been worse.

 

[Majorityof1]

Going futher, here are the goals and save percentages he had in the Blues playoff games:

vs. Sharks: (1) 0, 1.0; (2) 3, .897; (3) 1, .960; (4) 1, .963

Vs. Kings '12 (1) 2, .929; (2) 5, .762 (3) 2, .900 (4) 2, .889

Vs. Kings '13 (1) 1, .966 (2) 1, .966 (3) 1, .952 (4) 4, .862 (5) 3, .880 (6) 2, ,875

So, to address you points as your numbers are wrong:

His TEAM lost 4 in row twice
Has given up 3 or more goals 4 times in 14 games
Has given up 4 or more 2 times in 14 games
Has had less than a .9 save percentage 6 times in 14 games, but has only been less than a .875 2 time in 14

He has allowed 2 or less goals 10 times in 14 games. If a team can score more than a goal a game, they should win every playoff series with that average.

See, that looks a lot better and is respectable. Add to that the fact that most of those games were against a really good Kings team playing really well, and it is more impressive. So you can skew the facts all you want with his horrible numbers from his first playoff trip with the Sens, but the fact of the matter is, he put us in a position to beat the Kings twice and the team didn't get it done.

 

[HockeyGuy73]

Its not the goals he gave up, its the timing of the the goals. That goal Penner scored at the end of the period still makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. That has replaced the Yzerman Double OT game winner against Casey.

I am not concerned about Elliott and Allen, they are capable. The only thing that does concern me is if Corsi tinkers with Elliott too much, and trys things with him that aren't conducive to Elliott's style that has made him successful.

 

[Note Worthy]

Its not the goals he gave up, its the timing of the the goals. That goal Penner scored at the end of the period still makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. That has replaced the Yzerman Double OT game winner against Casey.

I am not concerned about Elliott and Allen, they are capable. The only thing that does concern me is if Corsi tinkers with Elliott too much, and trys things with him that aren't conducive to Elliott's style that has made him successful.

I don't know about that...

 

[thedustman]

Its not the goals he gave up, its the timing of the the goals. That goal Penner scored at the end of the period still makes me wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat. That has replaced the Yzerman Double OT game winner against Casey.

I am not concerned about Elliott and Allen, they are capable. The only thing that does concern me is if Corsi tinkers with Elliott too much, and trys things with him that aren't conducive to Elliott's style that has made him successful.

I always blamed that goal on Backes for some reason

 

[LGB51]

I always blamed that goal on Backes for some reason

Toews goal in game 3 against Miller replaces it for me.

 

[DeuceNine]

Toews goal in game 3 against Miller replaces it for me.

Rising rockets like Yzerman's goal are deceptively hard to stop, especially at that distance where it's not entirely clear if it's going high and wide. Not a good goal but understandable on a couple levels. That game 3 goal seemed very stoppable. I remember watching that move thinking "I would have had that" -- Miller just committed way too early. We win that game and we move on to round 2 IMO.

 

[DeuceNine]

Going futher, here are the goals and save percentages he had in the Blues playoff games:

vs. Sharks: (1) 0, 1.0; (2) 3, .897; (3) 1, .960; (4) 1, .963

Vs. Kings '12 (1) 2, .929; (2) 5, .762 (3) 2, .900 (4) 2, .889

Vs. Kings '13 (1) 1, .966 (2) 1, .966 (3) 1, .952 (4) 4, .862 (5) 3, .880 (6) 2, ,875

So, to address you points as your numbers are wrong:

His TEAM lost 4 in row twice
Has given up 3 or more goals 4 times in 14 games
Has given up 4 or more 2 times in 14 games
Has had less than a .9 save percentage 6 times in 14 games, but has only been less than a .875 2 time in 14

He has allowed 2 or less goals 10 times in 14 games. If a team can score more than a goal a game, they should win every playoff series with that average.

See, that looks a lot better and is respectable. Add to that the fact that most of those games were against a really good Kings team playing really well, and it is more impressive. So you can skew the facts all you want with his horrible numbers from his first playoff trip with the Sens, but the fact of the matter is, he put us in a position to beat the Kings twice and the team didn't get it done.

Let's look at this from an even more practical point of view. Most games are a "race to 3" meaning once a team scores that many, they usually win. So if we count the games where he lets in more than 3 -- that's only three games in total. The one where he let in precisely 3 would probably end up in OT etc so we'll ignore that one.

Point is he can get it done. Let's not worry about supposedly crappy save percentages in some of those games, because the Blues typically allow low shot counts, but that doesn't say anything about scoring chance quality.

 

[Captain Creampuff]

Great article by JR about Elliott. I'm excited to see how her performs as the #1. http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hock...le_4140d9bf-2ec2-5fd8-a22e-3be48ec222f3.htmlr

 

[simon IC]

Wow. Elliot really is a horrible goalie. Thank you for pointing that out. I mean if he can't even beat the Kings in the playoffs, he shouldn't be in the NHL. He should just hang his pads up as that is such an easy task, especially with the amazing goal support the Blues gave him. I mean 15 regulation goals in 10 games. He only had to keep under a 1.5 GAA average vs one of the two best teams of this decade. Pffft, child's play.

While we are at it, let's kick Lundqvist out of the NHL as well. It is time for him to retire. The Kings were worn out from playing 3 7-game series when he faced them, and he couldn't get it done. That is worse than Elliot. Who would want Lundqvist as a goaltender? Also, Brodeur's ticket to the hall of fame should be revoked. Couldn't even beat the Kings in '12. What kind of hall of fame goalie is he? Crawford is borderline. I mean he is the only one goalie who has beat the Kings in their 11 series over the past 3 years. But he also lost. So maybe he can be a backup somewhere. He is definitely better than Lunqvist though because he passed the Kings yard stick test once. But Luongo and Mike Smith are right out. They lost as well. Those guys suck.

Hopefully you get the point and I can stop with the sarcasm. Expecting Elliot to beat a team who won the cup 2 of the past 3 years is silly when he gets less than 2 goals a game in support. The Blues got beat, not Elliot. As we are a better team, and should hopefully get better goal support, he may have a shot. And if he doesn't, well some other damn fine teams have lost to the Kings.

He has a good point about the soft defense. The Polak trade has made it even softer. (Not saying it was a bad trade, but we lost our only big physical Dman). There is a school of thought, prevalent on this board, that suggests that if all your defensemen can move the puck quickly and effectively, you don't need physicality. While you might get away with this style, even excel with it, during the regular season, it will fail in the playoffs. Mark my words, our soft defence will be exposed and exploited by the west coast teams during the playoffs, unless it's addressed by the trade deadline.