The original poster has stated a few times that this thread is not about the season opener but an overall feeling. However, giving the timing of this thread, it is hard to believe that the loss had nothing to do with it. So first let's address that. Elliot was good. Hate to break it to you, but we did not pay for Lundqvist, Price or Rinne. We are paying Elliot less than a third of what Lundqvist makes. He is tied for 27th highest paid goalie, on the very bottom rung of starters. And he is a steal for that. We wanted someone who could be solid, keep us in games, make saves he supposed to make, and occasionally help us out with a great save. Elliot did that. We didn't get a guy who could stand on his head and win every game for us. He can do that on occasion, but its risky to rely on that every night with any goalie.
We saved money in order to bolster our defense and offense to win the game. They didn't do that. This was on the rest of the team. They tried to do too much. They overpassed, over-juggled the lines, tried to get fancy and ended up turning the puck over leading to prime scoring chances. On the first goal, Shattenkirk made a bad pass, Berglund wasn't aware enough to react to the bad pass and Petro partially-screened Elliot without blocking the shot at all. The second goal was a break-away and a good shot by a super-speedy player (I wish we had that kind of speed). Having Jackman pinching in as the furthest D back with someone as fast as Kreider on the ice is really dumb. Both D were caught against the boards on the same side, and had no shot to get back. Finally on the last goal, the Blues got a terrible bounce and St. Louis (the player) made a heck of a heads up play to give it to Nash. He launched a wide open shot before Elliot could even process what the hell was happening. That goal is nobody's fault but luck and quick thinking by St. Louis (the player).
One more point, to the person who said .880 save percentage won't cut it, it is one game. Save percentages and GAA are only useful as an amalgamation of several games. One game tells nothing as bad luck and bad play in front can skew the stats. Over time, luck and play has a chance to even out. If you want to use stats that are meaningless, I can counter that Elliot's stats from last year were better than Lundqvist's (save %, GAA, and Win %) who is considered one of the best goalies in the world. He also played in half as many games. Let's wait til we get a meaningful sample size before we bring stats into it.
As for the overall prognosis that Allen will over-take Elliot, I don't think it will be this year. I am not as sold on Allen as many of you. He wasn't as good as everyone remembers from 2 years ago. He merely played better than our struggling goalies at the time. The team rallied behind him with unprecedented scoring for us, so he got the wins. Elliot's stats the past three years on the other hand are among the best in the NHL (I believe 3rd in GAA among goalies with 50+ games, without checking as I'm lazy). Allen has the skills to be a very good goalie. However, it will take some time as he adjusts to the NHL game. Goalies take more time to develop than other players. Look at Bishop as an example. He was 27 last year when he really stepped it up. If the Blues organization and fans don't try to tear Elliot down and give him a real shot, he can be a solid starter for us while Allen develops. If we start a goalie controversy after one game, that helps nobody. I'd say, and have said, Elliot is clear 1A this year, maybe even a #1 with no A, B. Next year, things get murkier as they split games. The year after that, Allen will become the 1A. The next year, we won't bring Elliot back and Allen will fully take the reins.
