Injury Report: Schwartz Foot Injury

[Falco Lombardi]

I felt like I had to listen all offseason to complaints that the Blues weren't going to be physical enough this season and just made it worse by trading Polak for Gunnarsson.

 

[uncommonsense52]

But that was proven wrong quite easily.

Not sure how you could prove that.

Not true, and a ridiculous thing to say. Look at the lineup the Blues are icing. It is primarily skilled. And oh yeah if Hitchcock was always icing a lineup with "unskilled players", we wouldn't have been one of the best teams in the league each of the past few seasons, bud.

The best teams in the league don't get bounced in the first round year after year. Or second round.

And who are those "certain players" that he tosses out of the lineup? Magnus Paajarvi? Good lord dude, just scrap your entire argument and just admit that you think Paajarvi is one of the best players on this team.

I have no idea if Paajarvi is one of the best players on the team. He's never had a fair shake.

Are Ian Cole and Chris Porter skill players? Because they get taken out of the lineup quite a bit.

Cole's development was ruined by Hitchcock, who kept him in the pressbox for multiple seasons, ruining his growth form a player on track to be a top 4 D, to someone barely able to crack an NHL lineup.

Porter is most certainly a grinder, and not a skill player.

Who are these grinders that he pushes up the lineup? Steve Ott?

This year, yeah, it's Ott. And it's been Porter a few times too.

Because no other grinders get pushed up the lineup. Your entire argument here is just Paajarvi vs. Ott but yet you try to disguise it as something more than that, but it's clear as day. Ott's versatility and experience sometimes allow him to play that "utility" role. Magnus Paajarvi sucks, and Ott should easily be in the lineup over him.

Ott has no versatility. He was on a scoring line in Buffalo. Buffalo sucks. But now, all of a sudden, since the godawful Sabres put him on a scoring line, he's apparently able to play on a scoring line. That's why he's scored a total of none times in a Blues uniform.

Ott sucks.

Paajarvi is a highly touted, unknown prospect, whose potential is being ruined, whether or not it could have been fully realized.

Every team has grinders, get that through your head. There's a reason teams aren't playing the likes of Magnus Paajarvi and Joakim Lindstrom on the 4th-line, because they'd be useless. Stop making a big deal out of nothing.

Every team has grinders. I get that. I don't need it through my head, it's already there, thank you. They get a line. It's called a grinding line. It plays 7-12 minutes a night typically, and those players are obviously never promoted above it.

We have 4 grinders. We need 3. We're throwing grinders into places they don't need to be.

You want to know what the best grinding line this team has seen in years was? McCromSteen. McClement, Crombeen, Steen.

Instead of pushing borderline skill onto a skill line, we pushed borderline grinding onto a grinding line. The result was a line that was defensively responsible, but also could occasionally chip in a goal, or otherwise positively contribute in the play.

And our current grinding line of Lapierre, Reaves, Whoever can do that. And that's great. I'm happy for that.

It's better for skill to seep down the line-up than uselessness seep up.

Really? Those players "clearly brought the team down"? Yeah because the team did so poorly with them on the roster...

Langenbrunner packed up his bags and threw a hissy fit in the post season when he wasn't played, meanwhile Morrow was in and out of the line-up supplanting Tarasenko in the post season.

Their presence, instead of playing better players, hurt the team. A lot.

And hey, you know how I can tell the team was brought down? Because for 3 years they've been embarrassed in the post season as pretenders by the contenders.

The likes of Brenden Morrow and Jamie Langenbrunner getting bottom line minutes had a very small impact on this team. They were not the reason the team failed. It was because the core players didn't step up once again.

The primary scoring had no secondary scoring. The secondary scoring would have been Morrow and Langenbrunner, or Tarasenko, or whoever.

Except Paajarvi and Lindstrom have shown time and time again that they actually can't play.

********. For starters, they can play. You can look at their records in other leagues for verification of that. And if Paajarvi can't prove that he can play on a line with Reaves and Lapierre, well then ****, no one could prove that.

Your obsession with them is laughable.

Your mancrush on a Hitchcock is creepy.

This is what Hitchcock is. We knew that when we got him. Very limited shelf-life, plays favoirtes with ****** players. Columbus, Philadephia and Dallas fans will tell you that exact same thing.

I feel like I'm on the Titanic, shouting that there's an iceberg, and everyone's simply shrugging and saying that the iceberg is right for playing Steve Ott on our first line.

 

[KirkOut]

This is getting absurd. Ott might be overpaid by a million, but he is clearly a better hockey player than Paajarvi or Lindstrom. Paajarvi has gotten plenty of chances here and has looked completely underwhelming in pretty much all of them. Lindstrom lit up the Swedish league - cool. That league is several pegs below the NHL. Give it up

 

[uncommonsense52]

This is getting absurd. Ott might be overpaid by a million, but he is clearly a better hockey player than Paajarvi or Lindstrom. Paajarvi has gotten plenty of chances here and has looked completely underwhelming in pretty much all of them. Lindstrom lit up the Swedish league - cool. That league is several pegs below the NHL. Give it up

I'm not going to give it up because I'm not wrong. I have statistics behind me that show that Paajarvi hasn't been given a fair shake, and is a good player. Lindstrom, I don't defend him as hard, but he's better than Ott.

I've been saying it since the beginning of this season: Steve Ott is the worst player to ever wear a Blues' sweater.

And yeah, I saw Daniel Corso, Christian Backman, Eric Boguniecki, Petr Sejna, and a lot of other guys.

<------- Been here since 2003. Been a Blues fan longer. I'm sure most of you have been a fan that long too. I'm just saying, I've seent his team through the highs and lows, and Steve Ott on this team disgusts me.

He's got very very poor regular stats, never scoring a goal in a Blues jersey. He's got astronomically bad advanced stats going back 5 years. He's slow. He's got no hockey IQ. I've seen him have 4 or 5 glorious chances this season that most players could bury and he hasn't. I've seen him play with just about every player on this team as Hitchcock tries to get him going, as if he's some sort of good player.

Ott is at his best when he agitates, goons, and thugs. The best thing I've ever seen Ott do in his career is take a run at a rookie Alex Pietrangelo in like 2009. Went for the head, started a scrum, lead to the BLues killing off multiple penalties, Dallas won the game.

Steve Ott, at his best, is the kind of player who is cheap as **** and should be barred from the NHL. At his worst, he is what he is for us: ineffective despite the club trying desperately to make him worth something.

Ott sucks.

 

[BlueDream]

Not sure how you could prove that.

Look a few posts above at the European players Hitchcock plays. It can be proven quite easily, not hard at all...

The best teams in the league don't get bounced in the first round year after year. Or second round.

Still one of the best teams in the NHL.

I have no idea if Paajarvi is one of the best players on the team. He's never had a fair shake.

Cole's development was ruined by Hitchcock, who kept him in the pressbox for multiple seasons, ruining his growth form a player on track to be a top 4 D, to someone barely able to crack an NHL lineup.

Porter is most certainly a grinder, and not a skill player.

This year, yeah, it's Ott. And it's been Porter a few times too.

Not really.

Ott has no versatility. He was on a scoring line in Buffalo. Buffalo sucks. But now, all of a sudden, since the godawful Sabres put him on a scoring line, he's apparently able to play on a scoring line. That's why he's scored a total of none times in a Blues uniform.

Ott sucks.

Paajarvi is a highly touted, unknown prospect, whose potential is being ruined, whether or not it could have been fully realized.

Ott brings a lot more to the game then Paajarvi since he has actually been able to crack the lineup of every team he's been on.

Paajarvi sucks.

Every team has grinders. I get that. I don't need it through my head, it's already there, thank you. They get a line. It's called a grinding line. It plays 7-12 minutes a night typically, and those players are obviously never promoted above it.

We have 4 grinders. We need 3. We're throwing grinders into places they don't need to be.

You want to know what the best grinding line this team has seen in years was? McCromSteen. McClement, Crombeen, Steen.

Instead of pushing borderline skill onto a skill line, we pushed borderline grinding onto a grinding line. The result was a line that was defensively responsible, but also could occasionally chip in a goal, or otherwise positively contribute in the play.

And our current grinding line of Lapierre, Reaves, Whoever can do that. And that's great. I'm happy for that.

It's better for skill to seep down the line-up than uselessness seep up.

It's called extra forwards. Every team will have at least 4 grinders...

Langenbrunner packed up his bags and threw a hissy fit in the post season when he wasn't played, meanwhile Morrow was in and out of the line-up supplanting Tarasenko in the post season.

Their presence, instead of playing better players, hurt the team. A lot.

And hey, you know how I can tell the team was brought down? Because for 3 years they've been embarrassed in the post season as pretenders by the contenders.

I'm pretty sure that was Arnott who threw the hissy fit. Also Morrow never supplanted Tarasenko in the lineup...

Yeah them losing in the playoffs had very little to do with Brenden Morrow and Jamie Langenbrunner. You can't possibly blame the losses on them. It had more to do with the top players not playing well enough.

********. For starters, they can play. You can look at their records in other leagues for verification of that. And if Paajarvi can't prove that he can play on a line with Reaves and Lapierre, well then ****, no one could prove that.

Lol, other leagues. Exactly, so they can't play in the NHL. That's not a good argument.

Your mancrush on a Hitchcock is creepy.

This is what Hitchcock is. We knew that when we got him. Very limited shelf-life, plays favoirtes with ****** players. Columbus, Philadephia and Dallas fans will tell you that exact same thing.

I feel like I'm on the Titanic, shouting that there's an iceberg, and everyone's simply shrugging and saying that the iceberg is right for playing Steve Ott on our first line.

Because there are currently no better options to put in the top 9 with Jaden Schwartz out. You just fail to think about that and realize the situation.

Also I have a mancrush on Hitch just because I agree with him that Paajarvi is useless. Alright.

 

[KirkOut]

Paajarvi has 13 points in 65 games with the Blues. How has he not been given a fair shake? He just isn't good

 

[uncommonsense52]

Still one of the best teams in the NHL.

Regular season, sure. Playoffs? Not even a little bit.

Ott brings a lot more to the game then Paajarvi since he has actually been able to crack the lineup of every team he's been on.

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Argumentum ad Verecundiam

By saying that Paajarvi is bad because he's not in the lineup, you're using a logical fallacy, if not two. I pointed this out already.

"After this, therefore because of this" is what Post Hock Ergo Propter Hoc means. You're using the result, that Paajarvi is not in the lineup, to explain that he is not a good player.

There's no direct correlation between being in the line-up and being good. What if Wayne Gretzky were scratched? Would that mean he was no good?

Correlation and causation are getting mixed here.

But then the logical follow up is to say, "he's not in the lineup because Hitchcock can just tell that he isn't good, okay?" And that's the second fallacy. Argumentum ad Verecundiam. Or "argument from authority."

Basically, just because Hitchcock says it, doesn't mean it's automatically true.

Then I went on to quote Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, replacing Hitchcock's name for Caesar's when someone in the play proudly exclaims that, "Caesar doth not wrong, nor without cause."

Basically, telling me that Paajarvi is bad because he's not in the line-up is logically fallacious, and it doesn't convince me. And it's also just flat wrong.

Paajarvi sucks.

Ott sucks.

It's called extra forwards. Every team will have at least 4 grinders...

yes, but most teams won't try putting them in the line-up at the same time, or try to boost some ****** grinder's stats by putting him on the best line the team has.

3 grinders per game, cool. 4 grinders per game, not cool. 1 grinder on Tarasenko's line? Super not cool.

I'm pretty sure that was Arnott who threw the hissy fit. Also Morrow never supplanted Tarasenko in the lineup...

You got me there. It was Arnott, not Langenbrunner. All these useless Dallas retreads start running together in my mind because they're, well, useless and retreads.

Here by some twisted sense of nepotism.

Yeah them losing in the playoffs had very little to do with Brenden Morrow and Jamie Langenbrunner. You can't possibly blame the losses on them. It had more to do with the top players not playing well enough.

It had everything to do with a coach not adjusting his tactics to the trial at hand. And that's what my point is. Morrow, Langenbrunner, Arnott, and the rest are all arguments against Hitchcock. The fact that they're elevnty billion years old and can't keep up isn't their fault really. It's the fault of management and coaching for having the really really dumb idea of playing them in an NHL that's never been faster and more geared towards young, east/west play.

Lol, other leagues. Exactly, so they can't play in the NHL. That's not a good argument.

It's better than your supporting evidence of logical fallacies and just saying the equivalent of "lolno."

Because there are currently no better options to put in the top 9 with Jaden Schwartz out. You just fail to think about that and realize the situation.

Paajarvi's skillset means he is supposed to be a top 9 player. Maybe not the best one ever, but his skill set means he'd be bale to fit in there.

Steve Ott's "skillset" doesn't say the same thing.

You're telling a baker to weld auto parts, instead of letting the guy who's just kind of good at welding do it. So we get a pie instead of brake discs.

Also I have a mancrush on Hitch just because I agree with him that Paajarvi is useless. Alright.

You both use faulty reasoning to come to that conclusion, and it's ruining good players. Cole, Paajarvi, Lindstrom. hell, I'm still mad we cut Mueller over Steve ****ing Ott.

If Brad Winchester were still here, he'd probably be playing first line minutes too. That's exactly the kind of player that Hitchcock loves. And it was exactly one of the big reasons people were getting on Andy Murray years ago.

 

[uncommonsense52]

Paajarvi has 13 points in 65 games with the Blues. How has he not been given a fair shake? He just isn't good

Because of his quality of team mates. Which is actually a statistic.

Paajarvi consistently is put with the worst team mates on the team.

 

[BlueDream]

Yeah keep obsessing over crappy players.

I sure am glad Steve Ott is in the lineup over Magnus.

 

[uncommonsense52]

Yeah keep obsessing over crappy players.

I sure am glad Steve Ott is in the lineup over Magnus.

So... when we get bounced by LA or Chicago again this post season because Hitchcock thinks Ott is one of our best players again... do I get to gloat then, or is that tacky?

 

[KirkOut]

So... when we get bounced by LA or Chicago again this post season because Hitchcock thinks Ott is one of our best players again... do I get to gloat then, or is that tacky?

Are you insinuating that the difference between losing to Chi and beating them is having Paajarvi in the lineup over Ott?

 

[Dbrownss]

Pääjärvi has had quality linemates but he's demoted from them. There is a reason for that.

There is a reason why he doesn't get dressed out of practice. He's just not that good.

If winning games comes down to Pääjärvi in over ott. Well we have bigger problems with 9 other guys not performing up front.

Pääjärvi has had his chances. He's just not that good

 

[Falco Lombardi]

The game against LA here the other night I'm finding much more hilarious after this thread.

Paajarvi starts the game with Lehterasanko. He is gifted a goal when Quick goes to play the puck behind the net, it takes a weird carom off the glass and Paajarvi misses a wide open net. It was the last of the scoring chances that line had in the first half of the game.

Midway through the second, down 2-0 with very little happening offensively, Hitchcock swaps Paajarvi and Ott. On what might have been their first shift together and definitely no later than their second, Ott makes a perfect pass to a wide open Tarasenko, who promptly buries it to turn the game around.

If somebody wanted to play Paajarvi on the third line over Porter with Ott on the 4th line, I'm not opposed to it(though I'd play Jaskin and Lindstrom first; seen more from both of them) but there's nothing to suggest Paajarvi should be playing over Ott.

Paajarvi is on an nhl roster for two reasons:

1. Somebody screwed up and took him in the first round and had to justify it.
2. A second somebody traded away a somewhat significant name as a cap dump and got Paajarvi in the process.

In short, I'd rather have Ott on the 4th line and there's at least 10 forwards better suited to play in the top 9.

 

[uncommonsense52]

Are you insinuating that the difference between losing to Chi and beating them is having Paajarvi in the lineup over Ott?

No. I'm insinuating that we have an idiotic coach who makes decisions LIKE putting Ott on a scoring line over Paajarvi.

We'll get bounced because after a couple games, LA and Chicago will find a weakness in our strategy. Hitchcock will absolutely not alter his game plan. He'll probably just fold his arms and whine "200 foot game" and "buy in" about a thousand times.

Win or lose, the regular season is when Chicago and LA are taking notes on our style. Because we're likely not to change our tactics too much before the post season. That's why, even if we won both games against LA, we'll ultimately lose.

We've shown the other teams the only hand our coach knows how to make. There's a flush there on the table, but Hitchcock is still looking for a pair of 2's.

 

[uncommonsense52]

The game against LA here the other night I'm finding much more hilarious after this thread.

Paajarvi starts the game with Lehterasanko. He is gifted a goal when Quick goes to play the puck behind the net, it takes a weird carom off the glass and Paajarvi misses a wide open net. It was the last of the scoring chances that line had in the first half of the game.

Midway through the second, down 2-0 with very little happening offensively, Hitchcock swaps Paajarvi and Ott. On what might have been their first shift together and definitely no later than their second, Ott makes a perfect pass to a wide open Tarasenko, who promptly buries it to turn the game around.

If somebody wanted to play Paajarvi on the third line over Porter with Ott on the 4th line, I'm not opposed to it(though I'd play Jaskin and Lindstrom first; seen more from both of them) but there's nothing to suggest Paajarvi should be playing over Ott.

Paajarvi is on an nhl roster for two reasons:

1. Somebody screwed up and took him in the first round and had to justify it.
2. A second somebody traded away a somewhat significant name as a cap dump and got Paajarvi in the process.

In short, I'd rather have Ott on the 4th line and there's at least 10 forwards better suited to play in the top 9.

Paajarvi actually generates a scoring chance. Rather than asking Tarasenko and Lehtera to do the heavy lifting on the line, Paajarvi comes in and tries to also contribute.

Ott makes an obvious parallel pass to a very open Tarasenko, who does what he does and scores.

You see Paajarvi miss and Ott get an assist. I see Paajarvi create his own chance and Ott simply exploit being on a line with Tarasenko.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

It was a dump-in that took a funny bounce...I'd hardly call it creating a chance no more than I would say that Dwight King scored on a great shot from center ice.

Tarasenko scores the goal but he only does because Ott makes a great play first. How is that "exploiting" being a line with Tarasenko and why didn't Paajarvi then also exploit being on that line in the first half of the game where Tarasenko was held without a shot?

 

[uncommonsense52]

It was a dump-in that took a funny bounce...I'd hardly call it creating a chance no more than I would say that Dwight King scored on a great shot from center ice.

Tarasenko scores the goal but he only does because Ott makes a great play first. How is that "exploiting" being a line with Tarasenko and why didn't Paajarvi then also exploit being on that line in the first half of the game where Tarasenko was held without a shot?

Ott makes a pass I could make. Paajarvi gets down low in front of the net instinctually and almost scores a goal, something that is clearly beyond Ott's abilities.

 

[Dbrownss]

.........so Pääjärvi chasing the puck Is keen instincts? How about Ott's slick between the legs pass to Steen last year? He's had a few good feeds to people. We don't require to be a playmaker or goal scorer. He serves is roll crashing and banging, separating players from the puck and creating space for his linemates.

If Pääjärvi isn't scoring. He's not very effective.

 

[uncommonsense52]

Guys, this is day 2 of this debate.

How about we just leave it here:

I think Paajarvi is a good player.
I think Ott is the worst player in franchise history.
I think Hitchcock is past his sell-by date.
I have my reasons.
You have yours.

Or we can keep chasing each other in circles.

Agree to disagree?

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Paajarvi actually generates a scoring chance. Rather than asking Tarasenko and Lehtera to do the heavy lifting on the line, Paajarvi comes in and tries to also contribute.

Ott makes an obvious parallel pass to a very open Tarasenko, who does what he does and scores.

You see Paajarvi miss and Ott get an assist. I see Paajarvi create his own chance and Ott simply exploit being on a line with Tarasenko.

You're right about that. We're watching the game and seeing two different realities.

That doesn't actually seem all that unreasonable. What I'm baffled at is your interest in long argumentative posts restating the same opinion repeatedly. What's the motive for that? I thought you were pretty easily understood the first time.

EDIT:
Hadn't gotten to the post above yet in the thread when I wrote this. PLEASE YES, let's agree to disagree and stop restating the same argument over and over.

 

[LGB51]

If you mean the Blues' first goal, then sure, Ott makes a nice pass to Tarasenko. That assist is 17% of his production. And he still, as of yet, has no goals in a Blues jersey.

But hey, his 0.2 points per game, despite being given Power Play time, along with time with basically every single skill player on our team, totally defends the position that he should see more ice time with our best scorer.

That assist also drug him out of a minus rating, so good, not only does Tarasenko put the teams' position in the standings on his back, but also Steve Ott's +/- rating. Neat.

Meanwhile, Paajarvi should just put up or shut up. Being on a line with Raves and Lapierre once ever 3 games affords him oh-so-many chances.

I don't have an anti-Hitch Euro agenda. Hitch has an anti-Euro agenda. And the sooner Blues fans figure that out, the sooner we can bring in a coach who can actually take this team to the next level. Until then, we're not utilizing the ability the roster has, and we'll continue to be bounced by the contenders in the league come play off time.

Hitchcock is wayyyyy out to lunch on so many facets of this team. We win in spite of him, not because of him.

He called Steve Ott the best player ont he team in our series against Chicago for Christ's sakes!

Hitchcock was great for this team a few years ago, after Payne. I was pleasantly surprised in the players' response to him. But now, he's clearly out of ideas, and reverting to old, bad habits.

Paajarvi was touted in 2009 as one of the best prospects of that Draft. And you can tell me he busted, but that simply is absolutely not true. He got sent to Edmonton, the prospect graveyard, and then to us, where he was never given a chance to actually play the game.

Paajarvi doesn't have a high instinct with this team because he hasn't been given the chance to. We complain about line switching with Hitchcock from time to time, but if the fact that he's had different players on his line all year is being explained away for Stastny's lack of success... then how come we can't afford to give the same courtesy to Paajarvi when he hasn't had any players to play with because he doesn't play!

We give mulligans to Backes for not producing. We give mulligans to Stastny for not producing. To Oshie and Steen and Berglund and half the other repeat-losers on this team. But the young blood, the new talent, the guys who maybe could change things from our repeat pattern of failure? No chance given to them at all.

It's a trend of failure. And it's because of a lack coaching prowess.

I know, this is in the wrong thread. And I know, there are legions of Blues fans who have given up on Paajarvi. And just as many fans who will defend Hitchcock until we exit the playoffs in the first round until our Cup window closes.

I've seen a lot of losers come through St. Louis in my time as a fan. And more times than not, me calling them like I see them is accurate.

Hitchcock is no longer a winner here. Paajarvi could be one if given a chance. In my opinion, of course.

Disagree with me, fine. Call it hubris of me to say that, fine. Tell me I'm in the wrong thread, double fine.

But I don't have an anti-Hitch agenda, or a pro-European agenda.

I have a pro-St. Louis Blues agenda. And I've waited damn long for a team with as much ability as this to come around. And I'm not okay with squandering what we have. Which is what I see Hitchcock doing, and what I've been seeing him do.

It's easy, very easy, to just shrug your shoulders, say this is good enough, and comfort yourself with our record in the regular season right now. But if you're not seeing some fundamental flaws in our team, that Hitchock is exacerbating, then I can't help you because I keep pointing them out.

Skill wins Championships. Paajarvi has skill. We should be molding him into a player for this roster, not dismissing him to the press box or to a line where Steve Ott belongs. Speaking of which...

Skill wins Championships. Steve Ott has no skill. We should be dismissing him to the pressbox or to a line where he belongs, not playing him with skill players in some misguided effort to validate our preconceived notions about how good it is to have some intangible ideals like tenacity or toughness or any other stupid non-existent, immeasurable reason why we're going to keep skill players off the roster.

Ott is being shuffled around the line-up because Hitchcock is desperate to validate his need to be in the line-up. Armstrong is letting Hitch do this because Armstrong is desperate to validate giving Ott as much money as he did in the off-season, when it was a knee-jerk reaction and the obvious wrong one. The Blues PR people are desperate to make Ott look good however they can, which is why, from the stars of the game, to Darren Pang, you'll hear them praise Ott, and never come down on him. And they're desperate to do that because their boss told them to.

And I'm tired of that. I don't care if you made a bad signing. I don't care for your desperate needs to validate ****** players. I just want a God damn Championship. To hell with my pride, your pride, and anyone's pride. If it means sitting $3 million in the press box and giving that European kid some ice time, then do it.

Because skill wins. Not body checks. This organization would have 20 Stanley Cups if that hard-hitting, grinding, mucking, low-skill, high-intensity, "put the Check back in the Checkerdome", "Twist and Chase", "Blues Hockey" was a winning formula.

But it's not. Datsyuk and Zetterberg are the blueprint for a Championship. Crosby and Malkin are. Toews and Kane are.

I'm tired of the futility, and I'm tired of obviously bad decision making.

Tired enough to piss and moan aimlessly for this long on a message board.

Read the whole thing, I'm tired now.

 

[Edgar Carrow]

Guys, this is day 2 of this debate.

How about we just leave it here:

I think Paajarvi is a good player.
I think Ott is the worst player in franchise history.
I think Hitchcock is past his sell-by date.
I have my reasons.
You have yours.

Or we can keep chasing each other in circles.

Agree to disagree?

You mentioned that you don't believe that Paajarvi has been given a proper chance to prove himself. What do you consider a proper chance? Do you think he should be playing on the STL line while Schwartz is out, should he replace Ott on the 4th line, or something else? What lines would you ice and how much time-on-ice would Paajarvi need for you to say he was given a proper chance?

 

[BlueDream]

So... when we get bounced by LA or Chicago again this post season because Hitchcock thinks Ott is one of our best players again... do I get to gloat then, or is that tacky?

No because Ott was good against Chicago.

 

[Vladys Gumption]

Guys this thread is about Schwartz's injury. If you want to discuss Paajarvi and others that is fine, but please do so in the season discussion thread from here on out.

 

[Kardi]

^honestly, I was looking for some info on his injury and all I see is a debate about other players -_-'


and nothing on Elliot being close to returning either (til now)