Your thoughts on the first month?

[Majorityof1]

I'm pretty surprised by the results. I guess people didn't think Backes and Brouwer were big losses?

I didn't think Brouwer was a big loss at all. Still don't. He is a 40 point guy with decent defense who takes dumb penalties. We got Perron who is....well read above.

The loss of Backes was big. I expected it to be big. But I expected other factors to offset it. I expected big strides from Fabbri and Parayko. I expected Jaskin to step up a bit. I expected a full season of 2014-15 Schwartz. I expected the coaching staff to implement a smarter gameplan. Despite all that stepping up, I still expected to fall short of last year. So I definitely valued Backes.

Nobody has really stepped up to make up for Backes loss. Coaches didn't really change much, or at least haven't figured out something that works. The chemistry and play styles aren't meshing now. So its ugly. At least Perron has made up for Brouwer (he's on pace for 42 points, Brouwer had 39).

 

[Celtic Note]

I'm pretty surprised by the results. I guess people didn't think Backes and Brouwer were big losses?

People vastly underestimate the value of leadership and defense.

 

[BlueDream]

Brouwer is not a big loss. Let's cut that **** once and for all.

Backes is, sure.

But if you honestly thought the Blues would be a .500 hockey team, then why are you not advocating the core be blown up? Seriously. If a core of Tarasenko, Schwartz, Fabbri, Stastny, Steen, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Parayko, Perron, Lehtera at their peak is a .500 hockey team, then why is Armstrong wasting his time instead of blowing this thing up? I mean if that's the case then we need to rebuild again if you truly think those guys are this bad. Or else your opinion doesn't make sense.

That group should be better. They should easily be a playoff team, and they're not right now. They're clearly under-performing.

 

[Celtic Note]

Brouwer is not a big loss. Let's cut that **** once and for all.

Backes is, sure.

But if you honestly thought the Blues would be a .500 hockey team, then why are you not advocating the core be blown up? Seriously. If a core of Tarasenko, Schwartz, Fabbri, Stastny, Steen, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Parayko, Perron, Lehtera at their peak is a .500 hockey team, then why is Armstrong wasting his time instead of blowing this thing up? I mean if that's the case then we need to rebuild again if you truly think those guys are this bad. Or else your opinion doesn't make sense.

That group should be better. They should easily be a playoff team, and they're not right now. They're clearly under-performing.

Brouwer was a loss. His leadership and defense did matter. Was he some great player? No, but he did work to reinforce resiliency and the coaches message. We obviously are neither resilient or playing Hitch style hockey. This is even more important now over last year, because everyone knows this is Hitch's last year. That sort of information isn't lost on the players. How many people are reinforcing those messages now?

The Blues are a playoff team. They have a wildcard spot and are 2 points out of being second in the division.

This rebuild talk is redicilous. Why would anyone recommend blowing up the core? That is a pretty over the top response to people that thought the team would be where it is at right now.

How is Perron part of the core? Does Lethera really deserve to be in there?

We also need to discuss our goaltending. Not having a tandem is hurting us right now. There is no one to fall back on when things are not going Allen's way. We have run a tandem for a long time now and it is going to take a while for mindset that developed as a result to change.

 

[warrior67]

The good news is that when comparing our goals for/goals against we are way higher in winning percentage than we should be. So I'm hoping for one of two outcomes after this start. The first is that we continue to struggle a little longer and then (maybe a coaching swap and/or trade) everything comes together and we finish the last half of the season super hot like the Penguins did last season. Or that we continue to drop enough out of the playoff race that we commit to tanking and trade our UFA's for picks and prospects and do a quick rearming of the roster in the off season. Come back next season with a stronger roster, and a stronger prospect pool.

 

[Majorityof1]

The good news is that when comparing our goals for/goals against we are way higher in winning percentage than we should be. So I'm hoping for one of two outcomes after this start. The first is that we continue to struggle a little longer and then (maybe a coaching swap and/or trade) everything comes together and we finish the last half of the season super hot like the Penguins did last season. Or that we continue to drop enough out of the playoff race that we commit to tanking and trade our UFA's for picks and prospects and do a quick rearming of the roster in the off season. Come back next season with a stronger roster, and a stronger prospect pool.

The GF and GA are actually disheartening to me. We have been lucky to get as many points as we have based on those numbers, and we still are a fringe playoff team in the standings. IF we had good GF/GA numbers and were losing, I'd take that as more positive.

The stat that can be viewed as hopeful is our PDO. PDO is save + shooting percentages. We are 27th. One prevailing theory is that PDO should not fluctuate much across teams and will regress to the mean (100) in the long run. So a team that is generating/suppressing shots/chances (high team Fenwick/Corsi), but not converting (low PDO) is having bad puck luck and due for a resurgence. We are 5th in Fenwick % and 7th in Corsi %. We are 27th in PDO. So if our shooters figure out how to find the back of the net and our goalies figure out how to keep the puck out a little more, we'll be good. According to the theory, it should happen eventually...unfortunately, I don't buy the theory and we might just be bad.

 

[bleedblue1223]

The GF and GA are actually disheartening to me. We have been lucky to get as many points as we have based on those numbers, and we still are a fringe playoff team in the standings. IF we had good GF/GA numbers and were losing, I'd take that as more positive.

The stat that can be viewed as hopeful is our PDO. PDO is save + shooting percentages. We are 27th. One prevailing theory is that PDO should not fluctuate much across teams and will regress to the mean (100) in the long run. So a team that is generating/suppressing shots/chances (high team Fenwick/Corsi), but not converting (low PDO) is having bad puck luck and due for a resurgence. We are 5th in Fenwick % and 7th in Corsi %. We are 27th in PDO. So if our shooters figure out how to find the back of the net and our goalies figure out how to keep the puck out a little more, we'll be good. According to the theory, it should happen eventually...unfortunately, I don't buy the theory and we might just be bad.

I'm split on the theory. I do believe we'll improve, but for different reasons than just reverting back to the mean. Too many believe everyone will just revert back to 100 PDO at some point, but that's not true, it's still the bell curve, where the middle group will be at 100, and at the opposite ends of the spectrum, you could see as much as 4 points off the mean. Our current PDO is a very sustainable number in itself, and that's troublesome.

The positives are our Corsi/Fenwick numbers indicate that our "puck luck" should eventually improve, and the hockey-based/eye-test indicates that there is a lot of room for improvement. Our PDO will improve as our players start to produce to their normal levels, but we are far enough into the season to reasonably project that we could just be having a down year, and many of our players are having down years.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Brouwer is not a big loss. Let's cut that **** once and for all.

Backes is, sure.

But if you honestly thought the Blues would be a .500 hockey team, then why are you not advocating the core be blown up? Seriously. If a core of Tarasenko, Schwartz, Fabbri, Stastny, Steen, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Parayko, Perron, Lehtera at their peak is a .500 hockey team, then why is Armstrong wasting his time instead of blowing this thing up? I mean if that's the case then we need to rebuild again if you truly think those guys are this bad. Or else your opinion doesn't make sense.

That group should be better. They should easily be a playoff team, and they're not right now. They're clearly under-performing.

The Blues need players like Brouwer and (moreso) Backes just like the talented Edmonton team needed those types of roles. You need different ingredients to make a team.

Right now the Blues' biggest problem is a lack of team identity. What are they trying to do when they have the puck? What is their go-to system when things aren't working. Part of that is immaturity and wanting to just zip to the post-season without putting in the work to get to that point. That will improve. But I still don't really know who you put out there when the team has to have a stop or has to have a goal. We don't even really see how to make this collection into 3 solid offensive lines.

 

[bleedblue1223]

For people who have stuck through the games longer than I have and more sober than I have, does anyone see a distinct change in the system, or are my eyes correct in that there really isn't any significant change and we have players trying to either do it themselves or still try and play a grinding system without having a grinding roster?

 

[Vladys Gumption]

For people who have stuck through the games longer than I have and more sober than I have, does anyone see a distinct change in the system, or are my eyes correct in that there really isn't any significant change and we have players trying to either do it themselves or still try and play a grinding system without having a grinding roster?

I've noticed some changes in the sense that the defense seems to be activating and pinching up more often in the offensive zone. But, the general offensive philosophy from the forwards has not really changed at all.

 

[Majorityof1]

The Blues need players like Brouwer and (moreso) Backes just like the talented Edmonton team needed those types of roles. You need different ingredients to make a team.

Right now the Blues' biggest problem is a lack of team identity. What are they trying to do when they have the puck? What is their go-to system when things aren't working. Part of that is immaturity and wanting to just zip to the post-season without putting in the work to get to that point. That will improve. But I still don't really know who you put out there when the team has to have a stop or has to have a goal. We don't even really see how to make this collection into 3 solid offensive lines.

Does Brouwer or McDavid help this team more? How about Ott or McDavid? Ott hits and has a ton of Hitch buy-in. McDavid is nothing like that type of player but I think he'd be a ton more help. That's an extreme example that production should trump type of player, but I hope illustrative. The problem is not that we don't have Brouwer, its that Hitch doesn't know how to coach a team that has a different skill-set. Brouwer's production is easily replaceable. Almost any other coach would be able to compensate for swapping Brouwer with Perron. You lose some physicality, but you gain some speed and skill. Overall its a wash. Hitch is at a loss as to how to use the speed and skill we gained.

As to not knowing who to put out there, I think it's obvious. If you need a stop, Stastny, Pietro and JBO are out. They are not perfect, but they are head and shoulders the best we have. If you need a goal, Tarasenko is out there with Schwartz/Fabbri and whatever center he has chemistry with at the moment. Again, he's not perfect, but he is the best we have by far. If you meant its not clear which lines we put out, then you are right. I think we should be double shifting and shuffling the lines a bit with the game on the line like that because the lines aren't balanced.

 

[Majorityof1]

I've noticed some changes in the sense that the defense seems to be activating and pinching up more often in the offensive zone. But, the general offensive philosophy from the forwards has not really changed at all.

I also don't think its consistent in its implementation. We'll activate quite a bit during one game, and it will work. But when things are going poorly or a mistake is made, we revert back to the old way. So we are doing half-measures at changing our system, and only implementing those half-measure half the time.

 

[bleedblue1223]

One aspect that I think we are seeing back fire on us from having Backes and to a lesser extent Brouwer leave is not having a top 9 line that can carry the defensive minutes. Backes' lines would have more defensive zone starts that offensive zone, and in some years, it was a very extreme split. This year, all of our top 9 has had a more balanced split.

Players who got sheltered in the past can no longer be sheltered. We no longer have a top 9 shutdown line that can drive the possession forward. Backes excelled at starting in the defensive end and ending in the offensive end.

 

[joshyhockey26]

The Blues need players like Brouwer and (moreso) Backes just like the talented Edmonton team needed those types of roles. You need different ingredients to make a team.

Right now the Blues' biggest problem is a lack of team identity. What are they trying to do when they have the puck? What is their go-to system when things aren't working. Part of that is immaturity and wanting to just zip to the post-season without putting in the work to get to that point. That will improve. But I still don't really know who you put out there when the team has to have a stop or has to have a goal. We don't even really see how to make this collection into 3 solid offensive lines.

The indentity is the main issue imo. The younger players don't exactly know how to fill their new roles currently. Which can be frustrating but it's a process. Along with the new roles I feel like this team just doesn't know how they want to play the actual game. I mean, they have less "sandpaper" sure but the speed we have gained has done very little to make its presence known. If that makes sense. The season is still early and adjustments can of course be made but currently I don't have a ton of confidence in this team to accomplish much outside of battling for a wild card spot.

 

[HolyJumpin]

We're getting outmuscled and a lot of these players aren't used to that happening. It'll change as the season goes on but right now we just need to figure out a way to command the center of the ice. We're stuck on the boards all game.

 

[Falco Lombardi]

Brouwer is not a big loss. Let's cut that **** once and for all.

Backes is, sure.

But if you honestly thought the Blues would be a .500 hockey team, then why are you not advocating the core be blown up? Seriously. If a core of Tarasenko, Schwartz, Fabbri, Stastny, Steen, Pietrangelo, Shattenkirk, Parayko, Perron, Lehtera at their peak is a .500 hockey team, then why is Armstrong wasting his time instead of blowing this thing up? I mean if that's the case then we need to rebuild again if you truly think those guys are this bad. Or else your opinion doesn't make sense.

That group should be better. They should easily be a playoff team, and they're not right now. They're clearly under-performing.

I would dump Perron and Lehtera and would have traded Shattenkirk.

I would argue you told the world you were rebuilding at least a little when you let Backes go. All offseason I was told I was crazy because I would have brought him back even at what Boston paid (though had Army gone a fifth year, I bet it would have been slightly cheaper). Well this is the result.

You have a young team that is struggling and one of the biggest factors is lack of leadership. This is what young teams do. If you really thought you were a contender, you don't let him go.

At this point, all you can do is wait for Pietrangelo and co to grow into the roles.

 

[The Note in MI]

We definitely have a different approach to the game, and I think it 100% involves more activity from the defense in transition and in the neutral zone, by closing that gap, as well as looking to stretch more. However we only have moments in the game where that happens. We typically revert back to the dump and chase that is more dump and more chase than puck retrieval because we don't have a big body clearing the puck free from the boards. It's particularly bad vs goalies that play the puck. Like Nashville and Rinne. We gave him the puck over and over and he moved it to a d who moved it out before we got halfway in the zone. Useless strategy and frustrating to watch no adjustment be made.

I think we can all agree this team is more than capable of whipping the puck around, skating more in the zone and creating high quality chances that aren't deflections and rebounds in the paint. Problem is this years execution of passing is horrific. Too much tension in everyone's game that comes with the rut we've been in.

I suspect, and always have, that we will come out of this, and perform as well as we have for the last 5-6 years. I don't believe personnel is the problem. I don't believe that it's leadership.

I think it's a transition of new coaching and system. I think we revert to comfort too often, and I also think we have less defensively responsible players that are inevitably exposing our goalies.

If Hitchcock isn't just blowing smoke up everyone's ass and the team really does seem to have made a turning point then I'm glad. I think it's inevitable that a team with this makeup clicks and starts dominating again. Just a matter of time. Luckily we haven't removed ourselves from playoff contention and have time to solidify a spot.

I don think hitch really ever has had an interview where he spoke like he did yesterday. He sounded really optimistic and less cryptic than usual. I have no reason not to trust what he said.

If we come out and lay an egg then I will have to contemplate my whole world view.

 

[Celtic Note]

One aspect that I think we are seeing back fire on us from having Backes and to a lesser extent Brouwer leave is not having a top 9 line that can carry the defensive minutes. Backes' lines would have more defensive zone starts that offensive zone, and in some years, it was a very extreme split. This year, all of our top 9 has had a more balanced split.

Players who got sheltered in the past can no longer be sheltered. We no longer have a top 9 shutdown line that can drive the possession forward. Backes excelled at starting in the defensive end and ending in the offensive end.

Exactly!

To answer you previous question, there are some really subtle changes to our game. It's basically what you have to expect with Hitch. He was never going to make drastic changes to his structure. The breakout is quicker but also more sloppy. Our play through the neutral zone is much the same and our offensive game is looser, but he hasn't developed a strategy for penetrating center ice. We are still running off the walls and when we do break away from them, our guys are vacating position to head to ice that is tightly covered.

But therein lies the problem. He hasn't adapted and the players are not buying into his approach. The reason I keep saying the leadership of Backes and Brouwer were underestimated is that those two pushed hard on our team to buy in. Look no further than their interviews as evidence. Both pushed Hitch's agenda at all times.

That is not true of a lot of our current leadership group. Stastny has gone against the grain many times in public, Steen is not inspirational to say the least, Petro is pretty supportive, but also timid. Shatty and Tarasenko are the least supportive of Hitch. I also never get the feeling that Schwartz is onboard the Hitch train, as he says against the grain stuff as well.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Exactly!

To answer you previous question, there are some really subtle changes to our game. It's basically what you have to expect with Hitch. He was never going to make drastic changes to his structure. The breakout is quicker but also more sloppy. Our play through the neutral zone is much the same and our offensive game is looser, but he hasn't developed a strategy for penetrating center ice. We are still running off the walls and when we do break away from them, our guys are vacating position to head to ice that is tightly covered.

But therein lies the problem. He hasn't adapted and the players are not buying into his approach. The reason I keep saying the leadership of Backes and Brouwer were underestimated is that those two pushed hard on our team to buy in. Look no further than their interviews as evidence. Both pushed Hitch's agenda at all times.

That is not true of a lot of our current leadership group. Stastny has gone against the grain many times in public, Steen is not inspirational to say the least, Petro is pretty supportive, but also timid. Shatty and Tarasenko are the least supportive of Hitch. I also never get the feeling that Schwartz is onboard the Hitch train, as he says against the grain stuff as well.

Very true, that's what I've picked up as well. I think many people underestimated the difficulty of Pietrangelo taking over the captaincy.

With Backes, he had a hothead at times, but he was someone that was very easy to follow into battle because he would be the first one in the battle. We don't have a player that fits that mold anymore. Pietrangelo has the poise of a great leader, so this isn't against him, but you need someone in the leadership group that will just fight and will the team to where it needs to go.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Does Brouwer or McDavid help this team more? How about Ott or McDavid? Ott hits and has a ton of Hitch buy-in. McDavid is nothing like that type of player but I think he'd be a ton more help. That's an extreme example that production should trump type of player, but I hope illustrative. The problem is not that we don't have Brouwer, its that Hitch doesn't know how to coach a team that has a different skill-set. Brouwer's production is easily replaceable. Almost any other coach would be able to compensate for swapping Brouwer with Perron. You lose some physicality, but you gain some speed and skill. Overall its a wash. Hitch is at a loss as to how to use the speed and skill we gained.

As to not knowing who to put out there, I think it's obvious. If you need a stop, Stastny, Pietro and JBO are out. They are not perfect, but they are head and shoulders the best we have. If you need a goal, Tarasenko is out there with Schwartz/Fabbri and whatever center he has chemistry with at the moment. Again, he's not perfect, but he is the best we have by far. If you meant its not clear which lines we put out, then you are right. I think we should be double shifting and shuffling the lines a bit with the game on the line like that because the lines aren't balanced.

You mentioned Stastny for defensive situations. Who is Stastny's line (as for who you put out for stops)? I thought they tried him with Tarasenko recently, who is not who I would want to put out for a key defensive stop normally. The lines don't have clear roles, or even consistent make-up.

The Ott vs McDavid contrast doesn't strike me as particularly helpful. I would rather have a line-up with 2 McDavids and 1 Backes than with 3 McDavids and 0 Backes. I think they'd win more games in the NHL. Its kind of a ridiculous way to express that, but the point is that the team lacks an identity and unless they find a new one with a new style of play, they are missing some of the ingredients needed to be successful at the "old" style from last year.

 

[2 Minute Minor]

I also don't think its consistent in its implementation. We'll activate quite a bit during one game, and it will work. But when things are going poorly or a mistake is made, we revert back to the old way. So we are doing half-measures at changing our system, and only implementing those half-measure half the time.

I feel Hitchcock should move on. I don't really see a path forward where he gets this team really clicking on all cylinders with a confident style that can succeed in the post-season. But I've been wrong about Hitchcock before.

I am not sure Yeo is in such a great situation, being as he is here and a part of what is going on now...but without the authority to make the changes that need to be made. Yet he can be tainted with the culture.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

I'm not surprised they are where they are right now. We lost some physicality, we lost Jake Allen's push to focus on the puck.

Oh yeah, and our two head coach idea is going great.....Nope, the players are getting ripped on (most likely) by Hitch in the locker room, and they don't have Backes and Brewer there to tell them to stop whining about it and play their parts.

Of course, this is all just my opinion...

 

[jura]

Bort is our +? MINUS leader

Pie -11

big picture
http://i.imgur.com/VxqHt1M.jpg

 

[2 Minute Minor]

Bort is our +? MINUS leader

Pie -11

big picture
http://i.imgur.com/VxqHt1M.jpg

I guess this isn't Pietro's Norris year.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Plus/Minus is one of the worst stats out there. There probably isn't a player on this team that has been more consistently excellent at ES this year than Pietrangelo.