Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:Troy Brouwer gets a 1 year deal with the Florida Panthers.

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:As I sit here drinking my morning coffee and thinking hockey, I was thinking that I can't recall a time when the Blues as an organization has been so balanced. Between the stud prospects and the big clubs on ice talent.

But, my biggest concern going into next year, even more so than Allen is if Mike Yeo is the coach to get the most out of this team and take them to the parade. I'm skeptical. What say ye? What's your confidence level in Yeo?

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:As I sit here drinking my morning coffee and thinking hockey, I was thinking that I can't recall a time when the Blues as an organization has been so balanced. Between the stud prospects and the big clubs on ice talent.

But, my biggest concern going into next year, even more so than Allen is if Mike Yeo is the coach to get the most out of this team and take them to the parade. I'm skeptical. What say ye? What's your confidence level in Yeo?

usmcaaron wrote:Blake Wheeler extended w/ WPG.

5yr. $41.25 mil ($8.25/yr)

usmcaaron wrote:Blake Wheeler extended w/ WPG.

5yr. $41.25 mil ($8.25/yr)

Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:As I sit here drinking my morning coffee and thinking hockey, I was thinking that I can't recall a time when the Blues as an organization has been so balanced. Between the stud prospects and the big clubs on ice talent.

But, my biggest concern going into next year, even more so than Allen is if Mike Yeo is the coach to get the most out of this team and take them to the parade. I'm skeptical. What say ye? What's your confidence level in Yeo?

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:55 am I'm undecided on Yeo. I was not thrilled with his hiring, but everyone deserves a chance. Nothing I've seen yet, makes me think he's anymore than an average coach. That said, players can make an average coach look great, and a very good coach look average. See Quenneville in Chicago. Joel always was a solid coach, but it took being given the great talent base in Chicago, for him to win Cups.

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:55 am I'm undecided on Yeo. I was not thrilled with his hiring, but everyone deserves a chance. Nothing I've seen yet, makes me think he's anymore than an average coach. That said, players can make an average coach look great, and a very good coach look average. See Quenneville in Chicago. Joel always was a solid coach, but it took being given the great talent base in Chicago, for him to win Cups.

NHLTIM wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 11:38 am Good deal for both teams...Suzuki was a guy that I would have liked to see the Blues trade up for in 2017 and he definitely fills a need for the Habs. Vegas gets exactly what they want in Patches, hopefully they can get him signed long term. Always love deals where both teams benefit.

BillP. wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:29 am

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:55 am I'm undecided on Yeo. I was not thrilled with his hiring, but everyone deserves a chance. Nothing I've seen yet, makes me think he's anymore than an average coach. That said, players can make an average coach look great, and a very good coach look average. See Quenneville in Chicago. Joel always was a solid coach, but it took being given the great talent base in Chicago, for him to win Cups.

Joel did work miracles when he took over for Keenan. Team was a mess that year. The Blues were like 7 minutes away from winning the opening 2 games against the Red Wings in Rd 1 and then I believe it was Shawn Burr who scored on a wrister from his off wing that tied up the game 1-1 and the Blues went on to lose the series in 6. That was when Bowman had the brilliant idea to start the series with Fedorov on defense. Bowman trashed that idea after the first 2 games and then Detroit went on to win the Cup that year.

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:57 pm

BillP. wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:29 am

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:55 am I'm undecided on Yeo. I was not thrilled with his hiring, but everyone deserves a chance. Nothing I've seen yet, makes me think he's anymore than an average coach. That said, players can make an average coach look great, and a very good coach look average. See Quenneville in Chicago. Joel always was a solid coach, but it took being given the great talent base in Chicago, for him to win Cups.

Joel did work miracles when he took over for Keenan. Team was a mess that year. The Blues were like 7 minutes away from winning the opening 2 games against the Red Wings in Rd 1 and then I believe it was Shawn Burr who scored on a wrister from his off wing that tied up the game 1-1 and the Blues went on to lose the series in 6. That was when Bowman had the brilliant idea to start the series with Fedorov on defense. Bowman trashed that idea after the first 2 games and then Detroit went on to win the Cup that year.

Being 3 days older than moses, my memory is shaky, but to me it's debateable whether Q worked miracles, or, if as we've seen with many teams after a coaching change, the players were so thrilled to have an end to the Keenan/Hull soap opera, that they played over their heads. Thr funny thimg about Q, was that many of the complaints leveled against Hitch, were the same as the ones thrown at Q in his time here. (Too defensive, preferred grinders to scorers, preferred veterans over rookies, etc). I liked Q,and thimk he's a good coach. But I think half the nhl coaches could have wom those Cups with Chicago.

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:48 pm

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:57 pm

BillP. wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:29 am

Joel did work miracles when he took over for Keenan. Team was a mess that year. The Blues were like 7 minutes away from winning the opening 2 games against the Red Wings in Rd 1 and then I believe it was Shawn Burr who scored on a wrister from his off wing that tied up the game 1-1 and the Blues went on to lose the series in 6. That was when Bowman had the brilliant idea to start the series with Fedorov on defense. Bowman trashed that idea after the first 2 games and then Detroit went on to win the Cup that year.

Being 3 days older than moses, my memory is shaky, but to me it's debateable whether Q worked miracles, or, if as we've seen with many teams after a coaching change, the players were so thrilled to have an end to the Keenan/Hull soap opera, that they played over their heads. Thr funny thimg about Q, was that many of the complaints leveled against Hitch, were the same as the ones thrown at Q in his time here. (Too defensive, preferred grinders to scorers, preferred veterans over rookies, etc). I liked Q,and thimk he's a good coach. But I think half the nhl coaches could have wom those Cups with Chicago.

I may be WAY off on this, but I thought Quenneville was credited with 'breaking' the trap that had dominated the NHL since New Jersey re-invented it in their cup-competing years, with his concept of 'puck support,' which, as I understand it, was all about quick transitions from defense to offense by your blueliners. by having defensemen who could make good stretch passes, bouncing passes off the boards, etc, as an outlet when the opposing 'trap' started to close around your initial puck-carrier when he entered the neutral zone. When the opposing forwards clogging up the NZ started to drift towards the guy with the puck, he'd wait until they were committed and then drop the puck back to a defensemen who could quickly shoot a pass thorough a now-open area of the ice, and start the breakout. When those defensemen included the likes of Chris Pronger and Al MacInnis, you've SUBSTANTIALLY opened up your game. Good-but-not-great forwards could have more scoring opportunities by playing the system, even if their one-on-one skills couldn't have beaten the opposing D on their own.

At least, that's how I understood it. Like I said, I may be completely off on all of that.

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:31 pm

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:48 pm

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 12:57 pm

Being 3 days older than moses, my memory is shaky, but to me it's debateable whether Q worked miracles, or, if as we've seen with many teams after a coaching change, the players were so thrilled to have an end to the Keenan/Hull soap opera, that they played over their heads. Thr funny thimg about Q, was that many of the complaints leveled against Hitch, were the same as the ones thrown at Q in his time here. (Too defensive, preferred grinders to scorers, preferred veterans over rookies, etc). I liked Q,and thimk he's a good coach. But I think half the nhl coaches could have wom those Cups with Chicago.

I may be WAY off on this, but I thought Quenneville was credited with 'breaking' the trap that had dominated the NHL since New Jersey re-invented it in their cup-competing years, with his concept of 'puck support,' which, as I understand it, was all about quick transitions from defense to offense by your blueliners. by having defensemen who could make good stretch passes, bouncing passes off the boards, etc, as an outlet when the opposing 'trap' started to close around your initial puck-carrier when he entered the neutral zone. When the opposing forwards clogging up the NZ started to drift towards the guy with the puck, he'd wait until they were committed and then drop the puck back to a defensemen who could quickly shoot a pass thorough a now-open area of the ice, and start the breakout. When those defensemen included the likes of Chris Pronger and Al MacInnis, you've SUBSTANTIALLY opened up your game. Good-but-not-great forwards could have more scoring opportunities by playing the system, even if their one-on-one skills couldn't have beaten the opposing D on their own.

At least, that's how I understood it. Like I said, I may be completely off on all of that.

Sounds pretty close to what I remember.

blueslifer wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:58 pm

barnburner wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 3:31 pm

RAFritchey wrote: Mon Sep 10, 2018 1:48 pm

I may be WAY off on this, but I thought Quenneville was credited with 'breaking' the trap that had dominated the NHL since New Jersey re-invented it in their cup-competing years, with his concept of 'puck support,' which, as I understand it, was all about quick transitions from defense to offense by your blueliners. by having defensemen who could make good stretch passes, bouncing passes off the boards, etc, as an outlet when the opposing 'trap' started to close around your initial puck-carrier when he entered the neutral zone. When the opposing forwards clogging up the NZ started to drift towards the guy with the puck, he'd wait until they were committed and then drop the puck back to a defensemen who could quickly shoot a pass thorough a now-open area of the ice, and start the breakout. When those defensemen included the likes of Chris Pronger and Al MacInnis, you've SUBSTANTIALLY opened up your game. Good-but-not-great forwards could have more scoring opportunities by playing the system, even if their one-on-one skills couldn't have beaten the opposing D on their own.

At least, that's how I understood it. Like I said, I may be completely off on all of that.

Sounds pretty close to what I remember.

Same here, I think Q is a great systems coach. He relies on it to a fault, though, and doesn't necessarily adjust tactics when needed, like the physical style of play the Sharks beat the President's Trophy winning Blues team.