If you look at Blues history they are pretty good in the 1st round with about a .500 record. It's the 2nd round where they are awful at and only have a 2-13 record! In the 3rd round it's 0-2.

Historically they have done very bad in the 2nd round yet now we can't even get past the 1st round! With this same or even similar core of players and Hitch behind the bench there is no reason for this to change!

What does their historical record (outside about the last four seasons) have to do with their current team?

I will go ahead and answer that for you. Absolutely nothing.

Blues history has nothing to do with the Hitchcock era Blues just as the Keenan or Q era did. Zero percent factor.

Man in the box wrote:Blues history has nothing to do with the Hitchcock era Blues just as the Keenan or Q era did. Zero percent factor.

Then the Hitchcock era is a lot worse because he can't even get the team into the 2nd round much less win a single 2nd round game!

Last time the Blues won a 2nd round game was May 7th, 2002!

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

Man in the box wrote:Blues history has nothing to do with the Hitchcock era Blues just as the Keenan or Q era did. Zero percent factor.

Then the Hitchcock era is a lot worse because he can't even get the team into the 2nd round much less win a single 2nd round game!

Last time the Blues won a 2nd round game was May 7th, 2002!

Of those three, yeah. With the postseason as your barometer you can't argue that. It still has absolutely nothing to do with them being far from contending. In fact, they're not all that far. This is still a very talented team. It won't be overhauled, but some familiar faces will be moved.

The Blackhawks went 1997-2008 winning only three playoff games, and clearly none in the second round. No way where they close.

warpig2003 wrote:The Blackhawks went 1997-2008 winning only three playoff games, and clearly none in the second round. No way where they close.

But they got Kane and Toews in the late 2000s and also got lucky with a Stanley Cup goalie. You know without Kane and Toews the Hawks would be struggling to make the playoffs!

Just think, the Blues could have had Toews instead of useless EJ!

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

warpig2003 wrote:The Blackhawks went 1997-2008 winning only three playoff games, and clearly none in the second round. No way where they close.

But they got Kane and Toews in the late 2000s and also got lucky with a Stanley Cup goalie. You know without Kane and Toews the Hawks would be struggling to make the playoffs!

Just think, the Blues could have had Toews instead of useless EJ!

INB4 "EJ was the consensus #1" comments

Scoring has ALWAYS been the biggest problem for the Blues in the playoffs! They should've gotten Toews which would've given them clutch playoff scoring for over a DECADE!

There were fewer automobile deaths in 1907 than there were in 2007.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Scoring has ALWAYS been the biggest problem for the Blues in the playoffs! They should've gotten Toews which would've given them clutch playoff scoring for over a DECADE!

OK. So go talk to the Columbus management group. They're the one's that picked EJ.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:If you look at Blues history they are pretty good in the 1st round with about a .500 record. It's the 2nd round where they are awful at and only have a 2-13 record! In the 3rd round it's 0-2.

Historically they have done very bad in the 2nd round yet now we can't even get past the 1st round! With this same or even similar core of players and Hitch behind the bench there is no reason for this to change!

There is a ton of "dumb" in this post. Praise Jesus, we might be starting our slide into becoming as bad as Blues Talk!


ps - by the way, Jesus, I freely admit that I kind of like to pick on you because of your stupid religious bullshit on both forums. So don't take it personally......but expect more of it!

Ill tell you why they are far away from competing....BECAUSE THEY LOST IN THE 1ST ROUND AGAIN.

CaptSMRT wrote:Ill tell you why they are far away from competing....BECAUSE THEY LOST IN THE 1ST ROUND AGAIN.

That too!

I'm just saying statistically it's a lot harder to win the 2nd round than the 1st round and the Blues can't even get out of the 1st round! So in that sense they are a LONG way off from winning the Cup!

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:Ill tell you why they are far away from competing....BECAUSE THEY LOST IN THE 1ST ROUND AGAIN.

That too!

I'm just saying statistically it's a lot harder to win the 2nd round than the 1st round and the Blues can't even get out of the 1st round! So in that sense they are a LONG way off from winning the Cup!

You are providing no insight or anything new.

It is harder to win a second round than first? Really?!?! Probably because the competition is tougher.

Saying the Blues are a long way from winning the cup due to their historic records is one of the worst arguments, ever, that I have read on a Blues board.

The Kings missed the playoffs six seasons in a row. The next two years they were bounced out of the first round in six games each. The following year (2012) they won the cup.

The Panthers won the cup the first year they made the playoffs.

The Lightning missed the playoffs for six seasons, and then won the cup the second year after that, after only winning 7 playoff games in their history.

I already explained the Blackhawks.

Next season is a totally different season. Your reasoning is absurd.

T.C. wrote:There were fewer automobile deaths in 1907 than there were in 2007.

And there were even fewer in 1807. But there were more Bubonic Plague deaths back then.

warpig2003 wrote:The Panthers won the cup the first year they made the playoffs.

RATTRICK!!