Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

4
Hitch was great for this team at the time of his hiring, but obviously had lost the room. As the roster flushed out size for skill, Hitch's system wasn't a great match anymore. Yeo has been willing to let them just play more, and the results have spoken for themselves. Now just get the special teams straightened out.
...but whatever, the Blues won the Cup!!!!!

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

5
Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:It’s not even night and day this year. It happened the day Yeo took over. Totally different team.

We are lucky to have him. But I’m 3-5 years I’m sure I’ll start a fire Yeo thread.
With Berube signed on as "coach in waiting?"

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

7
Ozzies09tc wrote:One knows his way around a hockey team the other knows his way around a bakery
After he's fired by The Stars, Hitch could have a 2nd career (in TV commercials)as "The Pillsbury Dough Boy". "Have another doughnut!" :lol: He also could play The Michelin Man on his days off! :mrgreen:

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

9
Dave's a mess wrote:Hitch was great for this team at the time of his hiring, but obviously had lost the room. As the roster flushed out size for skill, Hitch's system wasn't a great match anymore. Yeo has been willing to let them just play more, and the results have spoken for themselves. Now just get the special teams straightened out.
Agree. Hitch had some good years here. Getting to the WCF, beating the Hawks, that was real fun for this Blues fan.

Looking forward to what the future holds with Yeo and all these kids.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

10
BlueinNy wrote:This team is night and day better this year, defenseman scoring goals every game makes them very hard to beat. Somewhere Hitchcock is saying under his breath "fuck me".
Team is night and day better because we had an Expansion draft and Hextall got caught in a brain lapse. Otherwise this team would still have Lehtera & Perron on its roster. Blues had a very fortuitous off season and that's the biggest reason for the improved team this year. That and the emergence of Dunn.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

12
BillP wrote:
BlueinNy wrote:This team is night and day better this year, defenseman scoring goals every game makes them very hard to beat. Somewhere Hitchcock is saying under his breath "fuck me".
Team is night and day better because we had an Expansion draft and Hextall got caught in a brain lapse. Otherwise this team would still have Lehtera & Perron on its roster. Blues had a very fortuitous off season and that's the biggest reason for the improved team this year. That and the emergence of Dunn.
Yeah, the Blues got a bit lucky there.

Hitchcock would pancake Yeo in a real fight.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

13
BillP wrote:
BlueinNy wrote:This team is night and day better this year, defenseman scoring goals every game makes them very hard to beat. Somewhere Hitchcock is saying under his breath "fuck me".
Team is night and day better because we had an Expansion draft and Hextall got caught in a brain lapse. Otherwise this team would still have Lehtera & Perron on its roster. Blues had a very fortuitous off season and that's the biggest reason for the improved team this year. That and the emergence of Dunn.
Man, isn't that the truth. After watching Schenn play night in and night out, I have no idea how Hextall would trade a player with that skill set, that contract, at that age. He is the type of player you build around, not trade for picks. Army really hit a home run this offseason.
KA-KAW!

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

15
As much as I don't think you can attribute the Blues' success so far to just one thing, I think the change in coaching philosophies has to be a part of it.

Hitch wasn't as offense-averse as many people think, but I don't think he'd have the entire defense, and every defenseman, this active in the offesive zone. I think every single one of our defensemen, with the possible exception of Parayko, is on a pace to set career highs in goals and/or points.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

16
RAFritchey wrote:As much as I don't think you can attribute the Blues' success so far to just one thing, I think the change in coaching philosophies has to be a part of it.

Hitch wasn't as offense-averse as many people think, but I don't think he'd have the entire defense, and every defenseman, this active in the offesive zone. I think every single one of our defensemen, with the possible exception of Parayko, is on a pace to set career highs in goals and/or points.
Hitch liked them to be involved, but it was more about getting shots from the point with traffic in front. I mean, our d-men are so active in the offensive zone that they end up behind the net sometimes! It's a pretty fun brand of hockey to watch.
KA-KAW!

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

17
Hitch is a HOF coach. He came on board and helped this team make a drastic turnaround using a very basic defensive approach and physical style that made the Blues a hard team to play against. It also probably helped the team win more games than their skill level should have allowed. But having said that, he wore on the players over time, and fans too, by not adjusting his system to allow for more offensive creativity once the skill set did improve. What made things worse was that he promised he was going to do just that, and he failed to deliver.

Yeo still has a defense-first style of play but that's OK because our roster allows that to be successful. The difference is in the way the defensemen are engaged in the offensive zone, as mentioned previously by other posters. However, that difference translates to a much more successful style because it is so unpredictable and much more difficult to defend against. The Predators made it to the Cup Finals last season with a similar approach. If this team is healthy I am genuinely excited about their chances in the playoffs.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

18
Besides everything already mentioned, to me the biggest difference is in preparation, practice, and game decisions. Especially in the punitive vs teaching approach when it comes to working with them. Not sure Yeo is a players coach, but you can tell the respect is earned, and mutual. Hitch rode in, and perhaps approatiatly, on his previous accomplishments to get his respect. Players played hard for him and each other, but often seemed more out of fear than respect. Then again, what I know :)
"Do Only Good Everyday"

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

19
MattyIce wrote:
RAFritchey wrote:As much as I don't think you can attribute the Blues' success so far to just one thing, I think the change in coaching philosophies has to be a part of it.

Hitch wasn't as offense-averse as many people think, but I don't think he'd have the entire defense, and every defenseman, this active in the offesive zone. I think every single one of our defensemen, with the possible exception of Parayko, is on a pace to set career highs in goals and/or points.
Hitch liked them to be involved, but it was more about getting shots from the point with traffic in front. I mean, our d-men are so active in the offensive zone that they end up behind the net sometimes! It's a pretty fun brand of hockey to watch.
I love that.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

20
MattyIce wrote:
RAFritchey wrote:As much as I don't think you can attribute the Blues' success so far to just one thing, I think the change in coaching philosophies has to be a part of it.

Hitch wasn't as offense-averse as many people think, but I don't think he'd have the entire defense, and every defenseman, this active in the offesive zone. I think every single one of our defensemen, with the possible exception of Parayko, is on a pace to set career highs in goals and/or points.
Hitch liked them to be involved, but it was more about getting shots from the point with traffic in front. I mean, our d-men are so active in the offensive zone that they end up behind the net sometimes! It's a pretty fun brand of hockey to watch.
With regard to the defense being active, here's a crazy stat.

Last season, the Blues got 35 goals from their defense. This season, they have already gotten 17 from their defense. The Blues are on pace for about 90 goals from their defense.

This being without Shattenkirk this season and hardly any contribution from Parayko.
Just a Russian propaganda account

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

21
Dread_Pirate_Westley wrote:
MattyIce wrote:
RAFritchey wrote:As much as I don't think you can attribute the Blues' success so far to just one thing, I think the change in coaching philosophies has to be a part of it.

Hitch wasn't as offense-averse as many people think, but I don't think he'd have the entire defense, and every defenseman, this active in the offesive zone. I think every single one of our defensemen, with the possible exception of Parayko, is on a pace to set career highs in goals and/or points.
Hitch liked them to be involved, but it was more about getting shots from the point with traffic in front. I mean, our d-men are so active in the offensive zone that they end up behind the net sometimes! It's a pretty fun brand of hockey to watch.
With regard to the defense being active, here's a crazy stat.

Last season, the Blues got 35 goals from their defense. This season, they have already gotten 17 from their defense. The Blues are on pace for about 90 goals from their defense.

This being without Shattenkirk this season and hardly any contribution from Parayko.
Who needs Shatty when you've got Edmundson?

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

22
Here's a fun piece of anecdotal evidence of the D being active under Yeo. One of the reasons Pietrangelo was able to score that great goal against the Leafs the other night was that the Toronto D was busy with 2 Blues players camped out in front of the net. One was Tarasenko (great to see a superstar sniper going to the dirty areas by the way), and the other was Gunnarson. Pietrangelo obviously deserves all the credit in the world for the great display of skill, but the space he needed to make that play just isn't there without Gunnar being in front of the net.
...but whatever, the Blues won the Cup!!!!!

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

23
Dave's a mess wrote:Here's a fun piece of anecdotal evidence of the D being active under Yeo. One of the reasons Pietrangelo was able to score that great goal against the Leafs the other night was that the Toronto D was busy with 2 Blues players camped out in front of the net. One was Tarasenko (great to see a superstar sniper going to the dirty areas by the way), and the other was Gunnarson. Pietrangelo obviously deserves all the credit in the world for the great display of skill, but the space he needed to make that play just isn't there without Gunnar being in front of the net.
I never thought I would say this but Gunnarsson has been lights out this season. He's finally earning his paycheck.

Re: Hitchcock v. Yeo

24
BluesSK wrote:
Dave's a mess wrote:Here's a fun piece of anecdotal evidence of the D being active under Yeo. One of the reasons Pietrangelo was able to score that great goal against the Leafs the other night was that the Toronto D was busy with 2 Blues players camped out in front of the net. One was Tarasenko (great to see a superstar sniper going to the dirty areas by the way), and the other was Gunnarson. Pietrangelo obviously deserves all the credit in the world for the great display of skill, but the space he needed to make that play just isn't there without Gunnar being in front of the net.
I never thought I would say this but Gunnarsson has been lights out this season. He's finally earning his paycheck.
I never had a problem with the Gunnarsson contract, but he's certainly been middle of the road at best until this year. The lineup decisions when Bouwmeester comes back will be fascinating, although it sounds like he's still got a ways to go.
...but whatever, the Blues won the Cup!!!!!