bradleygt89 wrote:OK, for BB, Rob, and Iceman:

4 questions:

1. IF we do not have 'top-tier' talent, then how do we consistently either Win or finish 2nd in what has been called the last several years "the toughest Division in the NHL'?

2. How do we go from being so good in the regular season with this group of players and coaching staff to sucking wind in the playoffs?

3. Do you honestly think Hitch in one the same coaching playing field as Q (see my previous extra-long post that disputes that notion)?

4. IF our talent isn't good enough to win, yet we are maxed out to the NHL Salary Cap, then isn't that also the responsibility of both Hitch, DA and staff for making those personnel choices?

Not looking to argue, just trying to see your POV on those issues, the issues why I place the blame for the Blues faltering on the coaching and GM/staff more so than the players at this point in time after several years of the same result. (FWIW, I was never in the 'fire Hitch' camp until late last season when it became apparent that we struggle vs well coached teams).

I think it was stated in an earlier post...during the regular season, you play a team one time, and then they're onto their next team/game. During a seven game series, teams have time to study and adjust, and we don't adjust to their adjustments.

bradleygt89 wrote:OK, for BB, Rob, and Iceman:

Mind if I give it a shot, too?
(All responses have an implied "IMHO" with them, natch!)

4 questions:

1. IF we do not have 'top-tier' talent, then how do we consistently either Win or finish 2nd in what has been called the last several years "the toughest Division in the NHL'?

In the regular season, the Blues rack up more points against weaker, non-playoff teams than the other 'top' teams do. When we've faced those other 'top' teams in the regular season, it's always been MUCH closer, or we've regularly lost to some of them.

2. How do we go from being so good in the regular season with this group of players and coaching staff to sucking wind in the playoffs?

The Blues played closer to the max of their talent level throughout the regular season than other teams like Chicago and especially LA have, so they don't seem to have that 'extra gear' for the playoffs.

3. Do you honestly think Hitch in one the same coaching playing field as Q (see my previous extra-long post that disputes that notion)?

It's hard to compare, especially with the variance of on-ice talent, but what many are accusing Hitch of now is EXACTLY what people accused Q of when he was coach of the Blues: He can't make the adjustments to beat the top teams (Chicago/LA now, Colorado/Detroit back then) in a 7-game playoff series. I think in BOTH cases, the real issue was not having the talent pool to effect the kinds of adjustments that are needed.

If you've got a smaller talent pool on your side (And I mean a variety of skills/abilities, not just high-skill players), or specific gaps in talent, and are making up for it using a system that maximizes the talent you've got while minimizing your deficiencies, deviating from that system exposes your weaknesses, UNLESS you've got enough talent (Or guys with different skill sets) to play several different styles/systems at a high level, without exposing any gaps. Even if you can adapt changes system-for-system to match the other team, the difference in talent then becomes the deciding factor in the long run.

4. IF our talent isn't good enough to win, yet we are maxed out to the NHL Salary Cap, then isn't that also the responsibility of both Hitch, DA and staff for making those personnel choices?

You make the best choices that you're able to, and drafting/developing your own talent is almost always the way to go, and there are a lot of other factors involved, such as when certain players hit UFA status.

Shea Webber and Duncan Keith are both arguably among the top-5 defensemen in the league, but for the last 4 seasons (including this one), Keith has made $30.75 mil, while Webber has made $56 mil. In the same time span, Ryan Suter has made $44 mil, while Brent Seabrook has made $22 mil. While Suter may be a better all-around blueliner than Seabrook, is he really TWICE as good?

As another example, David Backes and Ryan Kessler are very similar players and both are at or just over 30 i.e. on the downside of their careers (especially as highly physical players), but Kessler's set to make nearly $7 mil a year for the next 6 years! Do you think Backes will get nearly that as an UFA this Summer? Not from the Blues, he won't...

Not looking to argue, just trying to see your POV on those issues, the issues why I place the blame for the Blues faltering on the coaching and GM/staff more so than the players at this point in time after several years of the same result. (FWIW, I was never in the 'fire Hitch' camp until late last season when it became apparent that we struggle vs well coached teams).

No problem. I enjoy being in a place where "Argument" fits the actual definition (A process of reasoning, persuasive discourse, etc.) rather than just trolling and shouting!

RA;

Thanks for the reply. All good points, although I still totally disagree about Hitch vs Q. My whole point on that, as I shared in an earlier post, is that while Q 'only' took us to the WCF, Q still won way more series with the Blues, and even w/ Colorado than Hitch has won since 2003/04.

again;

Coach Q: 7 series wins, 8 losses with Blues and Avs

Hitch; since 2003/04; 1 series win, 5 losses with CBJ and Blues.

Q may not have got us to the big SC dance, but those teams won a lot more than these Hitch coached have when it mattered. And I honestly believe that is because Q is a better strategist than Hitch is.

FWIW, those who called for Q to be fired back then I totally disagreed with. I honestly think in retrospect that the Laurie's knew the lockout was coming, and then their massive selloff. I don't find it a coincidence, especially since Q was later hired by Laurie's brother-in-law.

damn there are some smart people here. love it.

RAFritchey wrote:...what many are accusing Hitch of now is EXACTLY what people accused Q of when he was coach of the Blues: He can't make the adjustments to beat the top teams (Chicago/LA now, Colorado/Detroit back then) in a 7-game playoff series. I think in BOTH cases, the real issue was not having the talent pool to effect the kinds of adjustments that are needed.

yes. however, Q had some ridiculously talented teams. isn't it also possible, given his record since leaving, that Q learned from the experiences? hitch has only won in the distant past. the comparison you make is of coaches on opposing trajectories.

RAFritchey wrote:
If you've got a smaller talent pool on your side (And I mean a variety of skills/abilities, not just high-skill players), or specific gaps in talent, and are making up for it using a system that maximizes the talent you've got while minimizing your deficiencies, deviating from that system exposes your weaknesses, UNLESS you've got enough talent (Or guys with different skill sets) to play several different styles/systems at a high level, without exposing any gaps. Even if you can adapt changes system-for-system to match the other team, the difference in talent then becomes the deciding factor in the long run.

Wish I woulda said that.

barnburner wrote:

RAFritchey wrote:
If you've got a smaller talent pool on your side (And I mean a variety of skills/abilities, not just high-skill players), or specific gaps in talent, and are making up for it using a system that maximizes the talent you've got while minimizing your deficiencies, deviating from that system exposes your weaknesses, UNLESS you've got enough talent (Or guys with different skill sets) to play several different styles/systems at a high level, without exposing any gaps. Even if you can adapt changes system-for-system to match the other team, the difference in talent then becomes the deciding factor in the long run.

Wish I woulda said that.

I still wish someone could show me how a playoff series record of 7 Wins and 8 losses in 8 playoff seasons (Q with Blues and Avs) with 'smaller talent pool' is comparable to a playoff series record of 1 Win and 5 losses in 5 playoff seasons (Hitch w/ Blues and CBJ) with a 'smaller talent pool'?

Also, while I've made the point about how we've struggled against the top teams in the past, this year we've actually established a pretty good record Vs the 'elite' teams (Top 4 in each Conf; except the 'yotes who have no prayer of making the playoffs):

Vs Ana: 1-0-1 3/4 points*
Vs Bos: 1-0-0 2/2 points
Vs Chi: 1-2-0 2/6 points*
Vs Col: 0-1-2 2/6 points
Vs Dal: 3-1-0 6/8 points
Vs Det: 1-0-1 3/4 points
Vs FLA: 1-1-0 2/4 points*
Vs LAK: 2-1-0 4/6 points*
Vs Min: 2-2-0 4/8 points
Vs NSH: 4-1-0 8/10 points
Vs NYI: 0-0-2 2/4 points
Vs NYR: 0-2-0 0-4 points
Vs Pit: 1-0-1 2/4 points
Vs SJS: 0-2-0 0/4 points
Vs TBL: 2-0-0 4/4 points*
Vs WAC: 0-0-0 0/0 points*

* Div Leaders at time of post.

So, perhaps this season may be different. We'll see. I truly hope I'm wrong, but the record that Hitch has shown in the past 10 seasons in the playoffs leaves me with little confidence in HIS ability to develop a gameplan that will win.

PS: It is a well known recipe that if you forecheck the Blues D really hard and take away Petro/Shatty/Gunner/JayBo's ability to make the transitional/outlet pass, that we struggle. IMHO, that is on the coaches to recognize that, and have an automatic plan to go to for a counter (bringing back the forwards deeper to assist with getting puck out of the D-zone/using the boards/etc.). If the players are not savvy enough or intuitive enough to recognize the change in the oppositions strategy and follow the coaches directions if they are coming from the bench, then DA needs to find smarter and more adaptable players. That is why I place equal blame on DA AND Hitch, because as I said earlier, either the players are too dumb to adapt as coached, or the coaches are too dumb to recognize the need to adapt.

Well obviously we could discuss this till we're blue in the face; be it misuse of limited talent or lack of inspiration to the talent that we do possess it's probably time for a change at the coaching level at least to see what difference that would make versus inserting new players at various times.

I'm still of the opinion that we lack sufficient talent depth to overcome the more elite teams in the league. Lack of depth certainly lands at the feet of management who, IMO, has way overspent on the so-called talent that we do have. And, of course, that opinion raises the issue to another level - ownership's responsibility for management. Anyway, perhaps this year they can actually pull out a minor miracle and make it to the more lofty rounds of the playoffs. Holding my breath.

Lots of good solid viewpoints and opinions have been offered here, providing everyone with something to think about.
My view comes from someone who is admittedly "Old School." I'm 8 years older than Noah, come from a rural background, where a man who didn't work hard, day in and day out, was looked upon with shame and disdain. The Marine Corps certainly further honed those values.
There is absolutely no doubt that having a boss, who you either don't like, or feel is incompetent, is a drag, and makes it harder for you to do your job. On the other hand, I feel that players, workers, etc., sometimes use that as an excuse, to give less than their best effort. I've had bosses who would have had to improve to be incompetent. Bosses who I wanted desperately to knock on ther ass. Still, when I got thru bitching and grumbling to myself, when it came time to do my job, I, (within the limits of being a flawed human being), gave it my best effort, often going well beyond "normal" effort, because to me, it comes down to pride. Forget the coach, boss, etc. If a player gives less than his best effort, that's on him. By doing so, he's making a statement about who he is, and who he is not.
That's one reason I do not understand the mindset of a player like Druoin. To me, if the boss says, "You're not getting it done," I'm going to bust my ass from start to finish, and force him to change his opinion. To take your puck and go home because your feelings were hurt, is a concept that is totally foreign to me. (Yes, I know, he has an agent. Don't care. This is his future, his reputation. You either run your life, or you don't. The hell with the agent. You want to be payed and treated like a man - be one.)
In short, yes coaches have short comings, and can be difficult to play for. But, at least for me, and that's all I can speak for, it comes down to the individual player. He has a choice everytime he hits the ice. Is he going to play with pride, and support his teammates, or is he going to use his dislike of the coach as an excuse to be a passenger, while his teamates pull the bus? Most of us don't have a choice about who our bosses are, but we do have the option of not letting it stand in the way of living up to our personal standards of excellence.
As always, jmo.

I totally respect that mindset BB, and was raised with the same mentality.

Here's another way to think about it from a 'bosses' POV. What if the boss' direction isn't one that provides either the best efficiency or return on investment? Think about it like this from a 'real world' scenario:

If you have a boss, like him/her or not, but they don't provide the right guidance during critical times, your business is going to suffer, no matter how hard the employees work. I believe you mentioned you was a shipping supervisor before. I'm sure there was times that in your work year, where it was kind of like the playoffs are for a sports team; that crunch time when expectations from clients and stakeholders were much higher because if your business didn't deliver, their business suffered even more than if a glitch occurred during a 'regular' part of the year. As a supervisor, you along with others in management would most likely have strategized to ensure your personnel were prepared for the change in environment during those crunch times, right?

I know when I was in the USN, selling cars, or marketing for my clients, there are certain times that we had more pressure, and thus a change in SOP. Longer hours, extra diligence, more attention to detail, etc. However, if my supervisor/manager didn't have us prepped for those specific challenges we faced, the results were poorer than if we had planned accordingly.

TLDR: A worker/player without proper direction/coaching/leadership can work their butt off as hard as possible, but still not get the desired results as hoped for.


BTW, love this board a year later still as we can disagree/have differing POV and still be respectful.

bradleygt89 wrote:I totally respect that mindset BB, and was raised with the same mentality.

Here's another way to think about it from a 'bosses' POV. What if the boss' direction isn't one that provides either the best efficiency or return on investment? Think about it like this from a 'real world' scenario:

If you have a boss, like him/her or not, but they don't provide the right guidance during critical times, your business is going to suffer, no matter how hard the employees work. I believe you mentioned you was a shipping supervisor before. I'm sure there was times that in your work year, where it was kind of like the playoffs are for a sports team; that crunch time when expectations from clients and stakeholders were much higher because if your business didn't deliver, their business suffered even more than if a glitch occurred during a 'regular' part of the year. As a supervisor, you along with others in management would most likely have strategized to ensure your personnel were prepared for the change in environment during those crunch times, right?

I know when I was in the USN, selling cars, or marketing for my clients, there are certain times that we had more pressure, and thus a change in SOP. Longer hours, extra diligence, more attention to detail, etc. However, if my supervisor/manager didn't have us prepped for those specific challenges we faced, the results were poorer than if we had planned accordingly.

TLDR: A worker/player without proper direction/coaching/leadership can work their butt off as hard as possible, but still not get the desired results as hoped for.


BTW, love this board a year later still as we can disagree/have differing POV and still be respectful.

Actually, I was a Dispatcher, Road Driver Supervisor, along with a little time as a Dock Foreman, not that it matters.
Your point is well taken, and I might add that my standard of pride exists for both coaches and players. The difference being, the coach cannot come up with any system that will over come lack of effort by the players, while the players can at times, overcome poor coaching, with a unified committment to effort.
On more than one occasion, I've given what turned out to be mistaken or incompete instructions to guys, who because they had that level of pride I talk about, went above and beyond, discovered my mistake, and brought about a successful concusion. They didn't get any extra money, and they didn't do it to get a pat on the back. The idea of not doing whatever it took, was simply unacceptable to them.
I relate that mindset especially to last year' playoffs. When things were not going right, somebody with the skills to do so, needed to be so embarrased that they stood up and made a play to turn things around. They didn't need a coach to draw up a play on the blackboard, or switch to system A B or C. They just needed to be so disgusted that they went out and played the game with every ounce of pride they had. Instead, most of them simply waited to lose.

I add my voice to the sentiment that it's nice to have a place where we can disagree, agreeably, and not have to endure the childishness of the other place.