Rink Rat wrote:isn't it nice to have this thread/conversation in a civil manner, without being called an idiot, or having someone "laughing" at us?

I agree with you Rink Rat .It is nice!

oldbattler wrote:

Rink Rat wrote:isn't it nice to have this thread/conversation in a civil manner, without being called an idiot, or having someone "laughing" at us?

I agree with you Rink Rat .It is nice!

Real hockey discussion. Who'd a thunk that could happen on a Blues forum.

As a person "who never played the game" (thanks, Howard Cosell), but who has watched a lot of hockey, it seems to me that the Blues play well against against structured offense systems and poorly against teams where there is less structure and more individual effort. The Columbus game is a case in point. At times, the Jackets offense seemed to be "everybody head north" and the Blues could not cope with that. I thought Calgary's offense which much more structured, perhaps more predictable, and the Blues mostly suffocated them.

oldbattler wrote:

Rink Rat wrote:isn't it nice to have this thread/conversation in a civil manner, without being called an idiot, or having someone "laughing" at us?

I agree with you Rink Rat .It is nice!

Laughing ...... At all of the people still stuck on Blues Talk...

I really like Jake's game and his rising star.

If the Blues commit to him going into the playoffs and they crash and burn in the first round, Hitch will catch hells fury from the fans and the media.

Jaeger wrote:As a person "who never played the game" (thanks, Howard Cosell), but who has watched a lot of hockey, it seems to me that the Blues play well against against structured offense systems and poorly against teams where there is less structure and more individual effort. The Columbus game is a case in point. At times, the Jackets offense seemed to be "everybody head north" and the Blues could not cope with that. I thought Calgary's offense which much more structured, perhaps more predictable, and the Blues mostly suffocated them.

I think that is a good observation. IMO, they also struggle against teams that match or exceed their physicality.

Both great points. Been trying to figure out what the difference is for a while. I think you guys nailed it.

StL Dan wrote:I really like Jake's game and his rising star.

If the Blues commit to him going into the playoffs and they crash and burn in the first round, Hitch will catch hells fury from the fans and the media.

I think it's nice not making those decisions.

Battra wrote:

StL Dan wrote:I really like Jake's game and his rising star.

If the Blues commit to him going into the playoffs and they crash and burn in the first round, Hitch will catch hells fury from the fans and the media.

I think it's nice not making those decisions.

yep, cause the reverse is true also; if they go with 'experience", and Elliott plays like crap and we fail, it will be on Hitch as well. That's why I think you have to go with the hot hand. And it's not like Allen hasn't won 20 + games this season, he has been solid most of the season, and been trending up for several weeks, not just the last couple.

Unless Allen just flops in a start between now and next week's playoff start, he should be, IMHO, the starter.

Jake is a better talent, and at this point he's really put his game together. I love how aggressive he plays in the net, and his ability to play the puck is a huge advantage. The only thing Elliott has on him is experience at this point, but it's not like Elliott has taken this team on multiple (or even a single) deep playoff runs. Gotta go with the hot hand.

bradleygt89 wrote:

Battra wrote:

StL Dan wrote:I really like Jake's game and his rising star.

If the Blues commit to him going into the playoffs and they crash and burn in the first round, Hitch will catch hells fury from the fans and the media.

I think it's nice not making those decisions.

yep, cause the reverse is true also; if they go with 'experience", and Elliott plays like crap and we fail, it will be on Hitch as well. That's why I think you have to go with the hot hand. And it's not like Allen hasn't won 20 + games this season, he has been solid most of the season, and been trending up for several weeks, not just the last couple.

Unless Allen just flops in a start between now and next week's playoff start, he should be, IMHO, the starter.

The more I think about it, the less I care about who's in net.

Goaltending in the playoffs has not been our problem since CuJo was in goal.

Every series we've lost after that series versus Vanc in 95 has NOT been on the goalie...no matter how much folks want to say it is.

Battra wrote:

bradleygt89 wrote:

Battra wrote:
I think it's nice not making those decisions.

yep, cause the reverse is true also; if they go with 'experience", and Elliott plays like crap and we fail, it will be on Hitch as well. That's why I think you have to go with the hot hand. And it's not like Allen hasn't won 20 + games this season, he has been solid most of the season, and been trending up for several weeks, not just the last couple.

Unless Allen just flops in a start between now and next week's playoff start, he should be, IMHO, the starter.

The more I think about it, the less I care about who's in net.

Goaltending in the playoffs has not been our problem since CuJo was in goal.

Every series we've lost after that series versus Vanc in 95 has NOT been on the goalie...no matter how much folks want to say it is.

I disagree. every goalie will give up a 'dumb' goal once in awhile, and like when Quick misplayed a puck that led to Steen scoring the OT winner. But that was the ONLY bad goal IIRC he gave up. Same w/ Crawford.

However, relook at the goals scored vs us that previous three series vs the Kings and 'hawks. There were just way too many that were stoppable, especially last year by Miller. He makes a couple of those saves in games 3-5, and we have a different conversation about that series, and IMO, a different result. got to have a goalie who can make up for the teams occasional mistake in front.

We want more offense and the team to play more aggressive to score more. However, if they are worried about making a mistake that less than 90% of the time will be stopped by the goalie, that makes the team tentative and less apt to be aggressive. That's my theory anyway

bradleygt89 wrote: I disagree. every goalie will give up a 'dumb' goal once in awhile, and like when Quick misplayed a puck that led to Steen scoring the OT winner. But that was the ONLY bad goal IIRC he gave up. Same w/ Crawford.

However, relook at the goals scored vs us that previous three series vs the Kings and 'hawks. There were just way too many that were stoppable, especially last year by Miller. He makes a couple of those saves in games 3-5, and we have a different conversation about that series, and IMO, a different result. got to have a goalie who can make up for the teams occasional mistake in front.

We want more offense and the team to play more aggressive to score more. However, if they are worried about making a mistake that less than 90% of the time will be stopped by the goalie, that makes the team tentative and less apt to be aggressive. That's my theory anyway

In the games where Miller gave up faulty goals....

We scored enough to win, and we did win...save game 6.

That's my point.

Same with Ells the year previous.

Battra wrote:The more I think about it, the less I care about who's in net.

this i agree with.

Battra wrote:Goaltending in the playoffs has not been our problem since CuJo was in goal.

Every series we've lost after that series versus Vanc in 95 has NOT been on the goalie...no matter how much folks want to say it is.

this, roman turek agrees with.

I personally prefer Elliott for the playoffs only because of his game management skills. I think Allen is the better pure puck-stopper, but he is still young. Veterans can exploit rookies, and not just by scoring. Experience is vastly underrated.

BUT - if I'm Hitch, both these guys have short leashes. I remember last year waiting for Miller to figure out his game while the clock didn't give two sh*ts. Ugh.

SickMittsRomKnee wrote:I personally prefer Elliott for the playoffs only because of his game management skills. I think Allen is the better pure puck-stopper, but he is still young. Veterans can exploit rookies, and not just by scoring. Experience is vastly underrated.

BUT - if I'm Hitch, both these guys have short leashes. I remember last year waiting for Miller to figure out his game while the clock didn't give two sh*ts. Ugh.

I tend to agree with you, BUT.....
Hindsight is always 20-20, but I can't help but wonder if the Blues win last night with Elliot in net?

T.C. wrote:

Battra wrote:The more I think about it, the less I care about who's in net.

this i agree with.

Battra wrote:Goaltending in the playoffs has not been our problem since CuJo was in goal.

Every series we've lost after that series versus Vanc in 95 has NOT been on the goalie...no matter how much folks want to say it is.

this, roman turek agrees with.

I know...I know...he sucked so hard...

We went to the conference finals...yeeesh...think of all the goalies who've played for the Blues since then that have won two playoff series in total.

I'll wait.

SickMittsRomKnee wrote:I personally prefer Elliott for the playoffs only because of his game management skills. I think Allen is the better pure puck-stopper, but he is still young. Veterans can exploit rookies, and not just by scoring. Experience is vastly underrated.

BUT - if I'm Hitch, both these guys have short leashes. I remember last year waiting for Miller to figure out his game while the clock didn't give two sh*ts. Ugh.

I thought it was pretty clear that Miller didn't fit...quickly we went from scoring first and winning 80% of our games to being down 2-0 and then Miller being the Berlin Wall circa 1975.

Battra wrote:

bradleygt89 wrote: I disagree. every goalie will give up a 'dumb' goal once in awhile, and like when Quick misplayed a puck that led to Steen scoring the OT winner. But that was the ONLY bad goal IIRC he gave up. Same w/ Crawford.

However, relook at the goals scored vs us that previous three series vs the Kings and 'hawks. There were just way too many that were stoppable, especially last year by Miller. He makes a couple of those saves in games 3-5, and we have a different conversation about that series, and IMO, a different result. got to have a goalie who can make up for the teams occasional mistake in front.

We want more offense and the team to play more aggressive to score more. However, if they are worried about making a mistake that less than 90% of the time will be stopped by the goalie, that makes the team tentative and less apt to be aggressive. That's my theory anyway

In the games where Miller gave up faulty goals....

We scored enough to win, and we did win...save game 6.

That's my point.

Same with Ells the year previous.

Seriously? I'd hate to make you do this, but go watch those highlights of games 2-5 again. Some very, very weak goals. Miller flopped.

nah, i'm good.

I was at a death metal show for game...4 o=i yhink,