The Playoffs...Halak or Elliott?

[cardsfan04]

So... what happens if Halak falters tonight and gives up a softie that he should have caught? Loses the game in the third period again? Or God forbid, gets pulled? Advantage, Elliott? Or do you throw Halak out there again Saturday night and hope he improves when the other guy hasn't allowed a goal in 186 minutes of hockey?

I'm just wondering where the Elliott threshold for all the "play Halak because he's got the contract and some experience" folks is.

I'm not in the "play Halak because he's got the contract" group (although I somewhat am in the experience group). But, I don't hate the idea of starting him tonight and Saturday no matter what. Even though I am totally fine with Elliot playing as he has earned it, I don't want Halak (or Elliot if it were reversed for that matter) to be in the mindset that if they have to be perfect to get any playing time. It seems that that kind of mindset backfires far more often than not.

I have yet to hear a solid reason that we can't use them as a tandem other than "tradition" yet. I think that's what we should do. If one gets super hot in the playoffs (kind of like Elliot is right now), ride him for sure. But, I don't think one should get all of the starts because that's what most teams do in the playoffs.

[cprice12]

What else does Elliott have to do to be named the starter in game #1 of the playoffs?

He's putting up the best numbers the NHL has seen in over 50 years.

He has been the better goalie on this team. Period. I say you have to start him at least in game #1 and see how it goes.

[not_a_wings_fan]

Halak has given up three or more goals in his last four starts. Elliot has given up two... TOTAL in his last four.

Elliot is 2-1-1 and Halak is 0-2-2. Elliot got a loss on a shootout where he gave up no goals in reg or ot.

You play the guy who is hot and ride him until he isn't. It's a no brainer. Elliot gets the nod for the playoffs.

[ohio BLUES]

Halak has given up three or more goals in his last four starts. Elliot has given up two... TOTAL in his last four.

Elliot is 2-1-1 and Halak is 0-2-2. Elliot got a loss on a shootout where he gave up no goals in reg or ot.

You play the guy who is hot and ride him until he isn't. It's a no brainer. Elliot gets the nod for the playoffs.

[DaDitka]

Funny, in a matter of a couple weeks it went from....no question Halak, to probably Halak, then maybe both, now certainly Elliot.


That said.....I'm sure this week will 'muddy' it all up again.

[dmiles2186]

Funny, in a matter of a couple weeks it went from....no question Halak, to probably Halak, then maybe both, now certainly Elliot.


That said.....I'm sure this week will 'muddy' it all up again.

Exactly. From late Feb to mid March, Halak won 8 straight starts, then lost in a shootout, then won his next start. He's proceeded to lose 3 straight (the last two are not entirely his fault, in my opinion). But he was out of his mind for a long stretch.

I was all in the Halak camp, but Elliott has just been so great this season and he's been the more consistent 'tender of the two. I'm slowly starting to change my mind. Even though I don't pin the last two losses on Halak, what's made me change my mind is that in games like the last few, Elliott is the more consistent of the two in not letting them spiral out of control. And for the playoffs, that is going to be crucial.

[theohall]

I was all in the Halak camp, but Elliott has just been so great this season and he's been the more consistent 'tender of the two. I'm slowly starting to change my mind. Even though I don't pin the last two losses on Halak, what's made me change my mind is that in games like the last few, Elliott is the more consistent of the two in not letting them spiral out of control. And for the playoffs, that is going to be crucial.

This is the kicker. Halak has had ONE great playoff run. The front and back end of that playoff run - he let games spiral out of control. The bad games Halak had are the games no one seems to remember, even though they happened in that one and only playoff run Halak had.

Sometimes starting the unknown, Elliott, in the playoffs can be a benefit. Had anyone heard of Halak, really, prior to his one and only playoff run?

Start Elliott. He has been the more consistent of the two goaltenders from the beginning of the season until now. Who knows which Halak will show up? The glove of stone, monster rebounding Halak - or the 1 goal allowed per game Halak? We have no idea. Consistency matters when it comes to playoff starts and it seems to me Halak has wilted when teams have turned up the heat as the season has wound done while Elliott has risen to the occasion.

[cprice12]

Funny, in a matter of a couple weeks it went from....no question Halak, to probably Halak, then maybe both, now certainly Elliot.


That said.....I'm sure this week will 'muddy' it all up again.

I was never in the "no question Halak" camp. I was fine with either at one point because Halak had been so good, but I preferred Elliott. Now it's a no-brainer if you ask me.

After the season he has had, how do you tell Elliott he isn't starting?
You really can't play any better than he has played this year.

[ViPeRx007]

Meanwhile Elliott, playing as good as he or anyone on the planet can, has been riding the pine getting cold. Maybe he's been playing too good...duh what?

[theohall]

Meanwhile Elliott, playing as good as he or anyone on the planet can, has been riding the pine getting cold. Maybe he's been playing too good...duh what?

Elliott had 3 straight starts. IMO, Hithcock had to play Halak to see if he could find the good form again. So far, he has not. Yes, the Blues played poorly in the last two games. Halak was still giving up ridiculous rebounds which he had not been surrendering when he was winning those games in February and early March where he was only allowing 1 goal or less regardless of the shot totals.

My guess is Elliott starts Wed and Fri while Halak gets Saturday, so Elliott will have played enough to maintain his edge, while still being rested for the playoffs.

[glen a richter]

I still think the whole team plays better and more confidently when Elliott is in net. With Halak it looks like they press and they make stupid mistakes. Granted 25 made the stupid mistake because he's 25 and not because he was pressing, but overall I mean they look sloppy. Against Columbus you either look sloppy because everyone decided to take the night off or because you're pressing to cover for what you expect to be a long night of ugly rebounds on the other end of the ice.

Anyway, I'm with Curt. You start Elliott in game one and see what happens. I'll take it a step further, unless Elliott gives up 5 goals in game 1, you continue with him in game 2 (win or lose) and then evaluate afterwards. You reward Elliott with a contract extension mid year and now the only extension he's getting as further reward for his stellar play this season is an extended middle finger from Hitch? I doubt that's what anyone in the organization has in mind. Elliott will play the remaining games (save for the back to back to end the season) and be the starter heading into the playoffs. Then, in the offseason, Halak will be given an intense training regimen with Hirsch of which the primary focus will be controlling rebounds and closing his glove hand on the puck. We'll see where he takes that next season and then the year after, maybe Halak is gone and Elliott is the #1 with Allen or UFA as the primary backup. Hell, I seem to recall early in the season when Elliott was first surprising us all some people said that they'd heard of scouting reports where Ell was actually considered clear-cut #1 material who just needed some time to polish up his game. Maybe he is, maybe he should be. I, for one, feel confident going forward with Elliott regardless of how the playoffs end up going. He's a mechanically sound goalie who has the confidence of the team in front of him.

[not_a_wings_fan]

I think mechanically sound is a big deal here. He just doesn't move much unless he absolutely has to.

It reminds of of kipper when he stonewalled us in the playoffs many moons ago. The untrained eye was yelling that the blues sucked because the puck kept hitting kipper in the logo on his chest... the smart ones knew that was just how good and square he was to the puck - there was no where else for it to go.

[Oaklandblue]

I think Halak and quite a few players have sank into that 'We made the playoffs, going to slack off now' mode. Much as I don't particularly care for the guy, I wouldn't pin all 4 goals a game directly on him. Falling to the Blue Jackets isn't some major big deal as every team whose taken home the Cup has fallen at the end of a regular season to a bottom dweller with nothing to lose. We've done it to teams in the past, too. It's just a wake up call, and with Hitch at the helm, I'm sure he'll make sure none of them forget it.

In the playoffs, to me it's simple: Halak starts.

He's the #1, he makes the most money and playoffs-wise, he's shown in the playoffs that he's money (At least in Habs red). If he falls apart on us, we got Elliott, who stat-wise is our real starter, so it's not like we're losing on this deal in any way, shape and form.

[theohall]

I think Halak and quite a few players have sank into that 'We made the playoffs, going to slack off now' mode. Much as I don't particularly care for the guy, I wouldn't pin all 4 goals a game directly on him. Falling to the Blue Jackets isn't some major big deal as every team whose taken home the Cup has fallen at the end of a regular season to a bottom dweller with nothing to lose. We've done it to teams in the past, too. It's just a wake up call, and with Hitch at the helm, I'm sure he'll make sure none of them forget it.

In the playoffs, to me it's simple: Halak starts.

He's the #1, he makes the most money and playoffs-wise, he's shown in the playoffs that he's money (At least in Habs red). If he falls apart on us, we got Elliott, who stat-wise is our real starter, so it's not like we're losing on this deal in any way, shape and form.

How was Halak "money" in the playoffs? First game in the playoffs - disaster. His last round of the playoffs - mostly a disaster. There is a stretch in the middle where was "money,", but he certainly was not money throughout the playoffs. This is the mistake I see. It was ONE playoff year and he was inconsistent at the start and horrible at the end.

[Oaklandblue]

I think Halak and quite a few players have sank into that 'We made the playoffs, going to slack off now' mode. Much as I don't particularly care for the guy, I wouldn't pin all 4 goals a game directly on him. Falling to the Blue Jackets isn't some major big deal as every team whose taken home the Cup has fallen at the end of a regular season to a bottom dweller with nothing to lose. We've done it to teams in the past, too. It's just a wake up call, and with Hitch at the helm, I'm sure he'll make sure none of them forget it.

In the playoffs, to me it's simple: Halak starts.

He's the #1, he makes the most money and playoffs-wise, he's shown in the playoffs that he's money (At least in Habs red). If he falls apart on us, we got Elliott, who stat-wise is our real starter, so it's not like we're losing on this deal in any way, shape and form.

How was Halak "money" in the playoffs? First game in the playoffs - disaster. His last round of the playoffs - mostly a disaster. There is a stretch in the middle where was "money,", but he certainly was not money throughout the playoffs. This is the mistake I see. It was ONE playoff year and he was inconsistent at the start and horrible at the end.

My Definition of Money ($): How many millions did we sign him for based solely on his playoff run? How many people here swore up and down when we got him that we fleeced Montreal? How many people here felt that we finally had a real #1 that'll take us deep into the playoffs and perhaps even the Cup?

Yeah, I raised my hand too.

We have nothing to lose. We play him. He looks like garbage, Ells go in and stays in. It's not like other years where we've lived and died by the likes of Liut, Joseph, Turek, Fuhr, etc. and if they failed we knew our backup would get hung out to dry. We have a backup plan and our backup plan is the better netminder of the two.

Halak has alot to prove, and for what we're paying, let him prove it. If he can't, we play our better netminder and deal with Halak at our leisure.

Look at the Habs team that Halak played with and tell me how well stacked they were. To me, that was an absymal team that had no right to have even made the playoffs, and that he helped carry them says alot about the guy. He plays well under pressure. This is where I trust Hitch entirely, because Hitch will pull the best out of a player. He changed Brett Hull, he sure as heck can change Halak, and if Halak won't or can't change, we put in Elliott.

If there was something to worry about, it'd be scoring goals consistantly. Our D as it stands will carry us, but the way it stands our offense needs to wake up and start dominating.

[glen a richter]

If our backup plan is the better netminder of the two, how come you're willing to give him the finger after what he did for the team this year and start Glove of Stone instead?

Elliott starts the playoffs until further notice.

[DaDitka]

Elliott starts the playoffs until further notice.

If the playoffs started today, I think you would have to give him the nod......but lets see how these final three play out.

[cprice12]

I think Halak and quite a few players have sank into that 'We made the playoffs, going to slack off now' mode. Much as I don't particularly care for the guy, I wouldn't pin all 4 goals a game directly on him. Falling to the Blue Jackets isn't some major big deal as every team whose taken home the Cup has fallen at the end of a regular season to a bottom dweller with nothing to lose. We've done it to teams in the past, too. It's just a wake up call, and with Hitch at the helm, I'm sure he'll make sure none of them forget it.

In the playoffs, to me it's simple: Halak starts.

He's the #1, he makes the most money and playoffs-wise, he's shown in the playoffs that he's money (At least in Habs red). If he falls apart on us, we got Elliott, who stat-wise is our real starter, so it's not like we're losing on this deal in any way, shape and form.

How was Halak "money" in the playoffs? First game in the playoffs - disaster. His last round of the playoffs - mostly a disaster. There is a stretch in the middle where was "money,", but he certainly was not money throughout the playoffs. This is the mistake I see. It was ONE playoff year and he was inconsistent at the start and horrible at the end.

My Definition of Money ($): How many millions did we sign him for based solely on his playoff run? How many people here swore up and down when we got him that we fleeced Montreal? How many people here felt that we finally had a real #1 that'll take us deep into the playoffs and perhaps even the Cup?

Yeah, I raised my hand too.

We have nothing to lose. We play him. He looks like garbage, Ells go in and stays in. It's not like other years where we've lived and died by the likes of Liut, Joseph, Turek, Fuhr, etc. and if they failed we knew our backup would get hung out to dry. We have a backup plan and our backup plan is the better netminder of the two.

Halak has alot to prove, and for what we're paying, let him prove it. If he can't, we play our better netminder and deal with Halak at our leisure.

Look at the Habs team that Halak played with and tell me how well stacked they were. To me, that was an absymal team that had no right to have even made the playoffs, and that he helped carry them says alot about the guy. He plays well under pressure. This is where I trust Hitch entirely, because Hitch will pull the best out of a player. He changed Brett Hull, he sure as heck can change Halak, and if Halak won't or can't change, we put in Elliott.

If there was something to worry about, it'd be scoring goals consistantly. Our D as it stands will carry us, but the way it stands our offense needs to wake up and start dominating.

We have nothing to lose by playing Halak? Seriously?
We have a playoff series we could lose if he doesn't play well. And you don't just throw away the first game and think Elliott can come in and save the day and win the series. Losing a game because Halak plays sub-par could be the difference in the series.

I'm not saying Halak will cost us the series, he may play lights out...all I'm saying is Elliott has obviously been better and more consistent over the entire season and doesn't have glaring issues, like an inconsistent glove hand, spotty rebound control and poor puck handling.

Elliott has been better and has played in enough games where it's not too small of a sample size. He hasn't done it in stretches or streaks like Halak...Elliott has been great all season long....start to finish.

How do you not start a goalie who is putting up the best numbers in over 50 years??? That's just crazy.

You go with the guy who has played better...and if you lose, you still made the right call. If you go with Halak and we lose, then you'll be asked the question, why didn't you go with the guy who was better?

After Halak's last hot streak, I had convinced myself that either guy will be ok in the playoffs, but then Halak has a couple games where he allows a couple bad goals, and we lose. He wasn't horrible, he actually was quite good at times...but a couple goals were soft, well, one of which was quite bad actually...and this is when Elliott has a 188 minute or whatever it is shutout streak going.

At this point, I just don't see the logic in starting Halak over Elliott.

[DaDitka]

For what it's worth, PHT has a poll up on this very topic right now..

If you care to vote and/or see the results..

http://prohockeytalk.nbcsports.com/2012 ... ff-goalie/

[theohall]

Don't base the decision on who is making more money. Base the decision on who is playing better in goal, period.

This is about winning the playoffs not just going with someone because they get paid more. That is how teams lose in playoff series. The Habs didn't go with Price in the playoffs that year, even though he was being paid lots more, because the younger goalie was playing better at the time. Why should the Blues be different from the Habs and NOT play Elliott when he is clearly the better goalie??