![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Moderator: LGB Mods
Dude, really??dmiles2186 wrote:Last year I got ridiculed for (correctly) picking the Kings to beat the Blues. I went with my heart over my head this year and took the thees to go to the Finals.![]()
Sure we did, but you only have to play one of them in one playoff round. If the Blues had beat the Hawks and the Avs in Rounds 1 and 2, I would have felt like they would have confidence and chemistry rolling. Playoffs are a different animal. Who knows what would have happened?JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Dude, really??dmiles2186 wrote:Last year I got ridiculed for (correctly) picking the Kings to beat the Blues. I went with my heart over my head this year and took the thees to go to the Finals.![]()
Even if the Blues finished strong, played Minny and beat them(not a given) they still has to go through the Hawks and then one of the west coast teams like the Ducks, Sharks, or Kings. The Blues couldn't beat the Sharks or Ducks ALL year and struggled against the Kings.
I knew this team wasn't built for a long Cup run!
Sure, but my thought process every year is that every Blues team is different. I think too many Blues fans pin all the failures of the past on each new team. Until this team flamed out over the last week, they had the ability to make a run. Some folks don't give them a chance because we lost to the Sharks in 2000 or we got pounced on by the Avs in 01 or we got swept by the Canucks in 09.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The Blues haven't won a second round game in 12 years! When is the last time they had confidence and chemistry rolling? I would say in 2001.
The Kings won one playoff series in the last 17 years before they won the Cup and have been in the league as long as the Blues proving anything can happen.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The Blues haven't won a second round game in 12 years! When is the last time they had confidence and chemistry rolling? I would say in 2001.
True, and the Kings never won a Cup with Gretzky and neither did we! That's another reason why I think Lemieux is the greatest EVER. The Oilers won a Cup just 2 years after Gretzky left. The Penguins didn't stand a chance without Lemieux in that era. Gretzky wasn't the difference maker for either the Kings or Blues although he did make the Kings a lot better.Oaklandblue wrote:The Kings won one playoff series in the last 17 years before they won the Cup and have been in the league as long as the Blues proving anything can happen.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The Blues haven't won a second round game in 12 years! When is the last time they had confidence and chemistry rolling? I would say in 2001.
We do. His name is Brian Elliott. The problem is, we don't have the top drawer, productive forwards that LA has. That's the difference maker. That's slowly starting to change, provided Army comes through and signs a few veteran high production players, etc.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:The Blues have never had a goalie like Quick who was in such a zone when they won the Cup. If they did they would've at least gone to the Cup finals by now!
Quick rolled a .946/1.41 in the playoffs (20 games). Ells rolled a .940/1.56 in the regular season (23 games) not too long ago.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Come on dude. You can't say Elliot is the same as Quick 2 years ago! Quick had one of the greatest post seasons of ANY goalie in NHL history! He stole games for the Kings en route to the Cup. Elliot has never done that and he hasn't been that good in the playoff games he has been in.
Not even the same thing... But Army said Allen is 1 or 2 next year, so only one other goalie will be here..Oaklandblue wrote:Quick rolled a .946/1.41 in the playoffs (20 games). Ells rolled a .940/1.56 in the regular season (23 games) not too long ago.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Come on dude. You can't say Elliot is the same as Quick 2 years ago! Quick had one of the greatest post seasons of ANY goalie in NHL history! He stole games for the Kings en route to the Cup. Elliot has never done that and he hasn't been that good in the playoff games he has been in.
While the above is comparing the regular season to the playoffs, my point is, when Ells is on point, he's proven he can feasibly hit the numbers that Quick has and when Ells is on point, everything about him is shutdown, lights out. Quick and the Kings hit fire at the right time and took off. Even if Elliott had caught fire in the playoffs like Quick did, it wouldn't have mattered. Why?
Because Quick has a far superior team in front of him than Ells does.
This year Crawford did. Had we run Elliott, we may have taken the series with the Hawks. He has been the better goaltender and .919/1.90 should be enough to take a series with a cap spent, loaded team in front of him.
I think you and I can agree that, unless we resign Miller, our problem is not at goal.
Of course he is; he's on a one-way and the only goaltender we got signedsseagle wrote:Not even the same thing... But Army said Allen is 1 or 2 next year, so only one other goalie will be here..Oaklandblue wrote:Quick rolled a .946/1.41 in the playoffs (20 games). Ells rolled a .940/1.56 in the regular season (23 games) not too long ago.JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Come on dude. You can't say Elliot is the same as Quick 2 years ago! Quick had one of the greatest post seasons of ANY goalie in NHL history! He stole games for the Kings en route to the Cup. Elliot has never done that and he hasn't been that good in the playoff games he has been in.
While the above is comparing the regular season to the playoffs, my point is, when Ells is on point, he's proven he can feasibly hit the numbers that Quick has and when Ells is on point, everything about him is shutdown, lights out. Quick and the Kings hit fire at the right time and took off. Even if Elliott had caught fire in the playoffs like Quick did, it wouldn't have mattered. Why?
Because Quick has a far superior team in front of him than Ells does.
This year Crawford did. Had we run Elliott, we may have taken the series with the Hawks. He has been the better goaltender and .919/1.90 should be enough to take a series with a cap spent, loaded team in front of him.
I think you and I can agree that, unless we resign Miller, our problem is not at goal.
If one is superstitious and believes that there is some sort of Groundhog's Day deal really going on, signing Ovie and teaching him D would be akin to Hitch teaching Hull D...they did win a Cup after all, after that, right?JesusNEVERexisted wrote:Miller has already given the media the cold shoulder. Fox 2's Martin Kilcyone said Miller told the media "don't look at me" after the game 5 OT loss and refused to speak to them. Kilcyone said he didn't exactly get along with Miller and didn't think he'd be back.
I agree goal isn't the problem. The Blues need a clutch goal scorer. There was a thread on the PD forums on how the Blues should trade for Ovechkin. That's no guarantee of a Cup but he would definitely increase attendance!