Let's Go Blues

oooooooooooooooookay, wishing to trade practically the entire team and start over... that's a LOT extreme. It makes me seem like an eternal optimist. This team needs three things:

1. Additional playoff experience and the confidence to believe they can turn it around right away.

2. A bona fide goal scorer who can produce when the going gets tough and turn the tide of a game gone bad.

3. Pietrangelo to play in games 3 through the rest of the his career.

Find someone who is not Carlo Coliacovo to play with Pietrangelo.

Like you said, I think we need to turn 2 of our "20ish goal guys" into one "30 goal guy".

We need to trade Stewart for whatever we can get. Bye bye.

Please quit talking about next year and talk about now. We're still in the fight, so enough of that.

I knew we'd drop Game 2 due to the fear that ran through fandom with Pie going down and Halak being out. We lost that game before we even touched ice.

Elliott has to be under an extreme amount of pressure. Our starter is out and he knows if we have to go with Allen, we're sunk. Regardless what you think of Halak (including me), he has playoff experiecne and would be a mental cushion for Elliott. Running tandem was our only viable stat that we clearly outranked the Kings on. Now we don't even have that.

What needs to happen is that Elliott, not Hitch, has to go off on this team for hanging him out to dry. Backes may wear the C, but we're a D team and D starts and ends with the netminder. Forget the skate and get their heads on right.

I don't care WHO the Kings have on their roster, we're the grinder team, not them. Quick's Vezina finalist jazz is a REGULAR season stat. He's no one special. Let's quit using that as an excuse. We know what to do, and I feel we will turn the tide Thursaday, with or without Pie, Halak or whoever have you.

This story's not over yet.

So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

Oaklandblue wrote:

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

The Yotes and Preds haven't been around that long. The Blues and Kings hold the record in the NHL for the longest drought without a cup. And it seems we have came a lot closer than they have.

Nyghtewynd wrote:If I want to know how to destroy a franchise, I'll call Mike Keenan. Until then, he should be doing windows in a used car lot.

Ok, I've held myself away from this site all day... Nyght wins the award so far.

The doom and gloom soothsayers can go to farmersonly.com, home ice has meant jack shit so far this year. Fortunately I think the boys need to get out town for a bit, I sure hope we can bring it back home, I would hate for the season to end on a game I cant see

Despise Cubs comparisons. Their last title came before the NHL even existed and before Wrigley was even built which was also before the NHL's inaugural season. Their last pennant was over 20 years before the Blues' inaugural season.

Moral of the story: the Cubs stand alone.

Oaklandblues knew game 2 was a lost cause, so phew! We can rest easy knowing that the clairvoyant is comfortable in his presumed assertion that we will now rattle off the next 12 wins in a row.

Oaklandblue wrote:

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

A better comparison would be the Canucks who entered the league 1 year after the Blues

STLADOGG wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

A better comparison would be the Canucks who entered the league 1 year after the Blues

Yeah but 1970 wasn't the year after 1967 (unless you were reeeeeally fucked up during the 60s )

STLADOGG wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

A better comparison would be the Canucks who entered the league 1 year after the Blues

The LA Kings are part of the Second Six, along with St. Louis

What's your point?

Mine is, none of these teams have won a Cup, no matter if they've been in the league 5 or 50 years.

PS: If you go two years after the Canucks, the Winnipeg Jets came into the league from the WHL who are now the Phoenix Coyotes.

glen a richter wrote:Oaklandblues knew game 2 was a lost cause, so phew! We can rest easy knowing that the clairvoyant is comfortable in his presumed assertion that we will now rattle off the next 12 wins in a row.

Show me where I said this?

If you want clairvoyance, I did say keep Bishop and eat a pick. Right now we'd have 6'7" netminder with playoff xp backing Ells and not Allen. Would that matter? Probably not, but I'd give up a pick for the insurance.

sseagle wrote:

STLADOGG wrote:

Oaklandblue wrote:

xbleed83bluex wrote:So are Blues like the Chicago Cubs of hockey?

Oh WAIT, the Cubs have won a championship

And the Kings have?
Yotes?
Preds?

A better comparison would be the Canucks who entered the league 1 year after the Blues

Yeah but 1970 wasn't the year after 1967 (unless you were reeeeeally (Frank) up during the 60s )

lol oops I must have 69 in my head for some reason.

Look I love the energy going into game 3 from some people on here but to keep saying a 2 versus 8 seed means nothing at all. It is who is hot at the time of each series. I think the stat is something like since 1985 presidents trophy starting 7 of them have went on to win the cup that is like 23% so seeds mean little in all reality. Here is a neat tidbit of info http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559532

I root for the Blues but I and others have stated game 3 is key for THIS team at THIS time and place.

glen a richter wrote:Oaklandblues knew game 2 was a lost cause, so phew! We can rest easy knowing that the clairvoyant is comfortable in his presumed assertion that we will now rattle off the next 12 wins in a row.

Just need the next 1 in a row, then it's a series.
I'm not sure why folks think the Blues have to rattle off an ungodly amount of wins in a row to get back in the series. Win 1 game and we're back in it.

Where the hell is the bi-polar freak out, knee jerk reaction meter we had back in the day? It would be off the charts right now because we have lost a couple playoff games.

blues fan wrote:Look I love the energy going into game 3 from some people on here but to keep saying a 2 versus 8 seed means nothing at all. It is who is hot at the time of each series. I think the stat is something like since 1985 presidents trophy starting 7 of them have went on to win the cup that is like 23% so seeds mean little in all reality. Here is a neat tidbit of info http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=559532

I root for the Blues but I and others have stated game 3 is key for THIS team at THIS time and place.

My point in saying that was that getting back in the series when you are a #2 seed playing a #8 seed is a bit different than if it were the other way around.

We were the better team all season long. If we play the way we are capable of playing, we should be able to come back and win this series.

It's not like we squeaked in and are playing a higher seed and are trailing to a better team who has outplayed us badly in the first two games. We were the better team in game #1, but Quick stole it...it happens. We had a terrible first period in game #2 which cost us the game and we were much better in the 2nd & 3rd period. WE ARE THE BETTER TEAM. We just need to play like it for a full 60 and this series will turn around on a dime. Whether that happens or not remains to be seen. Petro returning would be a big step in that direction.

Like I said, win game #3 and folks will be back on the bandwagon because we could tie up the series with a win in game #4...then we're coming back home. One game at a time. Just win the next one.

I still disagree with the "omg we need a 30+ goal scorer."

True the "scoring by committee" thing isn't as flashy, but hell, it WORKS. Our team right now is living proof of that, in fact I think it's even a benefit. Maybe as we push the salary cap this will no longer be the case but for right now we are DEEP and there are few teams that can deal with it. We had, what was it, 9 guys potting 20+ this year? That's insane. You don't need a 30+ goal guy when you're doing that and Hitch has adapted the depth and overall talent level to make it work. We got to the second round of the playoffs (with very little playoff experience btw) for a reason.

If it aint broke don't fix it.

I think it works okay in the regular season to have scoring by committee, but I don't think it works for shit in the playoffs.

I would totally trade for 30+ goal scoring HOWEVER it would have to be for a guy who has done it more than once and isn't a fluke. No overpaying for Brad Boyes, Scott Young, or Craig Conroy after he centered Jarome Iginla.

The truth is I don't think we can afford the right player nor would they be available to us. Ultimately, we have to get one in the draft.

Oshie and perron are nice players, but elite talents they are not. Maybe close, but not top shelf first line players by any estimate. I would part with one of them and a prospect to get a bonafide scorer.