GDT #8: 10/24/15 | 7:00PM CST | v Islanders | FSMW/KMOX

[cardsfan04]

I know that I can tend to lean toward the homerish viewpoints, but I thought Ott played well on Saturday. He's not a great player, and I wouldn't be sad to see him go. But, I remember thinking during the game about how well he was playing (for his role), so it's kinda funny to me that this game sparked an "Ott sucks" discussion.

[ViPeRx007]

I had to record this game and watch it later. The Blues played like a team that is missing a lot of players. In spite of that, we were playing a Islanders team that played the night before after we had 4 days rest or whatever it was. It was nice to see them fight back in the third, but overall it wasn't that great of a game.

Things of note:

1) Parayko is good. Up in the plays, trying to make things happen offensively, solid defensively. Can't ask for much more from a kid who wasn't even thought about until camp.

2) Gomez still seems useful to me. He was noticeable and was dishing.

3) A lot of missed chances. Bouwmeester and Rattie missed wide open ones; I think there was at least one other too, Steen maybe? Just one break there would have yielded a different outcome but we just don't seem to get a lot of those break things for whatever reason...

4) Ott seems to actually get at least 1 or 2 pretty good chances a game, but he can't finish to save his life. Reaves has 0 pts and 2 PIM? Ott has 21 PIM? I feel bad for Brodziak. The guy has actually put up decent numbers before, but with Ott and Reaves any offensive upside he has is kind of wasted. If the 4th line isn't going to rough people up, what exactly is their purpose? You might as well try to piece together a line that can contribute more on the offensive side. Obviously right now we're a little light in the roster to mess around too much, but the 4th line is the biggest area that could be improved down the road, IMO.

[ecbm]

If the 4th line isn't going to rough people up, what exactly is their purpose?

A few of us have been wondering about that for a couple seasons. Basically, Hitch is trying to just hold serve for 10 minutes a game and punting on scoring while the 4th line is out. There's no way he doesn't know what the results have been for a long time now and he doesn't change it. It's one more aspect of his 90s-oriented coaching.

[glen a richter]

If the 4th line isn't going to rough people up, what exactly is their purpose?

A few of us have been wondering about that for a couple seasons. Basically, Hitch is trying to just hold serve for 10 minutes a game and punting on scoring while the 4th line is out. There's no way he doesn't know what the results have been for a long time now and he doesn't change it. It's one more aspect of his 90s-oriented coaching.

There seem to be a handful of 4th line apologists. For whatever reason, they don't notice the trend in the league today. Your 4th line has to contribute more than 8-10 minutes a game, and has to contribute offensively. Ours does neither.

[ecbm]

Just a reminder: the main problem with Ott is his salary. If he were on a 2-way contract that paid him $700K in the NHL, fine. We sign guys like Brodziak, Upshall, Gomez and people make a few sarcastic comments and that's it. Ott's salary makes a significant dent in the cap and makes it a much harder decision to scratch him. But then, Hitch wouldn't scratch him-he loves him and, unbelievably, often sees him as the solution to a line not performing. I guess that's why he got the contract.

[theohall]

But then, Hitch wouldn't scratch him-he loves him and, unbelievably, often sees him as the solution to a line not performing. I guess that's why he got the contract.

Which is exactly the problem to which I referred. It's not about what we expect of Ott. We have a darn good idea of how Ott will perform, because he is pretty darn consistent in his role as a 4th line guy, almost regularly promoted to other lines, who just can't finish.

It's what the head coach seems to expect of Ott that is so frustrating, when there are more skilled forwards on the team. What in the heck was Hitch thinking replacing Butler with Ott to improve scoring on the Gomez line? I get replacing Butler, because he wasn't doing well, but at least put someone who is a decent offensive threat out there - like either of the two guys signed this off-season or even Jaskin since the Backes line isn't performing up to snuff. Let Backes suffer with Ott's inability to finish. Maybe it will motivate Backes. Gomez and Rattie certainly didn't need Ott's motivation in the last game. Ott just destroyed scoring chances by not finishing. Not saying this is an Ott problem alone, because other guys missesd great chances too, but it's the seeming expectation of the head coach that Ott is any kind of offensive answer. Yes, it is offensive to some of us as fans, though.

[ecbm]

If the 4th line isn't going to rough people up, what exactly is their purpose?

A few of us have been wondering about that for a couple seasons. Basically, Hitch is trying to just hold serve for 10 minutes a game and punting on scoring while the 4th line is out. There's no way he doesn't know what the results have been for a long time now and he doesn't change it. It's one more aspect of his 90s-oriented coaching.

There seem to be a handful of 4th line apologists. For whatever reason, they don't notice the trend in the league today. Your 4th line has to contribute more than 8-10 minutes a game, and has to contribute offensively. Ours does neither.

They also could bring some speed, keep possession and stay out of the box. That may be even more important. The Hawks fourth line (Kruger-Teravainen-Smith as best I can tell) didn't actually score that much more than our guys: 16 goals and 35 points versus 13 and 35 (I am considering Reaves, Ott, Goc, Jokinen and Lapierre's numbers so there's that). BUT Chicago's guys spent 100 fewer minutes in the box and were a collective -2 compared the Blues' -11. Then there's advanced stats. Basically, there's no way to make this Blues' 4th line look good. As I said, there's no way Hitch doesn't know this. Why not try Reaves/Brodziak/Rattie? You'd have to ask the coach.

[cprice12]

I know that I can tend to lean toward the homerish viewpoints, but I thought Ott played well on Saturday. He's not a great player, and I wouldn't be sad to see him go. But, I remember thinking during the game about how well he was playing (for his role), so it's kinda funny to me that this game sparked an "Ott sucks" discussion.

I just think the Ott hate is way overblown for some reason...I guess it's because he doesn't really produce any offense. I dunno.

But honestly, he isn't as bad as the haters are stating...and he isn't as good as the Ott fanboys imply either. He's somewhere inbetween.
He's a decent 4th line checker, agitator, banger, shit disturber. Nothing more, nothing less.

Some may not like his antics, but I do. Sue me...I enjoy them...they're entertaining. If he is getting under the skin of an opponent, then that's good for us.

Now, with that said...if Ott were to be traded, I wouldn't really miss him.
My only real beef with him isn't anything he is at fault for, and that is his salary. I think he makes a tad too much, and might get a tad too much ice time based on the offense he does produce...but whatever. That's on Hitch & Army...not Ott.

[ecbm]

I just think the Ott hate is way overblown

Not half as overblown as the Perron hate, which was partaken of far more universally-about a guy who scored 84 goals in 340 games with the Blues, went +45 and didn't make $2.5M per while well past his prime. Ott has scored 3 in 109 games and is -18. Also consider that Perron played on a far lower quality version of the Blues. What, didn't like Perron's personality? I don't like Ott's personality-and he doesn't have the excuse of being a stupid young person, whereas Perron was 19 when he came up with the club.

Again: 3 goals in 109 games-but when something goes wrong on the top 2 lines, who does Hitch insert? I don't accept that it's over the top to be frustrated with that and express it. To be clear: my irritation with Ott has mostly to do with Armstrong's and Hitchcock's unfathomable love of the guy rather than Ott himself. If someone wanted to blatantly overpay me to play hockey, I wouldn't turn them down either.

[theohall]

Again: 3 goals in 109 games-but when something goes wrong on the top 2 lines, who does Hitch insert? I don't accept that it's over the top to be frustrated with that and express it. To be clear: my irritation with Ott has mostly to do with Armstrong's and Hitchcock's unfathomable love of the guy rather than Ott himself. If someone wanted to blatantly overpay me to play hockey, I wouldn't turn them down either.

++

Which is why we want him traded if the Blues are going to start trading players. Please get rid of Hitch's option to insert an essentially useless player in terms of offensive play into lines which need offensive help.

If Ott stays on this team, keep him on the 4th line with 4th line players minutes and do not use him as the guy Gomez is supposed to setup to generate scoring.

[glen a richter]

I just think the Ott hate is way overblown

Not half as overblown as the Perron hate, which was partaken of far more universally-about a guy who scored 84 goals in 340 games with the Blues, went +45 and didn't make $2.5M per while well past his prime. Ott has scored 3 in 109 games and is -18. Also consider that Perron played on a far lower quality version of the Blues. What, didn't like Perron's personality? I don't like Ott's personality-and he doesn't have the excuse of being a stupid young person, whereas Perron was 19 when he came up with the club.

Again: 3 goals in 109 games-but when something goes wrong on the top 2 lines, who does Hitch insert? I don't accept that it's over the top to be frustrated with that and express it. To be clear: my irritation with Ott has mostly to do with Armstrong's and Hitchcock's unfathomable love of the guy rather than Ott himself. If someone wanted to blatantly overpay me to play hockey, I wouldn't turn them down either.

Perron was horribly mishandled by Andy Murray. He had that sort of impact on the rookies. Imagine if he'd have gotten the chance to get his coaching hands on Tarasenko. It's not entirely Perron's fault his career has taken a decided turn away from what he could have been. Yes, he was immature, but he was handled very poorly. Ott, however... he's a clown. He really is. Shut up and play. All that chirping and ice time and clown-around nonsense really got under the Wild's collective skin, eh? Last I checked they made round two while our guys were making tee times.

[ViPeRx007]

Yea, most of my Ott hate comes from salary. He's making like 2nd/3rd line money but contributes like a 4th liner...and even that might be generous saying that. If he was making what his linemates are making I might be able to tolerate it a bit more.

[cprice12]

All that chirping and ice time and clown-around nonsense really got under the Wild's collective skin, eh?

To their credit, the Wild didn't seem to let that bother them...but the fans sure did.


Stay classy Minnesota.