Fire Hitch before game 7

[cprice12]

What collapse?

Seriously? The Blues were 2 periods away from a 4-1 series win, holding a 2-goal lead. Now we're heading into a game 7-look at what the bookmakers say about it. People who actually put their money where their mouths are are confident of the result of this game & series. That's a collapse. Hopefully, the Blues make it irrelevant tonight.

No. One game was in 2OT which could have gone either way and the other was in Chicago. I'm not shocked we lost in game #6.
It will be a collapse if we lose tonight and lose the series.

I just don't see the point in being a debbie downer before game #7 even starts.

I can only express my own feelings, Curt. I wish I could tell you I was confident and excited and had faith that the coaches and squad would pull this out. All I really have is hope.

It's a game 7. I'm nervous that they won't play well and blow a 3-1 series lead and lose.
Am I confident they will win? No, I'm not. But I'm not confident they will lose either. It really could go either way, just like every game so far in the series...so I'm just hoping they get the bounces tonight. But if the Blues play the best that they can and don't get screwed by some bad calls or bad bounces, they stand an excellent chance to win this game.

I could MAYBE understand the depression if we were going to Chicago for game #7, but it's in St. Louis.

In 2016, home ice doesn't track to results at all. It doesn't matter.

As I've said in the past, just because home ice hasn't mattered at times in the past, doesn't mean it won't matter tonight. You never know when it will come into play.
Would you rather play game 7 here or in Chicago? I'd rather it be here.

4-1 Blues tonight.

I so hope you're right.

[flyingnote38]

I think the Hitch effect is really that he forces the team to over-achieve in the regular season, by being demanding and over-playing the Blues' best players in all game situations.

Then why was 91 only 4th in ATOI for the season? Why does Bouwmeester get so much time? He and Stastny are not among the elite players on this team. Hitchcock plays them like they are. That keeps the team from hitting the heights its talent level suggests it could. Hitchcock very much is part of the problem. That he's giving Tarasenko 1:10 fewer a night in the playoffs than the regular season while lavishing time on Backes and Steen who are clearly not fully over their injuries

Not really something we need to stab each other in the eye over. My point about Hitch is that he chronically overplays the players he "trusts" in the regular season(if you want to quibble over my description of them as our best players).

Why was Tank 4th in icetime among forwards? Because he doesn't kill power plays. Steen, Backes, and Stastny logged 118, 137:37, and 84:14 minutes of PK time over season to Tanks 32:54. Dividing by games played that equates to 1:76 of PK time per game for Steen, 1:74 for Backes, 1:31 for Stastny, and 0:41 for Tarasenko.

Looking at 5-on-5 in the regular season, Stastny averaged 14:28, Steen 14:26, Tarasenko 14:08, and Backes 14:02. I don't see a huge difference among them.

Has Stastny been a disappointment? Definitely. He is grossly overpaid. Bouw is also.

Is the solution to the Blues' problems having Tank log even more minutes per night in the regular season? No. A better solution is having hockey players on the 4th line and balancing the regular season minutes better. Then in the playoffs, the guys we need to rely on will hopefully have full 'Tanks.'

Is Hitch's time distribution in the playoffs a problem? Only if we lose.

[theohall]

Stastny only taking one offensive zone faceoff in Game 6 is a coaching problem. When your leading faceoff % guy who took the most faceoffs during the regular season in spite of playing 15 fewer games isn't taking key offensive zone faceoffs, the coach isn't putting the best players in the best positions to win key matchups for offensive chances. That's simple.

Why is it all the teams that have won series, with the exception of Hitchcock, are playing their #1 scoring forward the most among forwards? Maybe were Tarasenko playing more, instead of less, this series would have been a sweep, or over after Games 5 or 6. Maybe had Statsny been placed into offensive zone faceoffs, instead of repeatedly matching Backes against Toews wherever on the ice, the Blues get the extra goal that wins Games 2, 5 or 6. Bad coaching decisions are impacting this team in the playoffs. Which isn't any different for Hitchcock post lockout than any of the other times in the playoffs. 15-28 post lockout record. Over-reliance on veterans simply because they are veterans and not enough reliance on skill.

[xbleed83bluex]

Stastny only taking one offensive zone faceoff in Game 6 is a coaching problem. When your leading faceoff % guy who took the most faceoffs during the regular season in spite of playing 15 fewer games isn't taking key offensive zone faceoffs, the coach isn't putting the best players in the best positions to win key matchups for offensive chances. That's simple.

Why is it all the teams that have won series, with the exception of Hitchcock, are playing their #1 scoring forward the most among forwards? Maybe were Tarasenko playing more, instead of less, this series would have been a sweep, or over after Games 5 or 6. Maybe had Statsny been placed into offensive zone faceoffs, instead of repeatedly matching Backes against Toews wherever on the ice, the Blues get the extra goal that wins Games 2, 5 or 6. Bad coaching decisions are impacting this team in the playoffs. Which isn't any different for Hitchcock post lockout than any of the other times in the playoffs. 15-28 post lockout record. Over-reliance on veterans simply because they are veterans and not enough reliance on skill.

And Hitchcock had this to say about Tarasenko:

“If you looked at it and you had 50 seconds (on each shift), instead of 33, well that’s a 23-minute player,” Hitchcock said. “But he’s not able to play that way, maybe at (age) 28 or 29 he can play that way. But he’s a young guy who plays a big man’s game that’s physically demanding, especially at this time of the year. I had him 11 or 12 shifts in the third period. You just can’t put a guy out on the ice any more than that. He’s a short-shift guy, so you’ve just got to live with it.”

That's not a guy who I want coaching this team.

[theohall]

No kidding when it's okay for injured veterans to take longer shifts and not healthy, more talented, younger forwards.

Jamie Benn - 26 leads ice time among forwards for Stars.
Tarasenko - 24 is incapable of doing so right now per Hitchcock.

Riiiihhgggttt!

[flyingnote38]

Of course, losing game #7, and heads should roll.

But you guys are depressing. We have a game 7, at home against our arch rivals...and it could be fantastic...but some of you guys are chalking it up as a loss already.

Knock it off.

Blues have earned skepticism. The veteran core has gone 0-5 in elimination games. In almost every elimination game you can point out the moment that they quit as a team. While winning an elimination game is one more task on their 'prove it' to do list, up 3-1 in the series and then 3-1 in game 6, I was kindof hoping it wouldn't be an issue in this particular series.

Rooting for a win.

[theohall]

Stastny only taking one offensive zone faceoff in Game 6 is a coaching problem. When your leading faceoff % guy who took the most faceoffs during the regular season in spite of playing 15 fewer games isn't taking key offensive zone faceoffs, the coach isn't putting the best players in the best positions to win key matchups for offensive chances. That's simple.

Why is it all the teams that have won series, with the exception of Hitchcock, are playing their #1 scoring forward the most among forwards? Maybe were Tarasenko playing more, instead of less, this series would have been a sweep, or over after Games 5 or 6. Maybe had Statsny been placed into offensive zone faceoffs, instead of repeatedly matching Backes against Toews wherever on the ice, the Blues get the extra goal that wins Games 2, 5 or 6. Bad coaching decisions are impacting this team in the playoffs. Which isn't any different for Hitchcock post lockout than any of the other times in the playoffs. 15-28 post lockout record. Over-reliance on veterans simply because they are veterans and not enough reliance on skill.

And Hitchcock had this to say about Tarasenko:

“If you looked at it and you had 50 seconds (on each shift), instead of 33, well that’s a 23-minute player,” Hitchcock said. “But he’s not able to play that way, maybe at (age) 28 or 29 he can play that way. But he’s a young guy who plays a big man’s game that’s physically demanding, especially at this time of the year. I had him 11 or 12 shifts in the third period. You just can’t put a guy out on the ice any more than that. He’s a short-shift guy, so you’ve just got to live with it.”

That's not a guy who I want coaching this team.

From the Player's Tribune Ray Whitney on playing in Russia. Pay attention to KHL practices of which Tarasenko endured two full seasons. If Tank can handle that practice pace, he can handle better than 33 second shifts, Coach.

[WaukeeBlues]

Another fun fact about Hitchcock: How many playoff games 3-6 (because they never get to a game 7) has this team won under Hitchcock?

I don't have the number in front of me but with the exception of our sole series win against the Sharks in the first round of 2012 its horrendous, I know that.

That's a pretty gosh darn good indicator that the good coaches figure Hitch out and make the necessary adjustments as a series goes along and Hitch can't or doesn't counteract it.

[theohall]

Another fun fact about Hitchcock: How many playoff games 3-6 (because they never get to a game 7) has this team won under Hitchcock?

I don't have the number in front of me but with the exception of our sole series win against the Sharks in the first round of 2012 its horrendous, I know that.

That's a pretty gosh darn good indicator that the good coaches figure Hitch out and make the necessary adjustments as a series goes along and Hitch can't or doesn't counteract it.

Under Hitchcock 6-15 in Games 3 through 6 through Saturday.

[Oaklandblue]

And the disappointment has officially been set up. 1-0 Blues.

Welcome to the game, Jori.

[drwoland]

Just wanted to check back in here..

We're 1-1 against Dallas right now and have "stolen" home ice.

I still think it's in spite of Hitch and we'd probably be doing about the same or better with literally anyone else at the helm.

He almost gave the (Franking) game away AGAIN by taking a timeout before a PK and allowing Kane to rest and take the ice. I almost lost my god damned mind.

Hitch is the Andy Reid of the NHL.

I hope we beat the brakes off Dallas at the Scottrade. Hitch lacks the confidence to keep the foot on the gas when we have the advantage, and it infects the team psyche. That's why we can't play with a lead.

We FINALLY played a good 2nd period in game 2 today - only to then almost piss the game away again in the 3rd.

[WaukeeBlues]

Just wanted to check back in here..

We're 1-1 against Dallas right now and have "stolen" home ice.

I still think it's in spite of Hitch and we'd probably be doing about the same or better with literally anyone else at the helm.

He almost gave the (Franking) game away AGAIN by taking a timeout before a PK and allowing Kane to rest and take the ice. I almost lost my god damned mind.

Hitch is the Andy Reid of the NHL.

I hope we beat the brakes off Dallas at the Scottrade. Hitch lacks the confidence to keep the foot on the gas when we have the advantage, and it infects the team psyche. That's why we can't play with a lead.

We FINALLY played a good 2nd period in game 2 today - only to then almost piss the game away again in the 3rd.

I agree. I still don't think Hitchcock is that great a coach even with our more recent success. At his post game news conference a reporter more or less asked him point blank why the Blues went into a shell in the 3rd period up by only 2. I'm paraphrasing but Hitch basically said "Worst lead in hockey, any team coming back in that situation pushes everything, takes a ton of risks and the leading team to play within itself. When we've been down by 2 this year in the 3rd we've come roaring back too you know."

I didn't like the answer. Basically admitted to not pushing anymore and letting the attacking team dictate the response. Glad we won tonight but I don't like this coach.

[theohall]

Hitchcock said the players were playing the score and that wasn't the coaches telling them to do so. My response as a reporter would have been "Haven't you as a coach instilled that mentality in them over the past 5 years?"

[ecbm]

Hitchcock said the players were playing the score and that wasn't the coaches telling them to do so. My response as a reporter would have been "Haven't you as a coach instilled that mentality in them over the past 5 years?"

This jibes with what Berglund said-that they aren't told to go into a shell. But still: yeah, that's the result of years of Hitchcock coaching. Even leaving that aside though-what, he can't do anything to snap them out of it? Either he's ineffective in that situation or that is, in fact, how he would prefer the team play.

That said, I have a feeling Hitch might-reasonably, to some extent-protest that it should be possible to play conservative and still manage more than 2 shots in a period.

[theohall]

Hitchcock said the players were playing the score and that wasn't the coaches telling them to do so. My response as a reporter would have been "Haven't you as a coach instilled that mentality in them over the past 5 years?"

This jibes with what Berglund said-that they aren't told to go into a shell. But still: yeah, that's the result of years of Hitchcock coaching. Even leaving that aside though-what, he can't do anything to snap them out of it? Either he's ineffective in that situation or that is, in fact, how he would prefer the team play.

That said, I have a feeling Hitch might-reasonably, to some extent-protest that it should be possible to play conservative and still manage more than 2 shots in a period.

Agreed. There is conservative and horribly overly conservative - as in defenseman almost never crossing center ice conservative - which is what they were doing in the 3rd period.

[WaukeeBlues]

Hitchcock said the players were playing the score and that wasn't the coaches telling them to do so. My response as a reporter would have been "Haven't you as a coach instilled that mentality in them over the past 5 years?"

This jibes with what Berglund said-that they aren't told to go into a shell. But still: yeah, that's the result of years of Hitchcock coaching. Even leaving that aside though-what, he can't do anything to snap them out of it? Either he's ineffective in that situation or that is, in fact, how he would prefer the team play.

That said, I have a feeling Hitch might-reasonably, to some extent-protest that it should be possible to play conservative and still manage more than 2 shots in a period.

Agreed. There is conservative and horribly overly conservative - as in defenseman almost never crossing center ice conservative - which is what they were doing in the 3rd period.

Exactly, you can put on some pressure and yet play safe defensively. I don't even think there was a forecheck at ALL in the 3rd period. At times there was maybe one guy almost out to the Stars' blueline making a half @$$ attempt to impede but nothing even remotely challenging.

Why can you not have an aggressive 1-1-3 forecheck or a 1-2-2? One guy, at the absolute minimum, should be given the green light to get in there on the puck when its dumped and create as much havoc as possible with at least one player taking an option.

It's what you do on the PK: the two forwards cycle a one man pressure with 2D and that cycling forward always back or taking options. It's not hard.

Hitchcock was doing something like a .5-0-4.5. Terrible.

[glen a richter]

An effective "defensive shell" would result in the other team getting 2 shots on the period, not 13. So obviously something went horribly wrong and if Hitch and the players don't recognize that and adjust accordingly, they deserve to lose. Let's just suppose for a minute that this team magically advances to the finals. You think this nonsense would hold up against Washington or Pittsburgh? Absolutely not. We'd be swept right out of the SCF for the 4th time in franchise history.

[theohall]

Listening and reading post game interviews, Hitchcock is busy cracking jokes and trying to lighten things up with the media. Everyone of the players has laid the reason for the poor 3rd period play on themselves. With that many guys saying it, it's on the players. Hitchcock trying to keep things light publicly while the players are taking the hit on themselves seems to me to be the right way to handle this. It's on the players to friggin' perform to their capabilities for a full-game.

So, yes, I'm defending Hitchcock this time. The players need to pull their heads out of their butts and play like they are losing even if they have a 2-goal lead.

[StL Dan]

I couldn't agree more.

Listening and reading post game interviews, Hitchcock is busy cracking jokes and trying to lighten things up with the media. Everyone of the players has laid the reason for the poor 3rd period play on themselves. With that many guys saying it, it's on the players. Hitchcock trying to keep things light publicly while the players are taking the hit on themselves seems to me to be the right way to handle this. It's on the players to friggin' perform to their capabilities for a full-game.

So, yes, I'm defending Hitchcock this time. The players need to pull their heads out of their butts and play like they are losing even if they have a 2-goal lead.

[WaukeeBlues]

I couldn't agree more.

Listening and reading post game interviews, Hitchcock is busy cracking jokes and trying to lighten things up with the media. Everyone of the players has laid the reason for the poor 3rd period play on themselves. With that many guys saying it, it's on the players. Hitchcock trying to keep things light publicly while the players are taking the hit on themselves seems to me to be the right way to handle this. It's on the players to friggin' perform to their capabilities for a full-game.

So, yes, I'm defending Hitchcock this time. The players need to pull their heads out of their butts and play like they are losing even if they have a 2-goal lead.

Hitch also stated though that the guys weren't coached to not go into a shell. That doesn't mean he gave his troops explicit instructions on what kind of a forecheck he wanted.

That part is on him. If you tell the players "I want a 1-1-3 forecheck with the two front guys being aggressive" and they don't go out and play that, then you bench their @$$e$. What am I missing?

Last I checked if the players on the ice aren't doing what you want them to do as a coach, you order them to do something different. Astro-physics here...