GDT Game 2: 5/1/16 | 2:00PM CST | @ Stars | NBC/Y98

[StL Dan]

Per Hitch:

"It's the score. It's a natural tendency. What do they say? The worst lead in hockey is a two-goal lead. But it's natural. You play the score. You don't want to get caught so you put a safety net up. It's been like that ever since I started coaching. The other team plays with high-risk. So they are pinching on everything and trying to join numbers on the attack. So, they are full-bore go. It's hard to play that way on your toes when everybody is behind you. So, what they did is get everybody behind us and you have a choice. You go forward and attack but you are not fore-checking anybody. You are fore-checking one player, because there are four or five hanging behind you. It's not anything that is instructed and it's not the way we want to play and not the way we should play, but it is natural tendency for any team. The thing that impressed me more than anything is the way we played in overtime. Outstanding. We went into attack mode and stayed on it the whole time. I was really impressed with the way we did OT."

I saw that quote too and personally I thought it was ridiculous--Hitch is saying that it was the team's fault ("human nature" ) they went into a dump-and-change prevent defense? REALLY?!? Did he not notice that the players were "playing the score"? Was he somehow unable to motivate or even direct HIS players to alter their style? He's the damn COACH--isn't that the job description?? Is he honestly saying that the players took it upon themselves to play short shifts and chip the puck to the Dallas defense for the entire 3rd period and there was NOTHING HE COULD DO ABOUT IT? This is ludicrous for its obvious falsehood, insulting that he expects anyone to believe it and shameful that he would throw his own players under the bus.

Maybe the coaching staff didn't tell the players to lay back (highly doubtful) but they sure as hell didn't tell them not to.

But all that is in the past (i hope) and we've got home ice and a bit of momentum. Let's take two in the Lou and win this thing in spite of the coach.

He's saying whatever it takes to get the team through this series and on to the next. I could care less what Hitch says, for the most part, as long as the Blues are better off for it....which they seem to be by all accounts. There isn't one single reason for me to complain about anything that's going on right now.

[Kreegz2]

I don't think enough has been made of Edmundson's goal. Holy cow...he tucked that one timer from in close up under the crossbar...there are a lot of elite goal scorers who couldn't have done that.

Upshall made a great backhand flip pass against the flow of the play that opened up a bunch of space for Brouwer as well. Just a great overall play by the Blues on that goal.

[glen a richter]

When Edmundson scored that goal I let out a fairly loud "holy crap!". In the process I learned my 2.5 month old isn't deaf.

[theohall]

Listening to Backes post game interview, it is more likely on the players. He basically said they weren't listening to the coaches, didn't put forth a 60 minute effort, and hoped the room had learned from this one, finally.

IMO, this team hasn't played a "60 minute" game since the first 2 weeks of the season. If they ever did play the way they are capable of playing for a full 60 minutes, no one could beat them.

[ecbm]

Listening to Backes post game interview, it is more likely on the players.

But the point being made here repeatedly is logical: the coaches couldn't do anything about it then? Not good.

I do think it's a particularly good idea to ignore most of Hitchcock's patter at this time of year.

.

On a positive note, Backes is actually playing like, you know, a captain these playoffs. I'm very happy with his performance so far.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Not quite sure what this is referring to. Two years ago against the Hawks, he was playing awesome before he got KO'd by Seabrook. Backes gets blamed way to much for this teams past misfortunes.

He may mean in contrast to the regular-probably Backes worst season since becoming a fulltime player.

[theohall]

Listening to Backes post game interview, it is more likely on the players.

But the point being made here repeatedly is logical: the coaches couldn't do anything about it then? Not good.

I do think it's a particularly good idea to ignore most of Hitchcock's patter at this time of year.

When it's every defensive pairing and every forward line, who does the coach bench to get his point across? I understand the point about coach not being able to do anything as not good. However, at some point, when the players admit they were screwing up by not doing what the coaches were saying, and it's every player interviewed, it's the player's fault.

Part of why it was the player's fault - none of the Stars forwards were going back into the defensive zone during that 3rd period. The Blues as a team were staying between the forwards and their own goal, instead of more tightly checking those forwards and getting between them and their defense. The Blues could have had a ton of odd-man breaks versus that overly aggressive Stars attack, but chose to play defense first. I'm sure the coaches were telling them to check tighter or some such, but, as Hitchcock said, the players were playing the scoreboard - which is the worst thing this Blues team can do. They aren't the defensive lockdown team of the previous 4 seasons.

[ecbm]

Listening to Backes post game interview, it is more likely on the players.

But the point being made here repeatedly is logical: the coaches couldn't do anything about it then? Not good.

I do think it's a particularly good idea to ignore most of Hitchcock's patter at this time of year.

When it's every defensive pairing and every forward line, who does the coach bench to get his point across? I understand the point about coach not being able to do anything as not good. However, at some point, when the players admit they were screwing up by not doing what the coaches were saying, and it's every player interviewed, it's the player's fault.

Part of why it was the player's fault - none of the Stars forwards were going back into the defensive zone during that 3rd period. The Blues as a team were staying between the forwards and their own goal, instead of more tightly checking those forwards and getting between them and their defense. The Blues could have had a ton of odd-man breaks versus that overly aggressive Stars attack, but chose to play defense first. I'm sure the coaches were telling them to check tighter or some such, but, as Hitchcock said, the players were playing the scoreboard - which is the worst thing this Blues team can do. They aren't the defensive lockdown team of the previous 4 seasons.

We're getting into "chicken & egg/turtles all the way down" territory but I'd say that you wouldn't see every single player continue to do it if some prominent players missed a shift or two. Hitch himself admitted in-game that he might have gotten Reaves on more. Maybe do that when the entire squad is turtling in the 3rd with a two-goal lead? More broadly: this situation means the coach has completely lost the squad (which I suspect is true to some extent). Again, that's nothing good to say about a coach's relationship with his players.

[cardsfan04]

Listening to Backes post game interview, it is more likely on the players.

But the point being made here repeatedly is logical: the coaches couldn't do anything about it then? Not good.

I do think it's a particularly good idea to ignore most of Hitchcock's patter at this time of year.

When it's every defensive pairing and every forward line, who does the coach bench to get his point across? I understand the point about coach not being able to do anything as not good. However, at some point, when the players admit they were screwing up by not doing what the coaches were saying, and it's every player interviewed, it's the player's fault.

Part of why it was the player's fault - none of the Stars forwards were going back into the defensive zone during that 3rd period. The Blues as a team were staying between the forwards and their own goal, instead of more tightly checking those forwards and getting between them and their defense. The Blues could have had a ton of odd-man breaks versus that overly aggressive Stars attack, but chose to play defense first. I'm sure the coaches were telling them to check tighter or some such, but, as Hitchcock said, the players were playing the scoreboard - which is the worst thing this Blues team can do. They aren't the defensive lockdown team of the previous 4 seasons.

We're getting into "chicken & egg/turtles all the way down" territory but I'd say that you wouldn't see every single player continue to do it if some prominent players missed a shift or two. Hitch himself admitted in-game that he might have gotten Reaves on more. Maybe do that when the entire squad is turtling in the 3rd with a two-goal lead? More broadly: this situation means the coach has completely lost the squad (which I suspect is true to some extent). Again, that's nothing good to say about a coach's relationship with his players.

I think you're making it sound easier than it is. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to give them a pass. The 3rd period was bad. Sitting on you heels with a 2 goal lead is playing not to lose instead of to win. That's bad. But, I don't think it's as black and white as just stopping doing what they were doing. Dallas was the top offensive team in the league this year, and they were down 2 goals with a period to play. They were trying to push the action to our end moreso than they normally would and deserve some credit for doing so as much as the Blues deserve criticism for allowing it. Also, we did the same thing to them in the 3rd period of game 1 and tied it up (before immediately giving the lead back, but that's beside the point). I'll be the first to admit that I don't know X's and O's in hockey well at all. But, it seems to me that part of this is just the nature of the beast.