Hitchcock will be back! Signs one-year extension.

[cardsfan04]

I'm not sure what people expected...I mean the guy steered the Blues to within 2 games of a Stanley Cup Final appearance. The only way he wasn't coming back was if he decided to retire.

I'm split...I wanted him gone last year after the Minnesota series, because I thought that was inexcusable. But pair the postseason run with the point total he helped the Blues achieve while half of his players were on IR...this had to be expected.

That's mostly where I'm at too, except I wasn't adamant about firing him after last season. We're in the middle of possibly the best run in franchise history right now in terms of being consistently at the top of the league. We just set a franchise record for postseason wins. I bet if you made a list of coaches to do that and then be let go, it would be a really really small list, if it even exists. Of course he was brought back. That's not dismissing people's criticisms of him. Valid criticism exists for sure. But, I'm not sure it warrants his dismissal. Part of me likes the new Cup or Bust mentality though. That's not something we've been accustomed to.

[theohall]

The big problem in a minute...

Yes, they brought Hitchcock back, because the reached the Conference Finals. Does he deserve another chance? If it were just him, yes.

Now to the problem....

I watched the preseason coaching videos when Hitchcock, Shaw, Muller, and Bennett were in those meetings discussing what they needed to do with the team to improve the offense. What did Hitchcock do? Handed that side off to the assistants. Two of those three assistants are now gone. It wasn't Hitchcock's offense it was his assistant's offense and the Blues didn't make enough of an offer to keep them.

Now, Hitchcock, the master of defense who relied on others to create an offense, lost the guys who created it and is in charge with just Ray Bennett, for now, as far as I know.

Since Hitchcock is already back, Armstrong had better be seriously involved in who comes in as assistants or else the Blues are facing another first round exit with a defense first, defense only from offense team.

One thing both the Sharks and the Penguins show - their 5-on-5 play is almost like a PK when the other team has the puck in their own end. Attack the puck carrier with one guy while a second guy blocks the lane to the most obvious outlet and the rest of the guys play positional. Yes, this can be beat by stretch plays and is vulnerable to turnovers leading to odd man breaks. This is when the defense has to stand up and overcome the error. It also relies on defense not making errors. The Blues plays a similar style at many times this season, yet the defense - in particular the veteran Bouwmeester and the rookie Edmundson - made mistakes leading to goals which cost games. Edmundson, being a rookie, has room to improve. What's the excuse for Bouwmeester. IMO, if Edmundson had been playing with Pietrangelo, and Bouwmeester not been on the ice at all, the Blues win series in fewer games, aren't as tired, and don't lose to the Sharks in 6. But that's all hypothetical. Why do I believe that? Look at how good Edmundson played when Bouwmeester was out and he was paired with Pietrangelo during the stretch run to the playoffs. IMO, this was a huge flaw of Hitchcock's and will continue to be moving forward. A flat out refusal to break up Bouwmeester and Pietrangelo without injury as an excuse. The playoffs showed Bouwmeester to be a weakness when playing with Pietrangelo. (Reference is the Blues playoff losses and how teams focused on attacking the right wing vs the 27/19 pairing). It also showed Edmundson to not be as good with a weaker right defenseman. But does Hitchcock ever bust up his "#1" defensive pairing? No. He kept screwing with the lower pairings no matter how much those changes didn't work. That's not going to change.

Bottom line.... Hitchcock and Army are going to decide on the assistants and, unfortunately, I see them going backwards to the overly defensive system, instead of moving forwards offensively which actually got them to the Conference Finals.

[ecbm]

Sorry for the delay but I always need a cooling-off period this time of year. To be fair, usually a month earlier.

I still don't think Hitch is that amazing of a coach but he was the guy behind the bench that guided this team to the conference finals. He's going to get re-signed. Which is understandable.

Yeah, pretty much where I'm at with him. Given what the team did this year, sure, he's welcome back...BUT another part of me can't stop thinking: I really don't feel like there's any individual to point the finger at this time. Which says, to me, that what we saw here were the limitations of a system. Despite being a better team over a larger sample and having undoubted talent-the Blues looked oh so slow against the Sharks and did for portions of the Dallas series before this. I don't think the Blues lack foot speed particularly but the way they play doesn't allow for much effective use of team speed. That really clicked for me when Steen (I think it was him) described game 4 vs. SJ. He attributed the effective offense to getting the puck super deep and working from below the goal line. I thought then that if that's how they approach the remaining games, to essentially revert to a classic Hitchcock system rather than the hybrid we'd seen when they were most effective this season, that they were done. I don't feel that any less now. And I feel like it'll always be something this squad reverts to as long as Hitchcock is in charge.

Then again, maybe that would be the case even if he left. Most of this core have played their entire prime under him. He clearly has commanded more respect than his predecessors. So, yeah...

It's as if they want to keep Hitch on long enough to put this team into the ground and when we get someone in who can use the assets we have to make them move forward, those assets will be gone or on the decline.

Yep, agree. The die is cast. It looks pretty clear to me that the idea is to push all in with this core and coach and then rebuild if it doesn't work. Maybe it'll work. I don't know.

Didn't know all that about the assistants but on that front, they just need to make good hires. I mean, Muller may have been effective here but he's be disastrously ineffective as an offensive coach in the past-Carolina under him had an historically bad PP that was a major reason for his firing.

So, uh...yeah...uh, Let's Go Blues?

*sigh*

[ecbm]

Well dammit, just realized I was looking at Lehtera's old contract and forgot about the extension. To which the only response can be:



So I guess Armstrong undid some of that awesome work on Tank by overpaying Jori based on a single solid season.

Dammit.

Anyone looking for the cap floor? Anyone?

Anyone?

[theohall]

Didn't know all that about the assistants but on that front, they just need to make good hires. I mean, Muller may have been effective here but he's be disastrously ineffective as an offensive coach in the past-Carolina under him had an historically bad PP that was a major reason for his firing.

As someone else already pointed out, look at the personnel Muller had to work with in Carolina. It was on par with the 2005-2007 Blues rosters. I won't be surprised if Muller's work with Montreal helps fix their issues.

Losing Brad Shaw is going to hurt more than people realize. The little those videos showed before the season he's the one speaking up to counter Hitchcock almost every time there is anything said contrary to what Hitch wants.

How does one go about hiring assistants who will be new to the team and new to working with Hitchcock without them being afraid to counter their new boss? On top of that, they will likely have little experience with the Blues players making it tough for the Blues players to buy in to whatever the new assistants might suggest. It's a perfect disaster unless you love Hitchcock's style of play which led to those 1st round playoff exits.

On the playing behind the goal line thing Steen talked about - that's how to beat the Sharks, just like it's how to beat the Blues, and how to beat the Penguins. When teams are approximately equivalent in talent and team speed, it comes down to a) who works harder in the hard areas b) who is more aggressive in the offensive zone especially trying to work down low and force the opponent's speed at forward to work entirely from it's own end c) taking advantage of turnovers which lead to odd-man breaks while d) not turning the puck over. The Sharks converted more Blues turnovers into goals than the Blues did Sharks turnovers.

[ecbm]

As someone else already pointed out, look at the personnel Muller had to work with in Carolina. It was on par with the 2005-2007 Blues rosters.

Point taken, but that's why the analysis there-not just mine and not just in hindsight-drills down to the PP. They still had 5 NHL players on the ice against a team with 4 during those. And I'm not saying Muller sucks, I'm just saying that sometimes a coach is effective one year and in one place and in one role and not necessarily the next. Put it this way: competent assistants and a voice countering Hitch's at times were almost certainly a big part of the Blues' success this year. Kirk Muller, specifically, I'm not so convinced.

On the playing behind the goal line thing Steen talked about - that's how to beat the Sharks, just like it's how to beat the Blues, and how to beat the Penguins.

I just disagree here. I don't think it's a way to beat effective teams consistently at all in the NHL in 2016. Which I suppose is what we saw. It's not the 90s, it's not all about possession anymore. But honestly, seriously-what the hell do I know?

[theohall]

On the playing behind the goal line thing Steen talked about - that's how to beat the Sharks, just like it's how to beat the Blues, and how to beat the Penguins.

I just disagree here. I don't think it's a way to beat effective teams consistently at all in the NHL in 2016. Which I suppose is what we saw. It's not the 90s, it's not all about possession anymore. But honestly, seriously-what the hell do I know?

The important part of that which I should have stated first, instead of at the end - given basically equivalent talent. If both teams are fast, it washes out. If both teams are good on the PP, it washes out if the officiating is even. If both teams are good at possession, it will wash out. If both teams are good on the PK, they can both negate the PP, and it washes out, again.

So what's it take to beat a team which has the same skill set and ability as your team? Working harder, taking advantage of turnovers, and doing whatever you can to negate what makes your own team effective. The Blues were most effective before the playoffs breaking out and then establishing zone presence from the breakout. Sharks were the same thing. Penguins have been the same thing from what I've seen in the playoffs. How do you negate that? Play deep in their end so their forwards are forced to play deeper in their own end negating the speed and effectiveness of the breakouts. That's essentially what Steen was saying. Hitchcock and others had already mentioned how do you beat yourself when he was describing the Sharks? Don't let the Sharks get the breakouts that lead to their aggressive two-man forecheck which means making them play deeper in their own end - like working from behind the goal line and then outworking them. Problem for St Louis was they didn't do this near often enough and spent more time trying to counter that aggressive Sharks forecheck which reminded me of a PK unit extended to the full length of the ice. When the Sharks get that two-man forecheck going, it's hard to bust it up, unless you are willing to sacrifice the stretch pass, which is so popular, and actually have all 5 skaters be more committed to playing D. Unless you can keep the puck in the Sharks end and negate it that way.

There is a time and place for Hitchcock's preferred style and, IMO, it might have worked vs the Sharks instead of the hybrid team we saw most of the season and in the playoffs.

[Oaklandblue]

Coaching staff is messed up, Hitch is staying, key player contracts are in the air, it's like the 90's again.

[glen a richter]

Coaching staff is messed up, Hitch is staying, key player contracts are in the air, it's like the 90's again.

Is Mike Keenan available?

[ComradeT]

Coaching staff is messed up, Hitch is staying, key player contracts are in the air, it's like the 90's again.

Is Mike Keenan available?

Well, funny that you ask. He might be!

On October 17, 2015, Keenan was fired by Magnitogorsk.

[fargoblues]

Coaching staff is messed up, Hitch is staying, key player contracts are in the air, it's like the 90's again.

Is Mike Keenan available?

Well, funny that you ask. He might be!

On October 17, 2015, Keenan was fired by Magnitogorsk.

[ComradeT]

So, I know the whole "we went THIS far, why fire Hitch now" argument has been brought up as valid. Also, hindsight is 20/20. But the article below perfectly underscores why the decision to bring in Hitch is completely wrong:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/hockey/p ... c1074.html


In a nutshell, when you give your head coach a 1-year gig and try to find assistant coaches who would also agree to a 1-year gig, you are not going to find much. We might as well end up with Hitch (64), Keenan (66) and Andy Murray (65) on the last-hurrah, one-and-done, give-this-a-good-old-college-try shitshow of a season.

Maybe it's not too late to take back my half-season deposit.

[theohall]

Yeo and Wilson?? GAH!!!!! Where is the vomit smilie?

Once again, the organization looking at re-treads instead of looking at the younger coaches and,you know, offering something more than a 1 year deal. What experienced coach would ever take that deal unless they were desperate for a job?

Gonna be a long 2016-17 season unless Armstrong pulls his head out of his ass, starts looking at younger coaches, and, you know, hires one of them to spend a year learning with Hitchcock with the promise of at least an HC interview for next season - like a priority option thing.

[Oaklandblue]

I would absolutely entertain scouting out KHL coaching right now and giving Hitch more of an advisory role to transition him into the front office. We need a new, fresh perspective in that locker room and with the club and going overseas might be the right choice for that.

[Oaklandblue]

Coaching staff is messed up, Hitch is staying, key player contracts are in the air, it's like the 90's again.

Is Mike Keenan available?

Well, funny that you ask. He might be!

On October 17, 2015, Keenan was fired by Magnitogorsk.

Why not, I'll add some fuel to this fire: Keenan was fired after that team won the KHL Cup.

[Oaklandblue]

Yeo and Wilson?? GAH!!!!! Where is the vomit smilie?

Once again, the organization looking at re-treads instead of looking at the younger coaches and,you know, offering something more than a 1 year deal. What experienced coach would ever take that deal unless they were desperate for a job?

Gonna be a long 2016-17 season unless Armstrong pulls his head out of his ass, starts looking at younger coaches, and, you know, hires one of them to spend a year learning with Hitchcock with the promise of at least an HC interview for next season - like a priority option thing.

Wouldn't it be bizzarely funny if we got all the garbage coaches together and we ended up winning the Cup?

[glen a richter]

I'm afraid the retention of Hitchcock and the probable addition of Yeo will cloud Armstrong's judgement when it comes to who he brings back and doesn't bring back as free agents, and any trades or drafting decisions that may be made in a few weeks.

If Yeo comes on, I'd expect Brodziak stays. Since Hitch is still here, i'd expect Ott to be retained. I'm okay with Brodziak but really enough is enough with Ott. Preferably neither would be retained. We have guys in-system who can do the same job or better, and there's free agent wingers (Parenteau) who can score significantly more for probably less or equal money to what we're wasting on Ott. Where we could be giving a significant look to guys like Rattie, Barbashev, Maceachern, Musil, and then down the road Blais, Poganski, Descheneau, if Yeo is the long term plan many of those guys' Blues careers are doomed from the word go. Musil and Poganski project to be more of a Yeo type player--strong on defense, light on offense. But the others, just trade them now if that's the case. As far as the draft goes, we desperately need depth in scoring on the wing and looking forward to a future coach Yeo, we may draft a frikken offense-challenged power forward or a punishing blueliner who can't score shit and can't make an outlet pass to save his life. I was kind of excited about the possibilities this offseason and heading into camp, but I'm really not anymore the more I think about it.

[gaijin]

I was kind of excited about the possibilities this offseason and heading into camp, but I'm really not anymore the more I think about it.

I was mostly in that same boat, but then I think back to early-to-mid last season, and all of us were lamenting that we had a less talented team compared to previous years, there had been no coaching changes, and we were simply playing average hockey. Turns out we went all the way to the WCF.

So I'm not saying everything is awesome (nor am I particularly happy to have Hitch back again), but rather that ultimately the team's performance is not necessarily linked to how excited we are in the offseason, or even mid-season for that matter.

[ComradeT]

It's official: Yeo to coach the Blues after Hitchcock leaves, starting with 2017-18 season.

http://blues.nhl.com/club/news.htm?id=8 ... L|STL|home

[Krigloch the Furious]

He never had a whole lot of talent on his Minny teams, right?

Sent from my R2 unit