GDT#33: 12/21/11 > Blues @ Avs > 8:30PM > FSMW/KMOX

[theohall]

Who is the Blues special teams coach?

With the Blues PP being the absolute worst in the league, with the exception that they have not surrendered 10 SHGs like the Devils 28th ranked PP, it is time for somebody to be gone and changes to be made. Hitchcock has been here long enough to know whatever is going on is not working and should find someone else.

Yes, the power play has improved slightly under Hitchcock, but .45 PPG/Game is ridiculous. Currently, the Blues are in danger of tying the Devils PP futility mark of 34 PPGs for an entire season, which is what the Devils worst ranked PP did last year. And that is with the "slightly improved" PP under Hitchcock. Heck, if the Blues could manage to get to just the .5 PPG/game level they would have at least two more wins since the coaching change. Not complaining about the Blues current record, but concerned about the power play. If if is not fixed, the Blues will makes the playoffs and be promptly eliminated in the first round.

I had to go back to 97-98, the hook and hold era, to find a season PPG total under 34... and that was the TBL with 33.

[theohall]

I want to see an angle of the puck going in before the net comes off on that 3rd goal. If it's ruled nothing on the ice, they should need conclusive evidence that it went in...I didn't see it. It was close, but you couldn't tell for sure either way with the angles they showed us. I want to know why they ruled that a goal.

The refs screwed up in how they announced it. The replay clearly shows the referee behind the net saying "No Goal". Then they say the call on the ice was "confirmed"???? NHL Highlights show them screwing up that call.

However, the puck does look like it was across the line before the net comes off the moorings.

[cprice12]

I want to see an angle of the puck going in before the net comes off on that 3rd goal. If it's ruled nothing on the ice, they should need conclusive evidence that it went in...I didn't see it. It was close, but you couldn't tell for sure either way with the angles they showed us. I want to know why they ruled that a goal.

The refs screwed up in how they announced it. The replay clearly shows the referee behind the net saying "No Goal". Then they say the call on the ice was "confirmed"???? NHL Highlights show them screwing up that call.

However, the puck does look like it was across the line before the net comes off the moorings.

The referee never signaled "no goal". He put his hands up, basically saying that we're going right to video review.

[kodos]

I thought it should have been a goal.

[WaukeeBlues]

I have no idea what Berglund was waiting for on that backhand. Shoot the damn thing. He had that split second of patience to get the puck wide and then took it behind the net. Made no sense. SHOOT

He didn't look up. He decided what he was going to do and put his head down.
Had he looked up, he had a wide open side. He never saw it.

That's a knock on Berglund. He tends to put his head down for an extended period of time when he has the puck...which would be fine if he was converting on chances this season.

Doesn't matter if he looked up, he knew where the net was. You play the game your whole life you have a pretty good notion of where the net is regardless of where you are in the offensive zone. It's towards the end of the game, you have the puck clean on your stick 5 feet from the net. You shoot. In the general direction if you have to.

I think he was just trying to get Giggy to slide totally over (which Berglund may have thought he was doing), go behind the net and feed the puck in the slot for a goal. Not a great decision but I think that's where his head was at. But that's just me.

[theohall]

After the 3rd period offensive explosion vs Columbus, why were the lines restored as if the Columbus game had never happened? What the heck kind of message is Hitchcock sending to the team if Stewart can continue to be a lazy bones?

Sure, he got A goal. I, for one, would like to see what that line could do with Langenbrunner in Stewie's place for a whole game.

[ViPeRx007]

Why can't the Blues beat teams that my friends are fans of? Well...except the Red Wings...but that hasn't been until recently.

Dang I get tired of hearing their crap.

[philco_3]

Why can't the Blues beat teams that my friends are fans of? Well...except the Red Wings...but that hasn't been until recently.

Dang I get tired of hearing their crap.

[cardsfan04]

One thing this game showed me is that while we're really, really close, we're still missing a piece of the puzzle. We might want to start looking around now.

I'm not against making a trade to improve the team, but I wouldn't make any trade decisions based on one game...especially when they have been playing extremely well.

It's one game man. You're not going to win them all...and even if we had the best lineup in the league, we're still going to lose every now and then.

We didn't play a bad game. It was back and forth most of the game. We'd have great pressure, then the AVS would have great pressure. All three of the Avs goals were flukey, goofy goals. Colorado should actually feel lucky they won and lucky they scored any goals at all.

- The first goal pinballed in off of two players. The deflection was going way wide, but it goes off of Petro's skate and right in the net.
- The second goal was a gift after Elliot whifs on a pass (rare, since he is a good puckhandler) and it goes right to an Avs player who scored.
- The second goal went in when half the players on the ice crashed into Elliot and the puck barely trickles across the line.

Colorado gets credit for playing a good game, but the goals they scored were weird. It could have easily been a shutout for Elliot.
I'm upset we lost the game, but not upset at the way we played.

Flukey loss if you ask me.

Berglund needs to keep his head up. He passed up a wide open net with the puck on his stick and a chance to tie the game late because he wanted to go behind the net for some reason. Ugh.

This is a game where the power play needed to come through. You have a couple goofy goals go in against...and the power play needed to retaliate and win the game for us after we battled back to tie it up.

I want to see an angle of the puck going in before the net comes off on that 3rd goal. If it's ruled nothing on the ice, they should need conclusive evidence that it went in...I didn't see it. It was close, but you couldn't tell for sure either way with the angles they showed us. I want to know why they ruled that a goal.

I don't disagree with any of that per se. A couple of fluky goals are the difference in a game that we were the better team. Losses like that are going to happen, and I'm happy it's by fluke than poor play. I definitely wouldn't use this game for a knee-jerk reaction to make a move. But, I do think it is a microcosm of what the Blues need. We are good at generating chances, but not so great at capitalizing on the chances. That tells me that we would greatly benefit from a top-line scorer.

Obviously any team would benefit from that, but that seems to be the one thing we could use to get over the hump. The problem is that we'll have to give up talent to get one this season. If we could trade a defensive prospect or maybe two (not Cole, and preferably not Fairchild) plus a pick or two, I'd be very tempted. Adding a serious scoring threat w/o giving up any NHL talent would make this a REALLY good team. Not sure how realistic it is, but I'd love it if we could pull it off.

[Oaklandblue]

One thing this game showed me is that while we're really, really close, we're still missing a piece of the puzzle. We might want to start looking around now.

I'm not against making a trade to improve the team, but I wouldn't make any trade decisions based on one game...especially when they have been playing extremely well.

It's one game man. You're not going to win them all...and even if we had the best lineup in the league, we're still going to lose every now and then.

We didn't play a bad game. It was back and forth most of the game. We'd have great pressure, then the AVS would have great pressure. All three of the Avs goals were flukey, goofy goals. Colorado should actually feel lucky they won and lucky they scored any goals at all.

- The first goal pinballed in off of two players. The deflection was going way wide, but it goes off of Petro's skate and right in the net.
- The second goal was a gift after Elliot whifs on a pass (rare, since he is a good puckhandler) and it goes right to an Avs player who scored.
- The second goal went in when half the players on the ice crashed into Elliot and the puck barely trickles across the line.

Colorado gets credit for playing a good game, but the goals they scored were weird. It could have easily been a shutout for Elliot.
I'm upset we lost the game, but not upset at the way we played.

Flukey loss if you ask me.

Berglund needs to keep his head up. He passed up a wide open net with the puck on his stick and a chance to tie the game late because he wanted to go behind the net for some reason. Ugh.

This is a game where the power play needed to come through. You have a couple goofy goals go in against...and the power play needed to retaliate and win the game for us after we battled back to tie it up.

I want to see an angle of the puck going in before the net comes off on that 3rd goal. If it's ruled nothing on the ice, they should need conclusive evidence that it went in...I didn't see it. It was close, but you couldn't tell for sure either way with the angles they showed us. I want to know why they ruled that a goal.

I don't disagree with any of that per se. A couple of fluky goals are the difference in a game that we were the better team. Losses like that are going to happen, and I'm happy it's by fluke than poor play. I definitely wouldn't use this game for a knee-jerk reaction to make a move. But, I do think it is a microcosm of what the Blues need. We are good at generating chances, but not so great at capitalizing on the chances. That tells me that we would greatly benefit from a top-line scorer.

Obviously any team would benefit from that, but that seems to be the one thing we could use to get over the hump. The problem is that we'll have to give up talent to get one this season. If we could trade a defensive prospect or maybe two (not Cole, and preferably not Fairchild) plus a pick or two, I'd be very tempted. Adding a serious scoring threat w/o giving up any NHL talent would make this a REALLY good team. Not sure how realistic it is, but I'd love it if we could pull it off.

Fixing the special teams will require players who can follow through and score. When you have the man advantage and can't score on a consistant basis, something is wrong. And when you have the man advantage and 1-2 goals is your regular output, that doesn't sound like the coach's fault.

This isn't my opinion after one game. It's my opinion after the first 20.

[glen a richter]

Why can't the Blues beat teams that my friends are fans of? Well...except the Red Wings...but that hasn't been until recently.

Dang I get tired of hearing their crap.

I've had a lot of fun this season with my Canuck and Red Wing fan friends, as well as my Ranger friends and family. Let's keep the ball rolling, shall we?

[ViPeRx007]

Why can't the Blues beat teams that my friends are fans of? Well...except the Red Wings...but that hasn't been until recently.

Dang I get tired of hearing their crap.

I've had a lot of fun this season with my Canuck and Red Wing fan friends, as well as my Ranger friends and family. Let's keep the ball rolling, shall we?

Just beat the damn Avs, that's all I'm asking. If you're lucky enough to find a hockey fan in Montana they're most likely an Avalanche fan just because Denver has the closest team.