Armstrong says we are "Rebuilding"

[theohall]

It's nice that someone can judge Allen on a miniscule body of work (a whole 11 playoff starts and one season as the clear #1 starter while judging the other goalie on his entire body of work. How about applying the same standard to Elliott that's been applied to Allen - judge Elliott on his first 147 games and 8 starts in the playoffs. But no... clearly goalies don't have any chance of improving over time, apparently.

http://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/839915978158977028 Clearly not keeping Elliott was the problem.

Clearly Yeo is a problem.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

From https://www.nhl.com/news/brian-elliott- ... -281244182

*snip*

Elliott last season was 23-8-6, led the NHL with a .930 save percentage, and his 2.07 goals-against average was tied for second with John Gibson of the Anaheim Ducks and behind the League-best 2.06 of Ben Bishop of the Tampa Bay Lightning.

*snip*

And how about this season, eh? Nice that you didn't bring that up and had to rely on last season. Oh... that doesn't fit your narrative, since Allen and Elliott have darn near the same numbers this season.

[theohall]

You can list all those scores, but the Blues aren't the same team from those games. The teams you saw Tuesday are the ones you would see in a playoff series, barring injury. Of course, one game doesn't forecast a playoff series but it can provide a glimpse. I glimpsed a turnover prone, easily frustrated team that's only poised when they're front running (which they've done plenty of this season). You glimpsed it too.

Agreed on Boudreau not being Quenneville.

That highlighted part could be said of this current Blues squad. They have not played well when trailing for awhile - even after Yeo took over. When the Blues are tied or leading, they have been exceptional in locking down the opposition since Yeo took over. The problem is when the Blues get behind they don't seem capable of recovering due to the lack of offense. The Blues have recovered from a deficit and won the game once since Jan 1st and that was Plager night vs the Leafs when Toronto scored that 1st period goal and the Blues dominated the rest of the game. That's right. The Blues are 1-12 if Blues are trailing at some point in a game in 2017. So what happens when the Blues trail the Wild, which will happen?

[Toasted Oates]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

[Oaklandblue]

It's nice that someone can judge Allen on a miniscule body of work (a whole 11 playoff starts and one season as the clear #1 starter while judging the other goalie on his entire body of work. How about applying the same standard to Elliott that's been applied to Allen - judge Elliott on his first 147 games and 8 starts in the playoffs. But no... clearly goalies don't have any chance of improving over time, apparently.

http://twitter.com/jprutherford/status/839915978158977028 Clearly not keeping Elliott was the problem.

Clearly Yeo is a problem.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

From https://www.nhl.com/news/brian-elliott- ... -281244182

*snip*

Elliott last season was 23-8-6, led the NHL with a .930 save percentage, and his 2.07 goals-against average was tied for second with John Gibson of the Anaheim Ducks and behind the League-best 2.06 of Ben Bishop of the Tampa Bay Lightning.

*snip*

And how about this season, eh? Nice that you didn't bring that up and had to rely on last season. Oh... that doesn't fit your narrative, since Allen and Elliott have darn near the same numbers this season.

Way to cover up for your inaccurate post! Pot, Kettle on line one

To note, we are discussing Brian Elliott's time AS A BLUE just like we discuss Jake Allen's time here. It doesn't matter what either have done on another team or at another point in time. I get where you're coming from, but Elliott was a shot in the dark when we got him, Jake Allen was supposed to be The Chosen One, so Jake is going to get judged a great deal harder than Elliott and Allen's contract is only going to magnify that. Which one has done more for the Franchise while here is the only question a Blues fan should care about. Anything else is another fanbase's delight or issue.

Seriously though, they have similar numbers, but it's important to note that Jake Allen's numbers dipped through the course of the season. Elliott helped dig himself a hole and rose out of it. We can credit/discredit the teams they play on for elements of that, but it wouldn't be too far from the truth to say that as we stand here this year, both are about even money.

As to the whole I didn't bring it up nonsense, I have actually noted several times that Elliott + Allen = Fire. If having them apart has shown anything (at least to me), it's that both netminders kind of need competition from within to get the best out of them. Elliott has had Chad Johnson to contend with, who threw up a .920 before regressing and Elliott taking the Helm. Jake has Carter Hutton, who if he played more games, might be that guy that does the same to him. Neither goaltender in my mind is a true starter, but if we're going to talk about who the better netminder based on their stats, hey, you want to disagree with NHL.COM, that's fine by me

Toasted Oates -- You mean there's a choice? >.>

[Toasted Oates]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

[Oaklandblue]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

[cardsfan04]

Our issue in the playoffs isn't whether we can beat anybody or not. We'll be an underdog against just about anybody we can face, but it's hardly unrealistic that Allen and Tarasenko get hot and we steal a series. The issue is that there are four series, not just one. Even if we can steal one, we'd have to do it three more times for it to be meaningful. I'm not sure we have the scoring depth to do it four times.

[cardsfan04]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

[theohall]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

At age 25, 11 games and 8 starts is enough? Seriously? By that standard, there are some damn fine goaltenders you would have quit on as playoff performers not knowing what they would do in the future.

[Toasted Oates]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

Yes, poor choice of words on my part. I'd like to see him play a few more games in the playoffs before passing judgment.

On the playoffs, that's purely in regards to a 1st round opponent. After that, who knows? I agree, it doesn't look good as you suggest.

[Oaklandblue]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

*holds up Jake Allen's contract* I think so.

[cardsfan04]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

*holds up Jake Allen's contract* I think so.

He needs to earn the opportunity. He doesn't need to earn a reasonable standard of judgment. The idea that he needs to do something in order for people to use a reasonable standard when judging him is absurd. A reasonable standard should be used on any player regardless of what they've earned. Otherwise your judgment is meaningless. A small sample size of losses without an offense in front of him is not a reasonable standard. Worth noting he has a 2.29 GAA in the playoffs as well. That's also ~meaningless because 11 games. The point is that if you use 11 game samples to judge players, you're going to be wrong a lot.

[Oaklandblue]

Our issue in the playoffs isn't whether we can beat anybody or not. We'll be an underdog against just about anybody we can face, but it's hardly unrealistic that Allen and Tarasenko get hot and we steal a series. The issue is that there are four series, not just one. Even if we can steal one, we'd have to do it three more times for it to be meaningful. I'm not sure we have the scoring depth to do it four times.

Thing is, we have scoring depth, it's the playbook strategy that is hindering it. Hitchcock is gone and his strategy should have followed him out the door. While a solid Defense is pretty important, it's about time to open up the strategy so the Forwards can create and finish scoring chances. I have seen too much emphasis on Defense being the first priority.

[cardsfan04]

Our issue in the playoffs isn't whether we can beat anybody or not. We'll be an underdog against just about anybody we can face, but it's hardly unrealistic that Allen and Tarasenko get hot and we steal a series. The issue is that there are four series, not just one. Even if we can steal one, we'd have to do it three more times for it to be meaningful. I'm not sure we have the scoring depth to do it four times.

Thing is, we have scoring depth, it's the playbook strategy that is hindering it. Hitchcock is gone and his strategy should have followed him out the door. While a solid Defense is pretty important, it's about time to open up the strategy so the Forwards can create and finish scoring chances. I have seen too much emphasis on Defense being the first priority.

That could be true. I know that's the common critique on Yeo. Maybe I phrased it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that we haven't seen evidence that the team will score well enough to win 4 consecutive playoff series. I don't think it's crazy to steal a series, because anything can happen in a 7 game series. To do it 4 times in a row, something has got to get better than it currently is.

[Oaklandblue]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

*holds up Jake Allen's contract* I think so.

He needs to earn the opportunity. He doesn't need to earn a reasonable standard of judgment. The idea that he needs to do something in order for people to use a reasonable standard when judging him is absurd. A reasonable standard should be used on any player regardless of what they've earned. Otherwise your judgment is meaningless. A small sample size of losses without an offense in front of him is not a reasonable standard. Worth noting he has a 2.29 GAA in the playoffs as well. That's also ~meaningless because 11 games. The point is that if you use 11 game samples to judge players, you're going to be wrong a lot.

Management signed him to a contract that his stats don't hold water for. He's the future, that's fine, but show me where in those stats does it scream "Hey, I'm worth 4m". The same brand of logic that went into that contract is the same one that went into Lehtera's. I feel Allen should have been bridged and if he continued to do well or improved or whatever, then absolutely pay him.

I think we can all agree on both sides of the discussion that the sample size simply isn't big enough to make that kind of leap.

[theohall]

And yet other teams have made the similar leap on just as small of a sample size with similar aged goaltenders and it paid off for them. You're assuming it won't pay off for the Blues based on a tiny amount of data.

[Oaklandblue]

Our issue in the playoffs isn't whether we can beat anybody or not. We'll be an underdog against just about anybody we can face, but it's hardly unrealistic that Allen and Tarasenko get hot and we steal a series. The issue is that there are four series, not just one. Even if we can steal one, we'd have to do it three more times for it to be meaningful. I'm not sure we have the scoring depth to do it four times.

Thing is, we have scoring depth, it's the playbook strategy that is hindering it. Hitchcock is gone and his strategy should have followed him out the door. While a solid Defense is pretty important, it's about time to open up the strategy so the Forwards can create and finish scoring chances. I have seen too much emphasis on Defense being the first priority.

That could be true. I know that's the common critique on Yeo. Maybe I phrased it poorly, but what I was trying to say is that we haven't seen evidence that the team will score well enough to win 4 consecutive playoff series. I don't think it's crazy to steal a series, because anything can happen in a 7 game series. To do it 4 times in a row, something has got to get better than it currently is.

Absolutely agree. I think Yeo needs to adapt. When he has, it's been great for the Blues. When not it's like he's standing in Hitch's shadow and doing a poor job of that. Not a good thing at all.

[Oaklandblue]

And yet other teams have made the similar leap on just as small of a sample size with similar aged goaltenders and it paid off for them. You're assuming it won't pay off for the Blues based on a tiny amount of data.

Those teams have had an offense strategy and let their guns do the talking. If we did that, we could take the Cup with Allen, whether he's lights out or not. That has less to do with Allen and more to do with utilizing the assets we have to create offense (Schwartz, Steen, Tank, etc.)

If the Blues don't get away from the full-on Defense first strategy it won't matter who is in goal.

[cardsfan04]

Yeah, the Blues are what they are. I was more measuring the Wild against the Hawks. It's not that I necessarily believe they'd beat either team, just who they might have a better chance against. It's just purely opinion based. You could be on the money; we'll see.

Oakland--you think we could give Allen a bigger sample size before we torpedo his postseason prowess?

I think he's been "Given" enough already. At this point he needs to earn it.

He needs to earn being judged by a reasonable standard?

*holds up Jake Allen's contract* I think so.

He needs to earn the opportunity. He doesn't need to earn a reasonable standard of judgment. The idea that he needs to do something in order for people to use a reasonable standard when judging him is absurd. A reasonable standard should be used on any player regardless of what they've earned. Otherwise your judgment is meaningless. A small sample size of losses without an offense in front of him is not a reasonable standard. Worth noting he has a 2.29 GAA in the playoffs as well. That's also ~meaningless because 11 games. The point is that if you use 11 game samples to judge players, you're going to be wrong a lot.

Management signed him to a contract that his stats don't hold water for. He's the future, that's fine, but show me where in those stats does it scream "Hey, I'm worth 4m". The same brand of logic that went into that contract is the same one that went into Lehtera's. I feel Allen should have been bridged and if he continued to do well or improved or whatever, then absolutely pay him.

I think we can all agree on both sides of the discussion that the sample size simply isn't big enough to make that kind of leap.

Those are two different arguments though. The first, that Army gave him a contract before he proved it (while not quite that simple) is reasonable. He definitely got paid before showing he could handle being a number 1. That's not even an opinion. It's just a fact when looking at the timeline of events. I agree with what Army did (more or less), but yeah, he hadn't been a number 1 yet when he was given that contract which adds a pretty big layer of risk.

The second discussion, and this is where I disagree with what you have said, is about whether he's a good playoff goalie or not. I tend to think too much is made of how players perform in the playoffs vs regular season, but if we're going to judge his playoff performance in isolation, we have an 11 game sample to work with. There are too many random variables to draw significant conclusions on 11 games.

[Oaklandblue]

The second discussion, and this is where I disagree with what you have said, is about whether he's a good playoff goalie or not. I tend to think too much is made of how players perform in the playoffs vs regular season, but if we're going to judge his playoff performance in isolation, we have an 11 game sample to work with. There are too many random variables to draw significant conclusions on 11 games.

In my opinion the team has far more than enough regular season success and has a team right now that can make the playoffs yearly and I don't think it's a flippant thing to say. For a franchise that has been there more than enough times that effort should be put in to help this team go all the way. It's a 'chicken or egg' kind of argument anyway, but like the rest of us, I'd love to see the Blues 'finish' what they started..


As to whether Jake = Playoff Goalie or not, I pose this question: If the team stays as they are, then at what point do you hold the goaltender accountable? On one end, Allen could post a .920 and stand on his head and the team loses. On another account, he could post .880 behind a horrible defense. At what point or place would we agree on that he is accountable?