Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I actually had a similar thought the other day. For all our complaints about Hitch, and there were a lot, the man truly does know how to run a defense. And he’s able to get the best out of a limited lineup.
2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Berube-Bannister-Ott-Hitch wouldn't be a terrible staff.
Hitches defense plan is making the entire team work their dicks off the entire season leaving nothing for the playoffs. That's why he's ole first round exit Ken.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
The Blues losing in the first round three times with Hitchock had more to do with the teams he faced as well as the Blues own weakness in the top 6 for forwards and not his coaching style.
Vladys Gumption
Colt55
I don’t entirely disagree, but that a little unfair. When I look back at those teams they were so much else talented that the teams we’ve had of late. Hitch had very little top end talent to utilize. He had to have the team play balls the the wall defense because it was the only way they could win.
BrokenFace
Registered User
The 2nd time the Kings eliminated us had nothing to do with Hitch. Our defensive game plan and forecheck were perfect. Not his fault none of the players could score. Coaches can't make players finish chances. Although it was frustrating that Tarasenko barely got in that series.
Random note, but when I clicked on this thread it took me to the first page instead of last, I’m guessing because of mobile, and ooh boy reading our fans thoughts in the pre-season is like a dark comedy now. Cup hopes, bashing on Dom for his model having us to finish 17th (every team he had us below did in fact finish ahead of us in the standings), etc. Re-read if you want to find something sad but also somewhat funny.
Anyway, I’m guessing we are probably getting our coaching replacements internally. Trying to hire a coach to fix our defense is going to be really hard due to how unappeaing the job looks. Locked up top 4 who have collectively been mediocre at best who are all in there 30’s, no real prospects coming to save the day, a group of forwards that have very few good defensive forwards in the top 6.
Anyway, I’m guessing we are probably getting our coaching replacements internally. Trying to hire a coach to fix our defense is going to be really hard due to how unappeaing the job looks. Locked up top 4 who have collectively been mediocre at best who are all in there 30’s, no real prospects coming to save the day, a group of forwards that have very few good defensive forwards in the top 6.
Do any of you remember what Hitch did to Hull and Madano? It literally took some of the greatest players of all time to over come his all in defense and f*** everything else strategy.
No shit, it was in the middle of the traps darkest days. The Devils were winning cups with significantly less talent.
The idea that the Stars won a cup in spite of Hitchcock is revisionist history at best, utter bull at worst. He could have won a cup here too except we kept running into the Kings who played the exact same way but we’re more talented top to bottom.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
Do you remember the Blues entering the 2014 series vs the Blackhawks on a 6 game losing streak along with injuries lingering into the series? Because I do.
The only first round loss I'll blame Hitchock for is the Wild in 2015. The 2013 and 2014 series vs the Kings and Blackhawks were against teams with much more firepower offensively than the Blues.
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
Using revisionist history to blame Hitchock for the PO shortcomings also is.
Realistically, he should have been let go after the 2015 loss to the Wild instead of Armstrong making an odd situation with Hitchcock in 2016 and 2017.
Acting as if those Blues teams were superior to the Kings and Blackhawks either year is also a new one.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
Kyrou's expected +/- vs his actual +/- is pretty funny. -38 actual vs -6.4 expected
Schenn's expected +/- was -17.3 vs his actual of -27.
I really don't see either of these two being anywhere close to being as bad as they were this year. I dont expect Kyrou turning around and being a positive player over one offseason. But I definitely don't expect him being worse than -15.
Schenn's expected +/- was -17.3 vs his actual of -27.
I really don't see either of these two being anywhere close to being as bad as they were this year. I dont expect Kyrou turning around and being a positive player over one offseason. But I definitely don't expect him being worse than -15.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
He turned Hull into a Cup winner. Hull has repeatedly talked about Hitch turning him into a better all-around player and cited his own defensive shortcomings as a reason that he never won a Cup before 1999.
In 1998 Dallas lost in the Conference Final to the defending (and eventual) Cup champ Red Wings. They added Hull and won the Cup the next season. In 2000, they defended their Cup all the way to game 6 of the Final where they fell to the Devils. Hull/Modano were 1st/2nd in playoff goals and points that year. The 1999 Cup was the first for both of them even though each had been in the league for 10+ years.
No teams won Cups in that era without some of the greatest players of all time. From 1994/95-2002/03 the league saw 4 total Cup winners: The Devils (3x), Red Wings (3x), Avalanche (2x), and Stars. These were also the only teams of the era to make multiple trips to the Final over this 9 year period.
The Devils had the Brodeur/Stevens/Niedermayer era-defining trap trio of Hall of Famers that includes a consensus top 5 goalie of all time (who most have top 3 and some have #1).
The Red Wings had 7 Hall of Famers on the 98 and 99 teams. Yzerman, Fedorov, Lidstrom, and Shanahan were all younger than Hull/Modano were for the Stars Cup run and every bit as good (and most would argue better) than the Dallas core. They had 9 Hall of Famers on the 2002 team.
The Avs had the best playoff goalie of all time and the 1-2 punch of prime-aged Sakic and Forsberg. They added Hall of Fame D men Bourque and Blake for the 2nd Cup.
"Having some of the greatest players of all time" was a prerequisite for winning the Cup in the dead puck era. The top few teams in the league were outspending the rest of the league like crazy and using free agency to add future Hall of Famers to already-great cores. Dallas never had a skater core as good as Detroit's. While they had the era's 4th best goalie, he still was a clear step below the guys in net for New Jersey and Colorado. Acting like they should (or would) have done more if not for the coach is just ignoring reality. Pointing to that late-90s-early-2000s Stars team as a criticism of Hitch is ridiculous.
Hitch (like pretty much all the "everyone is buying into the system" coaches) eventually lost the room in Dallas. Anyone looking to hire him should absolutely recognize that his effective shelf-life is very unlikely to last more than 5 years (and will probably be more like 3-4 years). But he absolutely made his teams better than the sum of their parts.
Looking at the Blues teams under Hitch, our rosters were clearly outmatched by the class of the West (LA and Chicago). Backes wasn't the same caliber 1C as Kopitar or Toews. Petro wasn't the same caliber 1D as Keith or Doughty.
You can argue that the Shatty/Jax/MacDonald/Oshie/Perron/Steen/Berglund supporting cast was as good as the Mitchell/Scuderi/Voynov/Carter/Richards/Brown/Martinez supporting cast for the 2012 Kings. But even if you give us the edge in complimentary talent, LA had the clear and obvious edge in net with Quick over Elliott. When you lose to a team with a better 1 C, 1D, goaltender and a comparable supporting cast, it is pretty tough to say that the scoring dried up because of the coach.
In 2013 we added Bo and had rookies Schwartz/Tarasenko playing like rookies. However, Voynov took another step for the Kings. Maybe we bridged the talent gap a bit, but we were still worst in the big three positions of 1C, 1D, and in net. Again, hard to say that the reason we lost in 6 was due to getting tired.
In 2014, Tarasenko and Schwartz had arrived as genuine contributors. We swapped McDonald out for Sobotka and genuinely had more offensive talent. We played Chicago this year and while we had more offensive talent, we still lagged behind at 1C and 1D. We also didn't have anyone on the roster even approaching Kane's talent level. Hossa was a better all-around player than Steen and Seabrook/Hjalmarsson was a better set of 2-3 D than Bo/Shatty. We were outclassed up and down the lineup.
We underachieved in 2015 and should have beaten the Wild. But then in the following season we knocked out the defending champ Hawks (who were still absolutely in a Cup window) and got to the Conference Final. I just don't see an argument that this era of Blues teams should have accomplished more than they did under Hitch or that his system left them unable to reach their playoff potential.
Yes, it took two of the greatest players of all time to be able to score through his defense first mentality. No shit Backes, Oshie and Steen weren't going to be able to score in the playoffs playing Hitchcock hockey. We're literally saying the same thing.
Reality Czech
Registered User
- Apr 17, 2017
- 5,868
- 9,468
For the record I agree with both of you! Your comment hints at something I was gonna expand on, which is that while coaching certainly matters to some degree, a team can't win unless they have the horses to get it done. That Dallas stars team was loaded with talent and had a ton of respected veterans that played a huge role in turning that team into a winner. They deserve at least as much credit as Hitch. When he was the coach of the Blues I honestly think those teams did the best they possibly could, but we didn't have the high end talent to overcome the Hawks or Kings.
But when the Blues won the Cup, we had the talent and depth to finally be on the winning side. Berube and his staff deserve some credit for steering the ship in the right direction, but it was the talent that pushed us over the top. Of course everyone has to buy in, but that's true no matter who the coach is. Seems like the most successful coaches in any sport (Bowman, Phil Jackson, Belichick) are more known for their ability to manage all the different personalities on the team and create the right atmosphere instead of their tactics and gameplan.
Brian touched on a lot of this, and I agree with his post as well. But I doubt Hitch was single-handedly responsible for Hull's improved defensive game. When you're on a team full of experienced, hard-working guys a player would feel pretty crappy to not pull his weight. Hull has given Hitch a lot of credit, but I've also heard that they clashed quite often along the way. Seems like most players have good things to say about Hitch the person, even if Hitch the coach is a ballbuster.
Last edited:
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,597
- 14,280
Hull himself admits that he never did it before getting to Dallas.
"I was never held accountable defensively in my whole life, which is why I never did it," Hull said.
In Dallas, people didn't think he could do anything different. Or would. He proved them wrong. "That's what I'm most proud of," he said. "Just being able to shut people up."
We had a hell of a lot of experienced, hard-working guys around him during his time on the Blues and he never bought in to playing much defense. I don't think that Hitch being Hitch is the only thing that made him willing/able to change his game. Age has a natural way of making a player reflect on his career. So does a very public divorce from a a team/city that you used to run. When you're 33, Cupless, and starting over in a new city, it is easier to take coaching than before. Hitch got him as a player at the perfect time.
It's worth noting that the experience and hardworking defensive culture in Dallas pretty much started when Hitch took over. Modano was a much more freewheeling offensive guy in his teens and early 20s. He had 221 goals, 512 points and a -34 over his first 501 games before Hitch's first full season as the head coach there. 19 goals, 37 points and a -12 in 48 playoff games over 5 seasons before Hitch. Hitch made it his first priority to make him a more complete player and Modano finished 4th in Selke voting during Hitch's first full season as head coach. That was the first time he'd ever gotten even a single Selke vote. Modano had 161 goals, 388 points and a +123 in 367 games over the 5 years with Hitch as head coach. 26 goals, 72 points and a +16 over 79 games in the 5 playoff appearances.
Hull talks about that a bit in a different article where he is talking about Hitch:
“He started with Mike Modano. He turned Mike into his checking centre, which I always thought was ass-backwards. But Mike bought in, and that’s all that mattered. When he bought in, everyone bought in,” said Hull. “We taught each other a lot. The problem we had at the start was, I’d always considered myself to be a very intelligent player. He obviously saw himself as a very intelligent coach. We had to learn that we could teach each other aspects of the game.
“You could have offence within your defensive scheme, and there were times when you didn’t have to try to make the dumb offensive play. You could chip it in get it back that way.”
The two of them absolutely clashed, but there is just no doubt that Hitch was by far the biggest driver in changing Hull's game (and that of the entire Stars team) for the better. Coaches can't single-handedly do anything, but Hitch is as directly responsible for the improvement to Hull's defensive ability/willingness as an NHL coach can possibly be.
Hitch got the absolute most out of that Dallas roster as a coach could have gotten. They weren't scoring in spite of him. They got better offensively with him in charge while going from bad to elite defensively.
Last edited:
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
Oh look what a shock the Blues and their promotions for the charities are totally corrupt. You're saying the highly conservative team that mandates guns on the ice for the anthem but boycotts out group nights is riven through with cynicism when it comes to charities? Say it ain't so.
www.stltoday.com
What a grubby little franchise. There were three games at the end of the season I could have watched and just chose to ignore them, and I don't remember ever doing that.
Ameren customers paid $1.8M for Blues promotion. Only a fraction went to charity, state says.
Ameren gives money to kids charities for power play goals scored by the St. Louis Blues. But it has donated less than $1 for every $11 it spends.
What a grubby little franchise. There were three games at the end of the season I could have watched and just chose to ignore them, and I don't remember ever doing that.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,228
- 8,833
Oh look what a shock the Blues and their promotions for the charities are totally corrupt. You're saying the highly conservative team that mandates guns on the ice for the anthem but boycotts out group nights is riven through with cynicism when it comes to charities? Say it ain't so.
Ameren customers paid $1.8M for Blues promotion. Only a fraction went to charity, state says.
Ameren gives money to kids charities for power play goals scored by the St. Louis Blues. But it has donated less than $1 for every $11 it spends.
What a grubby little franchise. There were three games at the end of the season I could have watched and just chose to ignore them, and I don't remember ever doing that.
Did you read the article? I think you didn't and that maybe you should.
ScratchCatFever
Registered User
- Oct 14, 2018
- 1,755
- 3,012
Why read anything when you can just have a hair trigger reaction fueled by your own sense of self-satisfaction based on a biased assumption and call it at a day???
Louie the Blue
Because it's a trap
- Jul 27, 2010
- 4,853
- 3,182
There's things to criticize the Blues for.Oh look what a shock the Blues and their promotions for the charities are totally corrupt. You're saying the highly conservative team that mandates guns on the ice for the anthem but boycotts out group nights is riven through with cynicism when it comes to charities? Say it ain't so.
Ameren customers paid $1.8M for Blues promotion. Only a fraction went to charity, state says.
Ameren gives money to kids charities for power play goals scored by the St. Louis Blues. But it has donated less than $1 for every $11 it spends.
What a grubby little franchise. There were three games at the end of the season I could have watched and just chose to ignore them, and I don't remember ever doing that.
Ameren inefficiently allocating over $11 for every $1 to the Blues promotion for charity is not a Blues issue. How is that the Blues fault?
TK 421
Barbashev eats babies pass it on
- Sep 12, 2007
- 6,622
- 6,465
When I wished Transformers could be real as a kid this wasn't what I had in mind.
- Status
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
GDT: G21: Avs (11-9-0) @ Panthers (12-7-1) - Sat Nov 23 @ 4 PM MST- Latest: ItsFineImFine
