2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread
- Thread starter simon IC
- Start date
- Status
I think Buch would be great in his wing. Then Thomas, JK, and Tank. Schenn and Barry together. Or put Barb with ROR and saad and use them as a shut down line.
Fortunately the plodding Isles are the next team on the schedule. If the Blues can't get 2 points against them, it may be time to start worrying. Boston and Philly are both playing very well, and those two on the road have historically been very challenging for STL. Thursday November 8th at home against the Sharks could be a very, very interesting evening if they don't snap out of this funk immediately. Being outscored 25-8 over the recent 5-game slide doesn't instill a whole lot of confidence in this club. The scary thing is that the goaltending has actually been pretty solid. It's the skaters who are just getting abused and the defense putting up the resistance of a wet kleenex.
Last edited:
ValHaller
Registered User
Glad to see some are waking up to ROR-Kyrou being a pointless disaster. Still want to give them a few more games to see if Kyrou magically becomes a defensive stalwart by osmosis? Because that's happened a million times before in the NHL, right?
I've seen enough to know Kyrou needs a demotion. Put him on the 3rd line and make those top 2 lines go out and play heavy.
I've seen enough to know Kyrou needs a demotion. Put him on the 3rd line and make those top 2 lines go out and play heavy.
WeWentBlues
Registered User
- May 3, 2017
- 2,165
- 1,906
Not sure what has been worse so far this season. The Blues play on the ice or my experience trying to watch the games on Bally Sports+.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
"Desperately needing to score, I had the puck on my stick with a 3 on 0 and let the goalie poke check it. I am the future I make bankkkkk"
Does he have a taunting tongue wag for that?
Does he have a taunting tongue wag for that?
ChicagoBlues
Terraformers
- Oct 24, 2006
- 15,756
- 6,617
I think ROR is being a hardheaded jerk and Kyrou is showing lots of immaturity after his big extension.
I am willing to place a bet that ROR deeply resents Kyrou’s extension, which has probably made his already-known arrogance even worse.
Subtract his best friend (Perron) from all that and we have a problem.
ValHaller
Registered User
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
ValHaller
Registered User
The Islanders aren’t bad. We’ve already lost to Montreal and should have lost to Seattle so I don’t know why we would be expected to beat them.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
The young, quick teams are skating circles around the Blues vets. If they get beaten by the Islanders, who are veteran-laden like STL, I'm not sure exactly who they'd be left to match well against. I'm not saying the Isle are bad....but I'm saying the Blues very well may be if they can't beat them.
Snubbed4Vezina
Registered User
- Jul 9, 2022
- 2,399
- 4,203
I like that Army and Berube sat the team down and put them on notice. I've had major questions on how this team was going to score goals come next season when we lose Tarasenko and possibly O'Reilly as well. I do have faith that this team can be a good one, but it might actually be best for the long-term competitiveness of the team if they're forced to move assets at the deadline and start a re-tool with a focus on being a stronger unit two years from now. O'Reilly, Tarasenko, Barbashev etc. could fetch serious assets at the deadline.
If this is what the offense looks like now, what's the offense going to look like next season when we lose one or two top six forwards this offseason?
If this is what the offense looks like now, what's the offense going to look like next season when we lose one or two top six forwards this offseason?
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
We've had some poor stretches before and fans have called for moves to shake things up or give a wake up call, but this has to be one of the strongest "wake-up" type calls that Army has given in his time here.
Now, a lot of the words were moreso reassuring the group that he believes in the coach, system, and players, but ultimately if results don't change, then a change is coming. Is Alexandrov ready enough to get called up and placed in the top 9? That would probably be the easiest switch to make.
Now, a lot of the words were moreso reassuring the group that he believes in the coach, system, and players, but ultimately if results don't change, then a change is coming. Is Alexandrov ready enough to get called up and placed in the top 9? That would probably be the easiest switch to make.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
I don't have the time to watch that full presser, but I absolutely love the tone and bluntness of Army's message before he started taking questions. Fantastic mix of 'I believe in this group and we have more runway' and 'this shit is unacceptable and needs to change now.'
I absolutely love how bluntly he has Berube's back. Make no mistake, this presser was a statement to the locker room:
"I told the players the coach is not going anywhere because the coach came from the AHL where he coached young players and made them better. And he coached veteran players and made them win here, so he can do both. So he is going to be here. I don't say that as a threat or anything like that, but I believe in the coach, I believe in the system and this isn't a system issue. This is a competitive issue."
He made sure to stress that he believed in the group and he talked about how little desire he has to rebuild/retool/etc. But it's pretty clear that the current assessment from management is that the team will either turn it around or players will be moved. Firing the coach is usually the first card played to try and get an underperforming team back on track and that is well known across the league. Berube has more than earned the benefit of the doubt and I'm happy to hear that he isn't going to be the first casualty if this team can't put itself together.
I absolutely love how bluntly he has Berube's back. Make no mistake, this presser was a statement to the locker room:
"I told the players the coach is not going anywhere because the coach came from the AHL where he coached young players and made them better. And he coached veteran players and made them win here, so he can do both. So he is going to be here. I don't say that as a threat or anything like that, but I believe in the coach, I believe in the system and this isn't a system issue. This is a competitive issue."
He made sure to stress that he believed in the group and he talked about how little desire he has to rebuild/retool/etc. But it's pretty clear that the current assessment from management is that the team will either turn it around or players will be moved. Firing the coach is usually the first card played to try and get an underperforming team back on track and that is well known across the league. Berube has more than earned the benefit of the doubt and I'm happy to hear that he isn't going to be the first casualty if this team can't put itself together.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
It's actually kind of crazy how much we are in uncharted territory here. Our franchise record losing streak is 7 games, and we are at 5. Even in that 18/19 season where it got to the point of serious trade talk with big-time players, our longest losing streaks were just 3 games. Army understands the urgency, so I'm curious how many more games he gives it before more significant changes. And by more significant changes, I'm not really talking trade, but call-ups, demotions, benching's, etc.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,580
- 14,247
And on top of that, most 3+ game losing streaks have at least 1 game where the team as a whole was good enough but the goalie gives it away. Those don't count for anything in the standings, but they absolutely help you feel as if you're close to breaking through. Griess had rebound control issues against Nashville, but he wasn't the reason this team lost. Binner's numbers are ugly the last couple games, but he was completely hung out to dry. All 5 of these games were true team losses. That's pretty rare in the NHL.
PocketNines
Cutter's Way
Armstrong made it clear that there are a solid 16 players (all top 9 forwards and all 7 defensemen) who are not competing. He divided players into two main camps: the "why is this happening to me?" camp which you can tell when a player misses an open shot and slowly re-engages or skates to the bench and the "it's not me, it's other guys" camp.
Made clear that either 1) they are quality players who are undercompeting for fixable reasons or 2) it's on himself for creating the wrong group. He refused to get into how many games it would take of this continuing for him to judge which it is but he said it's going to be a lot about being physically around these guys and noticing where their compete is – going to be the eye and presence test. Armstrong cited the odd situation where they are pretty close knit as a team off ice but not fighting for each other on the ice.
Talked about how if he'd been 4-5 years into his career he might react differently. He might have traded a player during "team malaise" when it's a team-wide issue. Said the Blues had this mysterious origin "malaise" right now. Stated specifically he would rather hit rock bottom with a group and then build up from there after identifying who's part of the solution rather than make a move while the problems are ongoing. More like, they hit rock bottom, someone starts stepping forward to turn it around and the passengers are then more correctly identified. (edit: Was saying if you make the trade too early then the team gets the wrong message about what the problem was making it less likely you fix the real problem.) Was offered multiple opportunities to discuss Kyrou specifically and said if he reacted after 8 games when he's under contract for 9 more years it's going to be a "huge rollercoaster" for him, for Kyrou and for the fans. Did say he is absolutely playing like a 2.8 (said '2.9' tho) and not an 8M player.
Also made repeated mention that the worse teams are improving faster than the good teams are declining in the NHL. Seemed viscerally opposed to wanting to re-anything. Did talk about how much the Blues are missing the net and not making direct plays at the net, not winning in front of both nets which is required to be a top team. Said there was a high focus at practice today on hitting the net. Mentioned Saad still some ways away and not ready to join real practice.
Made clear that either 1) they are quality players who are undercompeting for fixable reasons or 2) it's on himself for creating the wrong group. He refused to get into how many games it would take of this continuing for him to judge which it is but he said it's going to be a lot about being physically around these guys and noticing where their compete is – going to be the eye and presence test. Armstrong cited the odd situation where they are pretty close knit as a team off ice but not fighting for each other on the ice.
Talked about how if he'd been 4-5 years into his career he might react differently. He might have traded a player during "team malaise" when it's a team-wide issue. Said the Blues had this mysterious origin "malaise" right now. Stated specifically he would rather hit rock bottom with a group and then build up from there after identifying who's part of the solution rather than make a move while the problems are ongoing. More like, they hit rock bottom, someone starts stepping forward to turn it around and the passengers are then more correctly identified. (edit: Was saying if you make the trade too early then the team gets the wrong message about what the problem was making it less likely you fix the real problem.) Was offered multiple opportunities to discuss Kyrou specifically and said if he reacted after 8 games when he's under contract for 9 more years it's going to be a "huge rollercoaster" for him, for Kyrou and for the fans. Did say he is absolutely playing like a 2.8 (said '2.9' tho) and not an 8M player.
Also made repeated mention that the worse teams are improving faster than the good teams are declining in the NHL. Seemed viscerally opposed to wanting to re-anything. Did talk about how much the Blues are missing the net and not making direct plays at the net, not winning in front of both nets which is required to be a top team. Said there was a high focus at practice today on hitting the net. Mentioned Saad still some ways away and not ready to join real practice.
Last edited:
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
Glass half full approach, the guys just want to play with Bedard next season.
bleedblue1223
Registered User
- Jan 21, 2011
- 52,925
- 16,380
I think that approach by Army is the right move, but he also mentioned not under-reacting and how it's a results oriented business. I'm curious how many games Army gives them before it becomes a sort of make or break moment. I'm sure Army also knows how our schedule ends, it's not going to be an easy grind at the end, so giving points away early is going to be hard to make up.
mk80
Registered User
- Jul 30, 2012
- 8,219
- 8,830
On a lighter note to break up some of the doom and gloom of the on ice play, I present this...
www.nhl.com
Broadcasters bug-out while on the air | St. Louis Blues
Halloween prank involving remote-controlled grasshopper was to blame for Chris Kerber and Joey Vitale's uncontrollable laughter
www.nhl.com
The central was, by far, the divison that was weakened the most in the off season. The balance of players out versus players in on the various teams was a definite negative. Because of this I think it will take less to make the playoffs this season out of the divison (top three). The trick will be the level of improvement of the rest of the conference. Dallas looks real, LA and Vegas too. It is the Nashvilles, Wpg's and Minnesotas that are wild cards. How well they play will determine what it takes to make the playoffs. It could get really tight.
Majorityof1
Registered User
I have a couple issues with what Armstrong said, and they both stem from the same basic comment that he had no issues with the coaching and/or schemes. I don't take issue that he said it if he wants to show support for his coach. However, I do have a problem with the scheme we are running. That ultimately falls on the coach, and I don't think Armstrong absolved the coaches of that with what he said.
I have pointed it out before, our defense strategy seems to involve our D being very active on both sides of the ice. I have little to no problem with that on the offensive side of the ice. I think our active D were a huge part of our offensive success last year. I do think some of our D, Krug and to a lesser extent Leddy, take it too far. I don't want to see D pinching and staying up while our forwards have to drop back. Krug pinching provides and element of surprise, but him trying to be a forward is a net negative when it means we have Tarasenko back trying to be a D.
That's not really here nor there. My big issue is the D's willingness to chase the play in the defensive zone. Too often we have both D leaving the net to chase after the puck. One D will be fighting a puck battle on the mid point of the boards, the other D will leave the net. Ideally I'd like to see the D take a position in front and to the near side of the net to cover for the other D and still be able to intercept any back door passes, but our D are coming out to the face off dot, leaving nobody to cover the net as the C is usually also in support of the puck battle or defending the wall a little further down. Too many of our D do this too often in too many places on the ice for it to be mistakes. It is definitely systemic, and it is exacerbating our D just getting beat when they are staying home.
I think I get the reasoning for it. If our D are poor at defending the net, why have them in a place where they aren't useful? I counter thatby saying we need someone at the net and a bad someone is better than nobody. The 2nd D isn't in a position to be useful in no mans land offering token support to the puck battle. The fact that our D aren't good at winning battles, means that the puck is most likely coming free in those situations. Even if they can only defend the net 1 out of every 5 plays that go there, that is 1 more than if they aren't there.
And that ultimately comes down to Berube. I mean, it comes down to Armstrong as well, but he's not going to fire himself. Berube is the one that ultimately approved the scheme that is failing. Armstrong defended Berube by saying he's been a winner before. But that was with a different team. When you have a coach whose strengths align with a team, it will breed success. But if you give that same coach a team that doesn't fit that scheme, he has to adapt or fail. I give Berube a ton of credit for his willingness to adapt, but THIS scheme is not working. If he continues to stick with it in the face of disaster, then no amount of past success should protect him. I am not saying fire him now, but if we do not adapt this scheme to put our players in a position to succeed, then some changes need to be made to the coaching staff.
I have pointed it out before, our defense strategy seems to involve our D being very active on both sides of the ice. I have little to no problem with that on the offensive side of the ice. I think our active D were a huge part of our offensive success last year. I do think some of our D, Krug and to a lesser extent Leddy, take it too far. I don't want to see D pinching and staying up while our forwards have to drop back. Krug pinching provides and element of surprise, but him trying to be a forward is a net negative when it means we have Tarasenko back trying to be a D.
That's not really here nor there. My big issue is the D's willingness to chase the play in the defensive zone. Too often we have both D leaving the net to chase after the puck. One D will be fighting a puck battle on the mid point of the boards, the other D will leave the net. Ideally I'd like to see the D take a position in front and to the near side of the net to cover for the other D and still be able to intercept any back door passes, but our D are coming out to the face off dot, leaving nobody to cover the net as the C is usually also in support of the puck battle or defending the wall a little further down. Too many of our D do this too often in too many places on the ice for it to be mistakes. It is definitely systemic, and it is exacerbating our D just getting beat when they are staying home.
I think I get the reasoning for it. If our D are poor at defending the net, why have them in a place where they aren't useful? I counter thatby saying we need someone at the net and a bad someone is better than nobody. The 2nd D isn't in a position to be useful in no mans land offering token support to the puck battle. The fact that our D aren't good at winning battles, means that the puck is most likely coming free in those situations. Even if they can only defend the net 1 out of every 5 plays that go there, that is 1 more than if they aren't there.
And that ultimately comes down to Berube. I mean, it comes down to Armstrong as well, but he's not going to fire himself. Berube is the one that ultimately approved the scheme that is failing. Armstrong defended Berube by saying he's been a winner before. But that was with a different team. When you have a coach whose strengths align with a team, it will breed success. But if you give that same coach a team that doesn't fit that scheme, he has to adapt or fail. I give Berube a ton of credit for his willingness to adapt, but THIS scheme is not working. If he continues to stick with it in the face of disaster, then no amount of past success should protect him. I am not saying fire him now, but if we do not adapt this scheme to put our players in a position to succeed, then some changes need to be made to the coaching staff.
Last edited:
- Status
