2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Celtic Note]

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 that because we need someone there. They aren'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 fact of disaster, then no amount of pass 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.

It might not just be the D that are the problem though with the chasing. If forwards are not back checking, then the D may be trying to cover men they shouldn’t be covering.

Regardless, I don’t know how many times in the last three years I have seen our D chase and too often it’s two of them, which really compounds the problem. At the same time we have seen forwards cheating for that breakout play.

 

[Brian39]

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 think there are definitely scheme issues to address as well, but I don't think they are as big of an issue as the lack of execution and effort from the players. I agree 100% with your analysis that the D chase too much. With that said, I think Berube has earned a longer leash than this roster.

My opinion/feel of Army's comments isn't that he thinks Berube is doing a perfect job, but that he wanted to preempt any narrative that Berube is on the hot seat. This is a league where firing the coach is usually the first step to 'fix' a situation and there is definitely a consensus in the media (and likely front offices) that players are aware that they can get a coach fired before worrying about their jobs being on the line.

 

[STL fan in MN]

I’ve been busy the nights of the last 3 games and once seeing the end result, just couldn’t bring myself to actually watch the games beyond the 5 minute highlights. So let me ask this question:

For those that can recognize game schematics, does it appear the Blues have moved from more of a zone defense to man to man? In the highlights, that’s one thing that’s popped in my head to try to explain the D chasing around…but for those that have actually watched the games, what’s your take?

I’ve never been a fan of man to man bur obviously Berube and his staff are much greater hockey minds than I. But I’m curious if them trying to adapt to some D system changes could be part of it.

I still think the main reason is simply a lack of effort/complacency but there could be a secondary component to that or a system change being a reason why there’s complacency/lack of buy-in.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I’ve been busy the nights of the last 3 games and once seeing the end result, just couldn’t bring myself to actually watch the games beyond the 5 minute highlights. So let me ask this question:

For those that can recognize game schematics, does it appear the Blues have moved from more of a zone defense to man to man? In the highlights, that’s one thing that’s popped in my head to try to explain the D chasing around…but for those that have actually watched the games, what’s your take?

I’ve never been a fan of man to man bur obviously Berube and his staff are much greater hockey minds than I. But I’m curious if them trying to adapt to some D system changes could be part of it.

I still think the main reason is simply a lack of effort/complacency but there could be a secondary component to that or a system change being a reason why there’s complacency/lack of buy-in.

I've seen lots of Xs and Os, but very few Gs and As.

 

[execwrite1]

Crazy, based on nothing, useless opinion ....

The contracts to Thomas and Kyrou ruined this team. Hate these long-term contracts to young, unproven guys.

Everyone thinks they are playing as hard as they can and giving it their all.

But hey - these two are set for life. Why bother?

Tarasenko, O'Reilly, others who've put in years - what about us?

Lesser guys - let the big contact ones do the work.

A big mess.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Love Tarasenko’s Halloween costume.

Slavic-style jogging suit. Classic!

 

[ValHaller]

Does this seem totally bizarre to anybody else? The tone, body language, nonchalance, everything.

 

[Majorityof1]

I think there are definitely scheme issues to address as well, but I don't think they are as big of an issue as the lack of execution and effort from the players. I agree 100% with your analysis that the D chase too much. With that said, I think Berube has earned a longer leash than this roster.

My opinion/feel of Army's comments isn't that he thinks Berube is doing a perfect job, but that he wanted to preempt any narrative that Berube is on the hot seat. This is a league where firing the coach is usually the first step to 'fix' a situation and there is definitely a consensus in the media (and likely front offices) that players are aware that they can get a coach fired before worrying about their jobs being on the line.

I'm not sure effort is a big issue at all. Execution for sure. But I think effort is too easy to be the right explanation. I don't think any of our players would stomach a 4-game losing streak and still not give effort in the 5th game. You don't flub 3-on-1s because of a lack of effort. You don't get them to flub if you aren't putting in effort. I don't know how being over-aggressive on D and a lack of effort fit together. I think the problem is far more complicated than that. And a lot of it comes down to scheme, at least on the defensive side. It doesn't matter how much effort and how great of execution you put into rowing a boat if you are rowing in the wrong direction.

I’ve been busy the nights of the last 3 games and once seeing the end result, just couldn’t bring myself to actually watch the games beyond the 5 minute highlights. So let me ask this question:

For those that can recognize game schematics, does it appear the Blues have moved from more of a zone defense to man to man? In the highlights, that’s one thing that’s popped in my head to try to explain the D chasing around…but for those that have actually watched the games, what’s your take?

I’ve never been a fan of man to man bur obviously Berube and his staff are much greater hockey minds than I. But I’m curious if them trying to adapt to some D system changes could be part of it.

I still think the main reason is simply a lack of effort/complacency but there could be a secondary component to that or a system change being a reason why there’s complacency/lack of buy-in.

Let me preface this by saying the Bally app is broken for me this year, so as I cannot rewind games at all. I usually rewind and rewatch 40-50 plays a game in slow motion. I haven't been able to do that. Its a lot easier for me to rexognize the x's and o's when I can watch in slo mo.

So going from a single watch of the games from memory (a long way of saying I could be wrong), I am fairly sure we aren't playing man-to-man. We may have run a man-to-man/zone hybrid against certain players as we have done in the past with McDavid and MacKinnon where we have a 4 man zone with our fastest D chasing the superstar. But generally, it is still zone, just a very aggressive zone where our D will leave their zone to chase the play.

 

[PocketNines]

Does this seem totally bizarre to anybody else? The tone, body language, nonchalance, everything.

If you have high internal standards and you spend time around people with high internal standards this interview session is straightforward.

 

[TK 421]

Does this seem totally bizarre to anybody else? The tone, body language, nonchalance, everything.

That looks like every ROR interview I've ever seen tbh.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

Yeah, I don't think there's much to read into that. ROR has a lot of heart and I would imagine he'd take his poor play significantly harder than most players. He holds himself to a very high standard and he knows his play has been a major disappointment thus far. He's embarrassed, but I don't think there's really anything "bizarre" about it.

 

[Frenzy31]

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 agree. It is almost like a man to man defense. But with movement it is hard to track your player and the guy with puck. During our cup winning year, we didn’t play man to man but center out Zone.

 

[Brian39]

I'm not sure effort is a big issue at all. Execution for sure. But I think effort is too easy to be the right explanation. I don't think any of our players would stomach a 4-game losing streak and still not give effort in the 5th game. You don't flub 3-on-1s because of a lack of effort. You don't get them to flub if you aren't putting in effort. I don't know how being over-aggressive on D and a lack of effort fit together. I think the problem is far more complicated than that. And a lot of it comes down to scheme, at least on the defensive side. It doesn't matter how much effort and how great of execution you put into rowing a boat if you are rowing in the wrong direction.

Effort may have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps focus would have been better. I've seen a lot of stupid mistakes over the last week or so. Stuff that Anthony Stewart describes as 'the details' whenever he is on the radio. Lots of instances where our players are in the proper position, but then lose sight of the puck or the man they should be covering and allow a pass through a lane that should be covered based on their positioning.

But there are also issues with effort. I've seen a lot of plays where a Blue has stopped skating and just reached for a puck instead of trying to skate through the puck or puck carrier. I picked on Logan Brown in a different thread where he just made a lazy swipe at Kopitar and then planted his skates and watched him drive the net. I do consider that a lack of effort and it is definitely happening.

I'm not a big "we just didn't try hard enough" guy in pro sports. To me, a lack of effort usually doesn't mean that guys aren't trying. I think a lack of effort in pro hockey is generally not having your focus dialed in to 100% or it's doing most of the things you were supposed to do to keep yourself in the play, but not the last thing to actually make a play. Effort probably isn't the word for that, but I am seeing it on a lot of the goals against.

 

[PocketNines]

Commitment to details. Guys aren't committed on the ice.

 

[jura]

Does this seem totally bizarre to anybody else? The tone, body language, nonchalance, everything.

 

[Majorityof1]

Effort may have been a poor choice of words. Perhaps focus would have been better. I've seen a lot of stupid mistakes over the last week or so. Stuff that Anthony Stewart describes as 'the details' whenever he is on the radio. Lots of instances where our players are in the proper position, but then lose sight of the puck or the man they should be covering and allow a pass through a lane that should be covered based on their positioning.

But there are also issues with effort. I've seen a lot of plays where a Blue has stopped skating and just reached for a puck instead of trying to skate through the puck or puck carrier. I picked on Logan Brown in a different thread where he just made a lazy swipe at Kopitar and then planted his skates and watched him drive the net. I do consider that a lack of effort and it is definitely happening.

I'm not a big "we just didn't try hard enough" guy in pro sports. To me, a lack of effort usually doesn't mean that guys aren't trying. I think a lack of effort in pro hockey is generally not having your focus dialed in to 100% or it's doing most of the things you were supposed to do to keep yourself in the play, but not the last thing to actually make a play. Effort probably isn't the word for that, but I am seeing it on a lot of the goals against.

I see what you are saying. I would lump that type of stuff in with execution. You are doing everything you need to to put yourself in a position to suceed, you just aren't executing it. I recoil against "effort" because it becomes a catch all. When you don't know whats wrong, you just say effort. I guess execution can be the same though.

But too many on this board just post that our players are lazy over and over. And they don't mean that they aren't focused or aren't executing. They legitimately think that if the team just tries, they will dominate and if they aren't dominating they aren't even trying. It gets annoying to read "we have too many passengers" every loss. And the passengers change. "so glad we replaced that passenger Berglund with a hard worker like RoR" to now "ROR has to stop being such a passneger and lead this team".

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I see what you are saying. I would lump that type of stuff in with execution. You are doing everything you need to to put yourself in a position to suceed, you just aren't executing it. I recoil against "effort" because it becomes a catch all. When you don't know whats wrong, you just say effort. I guess execution can be the same though.

But too many on this board just post that our players are lazy over and over. And they don't mean that they aren't focused or aren't executing. They legitimately think that if the team just tries, they will dominate and if they aren't dominating they aren't even trying. It gets annoying to read "we have too many passengers" every loss. And the passengers change. "so glad we replaced that passenger Berglund with a hard worker like RoR" to now "ROR has to stop being such a passneger and lead this team".

ROR is the Captain and he needs to do whatever it takes to overcome whatever is bugging the team and get it together. And I'm not convinced that he is doing so.

Effort, collective effort, focus, discipline....whatever. Something rotten is infecting the entire team and ROR needs to deal with it, along with his Assistants.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Does this seem totally bizarre to anybody else? The tone, body language, nonchalance, everything.

No

 

[Majorityof1]

ROR is the Captain and he needs to do whatever it takes to overcome whatever is bugging the team and get it together. And I'm not convinced that he is doing so.

Effort, collective effort, focus, discipline....whatever. Something rotten is infecting the entire team and ROR needs to deal with it, along with his Assistants.

Exactly. And by exactly, I don't mean YOU are exactly right. I mean your post is a perfect example of the type of post that I find useless. "Something is wrong, I have no idea what. I am going to arbitrarily call it something so I can more easily blame someone."

How could you possibly be convinced that someone is doing whatever it takes to overcome something when you cannot even define what it is they should be fixing. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as things are going the wrong direction, you are right. And as soon as things start turning around, you were right as well as you are now convinced whoever you decided to blame turned it around.

"Hey Mr. President, have you done everything in your power to make the country a utopia yet?"
"Well I have put forth severla pieces of legistlation: a healthcare plan, a comprehensive economic stimulus pack..."
"But the country is still not a utopia"
"No we are working to get better. What would you have me do?"
"I dunno. Stuff. Your job. You obviously aren't doing it because the country isn't perfect."
"Well, I have to work against a hostile congress, special interest groups are..."
"Blah..blah..blah, lazy ass. I'm booting you out next term. Then things will get better".

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Exactly. And by exactly, I don't mean YOU are exactly right. I mean your post is a perfect example of the type of post that I find useless. "Something is wrong, I have no idea what. I am going to arbitrarily call it something so I can more easily blame someone."

How could you possibly be convinced that someone is doing whatever it takes to overcome something when you cannot even define what it is they should be fixing. Its a self-fulfilling prophecy. As long as things are going the wrong direction, you are right. And as soon as things start turning around, you were right as well as you are now convinced whoever you decided to blame turned it around.

"Hey Mr. President, have you done everything in your power to make the country a utopia yet?"
"Well I have put forth severla pieces of legistlation: a healthcare plan, a comprehensive economic stimulus pack..."
"But the country is still not a utopia"
"No we are working to get better. What would you have me do?"
"I dunno. Stuff. Your job. You obviously aren't doing it because the country isn't perfect."
"Well, I have to work against a hostile congress, special interest groups are..."
"Blah..blah..blah, lazy ass. I'm booting you out next term. Then things will get better".

You are complaining without saying anything at all.

Your post is what is useless. You provide nothing.

 

[HighNote]

I can't determine what kind of team the Blues are trying to be right now, and honestly it doesn't seem like they know either. I think our opponents know better than we do.

Having gone to the Kings game (don't worry, someone gave me the tickets, I didn't pay to see that beat down), it appeared as though we were just playing directly into the Kings' hands. We didn't want to play a dump and chase, gritty cycle game (aside from our 4th line), that was clear from the get-go. So the Kings were playing the 1-3-1 which makes moving through the neutral zone rather difficult if your passing isn't clicking. It's a great way to snuff out a team's offense if they want to play fast and try to get opportunities off the rush or create odd-man rushes, which I think is what we were trying to do (again, I really can't tell). They were causing lots of turnovers, and forcing us to dump the puck in. That's fine and everything, because we're certainly capable of playing a dump and chase cycle game. The problem is that we...weren't? We just kept skating right into it and the Kings would either steal it in the neutral zone, cause us to make a bad pass (or we'd make an unforced bad pass which is currently a staple of Blues hockey), or force us to dump it in.

Since most of the Blues roster is currently unable to consistently make crisp passes anywhere on the ice, let alone through the gauntlet that is an NHL level 1-3-1 neutral zone, we'd make what's probably the best decision and dump the puck in. We'd then use the brilliant strategy of....-checks notes-....."letting them retrieve the puck and make a breakout pass with very little pressure...?"

Nearly every dump in would go down like this:

1) The dump in would be put into the perfect spot for Quick to come out and stop it behind the net and make the first pass of what would be a real easy Kings breakout because the defender is already turned towards the middle of the ice and can see what's coming (we see Binnington do this all the time).

2) We'd dump it in after being on the wrong end of an ass-whooping in our own zone and go for a line change.

3) A Kings defender would get to the puck first, receive very little pressure from the Blues forecheck, allowing him to either reverse behind the net to the other D-man on the weak side, or make a pass up to the winger who has support and they're out of the zone.

The first forechecker for the Blues would skate right at the puck carrier, reach with their stick hoping to make contact, but the puck would already be gone and on the way to another King that is loosely covered at best. What we SHOULD have been doing (assuming we're having trouble making neutral zone passes to the weak side which is a SOLID assumption) is when they force us towards the boards in the neutral zone and make us dump it in to #1, try to get the puck into the corner or softly chip it past the defender where Quick can't touch it, and #2, have a forward coming through the middle of the neutral zone already with speed so they can get on the loose puck right away, giving the defender little time to make a play. Ideally you want that forward coming through the middle with speed to be a guy like Schenn, Barbashev, or Toropchenko because you want that defender to be pissing his pants as he's retrieving the puck. I want our forechecker to be tracking the defender by the trail of urine behind them.

We hardly ever played the body or finished a check, and it resulted in easy breakouts. The Kings defenseman on the bench must have been saying to each other "man, I'm glad they aren't hitting us, it's making my job a lot easier." Meanwhile their team doctors have to make sure the boys are turning their necks the other way when on the bench because looking down towards the Blues defensive zone all game can be bad for the neck muscles.

 

[Snubbed4Vezina]

I can't determine what kind of team the Blues are trying to be right now, and honestly it doesn't seem like they know either. I think our opponents know better than we do.

Having gone to the Kings game (don't worry, someone gave me the tickets, I didn't pay to see that beat down), it appeared as though we were just playing directly into the Kings' hands. We didn't want to play a dump and chase, gritty cycle game (aside from our 4th line), that was clear from the get-go. So the Kings were playing the 1-3-1 which makes moving through the neutral zone rather difficult if your passing isn't clicking. It's a great way to snuff out a team's offense if they want to play fast and try to get opportunities off the rush or create odd-man rushes, which I think is what we were trying to do (again, I really can't tell). They were causing lots of turnovers, and forcing us to dump the puck in. That's fine and everything, because we're certainly capable of playing a dump and chase cycle game. The problem is that we...weren't? We just kept skating right into it and the Kings would either steal it in the neutral zone, cause us to make a bad pass (or we'd make an unforced bad pass which is currently a staple of Blues hockey), or force us to dump it in.

Since most of the Blues roster is currently unable to consistently make crisp passes anywhere on the ice, let alone through the gauntlet that is an NHL level 1-3-1 neutral zone, we'd make what's probably the best decision and dump the puck in. We'd then use the brilliant strategy of....-checks notes-....."letting them retrieve the puck and make a breakout pass with very little pressure...?"

Nearly every dump in would go down like this:

1) The dump in would be put into the perfect spot for Quick to come out and stop it behind the net and make the first pass of what would be a real easy Kings breakout because the defender is already turned towards the middle of the ice and can see what's coming (we see Binnington do this all the time).

2) We'd dump it in after being on the wrong end of an ass-whooping in our own zone and go for a line change.

3) A Kings defender would get to the puck first, receive very little pressure from the Blues forecheck, allowing him to either reverse behind the net to the other D-man on the weak side, or make a pass up to the winger who has support and they're out of the zone.

The first forechecker for the Blues would skate right at the puck carrier, reach with their stick hoping to make contact, but the puck would already be gone and on the way to another King that is loosely covered at best. What we SHOULD have been doing (assuming we're having trouble making neutral zone passes to the weak side which is a SOLID assumption) is when they force us towards the boards in the neutral zone and make us dump it in to #1, try to get the puck into the corner or softly chip it past the defender where Quick can't touch it, and #2, have a forward coming through the middle of the neutral zone already with speed so they can get on the loose puck right away, giving the defender little time to make a play. Ideally you want that forward coming through the middle with speed to be a guy like Schenn, Barbashev, or Toropchenko because you want that defender to be pissing his pants as he's retrieving the puck. I want our forechecker to be tracking the defender by the trail of urine behind them.

We hardly ever played the body or finished a check, and it resulted in easy breakouts. The Kings defenseman on the bench must have been saying to each other "man, I'm glad they aren't hitting us, it's making my job a lot easier." Meanwhile their team doctors have to make sure the boys are turning their necks the other way when on the bench because looking down towards the Blues defensive zone all game can be bad for the neck muscles.

Yes! This team needs to get back to playing physical because they’re playing lazy, uninspired hockey right now. There’s not a team in the league that won’t take it to us if we continue to play this floating, passive brand of hockey that we’ve seen this season.

Somewhere along the line it felt like we lost our identity. Instead of grinding and being a pain in the ass to play against, the players look like they want to be a high-scoring, finesse team but frankly we don’t have the horses to do that and compete with the high-octane offensive teams in the NHL with our vets losing a step. It’s going to be even worse next season when we lose a couple more forwards to FA.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Yes! This team needs to get back to playing physical because they’re playing lazy, uninspired hockey right now. There’s not a team in the league that won’t take it to us if we continue to play this floating, passive brand of hockey that we’ve seen this season.

Somewhere along the line it felt like we lost our identity. Instead of grinding and being a pain in the ass to play against, the players look like they want to be a high-scoring, finesse team but frankly we don’t have the horses to do that and compete with the high-octane offensive teams in the NHL with our vets losing a step. It’s going to be even worse next season when we lose a couple more forwards to FA.

This is a valuable post. Whether it is accurate or not is irrelevant or important. What is important is that this post has value.

My stance across a few posts is that there is a rift between ROR and Kyrou. Whether that is accurate or not is not what is most important. What is important is the position that this is a possible explanation of our slump.

It's not like we were lighting it up 5v5. Most our goals were scored 5v5, but, as noted, we had a long streak of not scoring any 5v5 goals.

I'm glad ROR and Kyrou are split up. It needed to happen. Whatever is happening with the team (and I think it is a chemistry issue), separating those two was vital.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I agree that this team needs to commit to a more defensive, physical, stingy style of hockey.

 

[Mike Liut]

The Blues just need to figure out their identity and start playing whatever fits it. I don’t think they know what type of a team they are right now.