2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[PocketNines]

Tampa doesn't get enough credit for getting to Game 6 of the Final without Brayden Point. They also won a Cup without Stamkos. That team is far more resilient to major injury than the Blues. If Vasilevsky gets locked in, they are a nightmare and they're tough even when he's average. I agree the loss of McDonagh hurts. But they are still the East's behemoth IMO.

 

[Reality Czech]

They ran circles around the Blues last year; putting up 10 goals in their two wins. They're deep and fast and have real high-end skill on their top line. And their puck possession stats and overall analytics show this is no fluke hot streak.



Year after year they're amongst the final two teams standing, but they've lost too much depth to have anything more than a punchers chance at this point. McDonagh and Palat were two losses that are being felt. I think they're going to shift from a favorite to 'a tough out' simply due to Hedman, Kucherov, Point, Stamkos & Vasilevskiy...but the rest of the conference has finally caught up with them.

Fair enough, I'm probably selling them short. But if they went head to head with Tampa this year I would still pick Tampa. That being said, the Devils are set up pretty nicely for the future with all the young talent they've stockpiled. Guess we will see if their goaltending can hold up, but yeah it's definitely not a fluke. I just don't think they are at Cup contender level just yet.

 

[BlueMed]

Mikkola was getting 14-15 minutes a game until the last 5 games (COL, CHI, WSH, ANA, ANA) when he has averaged just under 21 minutes a game. No points but is +4 in that time.

Mikkola absolutely should not be in the Blues' top 4 when it hits the postseason but he is showing it's possible he's a good player to have who can step up minutes in an injury situation in the regular season. He does not transition the puck or get it out of the zone well enough and a team like Colorado would exploit him if he's overplayed. He is a 4-6 defenseman and is somewhat in the mold of Edmundson during the Cup year. Edmundson was mostly getting 5-6 minutes or being healthy scratched, but he held down top 4 minutes the second half of the Dallas series and for most of the Sharks series.

He has been impressive defensively over the last five games and needing to step up as Parayko insurance with him in that defensive stopper role might even hold for a few games in the playoffs, depending on opponent. Five games is only five games though. Mikkola has shown bursts of play in the past where you think he's improving, but then he reverts. I want to see a much longer stretch from 77 before believing in him. He was -1 against Colorado and +5 against Washington, Chicago and Anaheim twice who aren't exactly worldbeaters.

It's the norm that a top 4 defender won't play due to injury. Paryako came back and Krug is out. The 5-6-7 has to have guys who can be promoted in a pinch and hold the line, the way this defense is constructed without a #1. Rosen and Tucker are looking like decent bottom pairing insurance. They need two defenders who can step up and bear top 4 minutes. If Mikkola can be the more rugged defensive stopper who steps up, then if they acquire another Leddy-profile skater/transitioner, it's about the best they can do while lacking a #1. There's no Hampus Lindholm out there this year. [But even if there were, those guys have it in their heads some crazyhow they are a scarce commodity and want NMCs upon extending.]

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of a #1? And why does Justin Faulk not meet that criteria?

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think the issue with Faulk and Parayko when it comes to #1 designation is this:

What does #1 even mean? Some mean as long as you are in the top 32 defensemen, then you are a #1 guy. It's logical, but not something I really agree with. Usually when we say #1, we are mostly talking about the more elite guys that can handle any situation and anchor a top pair that can go against top lines, regardless of their defensive partner. Usually, it's much closer to 10-15 of these guys in the league, maybe a bit more, but it's not simply taking the top 32 guys. Parayko and Faulk both fall just short of this as they either need a particular deployment, a certain type of partner, or have certain limitations in their games.

Another thing that sort of unfairly hurts Faulk is that he'll ultimately be with Krug, and that limits how that pair can be deployed defensively. In an ideal world, he's with another Leddy type that is great at moving the puck, competent in the offensive zone and still good enough defensively where deployment isn't as big of an issue as it is with Krug.

That's why Faulk and Parayko are basically 2 sides of the same coin, we need both healthy together and that can give us both sides of a #1, but if one gets hurt, then we lose 1 and the other becomes less effective.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think it's easy to forget that Mikkola had a pretty long stretch last season with Parayko where that pairing had underlying numbers that were on par with Bouwmeester/Parayko. Because of his limitations, we do forget sometimes that from a pure defensive side of things, he can be very good in a shutdown role.

I'd honestly have Bortz out of the lineup based on how Mikkola, Rosen, and Tucker to some extent have played. Mikkola is clearly the best of the bunch, and Rosen brings the puck-moving ability that the 3rd pair has to have. Tucker has had limited minutes against meh opponents, but I haven't really seen anything from him that has been a big negative. And we still have Kessel in the minors. I know it sort of go talked about in the summer, but they are showing me why I wasn't worried about our defensive depth, we can go deep into that depth chart, and as long as they are filling out spots on the 3rd pair, we'll be fine.

I ultimately want Kessel to be that puck-mover for the 3rd pair, so hopefully he has a great year at Springfield and is ready for next camp. He has the skating ability, size, and upside to be a solid player for us.

 

[rumrokh]

I'd honestly have Bortz out of the lineup based on how Mikkola, Rosen, and Tucker to some extent have played.

Bortuzzo has fallen off so badly in the last couple seasons. Even though Mikkola also looked like ass when they were paired together, Bortuzzo was shockingly worse. Now that Mikkola is playing well away from him and the Blues have dug themselves a nice little hole, there's no excuse for him to get back in the lineup (even when he's healthy) other than injuries.

 

[PocketNines]

Just out of curiosity, what is your definition of a #1? And why does Justin Faulk not meet that criteria?

bleedblue1223 answered it the way I would have

 

[Linkens Mastery]

I think Faulk and Parayko are both 1st pairing defenseman, but have holes in their game to prevent them from being true #1s. Parayko is lacking offense and passing and Faulk is lacking more of the defensive side.

Edit: also have issues with Parayko's consistency. Some games he looks like a bona-fide stud taking over games, other games he looks like he's barely top 4 quality.

 

[BlueMed]

I think the issue with Faulk and Parayko when it comes to #1 designation is this:

What does #1 even mean? Some mean as long as you are in the top 32 defensemen, then you are a #1 guy. It's logical, but not something I really agree with. Usually when we say #1, we are mostly talking about the more elite guys that can handle any situation and anchor a top pair that can go against top lines, regardless of their defensive partner. Usually, it's much closer to 10-15 of these guys in the league, maybe a bit more, but it's not simply taking the top 32 guys. Parayko and Faulk both fall just short of this as they either need a particular deployment, a certain type of partner, or have certain limitations in their games.

Another thing that sort of unfairly hurts Faulk is that he'll ultimately be with Krug, and that limits how that pair can be deployed defensively. In an ideal world, he's with another Leddy type that is great at moving the puck, competent in the offensive zone and still good enough defensively where deployment isn't as big of an issue as it is with Krug.

That's why Faulk and Parayko are basically 2 sides of the same coin, we need both healthy together and that can give us both sides of a #1, but if one gets hurt, then we lose 1 and the other becomes less effective.

bleedblue1223 answered it the way I would have

That's not how it really works though. Each defensemen relies upon his partner significantly. For example, a Pietrangelo-Krug pairing would not work either in a defensive deployment because Petro cannot cover Krug's ice for him. In today's NHL, a #1 defenseman is your team's quarterback that can play in all-situations, and I simply haven't heard a coherent scouting report specifying what Faulk's limitations are. Defensively, he is very solid with good positioning, strong stick work, tight gap control, and high shot blocking. Offensively, he is excellent with poised passing, good lateral mobility, high shot accuracy, effective one-timers, and the ability to run a powerplay. He was second among all NHL defensemen last year in even-strength goals. He is also capable of stepping up to make a hit or fight when appropriate. In contrast, Parayko is limited because he cannot distribute the puck that well and lacks significant lateral mobility in his skating. In my mind, Parayko is probably a Niklas Hjalmarsson 2.0, and I'm more than okay with that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I think Faulk and Parayko are both 1st pairing defenseman, but have holes in their game to prevent them from being true #1s. Parayko is lacking offense and passing and Faulk is lacking more of the defensive side.

Yeah, and I'm not sure I'd say Faulk lacks anywhere, it's just more he's a B/B+ across the board. Parayko would get an A grade defensively, but there's sort of some Erik Johnson in him where you wish his puck-moving was a bit better and had a more effective shot. It's an unfair comparison, but it's really too bad he didn't become more of a poor man's Shea Weber. When he had 5 goals in his first 14 games of his rookie season, I'm sure we all thought he was on that path, but he just never got his shot to that level.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

Yeah, and I'm not sure I'd say Faulk lacks anywhere, it's just more he's a B/B+ across the board. Parayko would get an A grade defensively, but there's sort of some Erik Johnson in him where you wish his puck-moving was a bit better and had a more effective shot. It's an unfair comparison, but it's really too bad he didn't become more of a poor man's Shea Weber. When he had 5 goals in his first 14 games of his rookie season, I'm sure we all thought he was on that path, but he could just never get his shot to that level.

Oh, I'm definitely not saying Faulk is bad defensively. Just he's lacking more there than other places. But I do agree. If Colt was Defensive A Offensive C, Faulk would be Defensive B Offensive B.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's not how it really works though. Each defensemen relies upon his partner significantly. For example, a Pietrangelo-Krug pairing would not work either in a defensive deployment because Petro cannot cover Krug's ice for him. In today's NHL, a #1 defenseman is your team's quarterback that can play in all-situations, and I simply haven't heard a coherent scouting report specifying what Faulk's limitations are. Defensively, he is very solid with good positioning, stick work, gap control, and shot blocking. Offensively, he is excellent with poised passing, good lateral mobility, high shot accuracy, effective one-timers, and the ability to run a powerplay. He was second among all defensemen last year with even-strength goals. He is also capable of stepping up to make a hit or fight when appropriate. Basically, Faulk can do everything consistently well. Parayko is limited because he cannot distribute the puck like a true offensive defenseman and lacks significant lateral mobility in his skating. In my mind, Parayko is probably a Niklas Hjalmarsson 2.0, and I'm more than okay with that.

Faulk has never be in a deployment where he was used as the #1 guy, going against teams' top lines. And when he was used in a more defensive role here, in his first 2 seasons, he struggled. Now Petro is someone that is top 5-10, but he's someone that was successful in those ultra defensive deployments, balanced deployments, and more offensive deployments. He had partners that varied from guys like Colaiacovo, Edmundson, Gunnarsson, Bouwmeester, Dunn, etc.

I can accept an argument that Faulk is at the very tail end of what we should consider a true #1, but to me he's on the other side of that edge. A prime Seabrook as an example. I'm sure there are other names we could come up with too. These guys are well-rounded, guys I'd give a B/B+ great at most things they do, but aren't quite to that elite enough level to be a true #1.

 

[joe galiba]

I think we should be a little more clear when we are talking about d-men, and be more specific whether we are talking about a elite dman or a 1st pairing dman

 

[bleedblue1223]

We have 2 true 1st pair defensemen in Faulk and Parayko, both are probably in that rough 20-40 range, I'm just being pretty liberal with the range to not start an argument on where they specifically fall. We have another that I believe is capable of top pair minutes in Leddy. Krug is top 4, but someone that ideally you'd really like to shelter where he's more of a 2nd/3rd pair guy that plays up when you need offense and down when protecting leads. We don't, IMO have a true #1.

 

[BlueMed]

Faulk has never be in a deployment where he was used as the #1 guy, going against teams' top lines. And when he was used in a more defensive role here, in his first 2 seasons, he struggled. Now Petro is someone that is top 5-10, but he's someone that was successful in those ultra defensive deployments, balanced deployments, and more offensive deployments. He had partners that varied from guys like Colaiacovo, Edmundson, Gunnarsson, Bouwmeester, Dunn, etc.

I can accept an argument that Faulk is at the very tail end of what we should consider a true #1, but to me he's on the other side of that edge. A prime Seabrook as an example. I'm sure there are other names we could come up with too. These guys are well-rounded, guys I'd give a B/B+ great at most things they do, but aren't quite to that elite enough level to be a true #1.

1. Are you sure Faulk was never the #1 guy in Carolina before Slavin's emergence?
2. When Faulk was used in a more defensive role, who was his D-partner? (hint: Torey Krug)
3. You mentioned he struggled in his first 2 seasons. Do you have other reasons for that? (hint: ambiguous 3rd pairing role on a new team often utilized as a LHD)
4. Which part of Faulk's game isn't elite enough specifically? Let's hear a scouting report here. Details please.

Faulk at this point has 14 points in 18 games, making him 15th overall in points for a defensemen. He has arguably been this team's most consistent player over the past 3 seasons, and yet, there's always a moving goal post for him among fans. Faulk never really got the chance to play with Edmundson, Gunnarsson, or JBo. There's also a good reason Dunn was delegated to 3rd pairing. He and Petro did not work out together.

 

[PocketNines]

That's not how it really works though. Each defensemen relies upon his partner significantly. For example, a Pietrangelo-Krug pairing would not work either in a defensive deployment because Petro cannot cover Krug's ice for him. In today's NHL, a #1 defenseman is your team's quarterback that can play in all-situations, and I simply haven't heard a coherent scouting report specifying what Faulk's limitations are. Defensively, he is very solid with good positioning, strong stick work, tight gap control, and high shot blocking. Offensively, he is excellent with poised passing, good lateral mobility, high shot accuracy, effective one-timers, and the ability to run a powerplay. He was second among all NHL defensemen last year in even-strength goals. He is also capable of stepping up to make a hit or fight when appropriate. In contrast, Parayko is limited because he cannot distribute the puck like a true offensive defenseman and lacks significant lateral mobility in his skating. In my mind, Parayko is probably a Niklas Hjalmarsson 2.0, and I'm more than okay with that.

Chris Pronger and Al Macinnis and Scott Stevens and Alex Pietrangelo were not reliant on their partners, and the Blues could and did put just about anybody with those guys, the Jeff Finleys and the Carlo Colaiacovos. They were #1 defensemen. You can have multiple #1 defensemen on your team, or you can have one or none. A #1 like bleedblue said is someone who will play against any matchup in any situation and be able to handle it and not get exposed. You asked me why I don't include Faulk as a #1 defenseman and this is why. You can't just give Faulk any partner and expect it to be fine. Faulk gets exposed down low and gets hemmed in his zone a lot. He got hemmed in for over 2 minutes against lowly Anaheim. Don't get me wrong I appreciate a lot of what Faulk brings but he is successful in certain deployment and in order for the Blues to give him that deployment he needs a little cover. As soon as you start handing him primary defensive responsibilities you know you don't have a #1 defenseman.

 

[BlueMed]

Chris Pronger and Al Macinnis and Scott Stevens and Alex Pietrangelo were not reliant on their partners, and the Blues could and did put just about anybody with those guys, the Jeff Finleys and the Carlo Colaiacovos. They were #1 defensemen. You can have multiple #1 defensemen on your team, or you can have one or none. A #1 like bleedblue said is someone who will play against any matchup in any situation and be able to handle it and not get exposed. You asked me why I don't include Faulk as a #1 defenseman and this is why. You can't just give Faulk any partner and expect it to be fine. Faulk gets exposed down low and gets hemmed in his zone a lot. He got hemmed in for over 2 minutes against lowly Anaheim. Don't get me wrong I appreciate a lot of what Faulk brings but he is successful in certain deployment and in order for the Blues to give him that deployment he needs a little cover. As soon as you start handing him primary defensive responsibilities you know you don't have a #1 defenseman.

Even Alex Pietrangelo would struggle in a defensive role with Krug by his side. Torey is arguably the most specialized defenseman in the entire league. There is not a single defensemen in the NHL that can take on a defensive role against elite forwards with that kind of D partner. Period.

 

[PocketNines]

Even Alex Pietrangelo would struggle in a defensive role with Krug by his side. Torey is arguably the most specialized defenseman in the entire league. There is not a single defensemen in the NHL that can take on a defensive role against elite forwards with that kind of D partner. Period.

Very aware of Krug's defensive limitations but I also saw Faulk paired with Leddy this year and it looked ... not great. Faulk struggling down low and against a strong forecheck can't be laid at Krug's door. I'm also not saying he always struggles, but when Faulk does look bad to me, it's because he is getting subsumed in his own zone.

 

[bleedblue1223]

@BlueMed, do you even agree on our definition of #1? Are you arguing he's a number 1 based on our criteria or that our criteria is too strict? Compared to other players who would you give as a comp to Faulk and where would you rank him?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Faulk is one of the top 20 defensemen in the league. There is nothing he is not good at. I wish he was Chris Pronger or Al MacInnis at their best, but they were top 5 in league.

 

[Xerloris]

So what I have learned from this so far is that Faulk is not a #1 because he's being compared to some of the greatest Dmen to ever play the game in Pronger and Macinnis. Next thing you know ROR is not going to be a #1C because Gretzky an shit.

 

[Stupendous Yappi]

I think the issue with Faulk and Parayko when it comes to #1 designation is this:

What does #1 even mean? Some mean as long as you are in the top 32 defensemen, then you are a #1 guy. It's logical, but not something I really agree with. Usually when we say #1, we are mostly talking about the more elite guys that can handle any situation and anchor a top pair that can go against top lines, regardless of their defensive partner. Usually, it's much closer to 10-15 of these guys in the league, maybe a bit more, but it's not simply taking the top 32 guys. Parayko and Faulk both fall just short of this as they either need a particular deployment, a certain type of partner, or have certain limitations in their games.

Another thing that sort of unfairly hurts Faulk is that he'll ultimately be with Krug, and that limits how that pair can be deployed defensively. In an ideal world, he's with another Leddy type that is great at moving the puck, competent in the offensive zone and still good enough defensively where deployment isn't as big of an issue as it is with Krug.

That's why Faulk and Parayko are basically 2 sides of the same coin, we need both healthy together and that can give us both sides of a #1, but if one gets hurt, then we lose 1 and the other becomes less effective.

I've always found cognitive dissonance in the definition where there may be 15 (or some number other than 32) #1 defensemen in the league. I don't think that's a #1D. I think that needs a different term. "Anchor defenseman" or something. Its similar when people are trying to talk about '#1 Centers'.

So much arguing on this board stems from people not getting their definitions square before starting the discussion, and a neutral observer can see that they simply are using terms with different definitions.

 

[Majorityof1]

I've always found cognitive dissonance in the definition where there may be 15 (or some number other than 32) #1 defensemen in the league. I don't think that's a #1D. I think that needs a different term. "Anchor defenseman" or something. Its similar when people are trying to talk about '#1 Centers'.

So much arguing on this board stems from people not getting their definitions square before starting the discussion, and a neutral observer can see that they simply are using terms with different definitions.

Do you really want the 32nd best #1 D man as your #1 D? #1 D means someone who can be the #1 D on a contender. There are not 32 or 30 or even 20 contenders. There are only about 15 teams that contend. So call it #1D on a contender if you want, but for me the "on a contender" goes without saying. Why would you want to be anything else?

If we re-drafted the entire league and you always took the 32nd best of every position, you are finishing 32nd. Now that isn't how roster construction works. If you have the 32nd-37th best D in the league, that is a pretty good D-core. Depth can overcome having the best top end talent. But in that case you wouldn't be relying on having that #1 D. You'd have a bunch of really good top 4 guys or a bunch of just good top pair guys. You wouldn't really have #1 guy, even though that 32nd in the league guy is probably your #1 and one of the top 32 D in the league. He just can't carry a contender like a #1 without a lot of depth as support.

 

[Reality Czech]

Even Alex Pietrangelo would struggle in a defensive role with Krug by his side. Torey is arguably the most specialized defenseman in the entire league. There is not a single defensemen in the NHL that can take on a defensive role against elite forwards with that kind of D partner. Period.

It's kind of silly how these Krug narratives persist in this forum, as if he's a total train wreck costing us goals left and right. Most nights he's perfectly adequate and while they do try to shelter him, he's still on the ice against elite talent at times. You can only match up so much. I guarantee there are plenty of offensive minded d-men in the league who are the same as Krug or worse defensively.

You guys are entitled to your opinions but I doubt teammates and coaches would judge Faulk, Krug and Parayko so harshly. The list of d-men who are elite on offense and defense is pretty short and the expectations of many fans seem unreasonable to me. If you want a truly elite player it's gonna cost a lot more than $6.5 million per year.

 

[rumrokh]

Oh, I'm definitely not saying Faulk is bad defensively. Just he's lacking more there than other places. But I do agree. If Colt was Defensive A Offensive C, Faulk would be Defensive B Offensive B.

I basically agree, but I think the gap between Faulk and Parayko's offense is noticeably bigger than the gap between their defensive abilities.