2022-2023 Blues Multi-Purpose Thread

[Majorityof1]

Does anyone know why tweets wouldn't be showing up anymore for me? I am at home, so its not like work blocking certain websites. Could it be my ad blocker? Anyone else have this issue? It just started recently and I haven't changed anything in my settings

 

[PocketNines]

Has anyone noticed that the Blues have had some strong #1 defensemen in their history and they also have the highest rate of making the playoffs of any team in the NHL, even Montreal? These things are correlated. Out of simple practical reality to our discussions, I use the label of what the player really should be on a successful contender, not what role they're pressed into serving. I take it as a given we are all talking about what will make the Blues excel, not what will make them exist.

This debate is about Eric Brewer and what you think of him. If you subscribe to the 32 #1 defensemen theory then you are standing here with an Eric Brewer flag. Factually, Brewer received #1 minutes for the Blues. But what is the point of expecting a team with Eric Brewer as top minutes defender to be a relevant competitive team? Is JJ Moser a #1 defenseman? Is Zach Werenski a #1 defenseman? Is David Savard a #1 defenseman? Technically they all are this year so far. But what is the value to a discussion in pretending those players can be thought of as #1 defensemen for our purposes? Would they be the #1 defenseman on the Blues if the team acquired any of them?

Just watching Faulk run around his own zone last night against Buffalo, he is a player with a lot of attributes but he cannot bear the defensive minutes against top skilled lines shift after shift after shift. To me a #2 defenseman is a player who has most of what a #1 can do but is limited in a dimension of play. I see Faulk and Parayko as #2s since each has a noticeable limitation to their game. You could put them on any team and they'd help that team. I don't want to get rid of either player, I want to add one equal-to-or-better player to make a trio. I'd rather have a #1 but since they aren't really acquirable at the moment three #2s is better than two #2s.

 

[Majorityof1]

We can increase this even more to include Logan Brown, Josh Leivo and Jake Neighbours (even though he's no longer here). Because those three along with Walker, Toropchenko, Alexandrov and Pitlick are the 7 forwards with the least amount of ice time on the team before you get to our top 9 guys.

Of those 7, in a combined 70 games played they have 9 points. And half of those (4) are just from Leivo.

Of those players, Toropchenko is the only one who has gotten any type of valuable PK time (at least 30 seconds per game) and he ranks 220th in the league among forwards in that. That means each team, on average, has at least 6 forwards getting more PK time than he does. That means 3 full units for each team, before you get to Toropchenko. And of those 3 units per team, in looking at the list I am confident each team has 2-3 4th liners that are among that group.

I subscribe to the idea that a good 4th liner should be producing ~15 points per season. Anything that's 20+ is really good, but 15 is solid production for them. We have nobody even close to that pace right now.

In looking at the good teams around the NHL right now and their 4th lines, they are getting that production. I'll look at the 5-7 forwards that are getting the least amount of ice time for their teams to compare. These guys will all be at ~13 mins or below, just like the Blues' guys. Anyone at 14+ minutes is disqualified from these lists.

Boston: Nosek, Foligno, Smith, Frederic, Greer and Lauko. In 91 combined games they have a total of 35 points.

Vegas: Amadio, Lechyshyn, Kessel, Kolesar, Howden, Cotter and Carrier. 108 games, 30 points.

Carolina: Noesen, Stastny, Drury, Stepan, Martinook. 85 games, 21 points.

Tampa Bay: Maroon, Bellemare, Perry, Koepke, Colton, Namestnikov, Balcers. 111 games, 26 points.

New Jersey: Zetterlund, Holtz, McLeod, Wood, Boqvist. 73 games, 33 points.

Dallas: Gurianov, Glendening, Faksa, Blumel, Kiviranta. 79 games, 17 points. This is the only example who has weak production, but 3 of these guys average 2+ mins per game on the PK. And Dallas' PK is the 4th best in the NHL.

Islanders: Cizikas, Clutterbuck, Martin, Johnston, Soshnikov, Wahlstrom. 87 games, 24 points.

Toronto: Malgin, Clifford, Jarnkrok, Robertson, Holmberg, Aston-Reese, Engvall. 95 games, 25 points.

The ice times are all pretty similar. You could DOUBLE the Blues players' games and they would still be behind all of those teams by a good margin.

We have talked ad nauseam about our top guys. But ROR, Kyrou, Schenn, Thomas, Buch etc have picked up their play and are all playing much better lately. The thing that has stayed the same is our bottom of the lineup guys don't give us anything, and I believe that's a big factor for why this team is so inconsistent and just doesn't have it a lot of nights. We are a team that is supposed to be built on depth. That's going to be hard to win when we only have 3 good lines. Any team that has 4 good lines is beating us in a playoff series. I guess I'm just frustrated that we are trying the same thing we did last year, and are getting the same results. Actually, worse results. I too want Springfield to be good but the guys we have aren't cutting it IMO. I don't think I'm asking for a lot here, I just want some bottom of the lineup guys that average more than 1 point this season, and/or could kill a penalty now and then. Right now we don't have that. All the other good teams do.

As Blueston said, some of those guys are 3rd liners making 3rd liner money who are playing down for whatever reason. Fogliano is getting 3 minutes more a night and makes $3M more than any of our guys and gets PP time (3 PP points). Its not really a fair comparison.

Those guys are also playing with better players. Our guys are almost exclusively playing with each other. Its easier to put up points as a 4th liner if you have a legit 3rd liner on your line. Pitlick's points both came with top 9 guys. He has 0 GF with any of the guys you are calling out.

Again, I agree with your main point. Given how the Blues are constructed, we need production from our depth. But given how our roster is constructed, we don't have the money to sign good depth. That is on Armstrong for how he built this team. Its not on the borderline NHL guys who we scraped off the bottom of the barrel and shouldn't be expected to do much.

True, there are guys on your list that we missed on. Greer was a UFA that's making a smidge above league minimum. Either we missed there or he didn't want to come here. But for the most part its rare to put 3 $750k guys on a line and get decent production.

Its even more rare when you don't have young guys on bridge deals or ELCs to bring up. Zetterlund, McLeod Bastian are on their first post ELC deal and Mercer is on ELC for Jersey Our prospect pool sucks ass and has since Thomas and Kyrou graduated. That exacerbates our ability to maintain depth when the guys we are bringing up either aren't ready or never will be.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

As Blueston said, some of those guys are 3rd liners making 3rd liner money who are playing down for whatever reason. Fogliano is getting 3 minutes more a night and makes $3M more than any of our guys and gets PP time (3 PP points). Its not really a fair comparison.

Those guys are also playing with better players. Our guys are almost exclusively playing with each other. Its easier to put up points as a 4th liner if you have a legit 3rd liner on your line. Pitlick's points both came with top 9 guys. He has 0 GF with any of the guys you are calling out.

Again, I agree with your main point. Given how the Blues are constructed, we need production from our depth. But given how our roster is constructed, we don't have the money to sign good depth. That is on Armstrong for how he built this team. Its not on the borderline NHL guys who we scraped off the bottom of the barrel and shouldn't be expected to do much.

True, there are guys on your list that we missed on. Greer was a UFA that's making a smidge above league minimum. Either we missed there or he didn't want to come here. But for the most part its rare to put 3 $750k guys on a line and get decent production.

Its even more rare when you don't have young guys on bridge deals or ELCs to bring up. Zetterlund, McLeod Bastian are on their first post ELC deal and Mercer is on ELC for Jersey Our prospect pool sucks ass and has since Thomas and Kyrou graduated. That exacerbates our ability to maintain depth when the guys we are bringing up either aren't ready or never will be.

Our 4th line also isn’t really allowing anything. They have been fine. Our issue isn’t that pitlick or leivo hasn’t produced. It’s the play of Kyrou and tank and ROR and Schenn and Thomas.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Has anyone noticed that the Blues have had some strong #1 defensemen in their history and they also have the highest rate of making the playoffs of any team in the NHL, even Montreal? These things are correlated. Out of simple practical reality to our discussions, I use the label of what the player really should be on a successful contender, not what role they're pressed into serving. I take it as a given we are all talking about what will make the Blues excel, not what will make them exist.

This debate is about Eric Brewer and what you think of him. If you subscribe to the 32 #1 defensemen theory then you are standing here with an Eric Brewer flag. Factually, Brewer received #1 minutes for the Blues. But what is the point of expecting a team with Eric Brewer as top minutes defender to be a relevant competitive team? Is JJ Moser a #1 defenseman? Is Zach Werenski a #1 defenseman? Is David Savard a #1 defenseman? Technically they all are this year so far. But what is the value to a discussion in pretending those players can be thought of as #1 defensemen for our purposes? Would they be the #1 defenseman on the Blues if the team acquired any of them?

Just watching Faulk run around his own zone last night against Buffalo, he is a player with a lot of attributes but he cannot bear the defensive minutes against top skilled lines shift after shift after shift. To me a #2 defenseman is a player who has most of what a #1 can do but is limited in a dimension of play. I see Faulk and Parayko as #2s since each has a noticeable limitation to their game. You could put them on any team and they'd help that team. I don't want to get rid of either player, I want to add one equal-to-or-better player to make a trio. I'd rather have a #1 but since they aren't really acquirable at the moment three #2s is better than two #2s.

We debate whether Faulk is legit 1D, but to me bigger issue is that neither Thomas nor ROR have looked like 1C. And neither tank nor Kyrou look like 1st line wingers. Our D ain’t the problem.

 

[Majorityof1]

Our 4th line also isn’t really allowing anything. They have been fine. Our issue isn’t that pitlick or leivo hasn’t produced. It’s the play of Kyrou and tank and ROR and Schenn and Thomas.

Yea, that's exactly what I said up above. We pay our top guys so much we can't afford to have good 4th liners so those guys we are paying have to produce. And most times the best you can hope for when you out a $2.25M total salary line is that nothing happens, which is basically what has happened when we put those guys out there.

We debate whether Faulk is legit 1D, but to me bigger issue is that neither Thomas nor ROR have looked like 1C. And neither tank nor Kyrou look like 1st line wingers. Our D ain’t the problem.

I'm going to disagree here. Our D has been a train wreck in games we have lost. How many times did a D make a horrible pinch to give up an odd man rush last game. At least 3 goals, our D was well behind the play because they pinched or tried to make a poke check with their feet standing still in the offensive zone, letting the other teams forwards get way behind them. That doesn't even cover how many wide open back doors our D have given up. Faulk is scoring. He and Parayko have been good defensively in some games. But they have been a tire fire in others, and Krug and Leddy have not shown a single redeeming quality this season. Our D has been a huge problem.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Yea, that's exactly what I said up above. We pay our top guys so much we can't afford to have good 4th liners so those guys we are paying have to produce. And most times the best you can hope for when you out a $2.25M total salary line is that nothing happens, which is basically what has happened when we put those guys out there.



I'm going to disagree here. Our D has been a train wreck in games we have lost. How many times did a D make a horrible pinch to give up an odd man rush last game. At least 3 goals, our D was well behind the play because they pinched or tried to make a poke check with their feet standing still in the offensive zone, letting the other teams forwards get way behind them. That doesn't even cover how many wide open back doors our D have given up. Faulk is scoring. He and Parayko have been good defensively in some games. But they have been a tire fire in others, and Krug and Leddy have not shown a single redeeming quality this season. Our D has been a huge problem.

The offense is designed for the d to pinch. But forward has to cover when they do. Most of these odd man rushes i put on the forwards.

 

[Majorityof1]

The offense is designed for the d to pinch. But forward has to cover when they do. Most of these odd man rushes i put on the forwards.

Maybe some are on the forwards. But if you pinch to keep the puck in or to challenge the other team for the puck, you need to win. A forward doesn't have time to cover when you lose the puckand let the other guy blow by you without even slowing them.

Look at the sabre's 5th goal at around 12 minute mark in the third. Faulk steps up to challenge the puck carrier at our blue line and the guy doesn't even notice Faulk tried to hit him. He doesn't slow down at all. Barbashev rushes back but its a 2-on-1 and they score. That was 100% on Faulk and not the forwards.

Or the Sabre's 2nd goal. That is on Schenn a bit because he turns the puck over when the D are on the line change. But watch it slowly. Krug has made the change. He could start skating to stay in front of the rushing Sabre's player. Instead he keeps his feet still, and chops at the puck. He misses it badly, and he is toast since his feet aren't moving. He could have bailed out Schenn's turnover, but he blew it.

 

[BadgersandBlues]

The whole, "every team has a #1 D-man so there are 32 D-men in the league," is such flawed logic. A #1 D-man is very simple - plays all situations, plays against all competition, plays with any deployment, plays with just about any partner, and still has a massive positive affect on driving the play out of our zone and into the opponent's net.

Faulk is not a #1 D-man. He is good in a lot of ways, but he is also shielded in a lot of ways - he plays with our "best" LHD in Krug, he plays generally offensive deployment, and he doesn't play a ton against top players compared to other d-men on our roster. Is he good offensively? Yea! But he's not better then Krug on the PP. Is he decent defensively? Yea! But he's not the first guy we think of going out there against good players, or during defensive zone draws, or during the PK.

Now think about AP - who was on our first PP unit? AP. Who was on our first PK unit? AP. Who was the guy we'd put out there late trying to defend a lead? AP. Who's the guy who we'd put out there late trying to get a goal? AP. Who played with Edmundson, Gunnarson, probably a couple of other -sons, and the immortal Carlo Coliacovo - and no matter the partner, still got Norris votes? AP. Yes, Shattenkirk played the top PP minutes while he was here - but it was clear after he left that AP was pretty much just as good, thus making the decision simple for Army to let Shatty go and elevate Parayko into a larger role.

We won the Cup b/c we had a #1 D in AP, then a #2A in Parayko and a #2B in Jay-Bo. Parayko and Faulk are basically our new #2A and #2B, but we are severely lacking that true #1 guy. Leddy is a solid "Top 4" type guy, a consistent player that would go perfectly with a true #1 - can play the minutes, doesn't make dumb decisions, can skate and defend well enough that if that's all we ask him to do, he'll be fine. The real issue is Krug. Krug is a rich man's Vince Dunn and it's f***ing killing us having him on what amounts to our top pair.

AP/Leddy and Parayko/Left-handed Faulk would be a championship D. Throw in Krug on the bottom pair playing sheltered minutes and manning the top PP and voila, you basically have a better version of the D that won us the Cup, assuming you could get everyone's cap numbers down to fit. What we currently have is barely passable as a contending team.

 

[Reality Czech]

The whole, "every team has a #1 D-man so there are 32 D-men in the league," is such flawed logic. A #1 D-man is very simple - plays all situations, plays against all competition, plays with any deployment, plays with just about any partner, and still has a massive positive affect on driving the play out of our zone and into the opponent's net.

Faulk is not a #1 D-man. He is good in a lot of ways, but he is also shielded in a lot of ways - he plays with our "best" LHD in Krug, he plays generally offensive deployment, and he doesn't play a ton against top players compared to other d-men on our roster. Is he good offensively? Yea! But he's not better then Krug on the PP. Is he decent defensively? Yea! But he's not the first guy we think of going out there against good players, or during defensive zone draws, or during the PK.

Now think about AP - who was on our first PP unit? AP. Who was on our first PK unit? AP. Who was the guy we'd put out there late trying to defend a lead? AP. Who's the guy who we'd put out there late trying to get a goal? AP. Who played with Edmundson, Gunnarson, probably a couple of other -sons, and the immortal Carlo Coliacovo - and no matter the partner, still got Norris votes? AP. Yes, Shattenkirk played the top PP minutes while he was here - but it was clear after he left that AP was pretty much just as good, thus making the decision simple for Army to let Shatty go and elevate Parayko into a larger role.

We won the Cup b/c we had a #1 D in AP, then a #2A in Parayko and a #2B in Jay-Bo. Parayko and Faulk are basically our new #2A and #2B, but we are severely lacking that true #1 guy. Leddy is a solid "Top 4" type guy, a consistent player that would go perfectly with a true #1 - can play the minutes, doesn't make dumb decisions, can skate and defend well enough that if that's all we ask him to do, he'll be fine. The real issue is Krug. Krug is a rich man's Vince Dunn and it's f***ing killing us having him on what amounts to our top pair.

AP/Leddy and Parayko/Left-handed Faulk would be a championship D. Throw in Krug on the bottom pair playing sheltered minutes and manning the top PP and voila, you basically have a better version of the D that won us the Cup, assuming you could get everyone's cap numbers down to fit. What we currently have is barely passable as a contending team.

Some good points in there, but also some things I totally disagree with. First of all, Petro was 4th on the team in PK time in 2019 although the top 4 guys were all pretty close in ice time. Bortz actually led the team in PK time. In 2019-20, Petro played almost the fewest minutes of any Blues D on the PK, so it's not like he's some elite penalty killer. I also feel like Bouwmeester would have been on the ice before Petro close and late instead of Petro, possibly even Parayko.

By your own definition, I would argue Faulk is a 1D. Is he as good as Petro? Probably not, but they are different types of players. Faulk plays in all situations and is capable of being the best player on the ice any given night, so I'd argue he should be considered at least a low end 1D.

If people are expecting a defensive group equal to the one we had in 2018-19 then that's not a very realistic expectation. D corps that deep are pretty damn rare.

 

[Xerloris]

Maybe some are on the forwards. But if you pinch to keep the puck in or to challenge the other team for the puck, you need to win. A forward doesn't have time to cover when you lose the puckand let the other guy blow by you without even slowing them.

Look at the sabre's 5th goal at around 12 minute mark in the third. Faulk steps up to challenge the puck carrier at our blue line and the guy doesn't even notice Faulk tried to hit him. He doesn't slow down at all. Barbashev rushes back but its a 2-on-1 and they score. That was 100% on Faulk and not the forwards.

Or the Sabre's 2nd goal. That is on Schenn a bit because he turns the puck over when the D are on the line change. But watch it slowly. Krug has made the change. He could start skating to stay in front of the rushing Sabre's player. Instead he keeps his feet still, and chops at the puck. He misses it badly, and he is toast since his feet aren't moving. He could have bailed out Schenn's turnover, but he blew it.

Are you seriously putting blame for that goal that was a 3 on 1 on the ONE guy that was on D?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Are you seriously putting blame for that goal that was a 3 on 1 on the ONE guy that was on D?

faulk was the d who was back. i think he is saying that krug could have done more to prevent faulk and binny being hung out to dry. personally, i'd lay more blame on schenn turning the puck over just inside blue line when we were changing.

 

[Majorityof1]

faulk was the d who was back. i think he is saying that krug could have done more to prevent faulk and binny being hung out to dry. personally, i'd lay more blame on schenn turning the puck over just inside blue line when we were changing.

It was Krug who was partially at fault on the 3-on-1. And yes, I said Schenn was partially to blame on that. Who is more to blame? Who knows. But Krug made the more ridiculous play. Turnovers are going to happen. Trying to stop a a guy skating past you by standing still and slowly swiping at the puck is just one of the worst defensive attempts I have ever seen in 20+ years of watrching hockey. It was also on Mikkola too. That was a bad change. Mikkola was Schenn's outlet. He skated into the zone with him, and then went to change when Schenn turned around expecting Mikkola to be there for a pass. Instead he was hemmed in with no outlet.

I was blaming Faulk for the 2-on-1, as I clearly stated in my post. It was Quinn's goal. I gave the god damn time stamp in my post. It was their 5th goal, 12 minutes into the 3rd, a 2 on 1, thats TWO on one, not three on 1. Jesus, how much more explicit do I have to be (not talking to you Blueston). Anyway, Faulk stepped up at our blue line to check Quinn and Quinn didn't even notice him. Faulk was left looking around like where'd he go 30 feet behind the play while Barby was left defending a 2-on-1.

 

[Linkens Mastery]

It was Krug who was partially at fault on the 3-on-1. And yes, I said Schenn was partially to blame on that. Who is more to blame? Who knows. But Krug made the more ridiculous play. Turnovers are going to happen. Trying to stop a a guy skating past you by standing still and slowly swiping at the puck is just one of the worst defensive attempts I have ever seen in 20+ years of watrching hockey. It was also on Mikkola too. That was a bad change. Mikkola was Schenn's outlet. He skated into the zone with him, and then went to change when Schenn turned around expecting Mikkola to be there for a pass. Instead he was hemmed in with no outlet.

I was blaming Faulk for the 2-on-1, as I clearly stated in my post. It was Quinn's goal. I gave the god damn time stamp in my post. It was there 5th goal, 12 minutes into the 3rd, a 2 on 1, thats TWO on one, not three on 1. Jesus, how much more explicit do I have to be (not talking to you Blueston). Anyway, Faulk stepped up at our blue line to check Quinn and Quinn didn't even notice him. Faulk was left looking around like where'd he go 30 feet behind the play while Barby was left defending a 2-on-1.

Naw, you know who's really to blame? That imbecile Kyrou!!!

 

[Xerloris]

It was Krug who was partially at fault on the 3-on-1. And yes, I said Schenn was partially to blame on that. Who is more to blame? Who knows. But Krug made the more ridiculous play. Turnovers are going to happen. Trying to stop a a guy skating past you by standing still and slowly swiping at the puck is just one of the worst defensive attempts I have ever seen in 20+ years of watrching hockey. It was also on Mikkola too. That was a bad change. Mikkola was Schenn's outlet. He skated into the zone with him, and then went to change when Schenn turned around expecting Mikkola to be there for a pass. Instead he was hemmed in with no outlet.

I was blaming Faulk for the 2-on-1, as I clearly stated in my post. It was Quinn's goal. I gave the god damn time stamp in my post. It was their 5th goal, 12 minutes into the 3rd, a 2 on 1, thats TWO on one, not three on 1. Jesus, how much more explicit do I have to be (not talking to you Blueston). Anyway, Faulk stepped up at our blue line to check Quinn and Quinn didn't even notice him. Faulk was left looking around like where'd he go 30 feet behind the play while Barby was left defending a 2-on-1.

Krug had just stepped on the ice at a dead standstill when he wained his stick at the puck. What do you really think he should have done? He was not going to keep up with the play from a dead stop and he chose not to take a penalty.

That 2 on 1 was actually Krug that pinched.

 

[BlueDream]

Our 4th line also isn’t really allowing anything. They have been fine. Our issue isn’t that pitlick or leivo hasn’t produced. It’s the play of Kyrou and tank and ROR and Schenn and Thomas.

Why do you always act like there can only be one issue at a time? It can be both. We need more out of some top guys but we also need 4th line production. We are in our 2nd season in a row of our 4th line giving us nothing. It is clearly an issue.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Why do you always act like there can only be one issue at a time? It can be both. We need more out of some top guys but we also need 4th line production. We are in our 2nd season in a row of our 4th line giving us nothing. It is clearly an issue.

Some issues are bigger than others. Fourth line last year was not good. This year they aren’t scoring but they aren’t allowing much either. They are down our list issues.

 

[BlueDream]

Some issues are bigger than others. Fourth line last year was not good. This year they aren’t scoring but they aren’t allowing much either. They are down our list issues.

Would be an easier issue to fix though.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Would be an easier issue to fix though.

Perhaps. But we brought in acciari to drive that line and we had to bump him up bc brown can’t play (even when healthy) and neighbours looked terrible. We need better play from lots of guys, quite frankly.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Alright, glass-half full time. We are getting a head start learning what life without O'Reilly will be like because he's essentially already gone, the player he was prior to this season is no longer on the roster. I know Army probably knew losing Perron would have an impact on his production, but I don't think he or anyone else anticipated freaking Noel Acciari outscoring him 20 games into the season. The core of our supposed 1st line has combined for 11 points in 33 games. Our 1st line has turned into a 3rd/4th line in terms of production.

There's an aspect of puck luck against the line and an aspect of an even more difficult deployment that normal, but we are at a point, where we have to wonder if the decline has begun on him or if he's playing through some sort of serious injury. Perron and Schenn recently had some pretty bad runs with us before lighting it up again, so maybe there's still hope that it's just an injury and he can get healthy.

 

[PocketNines]

ROR played great in front of Bonnie

 

[bleedblue1223]

ROR played great in front of Bonnie

Bring the moms back. Punishment for the players is assisting the moms on how to work Facebook.

 

[PocketNines]

I'm going to give a player like ROR a decent amount of rope, more than a quarter season. At least half a season. One of our fears was that he'd want a bigger contract than the Blues would offer. I think Armstrong will tell him when they meet in January that there's 3C money, medium term and the captaincy on the table and ROR will understand that's the offer and mull it as the season plays out.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What's 3C money in that scenario? $4, 4.5?

 

[PocketNines]

3x5 or 4x4 range I am thinking