How good do we think we are?

[Bye Bye Blueston]

With all this chatter about whether we are a contender thought it would be fun to lay our cards on the table.

Click to read more...

 

[MissouriMook]

I think we will end up second in the West Division. I don't feel like either Vegas or Colorado are decidedly better than us because they, too, have their share of question marks. I see any combination of us and those two teams in the Top 3 as viable. From there, a lot depends on whether we have to go through both to get to the NHL semi-finals and how they match division playoff winners in Round 3.

To me, Binnington is the key. I think our D will be fine if not up to recent standards and I think we will score at a rate of 0.2-0.3 GPG higher than we've averaged over the last couple of years. If Binnington is a 2.40 GAA or lower, 0.915 SP or higher guy in the regular season and carries his 2019 mojo into the playoffs, I think we will be a tough out for ANY team in the league in a 7 game series.

 

[Xerloris]

Favorites never pan out. Top 5's are usually pretty close.

 

[Blueline2757]

The Blues are good enough to make the playoffs, They'll finish 3rd in the west. I don't see them getting past the 1st round. As there is flaws in roster construction for them to be a legit contender.

 

[MissouriMook]

The Blues are good enough to make the playoffs, They'll finish 3rd in the west. I don't see them getting past the 1st round. As there is flaws in roster construction for them to be a legit contender.

Colorado has a big question mark in goal. Vegas has virtually no proven center depth beyond Karlsson and will still have to make a big subtraction from their roster to get cap compliant. I don't see the Blues roster as significantly more flawed than either of these two teams, just potentially flawed in different areas. I'd say it is a long season, but it's not.

 

[HighNote]

I may be in the minority, but I view Vegas, Colorado, and St. Louis to be about evenly matched. I wouldn't be surprised to see any kind of combination of those teams for the final standings in the division, meaning any of those teams could end up 1st, 2nd or 3rd. The only thing that would surprise me would be if one of those teams weren't in the top 3.

As for the playoffs, anything can happen, I could see us getting knocked out R1 or making the finals. There's just too many factors.

 

[Zezel’s Pretzels]

Contender.

 

[Majorityof1]

Is there an "It depends" option? As much as predicting sports is always based around things that can't accurately be predicted, I think this Blues team is even more so in flux. We have a whole new leadership structure. We are without two guys who would have been considered in our top 3 players by many, definitely top 5. One is coming back, but we have no idea when or strong he will be. We have a defensive core that is moving away from our style, so our coach will have to at least tinker some strategies. We have a relatively unproven goalie tandem. We are seemingly relying on some youngsters to step up their game, which is never a sure thing (although less so with Hoffman signing).

If you put a gun to my head and forced me to bet, with even odds, I'd take us making the playoffs. I wouldn't bet on us winning the cup, no matter the odds. That doesn't mean we won't, nor does it mean I won't be ecstatic if we do. I just think it is a long shot. So I voted playoffs-1st round exit. If a few things gel the right way, I could see us doing better than that. Likewise if they don't I can see us worse.

 

[BlueMed]

Colorado has a big question mark in goal. Vegas has virtually no proven center depth beyond Karlsson and will still have to make a big subtraction from their roster to get cap compliant. I don't see the Blues roster as significantly more flawed than either of these two teams, just potentially flawed in different areas. I'd say it is a long season, but it's not.

Didn't you get the memo? The Blues have to be perfect in every area to be considered a contender while other teams can have major question marks and still have contender status. That's how it works around here.

 

[BlueMed]

The Blues are good enough to make the playoffs, They'll finish 3rd in the west. I don't see them getting past the 1st round. As there is flaws in roster construction for them to be a legit contender.

You don't even know who we are playing in the first round...And show me a team in this league that doesn't have flaws in their roster. Colorado? Goaltending is kinda important. Vegas? Center and defensive depth are kinda important.

 

[TK 421]

Yappi brought it up in another thread but it's definitely worth mentioning again, how does the PK pan out this year?

Bo and Steen were PK mainstays for years and that kind of proficiency isn't easily replaced. Berube mentioned Thomas being used on the PK this year so that's a new development. Anyone care to venture a guess as to what the 2 PK units look like?

 

[Celtic Note]

I feel like my definitions of contender are different and that there should be an option between contender and win one round. I could see this team winning two rounds.

 

[Meatball]

The Blues are good enough to make the playoffs, They'll finish 3rd in the west. I don't see them getting past the 1st round. As there is flaws in roster construction for them to be a legit contender.

 

[Eldon Reid]

Yappi brought it up in another thread but it's definitely worth mentioning again, how does the PK pan out this year?

Bo and Steen were PK mainstays for years and that kind of proficiency isn't easily replaced. Berube mentioned Thomas being used on the PK this year so that's a new development. Anyone care to venture a guess as to what the 2 PK units look like?

My guess would be the following players:

Forwards (6)
O'Reilly
Sundqvist
Barbashev
Sanford
Bozak
Thomas

Dman (4)
Scandella
Bortuzzo
Faulk
Parayko

Unit wise My best guess (I know they liked Sanford on PK and I think they may give him a little more time)

Sundqvist-Barbashev
Scandella-Parayko

O'Reilly-Sanford
Faulk-Bortuzzo

 

[The Note]

Barring a total implosion by the goaltending tandem they should certainly make the playoffs. Beyond that, I’m not sure. I could see them flaming out in the first round just as easily as them in the WCF depending on matchups. So I guess the third option? Idk.

 

[Meatball]

I see us on the line between contenders and favorites, honestly. I voted contenders because I didn't want my optimism to get completely out of control!

That said, honest question: If we're not cup favorites, who is?

 

[Zezel’s Pretzels]

I see us on the line between contenders and favorites, honestly. I voted contenders because I didn't want my optimism to get completely out of control!

That said, honest question: If we're not cup favorites, who is?

feel like TB in the East and Colorado in the West. TB the overall favorite again. Kuch is great and all, but they’re still loaded.

 

[LetsGoBLUES91]

Tampa
Avs
Vegas
Blues

Feel like I'm forgetting an obvious team out East. So I'll say 5th best.

 

[BlueMed]

feel like TB in the East and Colorado in the West. TB the overall favorite again. Kuch is great and all, but they’re still loaded.

TB won last year so they shouldn't be favorites again. I don't care who they have, but that was the logic used against us last year, so I'm going to keep the tradition.

 

[EastonBlues22]

Didn't you get the memo? The Blues have to be perfect in every area to be considered a contender while other teams can have major question marks and still have contender status. That's how it works around here.

I'd say the hyperbole in this post is a much better example of "how it works around here."

 

[EastonBlues22]

IMO, based on what we know right now, it wouldn't shock me if the Blues won two rounds...but I think it's unlikely.

 

[BlueMed]

I'd say the hyperbole in this post is a much better example of "how it works around here."

It wasn't hyperbolic at all. Teams like Colorado and Vegas have major question marks on their roster and posters on here continue giving them the benefit of the doubt. There is a double standard here.

 

[Mike Liut]

The Blues have the second best roster on paper behind TB

 

[EastonBlues22]

It wasn't hyperbolic at all. Teams like Colorado and Vegas have major question marks on their roster and posters on here continue giving them the benefit of the doubt. There is a double standard here.

Find me some posts indicating someone believes the Blues "have to be perfect in every area to be a contender." Then find me examples of those same people pushing other teams as contenders. Just one example even, though your post clearly indicates it is a common occurrence (also hyperbole). I'll wait.

You're creating a strawman, and pretty clearing using hyperbole.

 

[BlueMed]

Find me some posts indicating someone believes the Blues "have to be perfect in every area to be a contender." Then find me examples of those same people pushing other teams as contenders. Just one example even, though your post clearly indicates it is a common occurrence (also hyperbole). I'll wait.

You're creating a strawman, and pretty clearing using hyperbole.

It's a general sentiment that I'm referring to after losing Petro and gaining Krug. This pessimism was not there prior to his signing with Vegas. I've quoted a few people and deleted some extraneous content, but the pessimism is certainly there. There's no question about it. There's also a strong tendency to put Colorado and Vegas on a pedestal despite the fact that those teams have their own roster issues.

No.

I think we're attempting to maintain the perception that the Blues are still a contender but I see us as a middle of the pack team that will slide into mediocrity at a TBD pace. Bottom could fall out quick too depending on how our goaltending holds up.

As it stands right now. I don't see this team being a legit contender. Will they make they playoffs? Yes absolutely, but i don't see them getting past the 1st round.

And IMO i think the Blues will be in for a wake up call about how Pietrangelo meant to the team and the defense in general and wishing you still had him.

It’s too early to say. I’d like to see rosters in training camps. Many teams have had to take some steps back due to the financial outlook. Colorado is the obvious team that was well positioned, and they’re the conference favorite in my mind until proven otherwise. But the pessimism here about the Blues is a little much. If the Blues finish 2nd/3rd in the division, could you still define them as a contender?

I dont see we're at best playoff team.

1) Colorado
2) Dallas
3) Vegas
4) Vancouver
5) Nashville
6) Calgary
7) Edmonton
8) Winnipeg
9) Arizona
10) Chicago / St Louis / Minnesota
11) Kings / Anaheim / San Jose

I think The Blues are a solid 6th to 8th playoff certainty, with just about no chance to go all the way to The Cup Finals, as they are currently constructed. I expect them to add a defenceman and a forward. I hope both of them will be high-level players, but fear they might just be veteran depth. A lot will depend upon how Binnington plays, and how the defence plays in their own zone, and how much the new, more offence-oriented defensive system will help the offence without Tarasenko. I expect The Blues to score 15% more goals, but probably allow 20-30% more. That'll dump them out of the upper tier of deep playoff run contending teams, into the next tier down, of playoff teams, for which everything will need to go right for them to even get into the 3rd Round. I'm hoping they pick up a high-quality defensive D-Man in a trade.

We're in that 2nd tier of teams in the West. Theoretically things could go all the right ways and we could make some deep runs. But I wouldn't like our chances year in and year out.

Yes, we are contenders. I wouldn't say we are favorites, but I would put us probably 3rd in the West behind Colorado and Vegas at this point.

I don’t see us as contenders even if Binnington plays to his level. Our defense will produce offensively but leak goals. Our forward group looks middle of the pack especially without knowing how Tarasanko will return. 1st maybe 2nd round fodder imo.

My answer is still contender as for sure.

There is only 1 teams as of now that I consider better than us. Colorado. After that it is Vegas Dallas and us in a tier.

Dallas and Blues are very similar teams.

Vegas has great top pair on defense, but look at their forwards and not much center depth.

IMO Blues are top 2-5 team in the West depending on the goaltending next year.

To answer the question, no I do not believe we are a contender. We could miss the playoffs if the goaltending is bottom 5-10 in the league, but I don't expect that to happen so I have us penciled in as a playoff team.

Colorado is the favorite in the West. The got absolutely crushed by the injury this year and still got to game 7 vs Dallas with their 3rd string goalie. They were a top 5 team in the regular season and got better in the offseason. Upgrading Zadorov with D Toews and Nieto with Saad is no small thing...

Vegas is the class of the Pacific. They got to the Conference Final last year after pivoting to Lehner, who they extended. They were 3rd in the West in the regular season despite getting bottom 5-10 goaltending all year. Fleury was bad most of the season and Subban is possibly the worst goaltender in the NHL...

Miro Heiskanen determines whether Dallas is with that group or part of the next tier down. If he truly took the next step and is the guy who we saw in the bubble, then Dallas is the real deal and in the top tier of the West. If he is the very good (but not elite) guy he was in the regular season than they are a step below Colorado/Vegas but still very good. They got to the Cup Final last year and took a fantastic Lightning team to game 6 despite Seguin mostly disappearing with a torn labrum. Dobby played well through the playoffs, but we've all seen playoff Bishop. Bishop's health is far from a guarantee, but I feel comfortable saying that we can expect the Stars' goaltending to be as good or better next playoffs.

Those are the 3 teams I would consider true contenders from the West. Everyone else (Blues included) are a step below them. We are either at the top of this tier if the goaltending holds up or the bottom of this tier if it doesn't. With a likely condensed schedule, we will feel the impact of replacing Allen's .927 SV% with a rookie. I think giving Husso a chance is the correct organizational decision, but it will likely cost the team some points in the standings. We played at a 105 point pace in Jake Allen's starts last season and his GSAA was +11 over just 21 starts. It's unrealistic to expect Husso to play that well. Binny already had one of the higher workloads in the NHL, so we can't really mitigate this impact by starting the backup less. Going from Allen to Husso is going to cost the team a handful of standings points.

But I'm much more concerned with the blue line. Binner is a great first-shot goaltender who excels when lateral passing lanes are closed up and he can rely on rebounds to get cleared by his D. I'm not sure how well our blue line can do that anymore. Those are the 2 biggest holes in Krug's game in his own zone. He plays a similar 'pressure the puck carrier' style that Faulk likes to play. Our system would fall apart when Faulk would try to do that last year, so I don't think that it will work for Krug. He is going to have to adjust his style or we are going to have to change our system to allow the 2 of them to play their style. He was only given top pair even strength minutes in Boston in the year that they missed the playoffs and has been 4th or 5th on their team in even strength usage for the last 3 seasons. Boston built their blue line pretty similarly to ours for the last few years (big guys who are mobile and clog lanes) and consistently felt a need to shelter him from his own zone more than almost every other D man in the league. It's alarming that he was 10th in Bruins D in +/- last year. +/- is a garbage stat in a vacuum, but can be useful with context. Five Bruins D men played 50+ games last year. Four of them were +15 or better and Krug was a -4. The year before, Krug was the only 50+ game Bruins D man to finish below a +9. Krug was a -2. The year before, every other Bruins D to play 50+ games finished +10 or better. Krug was an even 0. Summing these 3 years, Krug was a -6 through 201 games played. Chara was +70 in 203 games played, McAvoy was +58 in 184 games played, Carlo was a +48 in 215 games played, Grzelcyk was a +45 in 195 games played and Kevan Miller was a +24 in 107 games played. His GF% at 5 on 5 is lower than every guy in that group and his offensive zone start rate at 5 on 5 is 70% in that stretch. I can't find any evidence that Krug can adequately play defense in a top 4 role. He also doesn't drive offense at 5 on 5 at a top end level. His 21 even strength points last year were 1 point shy of Parayko's 22 and put him at 42nd in the league. He is good offensively at even strength, but noticeably shy of Petro (7 points back of Petro last year and 16 points back over the last 3 years combined). Again, this is all getting extremely offensive usage. If he is given top 4 minutes at even strength, his numbers should come up but there isn't much reason to believe that he will exceed what Petro has done here. This idea that our offense will improve at the expense of defense is flawed at even strength. Nothing about Krug's history suggests that he will improve the even strength offense, so the improvement will have to come on the PP where he is genuinely elite. Unfortunately, since our PP was already 24%, there isn't much room for improvement. Boston has given up 10 more shorties than we have over the last 3 years with Krug running their PP, so any thought that he can improve the PP +/- by reducing shorties is probably wishful thinking.

I just don't see a top 4 of Parayko, Krug, Faulk and Scandella as being good enough to contend for home ice advantage or in a 7 game series. That group isn't going to be able to shut down good teams and it doesn't have a guy that drives even strength offense at an elite level. Our forwards are going to have to focus more heavily on defense to cover them or we are going to have to shift to a run and gun style. I don't think we have the talent to make run and gun work in the playoffs, because it rarely does.

I’m not entirely convinced the Blues are a playoff team.

No Pietrangelo. No Tarasenko. No Jake Allen (nobody can argue that he outplayed Binnington a year ago).

There’s a lot of question marks. Is Binnington the guy that won the Stanley Cup or was that more the mirage?

Who is filling that hole of Tarasenko?

Can Torey Krug play big boy minutes or does he need to be the most heavily sheltered defenseman in the league like he was in Boston, and if so, can we do that?

Can Justin Faulk be counted on?

Can Parayko be a number 1 D or is he actually just a good 2D?

I’m not sure how anyone can objectively call this team a contender, especially in a division with the defending Western Conference champs in addition to the Colorado Avalanche.

I do think they’ll make the playoffs either as the 3rd Central team or a WC. Having said that, I agree there are far too many question marks for them to be considered a legitimate threat to come out of the West (even though the Conference outside of Vegas/Colorado/Dallas admittedly does stink).

That is a good question. Even with Petro on the team the Blues haven't done well against Vegas.

With Petro going to Vegas makes them better IMO and don't forget they also have Theodore.

They'll have a good 1 - 2 punch with Petro & Theodore. Just like the Blues 1 - 2 punch with Petro & Parayko.. pretty much having one or the other on the ice!

Everyone's projecting them being paired together, and I'm sure they will be sometimes. Just like when Petro & Colt were paired together sometimes. I feel like they'd be better off having Theodore on the 2nd pairing like Parayko was here.

You know spreading the wealth.

Petro & Theodore that will be a nasty duo to deal with..shift after shift.

The Blues don't have anyone to shut both of them down.

Eh. Vegas and Colorado are likely the two best teams in the conference, but the flip side is you also get to beat up on the dregs of the conference in LA, ANA, ARI (I think SJ will probably be better but they're still not great). Dallas and the Blues should be fighting for that 3/4 spot but would imagine they both make it. I have serious reservations about the team doing anything once in the playoffs but would be pretty shocked if they don't make it.

I'm really wondering whether Stamkos is starting on LTIR. I don't see how Tampa gets square otherwise.

As for Vegas...I think they're going to have to give away a quality player to get to the cap ceiling. I look at that team on paper, and I think they're going to slide. I won't be surprised if they start the season a bit slow, and then Pietro goes into one of those classic situations where the new guy feels responsible and tries too hard.

Colorado should eat up the Pacific schedule. They may run away with the division.

I will be surprised if the Avs don't run away with the division. Colorado and Tampa are on a tier well above the rest of the league and Tampa might get bumped out of that tier depending on what they have to do to address the above-discussed cap issues. Colorado's only question mark is in net and their 2 guys were solid in the regular season before injuries. They have the best blue line in the league, a top five 1st line and their middle 6 is among the league's best. Looking at the mediocrity of bottom half of that division, they have a very real chance of running away with the President's Trophy by 10+ points in a 56 game season.

With hockey just around the corner, I've been thinking about this for the last few days and I'm not trying to beat a dead horse and if I do my apologies as that wasn't my intent. This is just my very honest opinion on the Blues offseason.

The moves Armstrong have made since winning lord stanley has me questioning just what hell is he doing? Not signing Pietrangelo is probably one of the biggest mistakes he's made, he is putting the team backwards and not forwards giving lesser players long term contracts while at the same time slapping his cup winning captain and #1 defenceman in the face. All the teams around the Blues stayed the same or got better(I'm looking at you Avs) Blues got worse IMO. With the moves Army is making I feel myself growing disenfranchised with the team. I'm still going to be a fan but I'll be a lot less invested. I do want to see the Blues win another cup, I really do but with the way the team is constructed, sadly I just don't see it happening. Right now I see the Blues being a fringe playoff team and not a legit contender, you all can tell me how out to lunch I am. I'll end with this Prove me wrong Blues, Prove me wrong.

I've been MIA for a while now, but I thought I'd give my thoughts on the current state of the Blues if you guys don't mind.

First off, I no longer believe that we are a true Cup contender like we have been the past couple years. The loss of Pietrangelo is huge obviously, but it goes deeper than just losing a top 5 defenseman in the world. The last couple years we have been known for our shut down team defense and exhausting forecheck...

And then there's Tarasenko. I don't think anyone expects him to come back and consistently put up 30+ goals over 82 games anymore. That's a big loss to a team that isn't necessarily a top offensive team to begin with.

So as the team stands currently, I think we are absolutely capable of contending, but we're no longer a serious one.

I don’t think the Blues are good enough defensively to make any real noise.

We can’t out-Colorado Colorado.

I’m holding my breath and hoping for the best. I expect 3rd in the West Division

It doesn’t mean I think they’re like San Jose or Winnipeg or Chicago. If you put all the NHL teams on Tiers, the Blues are probably Tier 2, maybe top of Tier 3.