Jake Allen

[Brian39]

Interesting article on Jake Allen/Brent Johnson comparison.

Is Jake Allen headed down Brent Johnson’s path? - St. Louis Game Time

I saw this posted on reddit and I firmly believe that this is one of the worst pieces of goalie analysis I have read in a long time. This is long, but here is my response:

About half the comparisons are between the goalie who was the starter before Johnson/Allen. It's neat that each goalie wore number 1 and was traded to Calgary, but Turek put up far from astronomical numbers the year Johnson backed him up. His SV% and goals saved above average were both below the league average in the regular season and he was largely viewed as the achilles heel of an otherwise stacked team. On the other hand, Elliott actually did put up astronomical regular season numbers while he was here. The Blues turned to Johnson because Turek was objectively bad while Johnson was the backup. The Blues turned to Allen because they felt he was better than a goalie who was playing very well. Those just aren't similar situations.

Saying that Allen's career as a Blue, "looks an awful lot like Johnson's" isn't based on anything in reality. The author posts some stats to back up that claim, but ignores that his stats don't support the claim. The difference between a .914 and a .903 is gigantic, whether you adjust for era or not. For context, Allen's .914 is slightly above league average the last two years and slightly below the two years before that (league average has been either .913 or .915 over the last 4 years). Johnson's .903 was well below the league average while he was here (.903, .908, .909, and .911 were the averages in the 4 years he was here).

In the one year Johnson played a starter's load for the Blues, his SV% was 30th in the NHL among goalies with 30 or more starts. Bump that games played cutoff to 50 games and Johnson was 23rd of 27 NHL goalies. The next season, Johnson was supposed to be the starter, but only played 38 games due to an injury before the first game (this was the year we used 7 goalies, so he still had the most GP of Blues goalies). He returned in mid-December and played 32 of the next 41 games before getting hurt again. For the year, Johnson posted a .900 SV%, good for 30th among goalies with 30 or more games.

Jake Allen's SV% in his only full season as a starter was 17th out of goalies playing 30 or more games. Bump the GP requirement to 50 games and Allen is 12th out of 26 NHL goalies. The year before that, Allen played 47 games, but it's tough to call him a true starter since Elliott went God mode while he was hurt and never gave the net back. Still, through 47 games his SV% was .920, which was 13th among goalies with 30+ games and would have been tied for 7th among goalies with 50 games had he not fallen just short of that mark.

Using goals saved above average instead of SV%, Allen stopped 6.2 and 2.2 goals above average in the two years where he played the most games of any Blues goalie. Johnson stopped just over 7 below average in each of his two years playing more games than any other Blues goalie.

So you have one goalie who performed significantly below league average essentially his entire stint with the team and another who has been at or above average throughout his career as a Blue. Allen is struggling this season to about the same degree Johnson did in his last year as a Blue. The difference is that Allen has proven the ability to start in the NHL while Johnson quite literally never did.

Moving away from just performance, the team at no point committed to Johnson. The largest contract he ever got was for $1.1 mil for 1 year. He had the support of Q, but nothing about his tenure suggests that anyone else in the organization felt he was a long term solution. He was a late round draft pick by Colorado, he was moved before ever playing an NHL game and was never given a long term contract. Contrast that with Allen, the 34th overall pick who cleary has the backing of the front office and coaching staff. Allen's 4 year extension a year before hitting RFA should speak volumes about how much more the entire organization thinks of him than the organization thought of Brent Johnson.

They are both good puck handling goalies who were given the chance to start for the Blues in their early/mid 20s. That's about where the similarities end. One failed miserably and at no point actually played like a starting goalie. The other is Jake Allen.

TLDR: Johnson was a bad starting goalie the entire time he was with us. He had the crease out of necessity and at no point showed highs anything close to what Allen has done his entire career as a Blue. Allen has been average to above average his entire time here. He has consistency issues, which is a heck of a lot different than being consistently bad at the position.

 

[Celtic Note]

I saw this posted on reddit and I firmly believe that this is one of the worst pieces of goalie analysis I have read in a long time. This is long, but here is my response:

About half the comparisons are between the goalie who was the starter before Johnson/Allen. It's neat that each goalie wore number 1 and was traded to Calgary, but Turek put up far from astronomical numbers the year Johnson backed him up. His SV% and goals saved above average were both below the league average in the regular season and he was largely viewed as the achilles heel of an otherwise stacked team. On the other hand, Elliott actually did put up astronomical regular season numbers while he was here. The Blues turned to Johnson because Turek was objectively bad while Johnson was the backup. The Blues turned to Allen because they felt he was better than a goalie who was playing very well. Those just aren't similar situations.

Saying that Allen's career as a Blue, "looks an awful lot like Johnson's" isn't based on anything in reality. The author posts some stats to back up that claim, but ignores that his stats don't support the claim. The difference between a .914 and a .903 is gigantic, whether you adjust for era or not. For context, Allen's .914 is slightly above league average the last two years and slightly below the two years before that (league average has been either .913 or .915 over the last 4 years). Johnson's .903 was well below the league average while he was here (.903, .908, .909, and .911 were the averages in the 4 years he was here).

In the one year Johnson played a starter's load for the Blues, his SV% was 30th in the NHL among goalies with 30 or more starts. Bump that games played cutoff to 50 games and Johnson was 23rd of 27 NHL goalies. The next season, Johnson was supposed to be the starter, but only played 38 games due to an injury before the first game (this was the year we used 7 goalies, so he still had the most GP of Blues goalies). He returned in mid-December and played 32 of the next 41 games before getting hurt again. For the year, Johnson posted a .900 SV%, good for 30th among goalies with 30 or more games.

Jake Allen's SV% in his only full season as a starter was 17th out of goalies playing 30 or more games. Bump the GP requirement to 50 games and Allen is 12th out of 26 NHL goalies. The year before that, Allen played 47 games, but it's tough to call him a true starter since Elliott went God mode while he was hurt and never gave the net back. Still, through 47 games his SV% was .920, which was 13th among goalies with 30+ games and would have been tied for 7th among goalies with 50 games had he not fallen just short of that mark.

Using goals saved above average instead of SV%, Allen stopped 6.2 and 2.2 goals above average in the two years where he played the most games of any Blues goalie. Johnson stopped just over 7 below average in each of his two years playing more games than any other Blues goalie.
So you have one goalie who performed significantly below league average essentially his entire stint with the team and another who has been at or above average throughout his career as a Blue. Allen is struggling this season to about the same degree Johnson did in his last year as a Blue. The difference is that Allen has proven the ability to start in the NHL while Johnson quite literally never did.

Moving away from just performance, the team at no point committed to Johnson. The largest contract he ever got was for $1.1 mil for 1 year. He had the support of Q, but nothing about his tenure suggests that anyone else in the organization felt he was a long term solution. He was a late round draft pick by Colorado, he was moved before ever playing an NHL game and was never given a long term contract. Contrast that with Allen, the 34th overall pick who cleary has the backing of the front office and coaching staff. Allen's 4 year extension a year before hitting RFA should speak volumes about how much more the entire organization thinks of him than the organization thought of Brent Johnson.

They are both good puck handling goalies who were given the chance to start for the Blues in their early/mid 20s. That's about where the similarities end. One failed miserably and at no point actually played like a starting goalie. The other is Jake Allen.

TLDR: Johnson was a bad starting goalie the entire time he was with us. He had the crease out of necessity and at no point showed highs anything close to what Allen has done his entire career as a Blue. Allen has been average to above average his entire time here. He has consistency issues, which is a heck of a lot different than being consistently bad at the position.

When I saw the comparison, I just laughed. I never clicked the link because I knew there way no way it could be worth the read.

 

[Brian39]

When I saw the comparison, I just laughed. I never clicked the link because I knew there way no way it could be worth the read.

I regret giving the site my web traffic and was so pissed off by the article that I wasted an hour of my day writing that novel in response...which means I'm barely going to get home by the start of the Blues game since I'm currently making the phone calls I put off making while I proved my point on the internet.

Gonna chalk that one up as a personal loss.

 

[Celtic Note]

I regret giving the site my web traffic and was so pissed off by the article that I wasted an hour of my day writing that novel in response...which means I'm barely going to get home by the start of the Blues game since I'm currently making the phone calls I put off making while I proved my point on the internet.

Gonna chalk that one up as a personal loss.

We live, we learn!

 

[simon IC]

I regret giving the site my web traffic and was so pissed off by the article that I wasted an hour of my day writing that novel in response...which means I'm barely going to get home by the start of the Blues game since I'm currently making the phone calls I put off making while I proved my point on the internet.

Gonna chalk that one up as a personal loss.

Brian, I found your post well researched, informed and insightful. If anything, you have reinforced my long standing belief that many of members of our community have a better understanding about the structure, dynamics and history of the St. Louis Blues, than the so called "analysts" and "insiders" from the media. I enjoyed reading your post! Keep posting, it was certainly not a wasted effort.

 

[Ranksu]

There has been quite many rankings who is best of best starting goaltender? Where you guys rank where Jake Allen goes. Is he top10, top15, top20, top25 or maybe the worst starter at NHL?

Here is NHL goaltenders starters by team. I only found which aren't better then Allen: (Elliott), Darling, Talbot, Neuvirth, Markström. So in my eyes Jake Allen is bottom 10 goaltender easily and maybe he was NHL worst top5 goaltender starters. If Allen can't climbed top 15 at stats WISE this season he should be traded away next season. If he can't show up he'll be our weakest link for playoffs and he will cost us for our deep run for Stanley Cup. I believe we're 'ok' with Allen at regular season, but he doesn't have that win mentality for when stakes are high. He had one good series where he was beast, but after that he has been soft. I hope I'm wrong.

Anaheim - Gibson
Arizona - Raanta
Boston - Rask
Buffalo - Hutton
Calgary - Smith
Carolina - Darling+
Chicago - Crawford / Ward not sure if Crawford is healthy
Colorado - Varlamov
Columbus - Bobrovsky
Dallas - Bishop
Detroit - Howard
Edmonton - Talbot
Florida - Luongo
Kings - Quick
Minnesota - Dubnyk
Montreal - Price
Nashville - Rinne
Devils - Schneider
Islanders - Lehner
Rangers - Lundqvist
Ottawa - Anderson
Philadelphia - Elliott
Pitsburgh - Murray
San Jose - Jones
St. Louis - Allen
Tampa Bay - Vasilevskiy
Toronto - Andersen
Vancouver - Markström/Nilsson
Las Vegas - Fleury
Capitals - Hotby
Winnipeg - Hellebuyck

 

[Brian39]

I wouldn't hesitate to take Allen before the goalie situations in Vancouver, Philly, Ottawa, NY Islanders, and Carolina. Add Chicago to that list if Crawford isn't ready for camp (which is appearing more and more likely).

I'd have to think about which I would prefer between him and the situations in Calgary, New Jersey, and Detroit. As much as it pains me to say it, add Montreal and Dallas to that list if we're factoring in contracts. I have zero faith that Hutton can do it for 50+ games. He was a god for 23 games and then bad for his final 9 last year. Combined with his career as a whole prior to last season, I don't have any confidence that Hutton will be the answer for Buffalo. I really hope I'm wrong, but I think we're going to see the same thing happen to him that happened with Elliott after the Blues.

 

[MissouriMook]

Could we maybe see if he’s been able to figure some things out and make some positive adjustments this offseason before we start shoveling dirt on him?

He’s shown flashes of being a Top 10 goalie in the league at times. If he’s found a way to develop some confidence and consistency in his game this summer, he’ll absolutely be a Top 15 goalie in SP and GAA, and probably near the top in wins.

 

[PizzaPietrangelo]

Just came across this interesting Jake Allen-related article about goalie equipment in the NHL.

It was interesting to read the quotes from Allen, particularly the one where he says, "I wear everything tight, tight, tight. I'm not trying to look massive."

I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of netminded techniques, but it surprised me to learn that Allen isn't trying to look big in net.

A question for those on this forum with more goaltending knowledge than me: doesn't "looking massive" in net generally correlate to having more success?

Maybe this off-the-cuff quote from Allen gives us some insight into why certain shots and pucks tend to sneak through Jake from time to time . . .

 

[Frenzy31]

I saw this posted on reddit and I firmly believe that this is one of the worst pieces of goalie analysis I have read in a long time. This is long, but here is my response:

About half the comparisons are between the goalie who was the starter before Johnson/Allen. It's neat that each goalie wore number 1 and was traded to Calgary, but Turek put up far from astronomical numbers the year Johnson backed him up. His SV% and goals saved above average were both below the league average in the regular season and he was largely viewed as the achilles heel of an otherwise stacked team. On the other hand, Elliott actually did put up astronomical regular season numbers while he was here. The Blues turned to Johnson because Turek was objectively bad while Johnson was the backup. The Blues turned to Allen because they felt he was better than a goalie who was playing very well. Those just aren't similar situations.

Saying that Allen's career as a Blue, "looks an awful lot like Johnson's" isn't based on anything in reality. The author posts some stats to back up that claim, but ignores that his stats don't support the claim. The difference between a .914 and a .903 is gigantic, whether you adjust for era or not. For context, Allen's .914 is slightly above league average the last two years and slightly below the two years before that (league average has been either .913 or .915 over the last 4 years). Johnson's .903 was well below the league average while he was here (.903, .908, .909, and .911 were the averages in the 4 years he was here).

In the one year Johnson played a starter's load for the Blues, his SV% was 30th in the NHL among goalies with 30 or more starts. Bump that games played cutoff to 50 games and Johnson was 23rd of 27 NHL goalies. The next season, Johnson was supposed to be the starter, but only played 38 games due to an injury before the first game (this was the year we used 7 goalies, so he still had the most GP of Blues goalies). He returned in mid-December and played 32 of the next 41 games before getting hurt again. For the year, Johnson posted a .900 SV%, good for 30th among goalies with 30 or more games.

Jake Allen's SV% in his only full season as a starter was 17th out of goalies playing 30 or more games. Bump the GP requirement to 50 games and Allen is 12th out of 26 NHL goalies. The year before that, Allen played 47 games, but it's tough to call him a true starter since Elliott went God mode while he was hurt and never gave the net back. Still, through 47 games his SV% was .920, which was 13th among goalies with 30+ games and would have been tied for 7th among goalies with 50 games had he not fallen just short of that mark.

Using goals saved above average instead of SV%, Allen stopped 6.2 and 2.2 goals above average in the two years where he played the most games of any Blues goalie. Johnson stopped just over 7 below average in each of his two years playing more games than any other Blues goalie.

So you have one goalie who performed significantly below league average essentially his entire stint with the team and another who has been at or above average throughout his career as a Blue. Allen is struggling this season to about the same degree Johnson did in his last year as a Blue. The difference is that Allen has proven the ability to start in the NHL while Johnson quite literally never did.

Moving away from just performance, the team at no point committed to Johnson. The largest contract he ever got was for $1.1 mil for 1 year. He had the support of Q, but nothing about his tenure suggests that anyone else in the organization felt he was a long term solution. He was a late round draft pick by Colorado, he was moved before ever playing an NHL game and was never given a long term contract. Contrast that with Allen, the 34th overall pick who cleary has the backing of the front office and coaching staff. Allen's 4 year extension a year before hitting RFA should speak volumes about how much more the entire organization thinks of him than the organization thought of Brent Johnson.

They are both good puck handling goalies who were given the chance to start for the Blues in their early/mid 20s. That's about where the similarities end. One failed miserably and at no point actually played like a starting goalie. The other is Jake Allen.

TLDR: Johnson was a bad starting goalie the entire time he was with us. He had the crease out of necessity and at no point showed highs anything close to what Allen has done his entire career as a Blue. Allen has been average to above average his entire time here. He has consistency issues, which is a heck of a lot different than being consistently bad at the position.

Johnson was also a very big into going out and late nights. I believe that he came into one camp out of shape. I am sure there are threads in this forum that talk about his night life. IMO, he drank himself out of a job.

 

[varano]

Just came across this interesting Jake Allen-related article about goalie equipment in the NHL.

It was interesting to read the quotes from Allen, particularly the one where he says, "I wear everything tight, tight, tight. I'm not trying to look massive."

I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of netminded techniques, but it surprised me to learn that Allen isn't trying to look big in net.

A question for those on this forum with more goaltending knowledge than me: doesn't "looking massive" in net generally correlate to having more success?

Maybe this off-the-cuff quote from Allen gives us some insight into why certain shots and pucks tend to sneak through Jake from time to time . . .

Well not really...
I wear oversized gear and I like it. I started that way and I tend to continue with it. It does however limit a bit of mobility but in any circumstance, a goalie has self awareness as to what his gear is like. He may like tighter, smaller gear to be able to feel the puck hitting him a bit more which is something I personally have issues with and leads to scramble issues. At this time of year, this is where goalies have been testing new gear, so its a chance to fool around. Rarely though at this stage of a goalies career is he drastically going to change his chest/arm protector. It might be a little change here and there but not much.

As far as shots sneaking in, Its all practice and self awareness. Its up to him to be self aware and understand that if shots are going in on him in a certain way, theres a technical issue that needs to be fixed.

It has nothing to do with him being good or bad. It could be just mental blips that are causing his form to be an inch off balance and costing goals.

 

[PizzaPietrangelo]

Well not really...
I wear oversized gear and I like it. I started that way and I tend to continue with it. It does however limit a bit of mobility but in any circumstance, a goalie has self awareness as to what his gear is like. He may like tighter, smaller gear to be able to feel the puck hitting him a bit more which is something I personally have issues with and leads to scramble issues. At this time of year, this is where goalies have been testing new gear, so its a chance to fool around. Rarely though at this stage of a goalies career is he drastically going to change his chest/arm protector. It might be a little change here and there but not much.

As far as shots sneaking in, Its all practice and self awareness. Its up to him to be self aware and understand that if shots are going in on him in a certain way, theres a technical issue that needs to be fixed.

It has nothing to do with him being good or bad. It could be just mental blips that are causing his form to be an inch off balance and costing goals.

Thanks for the explanation and perspective from a netminder. I was primarily interested in getting opinions from goaltenders about equipment since I've never been in that situation myself.

I suppose I was also just really surprised about Allen's comment that he's "not trying to look massive." I guess that the hype from TV commentators and talking heads about 'looking big in net' isn't always the most desirable attribute for a goaltender after all.

 

[Brian39]

Thanks for the explanation and perspective from a netminder. I was primarily interested in getting opinions from goaltenders about equipment since I've never been in that situation myself.

I suppose I was also just really surprised about Allen's comment that he's "not trying to look massive." I guess that the hype from TV commentators and talking heads about 'looking big in net' isn't always the most desirable attribute for a goaltender after all.

The context of that quote is about how he wears his equipment. He's saying that he isn't willing to give up mobility/protection/etc just to create an illusion of size that won't actually stop any extra pucks. It's not about wanting to look big in the sense of challenging shooters, staying tall and properly positioning your hands/arms.

This is like a skater who uses white tape saying that he isn't interested in trying to hide the puck from goalies. That doesn't mean that he is telegraphing all of his shots or masking his release, it just means he doesn't see value in compromising comfort for a potential optical illusion.

 

[stl76]

Thanks for the explanation and perspective from a netminder. I was primarily interested in getting opinions from goaltenders about equipment since I've never been in that situation myself.

I suppose I was also just really surprised about Allen's comment that he's "not trying to look massive." I guess that the hype from TV commentators and talking heads about 'looking big in net' isn't always the most desirable attribute for a goaltender after all.

When TV commentators and talking heads comment about "looking big in the net," they're most likely not talking about equipment. More likely, they're probably talking about positioning (angle, squareness, and depth). Here's current Blues goalie coach Dave Alexander doing a quick demo on positioning from his days with the Syracuse Crunch:



They could also be talking about technique/style (blocking, different variations of butterfly, etc)...but I almost never hear in game announcers discuss different goalie styles. Very occasionally you'll hear knowledgeable TV analysts discuss goalie techniques, but for the most part when folks talk about "looking big in the net" they're probably talking about positioning.

A goalie can look just as "big in the net" by wearing larger gear as he could by simply skating out an extra inch or two.

 

[varano]

When TV commentators and talking heads comment about "looking big in the net," they're most likely not talking about equipment. More likely, they're probably talking about positioning (angle, squareness, and depth). Here's current Blues goalie coach Dave Alexander doing a quick demo on positioning from his days with the Syracuse Crunch:



They could also be talking about technique/style (blocking, different variations of butterfly, etc)...but I almost never hear in game announcers discuss different goalie styles. Very occasionally you'll hear knowledgeable TV analysts discuss goalie techniques, but for the most part when folks talk about "looking big in the net" they're probably talking about positioning.

A goalie can look just as "big in the net" by wearing larger gear as he could by simply skating out an extra inch or two.

Yes agreed. But to clarify, thats not what allen is talking about.

 

[Stealth JD]

St. Louis has clearly turned on the guy, and he's on the verge of getting run out of town if he doesn't start stealing games. I honestly don't know how he's going to survive this season...he'd basically have to go Vezina-caliber to be embraced in this town. Tough place for a shaky goalie to find himself.

 

[TheDizee]

St. Louis has clearly turned on the guy, and he's on the verge of getting run out of town if he doesn't start stealing games. I honestly don't know how he's going to survive this season...he'd basically have to go Vezina-caliber to be embraced in this town. Tough place for a shaky goalie to find himself.

well if that happens, he put himself in that situation. no consistency in his game and that blackhawk game last year was a horrible way to end the home schedule (and kept them from a playoff spot)

i think yeo goes before he does though.

 

[Cotton McKnight]

St. Louis has clearly turned on the guy, and he's on the verge of getting run out of town if he doesn't start stealing games. I honestly don't know how he's going to survive this season...he'd basically have to go Vezina-caliber to be embraced in this town. Tough place for a shaky goalie to find himself.

Interesting stat from tonight's game: "Allen is the 4th goalie in the Blues history to play 4 opening night games" - Panger

What that says to me is, this team's management has a terrible time properly evaluating goaltenders, and/or not good at signing them long term.

well if that happens, he put himself in that situation. no consistency in his game and that blackhawk game last year was a horrible way to end the home schedule (and kept them from a playoff spot)

i think yeo goes before he does though.

I agree, Yeo will be out before Allen, the front office doesn't want to be wrong about that extension.

 

[stl76]

Allen was fantastic until that SHG last night. Not surprising that Blues fans are quick to pounce on a goalie (especially one who has struggled mightily), but I was actually reassured by Allen’s game last night.

 

[Chief Steele]

Allen was fantastic until that SHG last night. Not surprising that Blues fans are quick to pounce on a goalie (especially one who has struggled mightily), but I was actually reassured by Allen’s game last night.

I will agree to an extent.. that SHG was weak sauce.. as was the backhander that went in a few goals later.. I hope he will put it all together but we shall see.

 

[542365]

Yeah I hope Jake doesn't go into a tailspin because of the treatment of the crowd last night. He played well until that last goal, which honestly didn't matter, but probably isn't good for the confidence. He robbed Ehlers a couple of times and Scheifele on the PP. Petro did bail him out though when one of his clears up the glass got cut off and thrown on net before he was back. Some people see 5 goals against and assume the goalie was ass, but I thought he had a strong game. Easily could've gotten out of hand earlier than it did. Still not a Jake Allen believer by any means, but last night wasn't on him. I really would've liked for him to stop that short handed breakaway as the Blues were really coming close it felt like, but it is a breakway so the goalie can't be all at fault there.

 

[Note Worthy]

The problem for Jake is even though he didn't have a terrible game, he's never going to get the benefit of the doubt from anyone in St. Louis. Right or wrong that's just how it is.

 

[Reality Czech]

St. Louis has clearly turned on the guy, and he's on the verge of getting run out of town if he doesn't start stealing games. I honestly don't know how he's going to survive this season...he'd basically have to go Vezina-caliber to be embraced in this town. Tough place for a shaky goalie to find himself.

It's really sad that so many fans need a scapegoat every time we lose, and to the untrained eye it might seem like it's nearly always the goalie's fault. I guess some fans live in a fantasy world where soft goals don't exist, and if you just play the "right way" then your team will go 82-0.

Can't we just admit that sometimes you get beat by a better team and just move on to the next game?

 

[stl76]

I will agree to an extent.. that SHG was weak sauce.. as was the backhander that went in a few goals later.. I hope he will put it all together but we shall see.

Agreed that SHG was not great. He didn’t look ready for the play. I have a hard time blaming any breakaway on the goalie, and short handed ones in particular are usually so rare/unexpected. I don’t mean to excuse just how caught off guard Jake looked on that play tho.

The problem for Jake is even though he didn't have a terrible game, he's never going to get the benefit of the doubt from anyone in St. Louis. Right or wrong that's just how it is.

I think you’re mostly right with a sizable contingent of Blues fans unfortunately. However I don’t think it’s so beyond repair that Allen can’t rebuild trust with a majority of Blues fans...but he has a LONG way to go to do that.

 

[Stealth JD]

It is all too familiar that as soon as the short-handed goal was allowed the floodgates opened. The whole team was broken at that moment, and whether they'd admit it or not this team plays like they have no faith in Allen. They can say whatever they want to to media and tell us that they believe in Jake and that he's "our guy"...but when a back-breaking goal is allowed, it's usually always followed by another. That's as much on the team as it is on the goaltender. And it's something that didn't happen with Hutton, and didn't happen with Elliott, or Mason. But the fact that it happens, and keeps happening with Allen tells me that this team plays in fear of their goalie...and that's no way to be successful as an organization. And the fact that Armstrong has boxed himself into a corner with that asinine contract-extension, which now looks unmovable from the surface, worries not just us but apparently every player in that locker-room who let their spirit get broken by the weakest-link on their team again and again.

If the we reach 2019 and things haven't convinced the Blues that Jake Allen is their guy, Armstrong needs to find a creative way out of this mess he's made. We've apparently got so much talent that we're at risk of losing guys to the waiver wire...may need to bundle an asset or two with Allen to help this team's spirit with a little addition by subtraction.