OT: Should Doug Armstrong get fired?

[Stupendous Yappi]

Except that we have been competitive year after year and have done it while not winding up in cap hell, and won a cup doing it that way, so he kind of has proven that over the years

He has also done it by acquiring ELC players for the line-up (a necessity to navigate the cap), both through draft and trade, while not having the luxury of top 10 draft picks very often. When a Blues' draft pick busts, you can look back and see several times Armstrong cut bait and managed to get a contributing player out of the deal.

They were competitive when they had a #1 defenseman, and have not been truly competitive without one. Fluffing Armstrong to say he complied with cap rules and the team played its whole schedule does not mean much.

I just got done watching the Blues have a competitive season. Losing to the eventual dominant SC champs in a hard-fought series is not being "uncompetitive" to me. If the Blues had been healthy, I think they'd have had even odds to win that series. Colorado was at its peak, and deserved to win. But they were the standard for best team in the league. You don't have to be the very best team in the league to be 'competitive'. You just have to be able to have a decent chance to beat the best team, which the Blues did have.

 

[joe galiba]

They were competitive when they had a #1 defenseman, and have not been truly competitive without one. Fluffing Armstrong to say he complied with cap rules and the team played its whole schedule does not mean much.

76-40-20 last 2 years
that sure appears to be competitive to me

 

[CaliforniaBlues310]

He has also done it by acquiring ELC players for the line-up (a necessity to navigate the cap), both through draft and trade, while not having the luxury of top 10 draft picks very often. When a Blues' draft pick busts, you can look back and see several times Armstrong cut bait and managed to get a contributing player out of the deal.


I just got done watching the Blues have a competitive season. Losing to the eventual dominant SC champs in a hard-fought series is not being "uncompetitive" to me. If the Blues had been healthy, I think they'd have had even odds to win that series. Colorado was at its peak, and deserved to win. But they were the standard for best team in the league. You don't have to be the very best team in the league to be 'competitive'. You just have to be able to have a decent chance to beat the best team, which the Blues did have.

This. We won 49 games and were a point away from an 110 pt season. We also had 9 20 goal scorers, and put up over 300 altogether. In what way is that not competitive?? lmao

 

[Shwabeal]

This. We won 49 games and were a point away from an 110 pt season. We also had 9 20 goal scorers, and put up over 300 altogether. In what way is that not competitive?? lmao

It wasn't successful because Torey Krug was still on the team and couldn't handle the fast Avs team/forecheck in a series in which he didn't play a game.

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

They were competitive when they had a #1 defenseman, and have not been truly competitive without one. Fluffing Armstrong to say he complied with cap rules and the team played its whole schedule does not mean much.

If you mean that Faulk is a #1 defenseman and we are competitive, then agree. If you think that we weren't competitive last year..

 

[Xerloris]

They were competitive when they had a #1 defenseman, and have not been truly competitive without one. Fluffing Armstrong to say he complied with cap rules and the team played its whole schedule does not mean much.

We're still competitive. Also we've only looked bad since we lost Jbo.

 

[PocketNines]

76-40-20 last 2 years
that sure appears to be competitive to me

I understand that appears competitive to you. I judge ALL teams by how well they are built to win in the playoffs. The last two years have not represented a "masterful" job of anything other than also-running. Two years ago was a walkover; they were extremely mediocre and it was far from GM mastery to just announce Parayko into the #1 role. That choice was closer to hapless than mastery. I realize there was a thin moonshot opportunity for a big upset one of the years if a particular player stayed healthy and stayed performing at all time levels but thin moonshot opportunities that don't materialize aren't "mastery."

My standards for "mastery" are about being built for Winning the Thing, which the Blues are not.

 

[joe galiba]

a team will win the cup about every 32 years over a longer sample size
smart, well run teams will have more of a chance to win over a smaller sample size spanning a few years up to a decade or so, but over a longer period (with a cap) the odds aren't that great
if winning a cup is the ONLY thing that makes someone happy, then that is a lot of their life spent being unhappy
I watch hockey to be entertained every other night, sometimes even 3 out of 4 nights
the playoffs are a bonus, if we have a really good team I will get more exited, but every single year there are multiple "really good teams" who don't even make the conference finals
not because the players aren't any good or management sucks, but by the very nature of how the competition is set up

 

[BlueSeal]

It wasn't successful because Torey Krug was still on the team and couldn't handle the fast Avs team/forecheck in a series in which he didn't play a game.

I don't like him as a Dman, but Krug is a fuggin point machine. We'd at least get goals out of the deal, which we really needed in that series.

 

[BlueSeal]

a team will win the cup about every 32 years over a longer sample size
smart, well run teams will have more of a chance to win over a smaller sample size spanning a few years up to a decade or so, but over a longer period (with a cap) the odds aren't that great
if winning a cup is the ONLY thing that makes someone happy, then that is a lot of their life spent being unhappy
I watch hockey to be entertained every other night, sometimes even 3 out of 4 nights
the playoffs are a bonus, if we have a really good team I will get more exited, but every single year there are multiple "really good teams" who don't even make the conference finals
not because the players aren't any good or management sucks, but by the very nature of how the competition is set up

Why do NHL teams play? To get to the playoffs. Why? To get a chance to WIN the Cup. Why? Because that's the whole point of it, to get your name inscribed into eternity. To become a living legend on the most storied bit of sports hardware ever invented.

Those statistics didn't stop dynasties from winning or even the Bolts from winning 2 in a row. That kind of thinking IMO is a nice way of admitting you don't have a chance and it's up to luck, fortune, karma, magic, whatever - and I don't believe in any of that. The 2019 Blues didn't believe in that. The Bolts don't either. Neither did the Avs. They worked. They planned. They fought. They battled. And they won.

I don't buy into a single word of that thinking, especially in an age with incredible insane advanced stats where a competent GM or owner could sit down and scientifically build a contender. Granted it takes more than that but it can be done and teams have done it.

 

[joe galiba]

Why do NHL teams play? To get to the playoffs. Why? To get a chance to WIN the Cup. Why? Because that's the whole point of it, to get your name inscribed into eternity. To become a living legend on the most storied bit of sports hardware ever invented.

Those statistics didn't stop dynasties from winning or even the Bolts from winning 2 in a row. That kind of thinking IMO is a nice way of admitting you don't have a chance and it's up to luck, fortune, karma, magic, whatever - and I don't believe in any of that. The 2019 Blues didn't believe in that. The Bolts don't either. Neither did the Avs. They worked. They planned. They fought. They battled. And they won.

I don't buy into a single word of that thinking, especially in an age with incredible insane advanced stats where a competent GM or owner could sit down and scientifically build a contender. Granted it takes more than that but it can be done and teams have done it.

except every single team has the exact same knowledge
there is no special hidden super secret info
front office/managements that are smarter and better at identifying players to draft or to sign, or who to pay and who to let walk - just like in every business they can be more successful than their contemporaries
for a time
until players get old, gm’s retire, teams get sold
and there is also random injuries, draft picks that won’t work b/c you are picking 18 year old kids
over the long run, it will all even out
teams like Toronto and Montreal will have some advantage, as their fanbases will mitigate financial issues during the inevitable down periods

 

[PocketNines]

The topic at issue is whether Doug Armstrong deserves to be praised as a "master" of the cap and competition. He is one of many guys who have achieved similar or better. That's not a master. That's a competitor.

I simply have a high standard for the word 'mastery' and 'masterpiece.' I just today finished a list of 656 films noir over the last 79 weeks and I'd only consider fewer than 20 of them true masterpieces of the genre.

 

[ItsOnlytheRiver]

The topic at issue is whether Doug Armstrong deserves to be praised as a "master" of the cap and competition. He is one of many guys who have achieved similar or better. That's not a master. That's a competitor.

I simply have a high standard for the word 'mastery' and 'masterpiece.' I just today finished a list of 656 films noir over the last 79 weeks and I'd only consider fewer than 20 of them true masterpieces of the genre.

What’s the list?

 

[Bye Bye Blueston]

Why do NHL teams play? To get to the playoffs. Why? To get a chance to WIN the Cup. Why? Because that's the whole point of it, to get your name inscribed into eternity. To become a living legend on the most storied bit of sports hardware ever invented.

Those statistics didn't stop dynasties from winning or even the Bolts from winning 2 in a row. That kind of thinking IMO is a nice way of admitting you don't have a chance and it's up to luck, fortune, karma, magic, whatever - and I don't believe in any of that. The 2019 Blues didn't believe in that. The Bolts don't either. Neither did the Avs. They worked. They planned. They fought. They battled. And they won.

I don't buy into a single word of that thinking, especially in an age with incredible insane advanced stats where a competent GM or owner could sit down and scientifically build a contender. Granted it takes more than that but it can be done and teams have done it.

All a GM can do is put his team in position where they have a chance. Each year maybe 6-8 teams have real chance. If your GM keeps you in that group most years, he is doing a great job. Because once you are in that group it often comes down to injuries and luck. In 2019 breaks went our way for once and we won and it was awesome. 2020 it broke against us. Last year too. Doesn’t mean GM failed or we weren’t contender. Winning Cup is super hard.

 

[PocketNines]

What’s the list?

I've got 80 locks for the top 100 and 43 candidates for the final 20 spots.

As far as absolute masterpieces, in alphabetical (not ranked) order here are 19 films:

Ace in the Hole (1951)
The Asphalt Jungle (1950)
Chinatown (1974)
The Conversation (1974)
Criss Cross (1949)
Cutter's Way (1981)
Days of Heaven (1978)
Detour (1945)
Double Indemnity (1944)
In a Lonely Place (1950)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Memento (2000)
Night and the City (1950)
Out of the Past (1947)
Panique (1946)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
The Third Man (1949)

 

[BlueSeal]

I've got 80 locks for the top 100 and 43 candidates for the final 20 spots.

As far as absolute masterpieces, in alphabetical (not ranked) order here are 19 films:

Ace in the Hole (1951)
The Asphalt Jungle (1950)
Chinatown (1974)
The Conversation (1974)
Criss Cross (1949)
Cutter's Way (1981)
Days of Heaven (1978)
Detour (1945)
Double Indemnity (1944)
In a Lonely Place (1950)
Kiss Me Deadly (1955)
The Long Goodbye (1973)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
Memento (2000)
Night and the City (1950)
Out of the Past (1947)
Panique (1946)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
The Third Man (1949)

I’d die on a hill to defend this list.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

Dumb and Dumber (1994)

 

[PocketNines]

I’d die on a hill to defend this list.

I'm not messing around. My goal is to create the single best published list.

 

[ChicagoBlues]

I'm not messing around. My goal is to create the single best published list.

I’m not a film guy, but this sounds really f***ing cool. Best of luck with this!!

 

[PocketNines]

I’m not a film guy, but this sounds really f***ing cool. Best of luck with this!!

Thanks! "IF WE DID IT: 100 Doom Noirs" is the frame here. Some excellent happy ending noirs won't be on it.

 

[Drubilly]

Thanks! "IF WE DID IT: 100 Doom Noirs" is the frame here. Some excellent happy ending noirs won't be on it.

I’ve never thought of Days of Heaven as a noir but I see it now. People really do win on HF Boards!

 

[PocketNines]

I’ve never thought of Days of Heaven as a noir but I see it now. People really do win on HF Boards!

Noir is the story of human-on-human corruption and damage. Love on the run from crime is one of THE noir narratives. Getting to the bottom of it and at the bottom of it lies doom of course is #1, but love on the run includes Days of Heaven, Badlands (1973), You Only Live Once (1937), They Live By Night (1949), Gun Crazy (1950) and the theme-subversive Thelma & Louise (1991). There are pieces of love on the run with Elevator to the Gallows (1958), Breathless (1960), No Country for Old Men (2007), The Prowler (1951) and One False Move (1992). Happy ending love on the run includes Shockproof (1945) and Tomorrow Is Another Day (1951), the latter of which would absolutely go onto the top 100 list if not for the final four absurd happy ever after minutes.

Days of Heaven is absolutely a neo noir. As in Fallen Angel (1945), in Days of Heaven a penniless protagonist has a plot to use false marriage to a rich third party to advance a scheme. Although the vast mass of classic noir is protagonists reacting to WWII social turbulence, the critical part is the reacting to social turbulence and constraints, and not only WWII does this. These characters are completely reactive to the social inequalities of their time and place and the film dwells there throughout. There's a corruption theme too, with "incest" playing a role as it does in Chinatown.

Stylistically it's a full noir replete with narration, Dutch angles, shadows on faces, crossfades. There's even an impromptu nightclub on the open prairie. Stark borderlands (Touch of Evil, Ace in the Hole, Border Incident) are a full part of the noir setting universe, which is why brilliant neo noirs such as Night Moves, Lone Star, Fargo and A Simple Plan do not need to be set in the city at night to be noir.

Days of Heaven is a next level masterpiece that simply could not be recreated. Visually and sonically it is one of the finest films ever made, which is why when Malick took 20 years off the entire acting universe lined up to be in The Thin Red Line. The Days of Heaven actors had no idea they weren't making a traditional noir until they watched the finished product.

 

[Drubilly]

Noir is the story of human-on-human corruption and damage. Love on the run from crime is one of THE noir narratives. Getting to the bottom of it and at the bottom of it lies doom of course is #1, but love on the run includes Days of Heaven, Badlands (1973), You Only Live Once (1937), They Live By Night (1949), Gun Crazy (1950) and the theme-subversive Thelma & Louise (1991). There are pieces of love on the run with Elevator to the Gallows (1958), Breathless (1960), No Country for Old Men (2007), The Prowler (1951) and One False Move (1992). Happy ending love on the run includes Shockproof (1945) and Tomorrow Is Another Day (1951), the latter of which would absolutely go onto the top 100 list if not for the final four absurd happy ever after minutes.

Days of Heaven is absolutely a neo noir. As in Fallen Angel (1945), in Days of Heaven a penniless protagonist has a plot to use false marriage to a rich third party to advance a scheme. Although the vast mass of classic noir is protagonists reacting to WWII social turbulence, the critical part is the reacting to social turbulence and constraints, and not only WWII does this. These characters are completely reactive to the social inequalities of their time and place and the film dwells there throughout. There's a corruption theme too, with "incest" playing a role as it does in Chinatown.

Stylistically it's a full noir replete with narration, Dutch angles, shadows on faces, crossfades. There's even an impromptu nightclub on the open prairie. Stark borderlands (Touch of Evil, Ace in the Hole, Border Incident) are a full part of the noir setting universe, which is why brilliant neo noirs such as Night Moves, Lone Star, Fargo and A Simple Plan do not need to be set in the city at night to be noir.

Days of Heaven is a next level masterpiece that simply could not be recreated. Visually and sonically it is one of the finest films ever made, which is why when Malick took 20 years off the entire acting universe lined up to be in The Thin Red Line. The Days of Heaven actors had no idea they weren't making a traditional noir until they watched the finished product.

For years while out on dusk-time drives I’ll think of Malick trying to shoot that entire film during the “golden hour”. Impressive! Thanks for the write-up!

Ps, I don’t know if anyone rates Out Of Sight and The Limey but they’re faves of mine. I consider them neo noir.

 

[PocketNines]

For years while out on dusk-time drives I’ll think of Malick trying to shoot that entire film during the “golden hour”. Impressive! Thanks for the write-up!

Ps, I don’t know if anyone rates Out Of Sight and The Limey but they’re faves of mine. I consider them neo noir.

The Limey is sitting at #37 all time on my list and I have it the greatest neo-noir of the 1990s.

It adds a massive substantive contribution to revenge, which is maybe the #2 or #3 noir narrative arc.

Disappointment suffuses this film. The Limey says that at the bottom of revenge lies disappointment, and at the bottom of disappointment lies disappointment with yourself. That is profound.

I'd also say that The Limey is like if Night Moves (#21) and Get Carter (#24) had a baby.

 

[Bluesnatic27]

Can we start a vote to change the thread title to, “Hollywood Rankings and The Artistic Impact Cinema Leaves”?

I’m genuinely more interested in this movie talk than whatever reason this thread was started for in the first place.