illinidave
Registered User
I worked concessions at the game and they quoted 15k attendance, but didn't seem that busy.
Half-Assed GDT: There's a game tonight
- Thread starter TK 421
- Start date
- Status
67Blues
Got it for Bobby
I can't say it seemed really empty last night. Normal crowd for a Tuesday game against Arizona.
I did, I said that eventually we'll get our heads out of our asses and start playing to our abilities again. That implies that we played bad.
At the same time, however, the Yotes played excellently. Wedgewood made the saves that he had to and their forwards showed up.
To any Yotes fans reading this board, excellent work!
Glad we could help you out a little bit.
Coyotes fan here this morning to assure all Blues fans that as bad as you're feeling, you're better off than me. All I ask is on draft lottery day you reserve some positive thoughts towards the Coyotes lottery balls.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,976
Ugly loss caused by a brutal effort in the first 40 minutes. Our passes in our own zone and the neutral zone were tentative at best all game and Perunovich was the only player who was making passes with authority/purpose. As a team, we looked genuinely surprised that Arizona was forechecking at all. We looked like we were expecting a scrimmage-speed pace and it took 40+ minutes to adjust when that didn't happen. Wedgewood played too well to recover from that.
After a fantastic start to the year, Binner is in a funk. He's not tracking shots very well and I think he's sitting too deep in his net right now. Not sure whether that is a lack of confidence in his own game or a lack of confidence in defenders cutting off lateral passes. He's currently on pace for 65 starts, which is higher than I'd like him to be, but not high enough that fatigue should be causing it. Slumps happen with goalies and he should be able to play his way out of it. But if Husso feels 100% then I'd have him in net Thursday. Give Binner 2 practices to work with the goalie coach on repairing some bad habits rather than focusing on the next game. It's been a bit over 3 weeks since Binner has sat a non-back-to-back game, which means that his practice routine for the last several weeks has been focused almost exclusively on getting ready for the game the next day. That's fine when you're humming along, but he isn't any more and he needs a couple days to work on his base with the coach. My original goalie schedule would have had Husso in their last night with Binner going vs SJ to give Binner 12 starts in our first 16 games. COVID (and a losing streak) prevented that, but if Husso is ready then he should be in tomorrow to let Binner re-set. He needs it.
Awful game to watch that was made worse by the fact that it came on the heels of two late losses to good teams over the weekend. With that said, I'm not at the ledge yet and I wouldn't say that these games mean that we have to find 4 additional points down the stretch. We had extra points in the bank based on the hot start. We got some cushion from where we "should" have been early in the season by banking 17 points through the first 11 games. You'd like that cushion to last more than a week, but here we are with only 1 point in our last 4 games. This was the bad stretch that you can survive based on a hot start. But now we have to start climbing, because we are officially back on ground level and are about to start digging.
After a fantastic start to the year, Binner is in a funk. He's not tracking shots very well and I think he's sitting too deep in his net right now. Not sure whether that is a lack of confidence in his own game or a lack of confidence in defenders cutting off lateral passes. He's currently on pace for 65 starts, which is higher than I'd like him to be, but not high enough that fatigue should be causing it. Slumps happen with goalies and he should be able to play his way out of it. But if Husso feels 100% then I'd have him in net Thursday. Give Binner 2 practices to work with the goalie coach on repairing some bad habits rather than focusing on the next game. It's been a bit over 3 weeks since Binner has sat a non-back-to-back game, which means that his practice routine for the last several weeks has been focused almost exclusively on getting ready for the game the next day. That's fine when you're humming along, but he isn't any more and he needs a couple days to work on his base with the coach. My original goalie schedule would have had Husso in their last night with Binner going vs SJ to give Binner 12 starts in our first 16 games. COVID (and a losing streak) prevented that, but if Husso is ready then he should be in tomorrow to let Binner re-set. He needs it.
Awful game to watch that was made worse by the fact that it came on the heels of two late losses to good teams over the weekend. With that said, I'm not at the ledge yet and I wouldn't say that these games mean that we have to find 4 additional points down the stretch. We had extra points in the bank based on the hot start. We got some cushion from where we "should" have been early in the season by banking 17 points through the first 11 games. You'd like that cushion to last more than a week, but here we are with only 1 point in our last 4 games. This was the bad stretch that you can survive based on a hot start. But now we have to start climbing, because we are officially back on ground level and are about to start digging.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,976
This started off in my last post, but I edited and decided to make this its own post because I don't want it to get buried in a wall of text. There were an enormous number of negatives to take away from last night, but one huge positive.
Perunovich sure looked like an NHL-caliber player last night. He was heavily sheltered, but he dominated possession the way you want him to in that usage. He chased guys around a bit much for my liking in the defensive zone, but he looked great with the puck on his stick in our own zone. From pure eye test, he was the best player on the team at getting the puck out of our zone with control last night. His puck skills are more than just offense and his ability to get the puck out of trouble in our own zone will offset some of his deficiencies related to defending. It would absolutely not fair to describe him as a defensive liability last night and he was a clearly above average D man through the neutral zone and in the attacking zone. I thought that his game last night was better than anything I've seen out of Walman (this year). He got rewarded with 18:26 in ice time, PP usage and he was on the ice at the end when we were trying to tie the game at 6 on 5. Having 2 small offense-first LHD in the lineup creates a matchup/pairing headache for the coaching staff, but he was too good to be kept out of the lineup based on that. Walman is stylistically a better fit for the blueline, but has not played well enough to hold off Perunovich even with that inside track.
We gave Walman a month to earn the #6 spot and we told Perunovich to go earn his call up in the AHL. Perunovich demolished expectations and Walman took a step backwards. Berube hasn't trusted Walman to play PK at all and he has essentially just been an "even" player with pretty damn sheltered usage. That's fine to stick around as a 6th/7th D man, but it isn't good enough to keep Perunovich out of the lineup. Unless the other #6 D candidate can effectively contribute in a defensive role, Perunovich needs to be in the lineup. Mikkola might be that guy, but he is still on the COVID list and based on Perunovich's game last night we shouldn't be in a rush to remove him from the lineup.
Perunovich should be in the lineup Thursday and until he plays himself out of it. That gets Faulk/Parayko off the PP and theoretically should allow them to be better rested for serious 5 on 5 and PK usage. It's time to get creative with the pairings and find a way to spread the ice time around. We saw 4+ minutes of Perunovich/Parayko while we were chasing a lead last night and they performed well in this absurdly small sample. I don't think that this D group is good enough to win consistently playing low event hockey. Let's go all in on playing high event hockey, see how it looks for a month or so and then take that data and figure out exactly what shaped hole we have to plug.
Perunovich sure looked like an NHL-caliber player last night. He was heavily sheltered, but he dominated possession the way you want him to in that usage. He chased guys around a bit much for my liking in the defensive zone, but he looked great with the puck on his stick in our own zone. From pure eye test, he was the best player on the team at getting the puck out of our zone with control last night. His puck skills are more than just offense and his ability to get the puck out of trouble in our own zone will offset some of his deficiencies related to defending. It would absolutely not fair to describe him as a defensive liability last night and he was a clearly above average D man through the neutral zone and in the attacking zone. I thought that his game last night was better than anything I've seen out of Walman (this year). He got rewarded with 18:26 in ice time, PP usage and he was on the ice at the end when we were trying to tie the game at 6 on 5. Having 2 small offense-first LHD in the lineup creates a matchup/pairing headache for the coaching staff, but he was too good to be kept out of the lineup based on that. Walman is stylistically a better fit for the blueline, but has not played well enough to hold off Perunovich even with that inside track.
We gave Walman a month to earn the #6 spot and we told Perunovich to go earn his call up in the AHL. Perunovich demolished expectations and Walman took a step backwards. Berube hasn't trusted Walman to play PK at all and he has essentially just been an "even" player with pretty damn sheltered usage. That's fine to stick around as a 6th/7th D man, but it isn't good enough to keep Perunovich out of the lineup. Unless the other #6 D candidate can effectively contribute in a defensive role, Perunovich needs to be in the lineup. Mikkola might be that guy, but he is still on the COVID list and based on Perunovich's game last night we shouldn't be in a rush to remove him from the lineup.
Perunovich should be in the lineup Thursday and until he plays himself out of it. That gets Faulk/Parayko off the PP and theoretically should allow them to be better rested for serious 5 on 5 and PK usage. It's time to get creative with the pairings and find a way to spread the ice time around. We saw 4+ minutes of Perunovich/Parayko while we were chasing a lead last night and they performed well in this absurdly small sample. I don't think that this D group is good enough to win consistently playing low event hockey. Let's go all in on playing high event hockey, see how it looks for a month or so and then take that data and figure out exactly what shaped hole we have to plug.
If I'm gonna be brutally honest, replacing Krug with Perunovich would be great, based on the fact that they are similar players and Perunovich would be way cheaper. But it's likely not going to happen. Individually, Krug is a great player to have, and normally I'd love to have him, but with the way our defense is currently constructed, Krug is expendable because of Perunovich. I don't think Perunovich can come in and immediately be at the same level as Krug, but he can certainly put up solid points in a sheltered role, and he'd be doing it for significantly less money. That money we could put towards a top pairing LHD. That would balance out the defense really well. You'd have a great shutdown top pairing where Parayko doesn't have to carry around dead-weight, Scandella would be in a reduced role that he's better suited for, and you'd have Perunovich getting favorable defensive matchups while quarterbacking the PP and getting offensive zone starts.
X - Parayko
Scandella - Faulk
Perunovich - Bortuzzo
Obviously that's easier said than done, but this is the ideal scenario for me.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,976
Krug's got a full NTC until 2025. Even if you assume that Perunovich is a 1:1 replacement for Krug (which is a big leap no matter how high you are on Perunovich), the only way to lose Krug is by putting him on waivers or demolishing the relationship mid-season badly enough that he wants out. Both of those mean you aren't landing another top UFA without giving NMCs away. Long term, I think that Perunovich could take Krug's role and lead to a scenario where Krug quietly asks for a trade in the offseason once he is no longer getting top PP time. But it is highly unlikely that such a situation actualizes mid-season.
The existence of Dunn in the (then) present and the potential of Perunovich was exactly why I hated the Krug signing on day 1 in 2020. Krug was absolutely a better player for that role than Dunn/Perunovich in 2020, but I thought we owed it to our organizational depth to give Dunn/Perunovich the chance to grow into that role rather than locking that role up for $6.5M long term. But we didn't leave the door open for them and now we are (at least for now) looking at a major redundancy without an ability to move the expensive one.
Krug isn't going anywhere mid-season. Trying to find solutions to our blue line deficiencies by moving him aren't realistic, even if we all agree that doing so would be best for the team. That decision was made in 2020.
Robb_K
Registered User
I agree 100%. No way Perunovich should be kept out of the lineup. His total minutes should be at the very least, 15-17 because of Power Play time and a regular 3rd pairing shift, plus added crucial time when the team is behind, or needing the best puckhandlers and passers when trying to protect a 1-goal lead late in games. He was the most poised defenceman last night. We'll see if that continues in the next several games. He can help The Blues keep possession in their own zone, and help them get the puck out quickly on the breakout, and into The O Zone as well. I agree that this team is best served by being a team that scores a lot of its goals off the rushm, and Perunovich will help a lot with that. I'm looking forward to his positive effect on helping end the team's recent lack of poise and calmness under pressure in their own zone, and help with distributing the puck and keeping possession in The O Zone, leading to more good shots and more scoring.
ChicagoBlues
Terraformers
- Oct 24, 2006
- 15,085
- 6,103
I love the silence when you or EB22 speak out truth out loud about Krug situation.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,976
What silence? And who's opinion of Krug is more favorable to him than anything I talk about? The overwhelming consensus around here is that Krug isn't worth his contract. The people you label Krug apologists are people who acknowledge that but argue that he isn't a literal piece of garbage whose presence single-handedly prevents the construction of a contending-caliber roster.. The absolute highest praise you see for him around here is that he is a great PP QB who can be good at even strength on a 2nd pairing that gets sheltered more than a traditional 2nd pairing.
You have built up this straw man that there are people bending over backwards to praise him and the contract who then go silent when the contract is scrutinized. Those people don't exist (or if they do are a tiny minority that post here so rarely that their posts get lost).
The overwhelming majority of people here don't think that Krug is a good use of $6.5M against the cap long term. The disagreement lies fully in how overpaid he is and whether Army can navigate around that overpayment to build a good blue line.
Linkens Mastery
Conductor of the TankTown Express
@Brian39 criticizes, but, he doesn't absolutely shred into every little mistake a player makes to make them out to be a absolute travesty of a player and human being. If you take a microscope to every single player you dislike of course you're going to be able to nitpick and find mistakes.
Majorityof1
Registered User
I went back and re-watched the play in question. You are right. I wouldn't say Thomas had a full 2 seconds, but he had time. Watching it in slow-mo, he clearly saw the puck. He adjusted his skating toward it. He looked at it, then looked up to see where to go with it. That was when he skated right past it and immedeatly turned around knowing he f***ed up. That was on Thomas. He absolutely needed to get the puck in that situation. So my apologies for being wrong there and putting too much of the blame on Krug.
That said, I still don't like that play from Krug. It was a lazy nonchalant pass to a forward as the last one back. It was from his back hand off the boards, which meant his body was blocking Thomas' view of the pass. More importantly, by the time Thomas was able to play the puck, he was under just as much pressure as Krug had been. Our $6.5M puck-mover deferred to our 22 year old pivot to move the puck up the ice. That type of play is exactly why you pay a guy like Krug, to break open the D, not to nope out to Thomas.
Berube also didn't like the play. In the post-game presser someone asked what he thought about the "too cute" passes, and he said one of them cost us a goal and the other 2 were PP goals. So he thought, also without watching video, that the pass cost us a goal. He did praise Krug's game overall, tbf.
As for Krug being the type of d-man that should be sheltered, I agree. I agree with pretty much everything in that second paragraph except not blaming Krug. We knew what we were getting with Krug. We don't have the horses to cover for him. We need a better 4th man in that group to do so. But I knew all that when we signed Krug, so Army should have known that as well. Because we are spending $19.5M on 3 D, long-term with NTCs, we cannot afford a better top 4 d man and the forward depth we need to be successful. People say we should drop Tarasenko, but he is tied for top goal scorer on the team (all of which have been crucial goals). How good are we if we lose those goals? Maybe the D prevents just as many, maybe not.
Krug asthe last man into that $6.5M group gets a lot of my blame. I don't think you should pay a D man who needs to be sheltered that much $6.5M, even if he puts up 50 points. His defense is worse than I anticipated. Using your example, you can't afford to have a $6.5M D on the third pair with Bortuzzo. Its the same problem when we had Pietrangelo, and Parayko pushing Faulk into weird places in the lineup. They make too much to not have a defined top 4 role, and to not be trusted in most situations.
Brian39
Registered User
- Apr 24, 2014
- 7,479
- 13,976
I agree with you, but it is worth pointing out that Krug played at a 65 point pace in the 3 years leading up to the UFA contract we gave him. I think the expectation with Krug is you shelter him in order for him to put up 60+ points rather than "just" 50. He was at a 51 point pace last season, but I guarantee you Army wants/expects more than that out of the investment.
I think your point still stands that 60 points isn't worth $6.5M and a NTC with the amount of sheltering he needs. I think he needs to hit a 65+ point pace in order to be worth that kind of money and I don't think that he will do that for more than 1 of the 7 year deal he was given.
Coyotes fan here this morning to assure all Blues fans that as bad as you're feeling, you're better off than me. All I ask is on draft lottery day you reserve some positive thoughts towards the Coyotes lottery balls.
You got it, friend.
Ggs, see you next time.
Overally having zero flexibility and how Army played his cards he has hindered our change now to win it while our window is open.
We are one move away from being cup contender, imho.
- Jul 4, 2014
- 7,983
- 8,465
Kind of like how you fail to point out the "truth" that he currently has 41 points in 61 games as a Blue, a pace of over 55 points in an 82 game season, and that he is a +16 wearing the Bluenote. Even Shattenkirk, another perennial whipping boy who was great offensively but everyone hated his defense, never had more than 45 points in a full season here and was +24 in his Blues career over parts of 7 seasons.
Because you're not looking for a balanced discussion, you're looking for blind conformity to your one-sided argument. The concept of "truth" in your view is only the opinions that you (and admittedly many others) hold about his defensive play, with no sense of balance to the good things he does on the ice to generate offense. You're entitled to your own opinions, but no one is entitled to their own facts. You can't just conveniently ignore data that doesn't support your argument in a true exchange of ideas.
Speaking my "truth" out loud, Krug is a valuable weapon on a contract that likely won't age well. He will almost certainly be a redundant piece within a couple of seasons, but at the moment he is the best player in our organization at quarterbacking the power play and driving offense from the blueline. He was also widely believed to be the 2nd best UFA player available at his position when we signed him, 2nd only to the player who was on his way out of the organization for reasons I will refuse to argue yet again, and his signing actually balanced the handedness of our blueline after a season where the L-R imbalance caused a lot of problems. Asking him to be one of our top defenders and complaining that he isn't is akin to complaining that Bortuzzo doesn't score enough goals. That's not his role. If we hadn't signed him, we'd be complaining that Dunn wasn't getting the job done on the PP (and that he, too, was awful in his own end.) And we'd be looking for a guy like Krug to run the power play because we wouldn't be sure that Perunovich was ready yet. We have way more of an excess of money tied up in 14 forwards (about $49.5M) than we do in 7 defensemen ($24.8M if you subtract Mikkola from the top 7) right now, and we should actively be looking to leverage Tarasenko's cap hit into a stout defender who can shore up the blueline, but then we'll just complain that they aren't generating enough offensively. Maybe we'll land that guy, and maybe we won't.
Bobby Orrtuzzo
Ya know
I can’t like this post enough.
Krug will absolutely never get a fair shake here as he’s seen by an unfortunately large amount of this fan base as a direct Petro replacement.
Don't worry, in a few years, we'll trade him for some mid-round pick that'll get used on a goalie that'll come out of nowhere and win us another Cup.
Celtic Note
Living the dream
- Dec 22, 2006
- 17,248
- 6,198
Get us a strong, big body LD who can shelter, hit and play D and all the Krug issues will go away.
Peru will be great but that LD is so shallow we need another man. It’s simple as that. It makes the D corps look like trash all on its own.
Not worried otherwise. We’ve been worse and came back and won a Cup. Got faith that Army will steal a solution for us.
Peru will be great but that LD is so shallow we need another man. It’s simple as that. It makes the D corps look like trash all on its own.
Not worried otherwise. We’ve been worse and came back and won a Cup. Got faith that Army will steal a solution for us.
- Status
