This is a bad hockey team

[LokiDog]

I personally think that the sum of this team’s parts is better than the performance so far has indicated, and that our record so far is better than our performance has generally warranted.

I was a very vocal Quinn detractor, especially at the end. And I was pretty optimistic for Gallant. While it is still early, it does have the feeling of just being a poor fit. A swing and a miss. It doesn’t feel like there’s really any traction there. I like the addition of Blais and Goodrow and Hunt. I think the personnel has potential. But I think it’s BEYOND obvious that Kakko doesn’t work on the Panarin line, that Goodrow shouldn’t be in the top six, that Blais flashes enough skill to go with his grit that he’d compliment Panarin well. It doesn’t feel like Gallant has the pulse of this group. Is he unfamiliar with Artemi Panarin? Is he unaware that he’s shown to play his career best hockey with Fast and Blackwood? Did he just not bother to familiarize himself with the players at his disposal? I am, so far, pretty underwhelmed.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

oh...you're one of those cool guys that is so witty with the random capital letter thing. Hehehehe....there's always "that guy"....somehow I managed to do that without almost every other letter with caps.

Now, please tell me the line of demarcation as to when its not sustainable any more....we are at 12 games....does it stop at 15? 20? 25? 10 bad hockey games play out of 11....and points arent good enough...or should I say GoOd EnOuGh? And are you of the opinion that there will be no "good" games played by our guys?

It’s already stopped.
How many of those wins have happened when their goalie didn’t absolutely steal the game?

you’ve been hoodwinked

 

[Mandar]

It’s already stopped.
How many of those wins have happened when their goalie didn’t absolutely steal the game?

you’ve been hoodwinked

soooooo...they have not gotten points in only 2 of 11 games so far.....somehow the point thing has ended? Goalies are part of the team....so what difference does it make when a goalie is the reason for a win?

Keep 'em coming....you are bound to say something intelligent soon....I can feel it. Or should I spell it..."iNtElLiGeNt"??? better and more understandable for you?

 

[TheBloodyNine]

soooooo...they have not gotten points in only 2 of 11 games so far.....somehow the point thing has ended? Goalies are part of the team....so what difference does it make when a goalie is the reason for a win?

Keep 'em coming....you are bound to say something intelligent soon....I can feel it. Or should I spell it..."iNtElLiGeNt"??? better and more understandable for you?

Because when the goalie is the only reason you win any games that in and of itself is not sustainable.

You must have been either not born or willfully blind during the early Henrik years. I bet you were a huge fan of the 09-10 team too.

This team just lost two games in a row that they had leads in because the goalie couldn't bail them out in the end.

 

[Mandar]

Because when the goalie is the only reason you win any games that in and of itself is not sustainable.

You must have been either not born or willfully blind during the early Henrik years. I bet you were a huge fan of the 09-10 team too.

This team just lost two games in a row that they had leads in because the goalie couldn't bail them out in the end.

So this is a new thing? That goalies can win you games for a long stretch of time? My goodness....alert the media...you found a new angle.

Do you...or do you not want them to win? If you want them to win...is it a requirement to outplay the opponent in each game? Would you rather lose and outplay the opponent...or win and get outplayed a ton? These are the two exact questions I ask you....the choice are there....dont create a new one...I do want to know your answer.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

So this is a new thing? That goalies can win you games for a long stretch of time? My goodness....alert the media...you found a new angle.

Do you...or do you not want them to win? If you want them to win...is it a requirement to outplay the opponent in each game? Would you rather lose and outplay the opponent...or win and get outplayed a ton? These are the two exact questions I ask you....the choice are there....dont create a new one...I do want to know your answer.

Outside of the last game, Zibby and Panarin still aren't close to what they were doing last season, both Laf and Kap were supposed to take giant leaps on offense, and that hasn't panned out.

Our puck possession sucks. This team approaches the puck like it's a live grenade. This team being outshot by the other team is a given. Igor stole some games. Awesome. And?

What, we should settle on Hank 2.0?

 

[Mandar]

Outside of the last game, Zibby and Panarin still aren't close to what they were doing last season, both Laf and Kap were supposed to take giant leaps on offense, and that hasn't panned out.

Our puck possession sucks. This team approaches the puck like it's a live grenade. This team being outshot by the other team is a given. Igor stole some games. Awesome. And?

What, we should settle on Hank 2.0?

I'm not really understanding your point here. Are you of the opinion that Zib & Panarin will or wont get back to what we know they can be?

And should our goalie not steal games for us? even if its been the majority of the time so far? No one is disputing that they can play better,,,,but is it better to not have the points we are banking? or is it better to lose?

 

[TheBloodyNine]

So this is a new thing? That goalies can win you games for a long stretch of time? My goodness....alert the media...you found a new angle.

Do you...or do you not want them to win? If you want them to win...is it a requirement to outplay the opponent in each game? Would you rather lose and outplay the opponent...or win and get outplayed a ton? These are the two exact questions I ask you....the choice are there....dont create a new one...I do want to know your answer.

Win and get outplayed a ton isn't a recipe for long term success. When you grow up and watch a few more hockey games you'll get that concept.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

I'm not really understanding your point here. Are you of the opinion that Zib & Panarin will or wont get back to what we know they can be?

And should our goalie not steal games for us? even if its been the majority of the time so far? No one is disputing that they can play better,,,,but is it better to not have the points we are banking? or is it better to lose?

Why do you present it as if it's a false dichotomy: play like crap and win, or just lose.

This team has yet to set the tone for the game and dominate the other team. Maybe you could argue Columbus. One freaking game.

It's not sustainable.

 

[Mandar]

Win and get outplayed a ton isn't a recipe for long term success. When you grow up and watch a few more hockey games you'll get that concept.

so, you are incapable of answering a simple question...where you are literally given the choices. Not surprised.

not only that, you bring other factors into the question that have nothing to do with what I asked. Again, not surprised.

What? none of those incredibly witty words with the random caps? Growth is slow....but there might be hope for you.

 

[Mandar]

Why do you present it as if it's a false dichotomy: play like crap and win, or just lose.

This team has yet to set the tone for the game and dominate the other team. Maybe you could argue Columbus. One freaking game.

It's not sustainable.

and yet here we are...with points in 9 of 11 games, including points in all 8 road games so far. At what time is it unsustainable? 15 games? 20 games? 25 games?

I never said those were the only two options, and I fully understand that they can play much, much better. I am of the opinion that they will play better...so this stretch of banking points is sweet, and I dont see the need to excuse the points we have gotten.

 

[TheBloodyNine]

so, you are incapable of answering a simple question...where you are literally given the choices. Not surprised.

not only that, you bring other factors into the question that have nothing to do with what I asked. Again, not surprised.

What? none of those incredibly witty words with the random caps? Growth is slow....but there might be hope for you.

I answered it, you're just not smart enough to understand my answer. It's ok.

 

[Mandar]

Win and get outplayed a ton isn't a recipe for long term success. When you grow up and watch a few more hockey games you'll get that concept.

I asked:

Do you...or do you not want them to win? If you want them to win...is it a requirement to outplay the opponent in each game? Would you rather lose and outplay the opponent...or win and get outplayed a ton? These are the two exact questions I ask you....the choice are there....dont create a new one...I do want to know your answer.

Please extrapolate your answer from the inane reply you provided.

Of course, saying:

I answered it, you're just not smart enough to understand my answer. It's ok.

is a complete cop out, and pretty much confirms what we all see.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

and yet here we are...with points in 9 of 11 games, including points in all 8 road games so far. At what time is it unsustainable? 15 games? 20 games? 25 games?

I never said those were the only two options, and I fully understand that they can play much, much better. I am of the opinion that they will play better...so this stretch of banking points is sweet, and I dont see the need to excuse the points we have gotten.

It looks like the wheels are coming undone right now, wouldn't you say? Back-to-back loser points. Two games where we lead...but since this team is allergic to playing a complete game, the other team outshot us, took over the game...and won.

 

[Mandar]

It looks like the wheels are coming undone right now, wouldn't you say? Back-to-back loser points. Two games where we lead...but since this team is allergic to playing a complete game, the other team outshot us, took over the game...and won.

theres no doubt that giving up the third period leads is disappointing (and I havent even used the "they are the youngest team in the league" excuse)...if the wheels are coming off, and we are still getting points...okay. But it usually evens out over the season (ask Ottawa how they felt about that game). All I'm saying is that they are not a bad team, even if they are getting points by being underwhelming. And since I believe that their play will get better, Im not caring about getting points that are perceived as being lucky.....Im just glad we have them

 

[smoneil]

I personally think that the sum of this team’s parts is better than the performance so far has indicated, and that our record so far is better than our performance has generally warranted.

I was a very vocal Quinn detractor, especially at the end. And I was pretty optimistic for Gallant. While it is still early, it does have the feeling of just being a poor fit. A swing and a miss. It doesn’t feel like there’s really any traction there. I like the addition of Blais and Goodrow and Hunt. I think the personnel has potential. But I think it’s BEYOND obvious that Kakko doesn’t work on the Panarin line, that Goodrow shouldn’t be in the top six, that Blais flashes enough skill to go with his grit that he’d compliment Panarin well. It doesn’t feel like Gallant has the pulse of this group. Is he unfamiliar with Artemi Panarin? Is he unaware that he’s shown to play his career best hockey with Fast and Blackwood? Did he just not bother to familiarize himself with the players at his disposal? I am, so far, pretty underwhelmed.

Agreed for the most part, though we did see something similar through the first 15 or so games under Vigneault. He was playing guys out of position, riding guys he really trusted, etc. Part of what made it click was pulling the trigger on a couple of moves that removed guys who were never going to mesh with AV (MDZ) and bring in guys who would.

This group has a ton of talent. They got their last coach fired. The team went out and signed some bodyguards to protect them. If they keep pulling the same shit? At that point, you need to look at changing a couple of the players rather that the coach and support guys. I could see Strome and possibly even Panarin get quietly shopped around if things are still looking like this around the mid-season mark. And before everyone flips about that Panarin suggestion, we never really thought Gaborik would be moved either until he was.

 

[RGY]

Team is 6-2-3 with their best players not performing at their best yet.

 

[Savant]

Team is 6-2-3 with their best players not performing at their best yet.

They are 6-2-3 because of Igor.

Igor is papering over the cracks.

 

[Brutananadilewski]

I could see Strome and possibly even Panarin get quietly shopped around if things are still looking like this around the mid-season mark. And before everyone flips about that Panarin suggestion, we never really thought Gaborik would be moved either until he was.

But we had Nash and Richards. Plus, Gabby had the injury history.

Still, if there's a good deal to be made, why not?

 

[RGY]

They are 6-2-3 because of Igor.

Igor is papering over the cracks.

Cool. Still 6-2-3 and the point stands their best players haven’t performed to standard. That still holds true.

 

[bondra]

Im glad Gallant keeps that 2nd line together, it works so well. Ffs, its like not liking chicken and rice but your still eating it every day.

 

[jay from jersey]

Because when the goalie is the only reason you win any games that in and of itself is not sustainable.

You must have been either not born or willfully blind during the early Henrik years. I bet you were a huge fan of the 09-10 team too.

This team just lost two games in a row that they had leads in because the goalie couldn't bail them out in the end.

Not for nothing Jordan bininngton was a huge reason the Blues won the cup. Cause he was hot at the right time. Timing and opportunity is what makes and brakes the winners and losers in all aspects of life.
I posted this same post about a year and a half ago
I personally still want strome gone and want the team to. Keep working and get better, but if they can keep their head above water while they are trying to accomplish that, it’s certainly better for us then worse.

 

[Vitto79]

Still getting points and playing not so good
They will turn it around

 

[Kords]

I personally think that the sum of this team’s parts is better than the performance so far has indicated, and that our record so far is better than our performance has generally warranted.

I was a very vocal Quinn detractor, especially at the end. And I was pretty optimistic for Gallant. While it is still early, it does have the feeling of just being a poor fit. A swing and a miss. It doesn’t feel like there’s really any traction there. I like the addition of Blais and Goodrow and Hunt. I think the personnel has potential. But I think it’s BEYOND obvious that Kakko doesn’t work on the Panarin line, that Goodrow shouldn’t be in the top six, that Blais flashes enough skill to go with his grit that he’d compliment Panarin well. It doesn’t feel like Gallant has the pulse of this group. Is he unfamiliar with Artemi Panarin? Is he unaware that he’s shown to play his career best hockey with Fast and Blackwood? Did he just not bother to familiarize himself with the players at his disposal? I am, so far, pretty underwhelmed.

I can't argue with the bolded, personally (like many others) i'd like to see him with Mika and CK but I also think if KK and Panarin can build chemistry than that is gonna be for the best if we're talking big picture. You would think it HAS to happen at some point. Safe to assume it's a complete lack of communication, which makes that chemistry take longer to achieve. If Panarin can only be succesful with Strome and a "Fast type", than that's an issue and limits much needed flexibility.

Really just hope Kakko doesn't lose his confidence waiting for the points to come. There was a point in the second period where him and McDavid were going at it behind the play. Was almost more shocking than that goal.

 

[DialUp]

Cool. Still 6-2-3 and the point stands their best players haven’t performed to standard. That still holds true.

We have talked about this earlier in this thread: only Panarin is seemingly under performing relative to their known standard. Everyone else is playing their BEST for better or worse (CK, Trouba, Igor, Fox, 4th liners) or is still an unknown qty (Laf, Kakko, Miller, Chytil, Blais, Lundqvist). Zib scores in bunches since he been here, and Strome is who he is.

But we know for a fact that a forward core of Panarin, Zib, Strome, CK the last few years produces around a true .500 team when they lead the charge.

This thread is the worst case scenario in written form: the kids, when they are known, are middling as well.

What this team needs so this thread doesn't become prophetic is proper leadership and for the team to actually BE better than their best.