1. With the team lacking Offense and assuming that without Backes and Brouwer that the team may have serious issues generating Offense in the Offseason (especially with the team not replacing Backes and Brouwer's playoff production), in order for them to win a series they WILL need the D and netminder to be stellar, period, point-blank which was why I quoted the GAA as high as I did. Meaning Jake Allen will need to shoot for the moon. As one of you pointed out, he's rolling .942 since February. If he continues this, we will win a playoff series. We are not going to buy or trade for first line scorers anytime soon and if we do, it will leave a hole somewhere else on the roster. So these are the cards that the team has been dealt with and it CAN work, if Defense stays solid and goaltender rides high. How you do that is have two options in net that can carry the heavy weight.theohall wrote:Until Elliott posts a .920-.940 save percentage this season in the playoffs, Elliott sucks as a playoff goalie. 1 time past the 2nd round and he's THE ANSWER for the Blues over Allen, seriously??? Statistics tell stories far better than opinions with little fact behind them. Facts are Elliott is 1-2, 4-4, 4-4 in his first three series as a starter, getting completely knocked out in his 1st series start, and swept in the 2nd round in his next two. It wasn't until his 4th go as the starter at Age 30 he even won a 2nd round game.Oaklandblue wrote:theohall wrote:So you are going to hold Allen to a standard Elliott managed once in his playoff career - last year at .921.Now, if he shoots .920-.940 and we lose in the first round
That seems real generous of you.
Elliot playoff SV%
09-10 .853
11-12 .904
12-13 .919
14-15 .857
15-16 .921
Sure glad there is absolutely no bias in how you judge goaltenders.
But OMG, the Blues traded Elliott. We are screwed with Allen - is such a ridiculous narrative when one considers all the facts, it's hard to believe anyone swallows the BS around it.
So let's see how many 2nd round games Allen wins by Age 30 (Elliott's was 0 at age 29) before throwing him under the bus based on the contract - which, as I brought up before - is actually fitting in both term and salary for what he's providing this team. Why term? Husso, at best, will be ready in the 2nd to last year of the contract. That's your argument, that it should have been a bridge to Husso. While it isn't a bridge deal, the length is pretty much exactly right for a bridge to Husso. Assuming Allen doesn't improve and force Husso to fight for the job. Financially, he's being paid what goalies at his age tend to make when they are 50+ game quality starters.
Jake Allen and Brian Elliott TOGETHER looked very dominating together. I was not a proponent for getting rid of Jake, I wanted both to stay together to see what Jake had in him as well as have depth in that position until Husso was ready to come up. Letting Elliott walk before a contract year to sign a goalie with even -less- experience than your newly-minted starter on a team fresh from the WCF is very, very risky, especially if Allen gets injured and we're relying on Hutton to take over. Again, it would have costed us nothing to give Elliott the title of Starter (He was still under contract) and if he blew it, Allen takes over. We know what we have in Elliott and what he is and what he isn't. Can we say the same if Hutton had to be put in a crucial Playoff game?
Trading off Elliott may help us out in the long-term (It sure looks like it will), but if the Flames go deep and we bust, one has to wonder if Elliott may have made the difference. I don't like thinking like that and the last time we made a trade to the Flames akin to that, they won the Cup. That thought, as silly as it sounds, keeps replaying itself in the back of my mind. We got lucky last year, why couldn't the Flames get luckier? That should be us, not them.
As for " OMG, the Blues traded Elliott. We are screwed with Allen - is such a ridiculous narrative when one considers all the facts", you're speaking a great deal in possible future performance. If you look at Jake Allen's numbers in the playoffs, there isn't much there to base this weird perception of "Jake is the Man" on any level. There's regular season promise there, sure, and to me it's guranteed him the position of regular season Starter, but there's an odd and pretty concerning trend that both he and Elliott post similar numbers, even apart. You can't predict the future and people who have tried to predict the Blues future in a positive way have had it blown back in their face, time and time again. Don't jinx this team like that.
The last thing I will note is how much you speak of Elliott in the singular; Elliott this, Elliott that. When Allen comes up, you bring up the team and try to make it sound like Allen could shoot for the moon or suck but it's because of the team, not him and that's an unfair and silly situation. If you do believe this, please explain 05-06 Patrick Lalime to me, because that excuse should sit with him too, and that is where your pov on that is horribly, horribly wrong.