GDT Game 7: 4/25/16 | 7:30PM CST | v Hawks | NBCSN/FSMW/Y98

[ecbm]

The only real gripe I have about the "failing to meet yearly goals" is the loss to Minnesota last year. That was bad.There is no shame in losing to Chicago or LA the previous years

Well we'll agree to disagree. My opinion is that the above statement is a pretty bald rationalization of failure. I can't see the Blues as an organization that doesn't have winning at least one f'in playoff series as a goal each year-because if they don't then their marketing is a big fat lie to the fans. I could maybe have a little more patience if they acquitted themselves well in those series, but they didn't. They started strong and then folded when they hit the first bit of adversity.

some VERY close series that could have gone either way, especially in 2014

You mean the one where the Blues were eliminated by a lower seed in game 6 by a score of 5-1, the series where they didn't win a single game in regulation?

[cprice12]

The only real gripe I have about the "failing to meet yearly goals" is the loss to Minnesota last year. That was bad.There is no shame in losing to Chicago or LA the previous years

Well we'll agree to disagree. My opinion is that the above statement is a pretty bald rationalization of failure. I can't see the Blues as an organization that doesn't have winning at least one f'in playoff series as a goal each year-because if they don't then their marketing is a big fat lie to the fans. I could maybe have a little more patience if they acquitted themselves well in those series, but they didn't. They started strong and then folded when they hit the first bit of adversity.

some VERY close series that could have gone either way, especially in 2014

You mean the one where the Blues were eliminated by a lower seed in game 6 by a score of 5-1, the series where they didn't win a single game in regulation?

You talking in 2014? Against the Blackhawks? Yeah...that series could have gone either way easily. We dominated game #3, but I think lost 1-0 or 2-0 with an ENG, and in game #4 we lost in OT I think. And game #6 was tied going into the 3rd before the Hawks scored like 3 or 4 times.
So, so close to getting that 3rd win to go up 3-0 or 3-1 in the series and it would have been a completely different story.

It sucked balls to lose to LA twice and Chicago. But like I said, aside from the loss to the Wild last year, which was really f'ing bad...we lost to some really, really good teams. It's not like we won the President's trophy and lost to the #8 seed, like we did against the Sharks 15 or 16years ago.
Just saying "we lost in the first round" is implying that we played a shitty team and choked...which wasn't the cast 3 of the last 4 years.

I'm just giving LA and Chicago credit...that's all.

[cardsfan04]

To that point, I think there is a difference between saying, "not all losses are created equal" (which is definitely true) and "losing is ok because you had a tough opponent (which is a cop out)." Up to this point, Hitch's playoff results in St. Louis can only be considered a failure. He won 1 series in 4 years. That is failing. But, it's reasonable to acknowledge and consider who we lost to when evaluating him. That's a relevant portion of the story.

[Portland Blues]

It's not like we won the President's trophy and lost to the #8 seed, like we did against the Sharks 15 or 16years ago.

Those were good times! Tiger-striped eyebrows for everyone!

[ecbm]

I'm just giving LA and Chicago credit...that's all.

Chicago and LA are great hockey teams. That's a fact. It doesn't excuse losing to them, not one bit.

To that point, I think there is a difference between saying, "not all losses are created equal" (which is definitely true) and "losing is ok because you had a tough opponent (which is a cop out)." Up to this point, Hitch's playoff results in St. Louis can only be considered a failure. He won 1 series in 4 years. That is failing. But, it's reasonable to acknowledge and consider who we lost to when evaluating him. That's a relevant portion of the story.

Very well put. I have to ask though: who are these easy teams to beat in the playoffs? Because the Wild looked pretty formidable last season and-rightly-nobody here is looking past the Stars.

[cardsfan04]

I'm just giving LA and Chicago credit...that's all.

Chicago and LA are great hockey teams. That's a fact. It doesn't excuse losing to them, not one bit.

To that point, I think there is a difference between saying, "not all losses are created equal" (which is definitely true) and "losing is ok because you had a tough opponent (which is a cop out)." Up to this point, Hitch's playoff results in St. Louis can only be considered a failure. He won 1 series in 4 years. That is failing. But, it's reasonable to acknowledge and consider who we lost to when evaluating him. That's a relevant portion of the story.

Very well put. I have to ask though: who are these easy teams to beat in the playoffs? Because the Wild looked pretty formidable last season and-rightly-nobody here is looking past the Stars.

I wouldn't say any playoff team is "easy," but some teams are more concerning than others. For example, this year, Chicago, LA, Anaheim and Dallas are the only teams in the west that concern me. A loss to the Wild, Sharks or Predators would be a bad loss in my mind. Fortunately for us, Dallas is the only one of those 4 left in the West.