Still pretenders

[Oaklandblue]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

I could buy the idea that what Elliott has done as a Blue is more relevant than what he did with the Senators, but not that his Senators record is irrelevant. It's still part of his record in the playoffs.

Elliott has 6 playoff wins. Saying he's a proven playoff goaltender is a stretch no matter how you skew the scenario. He's won one playoff series in his career. Not saying he can't win more, and I'm not knocking him. I like Elliott. But, he hasn't proven a whole lot in the playoffs.

The statement I have made repeatedly that everyone seems to be missing, is of the players we have, WHO is the proven playoff netminder? I never said the best or the most reliable or any of that. Of who we have, who, as a Blue, has posted the stats to stake a claim. And that person is Brian Elliott.

Does anyone care if he won a Stanley Cup with another team? No. Does anyone care if he won a Vezina with another team? Also no. What do we care about? What he does on THIS team, right?

Whether Brian Elliott is the standard of all playoff proven netminders is something I won't argue because he doesn't own a Cup. The statement I made was, of those we have, Brian, as a Blue, is the most playoff proven. Simple as that.

[gaijin]

Just as long as whatever goalie we go with has two "L"s in his last name.

[glen a richter]

Just as long as whatever goalie we go with has two "L"s in his last name.

So you're saying you want Ryan Miller back?

[gaijin]

Just as long as whatever goalie we go with has two "L"s in his last name.

So you're saying you want Ryan Miller back?

No.

No Miller.

No Hiller.

No Aittokallio, Altshuller, Dell, Ellis, Gill, Gillies, Hartzell, Hellberg, Hellebuyck, Maxwell, McCollum, Millan, Ouellette, Tallas, Will, or Williams.

[theohall]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

I could buy the idea that what Elliott has done as a Blue is more relevant than what he did with the Senators, but not that his Senators record is irrelevant. It's still part of his record in the playoffs.

Elliott has 6 playoff wins. Saying he's a proven playoff goaltender is a stretch no matter how you skew the scenario. He's won one playoff series in his career. Not saying he can't win more, and I'm not knocking him. I like Elliott. But, he hasn't proven a whole lot in the playoffs.

The statement I have made repeatedly that everyone seems to be missing, is of the players we have, WHO is the proven playoff netminder? I never said the best or the most reliable or any of that. Of who we have, who, as a Blue, has posted the stats to stake a claim. And that person is Brian Elliott.

Does anyone care if he won a Stanley Cup with another team? No. Does anyone care if he won a Vezina with another team? Also no. What do we care about? What he does on THIS team, right?

Whether Brian Elliott is the standard of all playoff proven netminders is something I won't argue because he doesn't own a Cup. The statement I made was, of those we have, Brian, as a Blue, is the most playoff proven. Simple as that.

Of the players the Blues have, I'd take Allen over Elliott. One playoff series win on any roster does not make a goalie "proven" period. Many teams have had goalies win one playoff series. It didn't make them proven. So why call Elliott that just because he won one series three years ago while on the Blues roster? It's a ludicrous statement.

[Kreegz2]

The most playoff wins a Blues team has ever managed is 10 wins in '85-86. Meanwhile the lightning have gotten 11 or more playoff wins in 3 of the last 10 seasons.

What the (Frank) is wrong with our franchise?

[Misc. Blues]

To be fair most goaltenders are not considered proven unless they make it to the conference finals.

If a goaltender wins the first round in 7 games he's 4-3.
If a goaltender wins the first round in 6 games he's 4-2.
If a goaltender wins the first round in 5 games he's 4-1.
If a goaltender wins the first round in 4 games he's 4-0.

If a goaltender loses the first round in 7 games he's 3-4.
If a goaltender loses the first round in 6 games he's 2-4.
If a goaltender loses the first round in 5 games he's 1-4.
If a goaltender loses the first round in 4 games he's 0-4.

8 of 16 goaltenders (not including backups) have a losing record after the first round. 12 goaltenders go home in the first 2 rounds. None of them proved anything.

IMO I don't think Elliot or Allen are good enough. Our future is Bings and Husso.

[Oaklandblue]

I still take issue with calling Elliott proven. Given the numbers, Allen is as proven with the same lackluster offense in front of him. Please don't pull the one playoff series win thing. That's lame.

I take an issue with you not listening to what I said: Elliott is the proven netminder ON THE TEAM SINCE AS A BLUE.

Pay attention:

We had:

Ryan Miller
Jake Allen
Brian Elliott

I am leaving Jaro Halak out because to be fair, he didn't get much of a chance to show what he could do while wearing Blue IN THE PLAYOFFS (caps so it doesn't get missed)

Which of those three is the team's PROVEN playoff netminder. Not better netminder, but PROVEN.

Elliott has played two playoffs for us, 2.37/9.04 and his last outing was .919/1.90, owns the only series win we have had in what, half a decade?

Meanwhile, Miller was sub-900 AS A BLUE in the playoffs. Jake is .904 in his first playoff appearance.

Which of the three is the proven playoff guy on the team? This isn't rocket science or some lame thing, like you tried to pull without looking at Stats. I don't give a damn what Senators Elliott did, what he does AS A BLUE is all that should matter to us.

And if we want to talk about the regular season, feel free to check out Brian's stats WHILE HE HAS BEEN A BLUE. Count his franchise records and that Jennings Trophy thing he shared with Halak. Oh and that All-Star appearance if that means anything, too.

Like the rest of this team, he's being derailed by an incompetent front office who is operating in the past, not in the present.

If this team has an actual future, it will really surprise me.

I could buy the idea that what Elliott has done as a Blue is more relevant than what he did with the Senators, but not that his Senators record is irrelevant. It's still part of his record in the playoffs.

Elliott has 6 playoff wins. Saying he's a proven playoff goaltender is a stretch no matter how you skew the scenario. He's won one playoff series in his career. Not saying he can't win more, and I'm not knocking him. I like Elliott. But, he hasn't proven a whole lot in the playoffs.

The statement I have made repeatedly that everyone seems to be missing, is of the players we have, WHO is the proven playoff netminder? I never said the best or the most reliable or any of that. Of who we have, who, as a Blue, has posted the stats to stake a claim. And that person is Brian Elliott.

Does anyone care if he won a Stanley Cup with another team? No. Does anyone care if he won a Vezina with another team? Also no. What do we care about? What he does on THIS team, right?

Whether Brian Elliott is the standard of all playoff proven netminders is something I won't argue because he doesn't own a Cup. The statement I made was, of those we have, Brian, as a Blue, is the most playoff proven. Simple as that.

Of the players the Blues have, I'd take Allen over Elliott. One playoff series win on any roster does not make a goalie "proven" period. Many teams have had goalies win one playoff series. It didn't make them proven. So why call Elliott that just because he won one series three years ago while on the Blues roster? It's a ludicrous statement.

You don't like Brian Elliott. I get that and that's all good. Wish you would just say that instead of running around the bush, but that's all good.

You like a netminder with a VERY limited statistical background and proving you right or wrong on him is going to be purely from hindsight later on than now, and I won't get into that because I'd like to see the team win the Cup, even if it means Ells rides pine or plays for someone else.

As for the whole proven thing, I'll leave you with this: Where is the team's bar from the last five seasons set? It's set the year the team made the second round, that's the biggest achievement this group has pulled off. Elliott is the netminder credited with that victory between the pipes. If I recall, this was also the year he was an All-Star and shared the Jennings, so that victory says alot for the calibre of netminder he is, when given the chance to roll and an open space.

You say a win doesn't matter. When it's the ONLY playoff win this group has had, that counts for everything.

Like him, hate him or don't care about him, for what we got, while being a Blue numbers-wise, there isn't anyone better on the roster, yet we don't play or trust him.

If I thought anything was lame that I'd call out, it would be how this team, as a collective whole, can post numbers so solid in the regular season only to get blasted in the playoffs. I think that would be far more sick.

But to be fair, I'd say you put ANY netminder in the NHL, name them, between the pipes of this roster and they LOSE. Hell, Glenn Hall couldn't even save the team in front of him and he won the Conn Smythe in a LOSING effort.

I don't believe in curses, but this team does curse itself.

[glen a richter]

Just as long as whatever goalie we go with has two "L"s in his last name.

So you're saying you want Ryan Miller back?

No.

No Miller.

No Hiller.

No Aittokallio, Altshuller, Dell, Ellis, Gill, Gillies, Hartzell, Hellberg, Hellebuyck, Maxwell, McCollum, Millan, Ouellette, Tallas, Will, or Williams.

Will you take Glenn Hall?

[WaukeeBlues]

I think Allen could be but he's not there yet and it was unfair of this team to throw him in the fire this postseason.

You have to start the guy at some point, I get that. But you don't start a rookie to begin the "learning curve" when your aspirations are a Stanley Cup.

Someone better at looking up stats than me: has a rookie goaltender ever been the starter through the majority of the playoffs on a cup winning team? Roy? If there are any, there's not many. My guess

[theohall]

All I am saying is one playoff series win does not make a goaltender a "proven" playoff goaltender - regardless of team - which is your contention.

Should I make a list of all of the goalies who have one playoff series win throughout the doggone league? Based on your statement, they are all "proven" playoff goalies, because they won one series whenever.

It's ridiculous calling a goalie a "proven" playoff goalie based on one series win.

I sure as hell would not have wanted Elliott in net after the way he played his last 6 regular season games this year. He was horrible. Taking one playoff series from three years ago and not considering how that same goalie played most recently and then calling the guy "proven???". It's ludicrous, no matter how you try to spin it.

[theohall]

I think Allen could be but he's not there yet and it was unfair of this team to throw him in the fire this postseason.

You have to start the guy at some point, I get that. But you don't start a rookie to begin the "learning curve" when your aspirations are a Stanley Cup.

Someone better at looking up stats than me: has a rookie goaltender ever been the starter through the majority of the playoffs on a cup winning team? Roy? If there are any, there's not many. My guess

Most recent is Anti Niemmi for Chicago (technicality based on age says he isn't a rookie, but it was his first year in the NHL), then Cam Ward, then Roy, and finally Ken Dryden.

So twice in the past 10 years. But only twice in the 30+ years before that and never before Dryden.

[ecbm]

I think Allen could be but he's not there yet and it was unfair of this team to throw him in the fire this postseason.

You have to start the guy at some point, I get that. But you don't start a rookie to begin the "learning curve" when your aspirations are a Stanley Cup.

Someone better at looking up stats than me: has a rookie goaltender ever been the starter through the majority of the playoffs on a cup winning team? Roy? If there are any, there's not many. My guess

Most recent is Anti Niemmi for Chicago (technicality based on age says he isn't a rookie, but it was his first year in the NHL), then Cam Ward, then Roy, and finally Ken Dryden.

So twice in the past 10 years. But only twice in the 30+ years before that and never before Dryden.

That's my list too, though I also point out that Fuhr wasn't a rookie but was green as hell at 21 when he won 16 games on the way to his first cup. Rookies get put in the for the playoffs plenty. It's related to this point:

sure as hell would not have wanted Elliott in net after the way he played his last 6 regular season games this year. He was horrible. Taking one playoff series from three years ago and not considering how that same goalie played most recently and then calling the guy "proven???". It's ludicrous

Especially when it comes to goalies-you go on form, not class as they say in Britain re: soccer players. Starting Elliott in the playoffs this year would have been suicidal. And this, in the end, is why he has been a career backup/1B. He's not consistent enough. When evaluating his time here, you have to remember he's constantly played behind a great defense-it's no coincidence that he and Halak before him both set the Blues record for shutouts and neither are among the best 3 goalies to play for this team in my 35 years (Liut, Joseph & Fuhr).

I do think he'll request a trade and I can understand that. I wouldn't mind brining in Anderson from Ottawa if possible to compete with Allen. Hopefully one of the latter (can't believe some are already slapping him with a final evaluation...how'd that go with Bishop?), Binnington or Husso can be the guy but to be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with targeting a veteran in his prime as a medium-term plan. Again, why not try something different?

[WaukeeBlues]

I think Allen could be but he's not there yet and it was unfair of this team to throw him in the fire this postseason.

You have to start the guy at some point, I get that. But you don't start a rookie to begin the "learning curve" when your aspirations are a Stanley Cup.

Someone better at looking up stats than me: has a rookie goaltender ever been the starter through the majority of the playoffs on a cup winning team? Roy? If there are any, there's not many. My guess

Most recent is Anti Niemmi for Chicago (technicality based on age says he isn't a rookie, but it was his first year in the NHL), then Cam Ward, then Roy, and finally Ken Dryden.

So twice in the past 10 years. But only twice in the 30+ years before that and never before Dryden.

That's my list too, though I also point out that Fuhr wasn't a rookie but was green as hell at 21 when he won 16 games on the way to his first cup. Rookies get put in the for the playoffs plenty. It's related to this point:

sure as hell would not have wanted Elliott in net after the way he played his last 6 regular season games this year. He was horrible. Taking one playoff series from three years ago and not considering how that same goalie played most recently and then calling the guy "proven???". It's ludicrous

Especially when it comes to goalies-you go on form, not class as they say in Britain re: soccer players. Starting Elliott in the playoffs this year would have been suicidal. And this, in the end, is why he has been a career backup/1B. He's not consistent enough. When evaluating his time here, you have to remember he's constantly played behind a great defense-it's no coincidence that he and Halak before him both set the Blues record for shutouts and neither are among the best 3 goalies to play for this team in my 35 years (Liut, Joseph & Fuhr).

I do think he'll request a trade and I can understand that. I wouldn't mind brining in Anderson from Ottawa if possible to compete with Allen. Hopefully one of the latter (can't believe some are already slapping him with a final evaluation...how'd that go with Bishop?), Binnington or Husso can be the guy but to be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with targeting a veteran in his prime as a medium-term plan. Again, why not try something different?

Maybe I should've just tweaked what I said... I know it's not unprecedented but is it really a good idea to start a rookie? Yea I guess you have some exceptions here but I don't think it'd be right to pat a rookie on the head and then tell him "Go be Patrick Roy or Ken Dryden"

[cardsfan04]

I don't mind that he went to Allen for the playoffs. Allen had been red hot for like 3 months leading up to the playoffs, had won 2 playoff-like games against the blackhawks in the final week of the season and has a history of doing well in high pressure situations (MVP of World Juniors, etc.).

[WaukeeBlues]

I don't mind that he went to Allen for the playoffs. Allen had been red hot for like 3 months leading up to the playoffs, had won 2 playoff-like games against the blackhawks in the final week of the season and has a history of doing well in high pressure situations (MVP of World Juniors, etc.).

Then I guess we all hope that he learned a lot this last season and comes back even better next postseason...

I don't see much changing this summer, as has been thoroughly discussed. Would be curious to see if Elliott is moved but I wouldn't bet on it.

[beat2life]

all you goalie squabblers, think of it this way: Allen ends the season on a hot streak, KH decides to go with Elliott in the playoffs. Our season ends the same way. Would you be here right now standing by your current statement? I have a feeling that would not be the case. Everyone would be screaming about such a dumb move; benching a goalie on a hot streak. But I guess that's what we're all used to, arguing over "what if's" come May.

And why is everyone so down on Osh? I understand he was invisible come playoffs, but seriously? 21 should've been dealt a long time ago. I had a great time this playoff run (and most of the regular season) openly predicting Berglund's moves in the O zone with (un)surprising accuracy. Is everyone on the dump 74 bandwagon bc he's the only expendable person we can maybe get SOME return on? And to be clear, I'm a pretty objective dude. I was pissed and made my trade list when we got eliminated just like everyone else here. If the move makes sense, do it. But The guy hustles, even though he looks like a newborn calf half the time. Was I the only person that yelled and had a glimmer of hope when he jumped and caught the puck at the blue line in (I think) the end of Game 6??

[glen a richter]

Those who are citing Bishop's lousy numbers during the Conference Finals, and they really really sucked... let's also note that he was lights out at MSG. What he did the last two road games was unreal. And in both games he only got two goals of support. In spite of his playing three really crap games, he came through big time in the clutch. Who do the Blues have who we could label "clutch"? Tarasenko? Watch Armstrong bungle that.

[glen a richter]

Larry Brooks in his Rangers post-mortem suggested the Rags trade Nash to the Blues, citing Hitchcock's love affair with #61. He said Oshie, Schwartz, Steen going the other way. Pass, thank you. Make it Oshie, Steen, Bouwmeester and Rattie and I'd consider. Nash would fit right in with the Blues, with his annual postseason disappearing act.

[STLADOGG]

Larry Brooks in his Rangers post-mortem suggested the Rags trade Nash to the Blues, citing Hitchcock's love affair with #61. He said Oshie, Schwartz, Steen going the other way. Pass, thank you.

I hate Nash, HATE. The guys useless, pretty sure he's never heard of defense or blocking a shot.