I have heard and read a lot of debate on Game 2, most of it either surrounding how outstanding the Sharks played or how terrible the Blues were. Rarely, have I seen anyone give credence the likelihood that both occurred and even more importantly that each contributed to the other.
Sharks fans seem to feel that not enough credit has been given to their team while some radio personalities feel the St. Louis media has been over-heaping the praise on the Sharks and not being critical enough of their local team’s poor performance. I don’t think I fall into either camp.
I went over my notes from Game 1 and I still can’t buy into the narrative of the Blues being lucky to have been able to split the first two games. The Sharks played a good road game, playing a great second period. From a lot of what I have seen and heard, people would lead me to believe that the Sharks dominated the game. I’d suggest that both teams dominated most of a period and played a tight first period. Could the Sharks have won Game 1? Sure but rarely does 20 minutes of dominating play ensure a victory in the current NHL. It likely means you have a good chance at winning but it doesn’t ensure it. If I was a Sharks fan, I would have been happy but frustrated after Game 1. I’d like my chances at them winning some road games in this series if they continued to bring that level of effort in the coming games.
When I reflect on Game 1, it had the feel of watching a Blues road game, playing a tight period, surviving a period where they outplayed and then stepping up to take the game in the third period. I realize the score doesn’t quite fit that script but who carried the balance of the play does. For those that don’t think the Blues dominated the first 16 minutes of the third period, you might want to review the shot statistics a bit closer. The Sharks got 5 of their 8 3rd period shots in the last 2:34 of the period.
Of course, Game 2 saw the Sharks bring an higher level to their game while the Blues played one of their worst games of the year, much less the playoffs. It always gives me a bit of a chuckle and a little frustration when I hear people talking about a game and only seeing one side of the coin. My team lost because we were terrible giving no credit to how well the other team played. My team won because we played our game not because how poorly the other team played. I think it’s easy to understand that my poor play allows my opponent to play better just like me playing well makes it harder for my opponent to play well. I think you also have to realize that sometimes teams just play poorly.
Look at Game 2 for a minute. The Sharks played a very strong road game. Likewise, the Blues played a terrible home game. The Blues poor play was partially due to the Sharks play but part of it had nothing to do with the Sharks. The Blues passing was atrocious. There were passes that were less than 10 feet with neither player covered that were being sent into players’ skates. Defensive assignments were being routinely missed and forecheckers were conceding the zone. Dumb retaliation penalties were taken, etc. The Blues looked like they were integrating a lot of new players in the ice, almost like they had forgotten how to play each other.
The Blues likely threw the footage of Game 2 in the trash and are just focusing on resetting themselves for tonight’s 8pm CST game in San Jose. For those inclined, you can find a video recap here
here. I’ll give you a short recap here.
Sharks open the scoring on a bad read by Edmundson, leaving his position to make a big hit at the blue line. Tarasenko and he end up covering the Shark at the point, allowing Tommy Wingels to score on a screened shot from the slot. Brian Elliott got a piece of the shot but not enough. Blues hit the almost score and look to have hit post on the power play with a little over 6 minutes left in the period.
Martin Jones makes two good saves on the power play, the last on Jaden Schwartz about 6:30 into the 2nd period. Troy Brouwer takes a bad penalty, Alexander Steen breaks his stick on the penalty kill and goes to the bench to get another one even though it the 2nd period long chance. Meanwhile, Burns scores on a one-timer on a play that Steen has essentially turned into a 5 on 3. Short bench side, going to the bench for a stick works because you can rotate him to the high point nearest the bench. This strategy is terrible in long change periods. Brouwer gets in clear, has a ton of net to hit and hits the post with about a minute left in the period.
Blues get a 4 minute power play about 30 seconds into the period and fail to get control in the zone or generate a quality chance until less than 30 seconds left in the power play. Brouwer takes another bad penalty about 11:30 into the 3rd period and Burns scores another one-timer, power play goal. Elliott likely wants a do-over on this shot. Brouwer misses an empty net, hitting the post with just over 5 minutes remaining. Brouwer scares the crap out of a kid in the glass seats when slashing the half wall right in front of him in frustration. Dainius Zubrus adds a lucky empty net goal as his clear roles on the thin part of the puck all the way into the net (think rolling a tire). In a weird way, Brouwer is involved in a 4 goal negative swing for the Blues. Oh and the Blues failed at all 5 of Jammer’s Keys.
I thought it might be fun to see how four groups might spin the series so far:
Blues half full – We didn’t play very well at all and still won Game 1. We played even worse in Game 2 and they never put us away. With the 3 play Jammer mentioned, the game could have easily been tied. We took their road best while playing very poorly and all they could do was split.
Blues half empty – We continue to play worse in this series and we look tired and sloppy. If this is what they bring on the road, the Sharks home game will be crushing. If the Sharks keep playing like that on the road, it will be tough to win any games at the Scottrade.
Sharks half full – We dominated them in Game 2 and for period 2 of Game 1. If we keep playing like this on the road and amp it up a bit at home, this should be a short series for us.
Sharks half empty – Jones hasn’t won a 1-goal game since round 1 and gave up a weak game winner in Game 1. We played the best hockey of our lives in Game 2 and still couldn’t put them away until late and got lucky on the 2 or 3 post shots. If we only won 1 of 2 and could have lost the one we won when playing the best we can, what happens if our play slips?
Games 3
Regarding the Blues lineup, expect to see Robert Bortuzzo in for Joel Edmundson and Magnus Paajarvi perhaps in for Steve Ott. Ott didn’t have a shift in the last 25 minutes of the game. Joel Edmudnson was on the ice for the throw away last 19 seconds but hadn’t see n the ice for 12 minutes before then. Carl Gunnarsson didn’t see the ice in the last 10.5 minutes. Did he re-aggravate an injury?
I didn’t see anyone talking about it though I have not had time to watch the DVR but Joonas Donskoi didn’t see the ice in the last 10 minutes of the game, Joe Thornton in the last 8 minutes and Patrick Marleau in the last 7 minutes. Are these a sign of injury rest or just a coach resting certain players due to a big lead? Sharks fans may have more insight on this.
The games in San Jose will bring the unstoppable force (Sharks 5-1 home record) against the immovable object (Blues 5-2 playoff road record and 3rd best regular season road record). The Blues are hoping for a split. Either way, I said it the other night and still think that whoever wins Game 5 wins the series.
NHL Champions for Charity
In what I hope becomes a Hockeybuzz tradition, Hockeybuzz Sharks blogger
Steve Palumbo and I placed a wager on the series. If the Blues win, Steve has agreed to make a donation to
Covenant House Missouri (@covenanthousemo on twitter) whose mission is to empower youth who are disconnected to design their own path from homelessness to opportunity. Thanks to my twitter typo, if the Blues win, I'll be donating to Safe Connections (@SafeConnections on twitter). If the Sharks win, I will donate to the
Hydrocephalus Association (@HydroAssoc on twitter) whose mission is to connect individuals to larger communities that can provide support and understanding, to educate national and state policymakers, the medical community, and the general population, and to advance treatment and eventually find a cure for Hydrocephalus.
I hope that our wagers will inspire players and fans to pledge donations for each win their team makes in the NHL playoffs. For the players, it would be great if they would agree to donate a small percentage of their playoff bonuses to charity while fans could donate an amount per win, perhaps both upping it if their team won the Stanley Cup. As a simple example, a player could pledge 0.25% per win with a bonus 1% if they win the Cup, bringing their total to 5%.
So far this playoff season, the Blues victory over the Stars has meant that
Bill Meltzer is donating to
Safe Connections (@SafeConnections on twitter).
It’s a great day for hockey.
St Louis Blues Blogger • 
Join the Discussion:
»