Chip McCleary: 3/28, Blues vs. Kings - Recap: now what? And to top it all off, the Kings sweep the season series.

The Blues are gonna be good. Ride it out. Still a young team that is growing and learning what it takes to win. I think the future will depend on if Berglund can turn into a consistent 60+ point player. I could def see him being a bit like Kopitar. Got great size and has the two way ability. Just has to put it all together.

Plus you guys have more young guns coming along. Backes and Berglund are both not top line Centers. Berglund has the potential I feel.

Net didn't come off the moorings though, did it? The back lifted up, but the moorings were in place until after the puck crossed the line. Most likely they just kept with the ruling on the ice.

Yes according to the rules goal #3 counts and the refs and Toronto made the right call

Net didn't come off the moorings though, did it? The back lifted up, but the moorings were in place until after the puck crossed the line. Most likely they just kept with the ruling on the ice.
- bluecoconuts

According to everything I've read for NHL rules, the goal should be allowed, but purely on technicality and not based on the spirit of the rules. When Carter pushed the net forward, it pushed Halak's skate (which was hugging the post at the time) forward, then when the net moved back the puck went into the opening made from that net movement. The net was still on it's pegs, which were still in their holes, so it's a legal goal from that standpoint. And Carter did not make contact with Halak via his stick or body, so technically it's legal from an interference standpoint. Obviously, the spirit of the rule is that a player shouldn't be able to prevent a goalie in his crease from making a save (unless it's part of the process of going for a loose puck, which Carter was not, he was behind the net.) However the wording of the rule means you are allowed to interfere with a goalie using the net, as long as it doesn't come off it's pegs and the peg's stay in their holes. Blues could lean on the back of the net till it hit Quick in the head, knocked him over, then put a puck in the net and by the wording of the rule have it count, for the same reasons this goal did. But by the spirit of the rule, this shouldn't have counted.

Has the problem in StL been goaltending like I'm hearing?
Any interest in Ryan Miller?
Not that I believe u guys would trade him, but I'd love to get Backes
Only 3 goals this year though...
Maybe u would trade him?

According to everything I've read for NHL rules, the goal should be allowed, but purely on technicality and not based on the spirit of the rules. When Carter pushed the net forward, it pushed Halak's skate (which was hugging the post at the time) forward, then when the net moved back the puck went into the opening made from that net movement. The net was still on it's pegs, which were still in their holes, so it's a legal goal from that standpoint. And Carter did not make contact with Halak via his stick or body, so technically it's legal from an interference standpoint. Obviously, the spirit of the rule is that a player shouldn't be able to prevent a goalie in his crease from making a save (unless it's part of the process of going for a loose puck, which Carter was not, he was behind the net.) However the wording of the rule means you are allowed to interfere with a goalie using the net, as long as it doesn't come off it's pegs and the peg's stay in their holes. Blues could lean on the back of the net till it hit Quick in the head, knocked him over, then put a puck in the net and by the wording of the rule have it count, for the same reasons this goal did. But by the spirit of the rule, this shouldn't have counted.
- Antilles

Interesting, hadn't considered that. The moorings question is pretty simple, but I suppose you raise a good point.

Net up or not, if Jackman doesn't truck Richards into the goal the puck probably doesn't go in regardless of what Carter did.

This Blues team is just in the process of ousting a coach they are tired of listening to for the third straight time. Either break up the core or get a new coach.

Yes according to the rules goal #3 counts and the refs and Toronto made the right call
- kingsfirstcup

Yep. It was a good goal.

The Kings are the Blues' daddy now. After 16 years of calling Detroit daddy, they are going east and have passed the baton on to LA.

The Kings ARE what the Blues could be if they ever "bought in".

Time to shoot a hostage. (and all you have to do is fire the bullet directly between the eyes of DP57 - Chances are you'll find him sitting in the penalty box.)

im a kings fan and my brother is a blues fan so this rivalry has become alot of fun for us,as we wind up watching hockey many nights together as well as watching each others fav team games.watching the game last night was just ugly goal after ugly goal for both sides.i believe something happened last night that might just give the blues the kick in nthe ass they need to get goin.did you see how backes played after he got the stick to the face(minus the cheap shot to williams after the empty net goal)he was smashing everything in a kings jersey.in my opinion thats the first game ive seen your captain really play the way he needs to play to lead this team to bigger and better things,usually if your captain can play by example then the troops follow.the only thing now is can he keep doin it?the blues are a good squad with a great coach,i believe its up to the players to play the game and win or lose.in closing GO KINGS GO!!!!!

You "shoot a hostage" when you're trying to send a message, and really don't have anything else you can do - and that almost never works out. This isn't Hollywood, where it happens in a movie and the authorites say "whoa, he's serious - we better do what we're told or else."

But hey ... it's your idea. Let's go with it, and "shoot a hostage." Which one are you going to shoot, and what exactly are you expecting to accomplish as a result? Do you deal away one of the guys who you perceive to be a slacker (where your perception may or may not be accurate to the coaching staff, the front office, and everyone else in the locker room) and try to send the message that "giving a half-ass effort around here won't be tolerated," or do you ship out one of the harder working guys and risk leaving the message that "whether you work hard or not doesn't matter, we'll deal anyone on a whim so don't get attached to the team, your loyalty may not be rewarded?" Do you trade away someone who's just struggled this year but has shown in past years he can be much better, or do you ship out the "chronic underachiever" (and what do you really think that guy's going to return if everyone else knows what you know)? If any of that doesn't work, then what - shoot another hostage for the sake of doing something?

It all goes back to what I said a couple nights ago. The guys in the locker room are the ones who know why everyone isn't on the same page - whether they want to admit it openly or not. It's up to them to communicate the "why" up the chain of command as needed, or to go to each other and bond together. Randomly firing into the crowd hoping you pick off your intended target isn't the way to go. A trade may be needed at this point, but you can't knee-jerk react and pull the trigger on something based on the last few games (or even the season to date). That's how you screw things up both short-term and long-term.

Why did Carter cross check the back of the net? Did he forget where he was and didn't realize that you can't skate through the area where the goal was? I don't think so. Even if the play is technically not illegal, it is bushleague. Halak did a good job of getting to the post to stop the first stuff in attempt. Because he had to lunge to get over, he didn't have good balance. Carter pushing the back of the net is what brought his skate off the post, and that left a wide open lane for the rebound to be shoved in.

Honestly, I would rather not win than to win like that.

Yep. It was a good goal.

The Kings are the Blues' daddy now. After 16 years of calling Detroit daddy, they are going east and have passed the baton on to LA.

The Kings ARE what the Blues could be if they ever "bought in".

Time to shoot a hostage. (and all you have to do is fire the bullet directly between the eyes of DP57 - Chances are you'll find him sitting in the penalty box.)
- bcallaway

I am all for trading Perron, because he has enough value to bring in a player that could help the team. (and I don't think he really fits this Blues team anyway)

I don't remember the exact stat, but they said on air the other day that Perron had so many penalties this year (like 19 or something) and all but 3 of them were in the offensive zone. I think it was a couple of games ago, so he probably has two or three more offensive zone penalties since then. How is that even possible?

I am all for trading Perron, because he has enough value to bring in a player that could help the team. (and I don't think he really fits this Blues team anyway)

I don't remember the exact stat, but they said on air the other day that Perron had so many penalties this year (like 19 or something) and all but 3 of them were in the offensive zone. I think it was a couple of games ago, so he probably has two or three more offensive zone penalties since then. How is that even possible?
- carcus

They mentioned the stat last night on the broadcast - 14 of Perron's 17 penalties have been in the offensive zone.

It all goes back to what I said a couple nights ago. The guys in the locker room are the ones who know why everyone isn't on the same page - whether they want to admit it openly or not. It's up to them to communicate the "why" up the chain of command as needed, or to go to each other and bond together. Randomly firing into the crowd hoping you pick off your intended target isn't the way to go. A trade may be needed at this point, but you can't knee-jerk react and pull the trigger on something based on the last few games (or even the season to date). That's how you screw things up both short-term and long-term.
- Chip McCleary

Regarding the highlighted portion - I think the players have had ample opportunity to do this on thier own. One of the things Hitchcock I think has done in his evolving as a head coach has been to communicate his message to the leadership core of the team and its then their responsibility to carry the message through the locker room.

They are failing.

There would be nothing random in what I would suggest. Shoot a hostage simply means its time to move a significant player or two in order to not only improve the team overall but change the lockerroom culture a bit.

I think unless something drastic takes place at this point the best the Blues can accomplish is making the playoffs and being out of it in less than six games. Or they may miss the playoffs altogether.

Pretty crucial stretch of games coming up and you just can't predict what kind of effort you're going to see from one game to the next.

How long to you allow that to continue?

Why did Carter cross check the back of the net? Did he forget where he was and didn't realize that you can't skate through the area where the goal was? I don't think so. Even if the play is technically not illegal, it is bushleague. Halak did a good job of getting to the post to stop the first stuff in attempt. Because he had to lunge to get over, he didn't have good balance. Carter pushing the back of the net is what brought his skate off the post, and that left a wide open lane for the rebound to be shoved in.

Honestly, I would rather not win than to win like that.
- carcus

They won a Stanley Cup "playing like that". Playoff hockey is rough and tumble and on the edge of outta control. I'll take that anytime baby.

Regarding the highlighted portion - I think the players have had ample opportunity to do this on thier own. One of the things Hitchcock I think has done in his evolving as a head coach has been to communicate his message to the leadership core of the team and its then their responsibility to carry the message through the locker room.

They are failing.

There would be nothing random in what I would suggest. Shoot a hostage simply means its time to move a significant player or two in order to not only improve the team overall but change the lockerroom culture a bit.

I think unless something drastic takes place at this point the best the Blues can accomplish is making the playoffs and being out of it in less than six games. Or they may miss the playoffs altogether.

Pretty crucial stretch of games coming up and you just can't predict what kind of effort you're going to see from one game to the next.

How long to you allow that to continue?
- bcallaway

It's already gone on too long. I agree, at least one core guy needs to go so that the rest of the players know that just because they are tired of this coach and want a new one, does not mean they will get one.

And if a trade is made for the love of god, get some more size. The Blues aren't big enough, which is another issue you can lump on the lack of desire, the crappy goaltending and the lack of team play.

There would be nothing random in what I would suggest. Shoot a hostage simply means its time to move a significant player or two in order to not only improve the team overall but change the lockerroom culture a bit.
- bcallaway

You have no idea if the "significant player or two" moved will actually result in a positive change in the culture of the locker room (or whether that's even an issue right now to begin with), much less actually improve the team overall. That's a textbook example of doing something completely random. It's grasping at straws, hoping that by doing something everything else magically becomes better without actually identifying the cause of the existing problems.

If we deal Pietrangelo for that top-tier #1 center people have longed for, did we really get better overall - or did we just plug a hole at forward and rip open a new one on defense? Hey, it would almost certainly change the culture of the locker room, it would definitely be a move of a significant player, and you will definitely have gotten your wish because someone "got shot" for the sake of it ... but did you really accomplish anything positive in the end?

The other thing is this: if you're going to pick out a guy on the current roster and start in with "he sucks, he's got no place on this team, he's got (insert list of flaws here)," don't you think the GM's of the other 29 teams know that too - and what do you really think those GM's are going to offer for the guys who you claim suck and have to go ASAP?

Sorry, if we're going to make a trade I'd like to have a slightly better approach than "just shoot a hostage." It's completely reactionary, screams panic, and is a great way to get taken to the cleaners by another GM who's practicing patience and knows if he waits long enough, you'll panic some more and throw in even more pieces unprompted.

You have no idea if the "significant player or two" moved will actually result in a positive change in the culture of the locker room (or whether that's even an issue right now to begin with), much less actually improve the team overall. That's a textbook example of doing something completely random. It's grasping at straws, hoping that by doing something everything else magically becomes better without actually identifying the cause of the existing problems.

If we deal Pietrangelo for that top-tier #1 center people have longed for, did we really get better overall - or did we just plug a hole at forward and rip open a new one on defense? Hey, it would almost certainly change the culture of the locker room, it would definitely be a move of a significant player, and you will definitely have gotten your wish because someone "got shot" for the sake of it ... but did you really accomplish anything positive in the end?

The other thing is this: if you're going to pick out a guy on the current roster and start in with "he sucks, he's got no place on this team, he's got (insert list of flaws here)," don't you think the GM's of the other 29 teams know that too - and what do you really think those GM's are going to offer for the guys who you claim suck and have to go ASAP?

Sorry, if we're going to make a trade I'd like to have a slightly better approach than "just shoot a hostage." It's completely reactionary, screams panic, and is a great way to get taken to the cleaners by another GM who's practicing patience and knows if he waits long enough, you'll panic some more and throw in even more pieces unprompted.
- Chip McCleary

So, I explained my position very succinctly and you take the most extreme example you can think of to disparage it. I'm not the least bit panicky, I have no skin in this game..... 27 and 91 are untouchable in my book. No one else.

Reationary and panic moves imply not getting value in return. I've never endorsed that. You're a tad obtuse.

Oh well, I tried.

This is how the Blues are historically, that's just the way it's gonna be, right? Going back to the 80-81 team.



You're a hoot.

They won a Stanley Cup "playing like that". Playoff hockey is rough and tumble and on the edge of outta control. I'll take that anytime baby.
- bcallaway

There is a difference in playing physical, rough and tumble, etc and getting goals by hitting the back of the net to move a goalie off the post.

I have no issues with playoff hockey. Hitting the back of the net so that it hinders the goalie is not playoff hockey.

So, I explained my position very succinctly and you take the most extreme example you can think of to disparage it. I'm not the least bit panicky, I have no skin in this game..... 27 and 91 are untouchable in my book. No one else.
- bcallaway

I'd point up above to your "trade someone significant" remark, especially since you didn't put out any disclaimers on it whatsoever until I pointed out just how absurd that was - and only now, after I point out how bad an idea that could be, is it "whoa whoa whoa, not everyone is on the table" even though the possibility (arguably small IMO - but not zero) exists that the very people you want to rope off as being "untouchable" are in fact part of the problem and not the solution.

But, that would require you to admit maybe you didn't articulate your point clearly enough / maybe - just maybe - you might have been wrong ... and history has shown you're unable to do that.

Reationary and panic moves imply not getting value in return. I've never endorsed that. You're a tad obtuse.
- bcallaway

"Shoot a hostage." You've said that a few times now; I do not think that phrase means what you think it does. Your comment here just reinforces it even more.

Oh well, I tried.
- bcallaway

Debateable - much like most of what I've seen "this poster" write here. I do note, however, that you completely ducked much of my post and instead decided to seize on a few snippets, take them out of context, treat the misinterpreted version as fact, and then run with it accordingly. Not surprising, either.

This is how the Blues are historically, that's just the way it's gonna be, right? Going back to the 80-81 team.



You're a hoot.
- bcallaway

And you're clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion, because you're more interested in distorting facts (just like you did in this fragment, which continues a pattern from you) to fit your preconceived conclusion, reality be damned.

But hey ... maybe there's other bloggers here you should follow instead - and I'm OK with that. In fact, I encourage you to do it.

There is a difference in playing physical, rough and tumble, etc and getting goals by hitting the back of the net to move a goalie off the post.

I have no issues with playoff hockey. Hitting the back of the net so that it hinders the goalie is not playoff hockey.
- carcus

Point.

Personally, I'd be happy just to see a blue sweater get in the same zip code as the goaltenter from time to time.

How many goals have we seen recently where someone is crowding the net and banging away at rebounds?

Couldn't hurt to get a goalie off his game by dropping the net on his head from time to time, right?

I guess I shouldn't pose that question to a former goalie.......

Point.

Personally, I'd be happy just to see a blue sweater get in the same zip code as the goaltenter from time to time.

How many goals have we seen recently where someone is crowding the net and banging away at rebounds?

Couldn't hurt to get a goalie off his game by dropping the net on his head from time to time, right?

I guess I shouldn't pose that question to a former goalie.......
- bcallaway

There is nothing wrong with being in the same zip code as the goaltender. That is something that I think the Blues need to do a better job. The hardest shots to stop are the ones that you can't see and the ones change direction. Being in front by the goaltender is the best place to accomplish those two things.

Dropping the net on his head? No. Interfering with the goalie? No.

But hey ... maybe there's other bloggers here you should follow instead - and I'm OK with that. In fact, I encourage you to do it.
- Chip McCleary

Don't be silly.

You complete me.

And you're clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion, because you're more interested in distorting facts (just like you did in this fragment, which continues a pattern from you) to fit your preconceived conclusion, reality be damned.

But hey ... maybe there's other bloggers here you should follow instead - and I'm OK with that. In fact, I encourage you to do it.
- Chip McCleary

This goes both ways Chip.

bcallaway is a Blues fan. I am sure he would gladly follow another Blues blogger if we had options. He has in the past, and likely follow the next guy when you no longer do it.