Chip McCleary: Game 5, Blues/Kings - Recap: When you lose at home, you're in trouble ... Not the effort needed, definitely the result earned.

Chip McCleary: Game 5, Blues/Kings - Recap: When you lose at home, you're in trouble ...
Not the effort needed, definitely the result earned.
- Chip McCleary

When it comes to recapping games, and talking about what's next you are the best dang blogger on this site.

Should be another great game on Friday..

If Kings and Ducks manage to survive, that would put 3 California teams in the next round. Who would have ever thunk more Cally teams than Canada teams. But that is a BIG if right now. And like you said games have been so close a bounce here or there and the Blues could tie the series on Friday.

Going for a heart check up today as each game has just raised my stress level so much. Will be at the game Friday, though I find myself more at ease when attending live than watching on TV, not sure why that is..

I think Mac has to sit.

He wont because its potentially his last game ever but if I were Hitch I would scratch Mac and dress Tarasenko and give him top 9 Minutes.

Just me but Mac has been awful for a while this season.

The Kings admit they have a "bend but not break" mentality and are doing that thus far. I can't help believe that Hitchcock is correct in his comments. The Blues dominated play in the offensive zone. They were unable to get traffic except at the end of the game. In playoff hockey the little mistakes become big ones and there's always going to be mistakes. I also noticed when the the play becomes wide open, north to south it becomes a problem for the Blues more then the Kings.

Wow, you guys are tough on your team! The Blues were ferocious in the first period. If it wasn't for Quick standing on his head, it would have been 3-0 Blues after one period! The Kings made good adjustments between periods and got a couple lucky bounces, but a great game overall. I agree it's too bad someone has to lose this series because either team will smash Detroit or the Ducks!

I will admit, I am one who wants Halak to play tomorrow. I think Elliott has played great in April and for the most part here in the playoffs. I really don't care what his stats are compared to the rest of the goalies in the playoffs, he is the only one playing behind the St Louis Blues. And we have outplayed the Kings in 4 of the 5 games IMO. Yet we are still down 3-2 in the series. Quick has been outstanding in the series, Elliott has been good. We have had the better chances in the series, and I am excluding the open nets that we missed completely as well. Yet Quick has given up 1 less goal than Elliott, and that is also taking into consideration that he literally gift wrapped the gm 1 winner in overtime behind the net.

I am frustrated, and I am sure that Elliott doesn't deserve to sit just because of last night. But he has now played a ton of games in a row, and he has never dealt with pressure very well in his career. I see it ending badly tomorrow if Elliott is in net.

I have always liked Halak over Elliott, so maybe it is just my bias, but I wish he were in there tomorrow. I would feel much better about our chances to force a game 7 if that were the case. Not expecting him to play though.

Chip McCleary: Game 5, Blues/Kings - Recap: When you lose at home, you're in trouble ...
Not the effort needed, definitely the result earned.
- Chip McCleary

"the Blues have to play like their lives are on the line. That means solid support defensively (something that has been lacking at times) and limiting the chances the Kings have"

It seems like this whole series there has been 8 skaters aside for both teams. Theres no room for anyone to breathe, or pass or shoot or anything. The Blues were insane with their pressure, Quick is outstanding thus far. i dont see much Blues hockey so after watching the first 5 games im surprised that "solid support defensively" is considered an issue with Blues fans.

Also, it makes me sick to see Andy Mac out there doing absolutely nothing, and having Tarasenko sitting in the pressbox. Andy is not coming back next year. (at least he better not still be here) Why is Hitch still playing him? He is not doing anything offensively. He is small and shys away from contact. He has been pretty good in the faceoff circle, but that is about it. Get him out of the lineup and let Tarasenko actually play some minutes, and with offensive players. What a waste!

Also, it makes me sick to see Andy Mac out there doing absolutely nothing, and having Tarasenko sitting in the pressbox. Andy is not coming back next year. (at least he better not still be here) Why is Hitch still playing him? He is not doing anything offensively. He is small and shys away from contact. He has been pretty good in the faceoff circle, but that is about it. Get him out of the lineup and let Tarasenko actually play some minutes, and with offensive players. What a waste!
- carcus

Im jealous of you guys for Tarasenko, from what ive seen of him hes pretty damn slick.

Im jealous of you guys for Tarasenko, from what ive seen of him hes pretty damn slick.
- BlazinMike

And we have him sitting in the pressbox. STUPID!!!

"the Blues have to play like their lives are on the line. That means solid support defensively (something that has been lacking at times) and limiting the chances the Kings have"

It seems like this whole series there has been 8 skaters aside for both teams. Theres no room for anyone to breathe, or pass or shoot or anything. The Blues were insane with their pressure, Quick is outstanding thus far. i dont see much Blues hockey so after watching the first 5 games im surprised that "solid support defensively" is considered an issue with Blues fans.
- BlazinMike

Look at the goals that the Kings scored in the last 2 games. A 2-on-1, a 3-on-1, last night's GW goal was a 3-on-2, ... and all of those started because someone decided to make an ill-advised pinch and failed. The pinch by Backes I didn't have as much of a problem with, but Steen was the highest forward left and instead of hustling back with 3 Kings behind Backes, he watched the entire play unfold - which is why Schwartz was skating for his life trying to get back.

Carter was left all alone on his PP goal because Sobotka didn't pay attention, Kopitar walked in all alone for his game-tying goal because Berglund didn't pay attention, ... it's just poor defense at untimely moments, and you simply cannot do that to a good team - and you really can't do that to a team that's the defending champions and have the ability to go do it again.

When the support is there, it's outstanding ... but when it's not, it ends up being costly.

Look at the goals that the Kings scored in the last 2 games. A 2-on-1, a 3-on-1, last night's GW goal was a 3-on-2, ... and all of those started because someone decided to make an ill-advised pinch and failed. The pinch by Backes I didn't have as much of a problem with, but Steen was the highest forward left and instead of hustling back with 3 Kings behind Backes, he watched the entire play unfold - which is why Schwartz was skating for his life trying to get back.

Carter was left all alone on his PP goal because Sobotka didn't pay attention, Kopitar walked in all alone for his game-tying goal because Berglund didn't pay attention, ... it's just poor defense at untimely moments, and you simply cannot do that to a good team - and you really can't do that to a team that's the defending champions and have the ability to go do it again.

When the support is there, it's outstanding ... but when it's not, it ends up being costly.
- Chip McCleary

Good points, I'm just hoping for the extremely rare "double elimination" so that the 'Hawks wont have to get pounded (literally) IF they make it to the WC finals.

Make no mistake, I thought the final goal wasn't great - but I still can't tell if Schwartz got a stick on it and that changed where the shot was going; Voynov indicated in post-game remarks that he was really trying to shoot high, so I think maybe Schwartz got a piece of Voynov's stick. I think the far worse goal was at the start of the 3rd when Jeff Carter got his 3rd of the playoffs to put the Kings up 2-1. On the play, Anze Kopitar was being forced wide ... which was fine - except that Brian Elliott was so far out of position playing him, he was almost outside the crease on the right side of the net. When Kopitar's pass came across to Carter, there was a virtually empty net staring #77 in the face and all he had to do was not throw it at the left side; there was no way Elliott was going to get back over to cover there.

- Chip McCleary

Schwartz got his stick up high. It didn't change the direction of the puck at all, maybe just kept him from lifting the puck. That was extremely soft, and Elliott should have had it. It looked to me like he went down early, and then decided to get back to his feet and that is when Voynov shot. (maybe thinking that he would pass instead of shoot, and didn't want to be completely out of position like he was on the 2nd goal?)

The second goal was really bad as well. Elliott had no reason to committ that much and go down/end up on the side of the net. Terrible goaltending right there.

I know that I am being hard on Elliott, but two bad decisions/execution in a big playoff game............I wouldn't feel comfortable playing him in a do or die game two nights later when I have a guy sitting on the bench that has had huge playoff games in the past. That is just me though.

I understand the argument behind going with Halak over Elliott, I'm just not sure what that really fixes when defensive breakdowns are leading to odd-man rushes while the offense struggles to figure out how to create open space to get dangerous shots on net. I guess if you're looking to shake things up for the sake of it, fine - but unless Halak is going to magically improve Shattenkirk's defense, Berglund's defense, and get Steen to not loaf when the play comes back down ice, I think it's just papering over the problems that exist with the guys playing in front of the net.

Besides, our luck would be that Halak comes in and looks great for 24 minutes, then pops his groin one final time and you're back to Elliott in net.

I understand the argument behind going with Halak over Elliott, I'm just not sure what that really fixes when defensive breakdowns are leading to odd-man rushes while the offense struggles to figure out how to create open space to get dangerous shots on net. I guess if you're looking to shake things up for the sake of it, fine - but unless Halak is going to magically improve Shattenkirk's defense, Berglund's defense, and get Steen to not loaf when the play comes back down ice, I think it's just papering over the problems that exist with the guys playing in front of the net.

Besides, our luck would be that Halak comes in and looks great for 24 minutes, then pops his groin one final time and you're back to Elliott in net.
- Chip McCleary

It doesn't fix defensive breakdowns. But I do believe that Halak is a better goalie for playoff pressure hockey.

I don't think that Elliott is the problem. But Halak has had great performances in the playoffs before. I don't want to see a blowout tomorrow, and I feel that is very possible with Elliott in net after being shaken up in the past two games.

If Halak plays great and pops a groin, well than it happens. Why would that even factor into a decision to play him with it being a do or die game?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9PsPQKIwr0

So that is the video for the second goal...

Note Berglund's missed opportunity with Muzzin in the neutral zone. Muzzin loses the puck and Berglund isn't able to get the puck, nor does he take the body, allowing Muzzin to push the puck to Kopitar. Not saying Bergie screwed up but that challenge could have gone a lot differently.

Note how Pie and Berglund both go to Richards. This starts all of the problems. Pie should release Richards to Berglund and take Kopitar as he comes through. Him taking Kopitar would allow Polak to stay on his side and take the cutting Carter, leaving Sobotka to help cover both LA D men out high. Sure, once Polak rotated to take Kopitar (he had no choice once Pie commits out high), Sobotka has to pick up Carter but it shouldn't have even gotten to this point theoretically.

I've seen multiple people talk about how far Elliott came out to challenge Kopitar, taking him out of position. I'm confused a bit by their statements or maybe how they are explaining it. Elliott executes a push slide, getting himself in front of the right post and sealing up the net while being in a butterfly. If you are looking to seal the net in a butterfly, he has to be in front of the post like he was. It's the easiest way to really get strong coverage for a shot from Kopitar. Unfortunately this position can take you outside and almost around the post, hindering your slide back across.

Alternatively, he could have tried to execute a push slide into this position - http://ingoalmag.com/wp-c.../03/image-41-1024x768.jpg
Doing so would make him very vulnerable to a shot from Kopitar during the movement (much more than the slide he executed) and would also not have as good of coverage once executed (risking a higher chance of a goal on a shot even after set). Being in this position would make it easier to slide back across to try and get Carter's goal but it's still not a high probablity save.

The pinch by Backes I didn't have as much of a problem with, but Steen was the highest forward left
- Chip McCleary

I'm often with you Chip but this was a terrible play by Backes imho. Schwartz and Steen were both very deep, either at the goal line or just feet from it. Both were in front of Backes so he knew or easily should have known that they were both deep. He also has to know and should have known that Brown was there. Knowing that, he can't take that gamble. I liken it to a DB or Safety in football. You can't jump a route with no support and the game tied late. It's too easy for a good quarterback to fake the pass and then torch you for a touchdown. Especially when you consider the Blues MO and system is to not take that gable.

When the support is there, it's outstanding ... but when it's not, it ends up being costly.
- Chip McCleary

Yep, when they miss coverage, they are giving up some real grade A+ scoring chances the last couple of games.

Keep up the good work BTW.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9PsPQKIwr0

So that is the video for the second goal...

Note Berglund's missed opportunity with Muzzin in the neutral zone. Muzzin loses the puck and Berglund isn't able to get the puck, nor does he take the body, allowing Muzzin to push the puck to Kopitar. Not saying Bergie screwed up but that challenge could have gone a lot differently.

Note how Pie and Berglund both go to Richards. This starts all of the problems. Pie should release Richards to Berglund and take Kopitar as he comes through. Him taking Kopitar would allow Polak to stay on his side and take the cutting Carter, leaving Sobotka to help cover both LA D men out high. Sure, once Polak rotated to take Kopitar (he had no choice once Pie commits out high), Sobotka has to pick up Carter but it shouldn't have even gotten to this point theoretically.

I've seen multiple people talk about how far Elliott came out to challenge Kopitar, taking him out of position. I'm confused a bit by their statements or maybe how they are explaining it. Elliott executes a push slide, getting himself in front of the right post and sealing up the net while being in a butterfly. If you are looking to seal the net in a butterfly, he has to be in front of the post like he was. It's the easiest way to really get strong coverage for a shot from Kopitar. Unfortunately this position can take you outside and almost around the post, hindering your slide back across.

Alternatively, he could have tried to execute a push slide into this position - http://ingoalmag.com/wp-c.../03/image-41-1024x768.jpg
Doing so would make him very vulnerable to a shot from Kopitar during the movement (much more than the slide he executed) and would also not have as good of coverage once executed (risking a higher chance of a goal on a shot even after set). Being in this position would make it easier to slide back across to try and get Carter's goal but it's still not a high probablity save.
- stljam

He committed so badly to a shot that he was completely out of the net on a pass to the slot. You never want to commit that much and pull yourself around the side of the net. He gave himself no chance on a play if Kopitar doesn't shoot. It was obvious, and that is why he didn't shoot. Bad goaltending and a heads up play by Kopitar to see that Elliott pulled himself out of position.

He committed so badly to a shot that he was completely out of the net on a pass to the slot. You never want to commit that much and pull yourself around the side of the net. He gave himself no chance on a play if Kopitar doesn't shoot. It was obvious, and that is why he didn't shoot. Bad goaltending and a heads up play by Kopitar to see that Elliott pulled himself out of position.
- carcus

He used the butterly as his way of getting to the spot/take the angle, probably the safest way to move there as far as not opening up holes for Kopitar to hit. He obviously can't butterly slide to be against the post and not leave holes, so he has to slide in front of it. Of course, he over slid a little but he has to fully take out the potential shooter, trusting that his teammates have the pass. I personally would have preferred he move to the position like i had in the photo link I posted but I don't think either move prevents a goal to be honest.

He used the butterly as his way of getting to the spot/take the angle, probably the safest way to move there as far as not opening up holes for Kopitar to hit. He obviously can't butterly slide to be against the post and not leave holes, so he has to slide in front of it. Of course, he over slid a little but he has to fully take out the potential shooter, trusting that his teammates have the pass. I personally would have preferred he move to the position like i had in the photo link I posted but I don't think either move prevents a goal to be honest.
- stljam

Well, I don't think we are going to agree then. You can't over-commit to a player on the outside and leave 100% of the goal open if a pass is made. Kopitar is a very good player, and if you over-commit on the play like he did, you give him no option other than pass. But that option is an extremely good option. Kopitar is smart and is not going to just throw the puck right into Elliott there. Elliott takes away everything short side, but in the process makes it so that is the only area that he can do anything with.

Quick does the same type of things at times as well, and that is one of the things that the Blues have tried to capitalize on this series and has lead to a ton of glorious chances. When you come way out/over-commit to the shot, you open up the goal for the rest of the ice. Kings found a way to finish, Blues rarely have. Backes goal the other night was a perfect example of what I am talking about, but unfortunately it is one of the few times we have capitalized.

Well, I don't think we are going to agree then. You can't over-commit to a player on the outside and leave 100% of the goal open if a pass is made. Kopitar is a very good player, and if you over-commit on the play like he did, you give him no option other than pass. But that option is an extremely good option. Kopitar is smart and is not going to just throw the puck right into Elliott there. Elliott takes away everything short side, but in the process makes it so that is the only area that he can do anything with.

Quick does the same type of things at times as well, and that is one of the things that the Blues have tried to capitalize on this series and has lead to a ton of glorious chances. When you come way out/over-commit to the shot, you open up the goal for the rest of the ice. Kings found a way to finish, Blues rarely have. Backes goal the other night was a perfect example of what I am talking about, but unfortunately it is one of the few times we have capitalized.
- carcus

How would you like to see him play it? As a fellow tender myself, i'm curious as to your tender thoughts...

I'd have liked him to use the stance i put in my photo link only with a slightly different angle and it still likely would not have mattered. The stance in the photo i posted would allow for a more active stick though Elliott catching left makes that less usefull because of the side this play was on.

Quick does the same type of thing for certain. He is over-agressive a lot of the time. Have you noticed that this tendency also has him often leaning forward, being further down and not as upright when sliding across (leaving more of the net up high open and available)? It doesn't happen all the time but i have noticed it at least a dozen times.

I'm often with you Chip but this was a terrible play by Backes imho. Schwartz and Steen were both very deep, either at the goal line or just feet from it. Both were in front of Backes so he knew or easily should have known that they were both deep. He also has to know and should have known that Brown was there. Knowing that, he can't take that gamble. I liken it to a DB or Safety in football. You can't jump a route with no support and the game tied late. It's too easy for a good quarterback to fake the pass and then torch you for a touchdown. Especially when you consider the Blues MO and system is to not take that gable.
- stljam

My recollection is that Backes was already in deep (at least even with the faceoff dot) since the puck went behind the net, and he was trying to hold it in there; it's not like when Leopold was coming in to try and keep the puck in and missed, and it was a near-jailbreak the other way with Shattenkirk left to attempt to defend. That's why I didn't have a problem with it (presuming how I think that went is accurate). However, when that happened Steen should have been moving back to cover, even if he's not scrambling to get out high; not only didn't he do that, he was sitting down low waiting for the puck to come back - which meant when the play started the other way, he was already flat-footed behind 3 Kings players rolling up the ice, and then showed no real intention of coming back to help out - forcing Schwartz to do it instead.

If I remember that wrong (can't check here at work, will have to wait until later), I'll be happy to revise - but I still think the real goat on that was Steen for his lack of hustle once it was apparent the Kings had both the puck and numbers on the attack.

However, when that happened Steen should have been moving back to cover, even if he's not scrambling to get out high; not only didn't he do that, he was sitting down low waiting for the puck to come back - which meant when the play started the other way, he was already flat-footed behind 3 Kings players rolling up the ice, and then showed no real intention of coming back to help out - forcing Schwartz to do it instead.

but I still think the real goat on that was Steen for his lack of hustle once it was apparent the Kings had both the puck and numbers on the attack.
- Chip McCleary

You are right in that it is completely different than the Leopold play but Backes did make it all the way back to the edge of the circle before he cut in and over to the boards. Earlier, he was at the dot but drifted back, making it all the way to the top of the circle when he chooses to go a little forward and to the boards rather than continuing back to truly body Brown. The issue I have is the angle to the puck he takes after he made it back to the edge of the circle. He has to play that safer imho given how deep Steen and Schwartz are.

BTW, I completely agree on the poor effort/play by Steen on the play. It made me sick to my stomach. Somehow it seems like it would have been easier to take if it had been Perron, Stewart, Mac, Berglund, or Oshie.

@Chip I think you and I are rooting for the wrong teams. I saw a scary Blues team that was working hard 99% of the game and it was those 1% that lost it. The Kings barely looked like they had a clue on how to handle your energy lines. Your team is 1 "Jeff Carter" away from the ultimate level. Get rid of McDonald and find that piece and you're going to enjoy a wonderful 2014 (not saying the season is over for your team but expecting much more next year).

It doesn't fix defensive breakdowns. But I do believe that Halak is a better goalie for playoff pressure hockey.
- carcus

On what basis? You can't draw anything meaningful from his play last year - and even if you did, you'd say "the one game he played start-to-finish, he lost in 2OT" which doesn't exactly scream "he stood up to the pressure of the playoffs." So really, you're basing that off of one (1) performance in the 2010 playoffs which may or may not be an aberration. Sure, neither of us have any idea which it is if he never gets in again to play - but just like I wouldn't dismiss it as a one-off a la Burke in 1988, I wouldn't put full faith in it either.

If Halak plays great and pops a groin, well than it happens. Why would that even factor into a decision to play him with it being a do or die game?
- carcus

The comment about Halak getting hurt was intended more as a statement about how you're putting more trust in a guy who hasn't played in 6 weeks and has struggled to stay healthy than the guy who's gone 1.46, .941 over his last 18 games - solely because one of them backstopped his team to upsets of the #1 and #2 seeds 3 years ago while the other has lost the last 3 games, 2 of which were squarely not his fault and the 3rd was debateable. More importantly, you're effectively saying to Elliott, "if I have to win a game, I can't trust you no matter how great you've been playing - I'll go with someone else first."

Is that the message you want to send to both Elliott and the rest of the team? If so, that's a really, really ballsy call to make. I'm not saying it's the wrong call to make, I'm just saying you know what you're getting from Elliott but you're hoping you'll get at least that or better from Halak - and there's a more than decent chance that move doesn't work. I think there's a time and a place for using both goalies in the playoffs; right now isn't it, though.