Some good news: this will (mostly) be a Jeff Fisher Free Zone today For your reading pleasure, of course.
Reading Time 5 Minutes:
* I'm jacked up about the Blues and their performance since Ken Hitchcock took over, and have repeatedly expressed my enthusiasm for the advances that have been made. I've written several positive columns on the team this season, and will continue to do so even though Blues fans rarely acknowledge them. I've basically become president of the Doug Armstrong Fan Club. But one thing I won't do is gloss over failures, or make excuses after the Blues lose winnable games. If it's OK, I'll decline to treat the Blues as if they're a pee-wee hockey team and applaud their effort after losses. I think we should be way beyond that by now.
So, with those parameters established, we'll note that the Blues have come up short in their last four encounters against three elite teams in the Western Conference. The Blues squandered a 2-1 lead in a home loss to Chicago; they blew a 2-0 lead in a 3-2 loss at Detroit; they were blanked 3-0 at Detroit; and on Thursday night couldn't hold a 2-1 lead in a 3-2 OT loss to Vancouver at The Scotty. The Blues did get a win at home against Detroit after the Chicago loss, but that isn't the point.
The point is this: Hitchcock has said that teams will be adjusting to the Blues after getting a handle on the Blues' strategy since the coaching change. Hitchcock has stressed -- over and over again -- that it will be more difficult and challenging for the Blues to get the edge on the great teams after the teams have gone against the Blues and make the necessary revisions.
In that context -- for those who missed the point -- the facts are: the Blues have lost their most recent encounter against Chicago, their last two meetings against Detroit, and their last game against Vancouver.
What does this mean? Well, as good as they've been, the Blues still haven't shown that they can push the big boys out of the way. They'll have plenty of additional chances to do that. If the Blues hope to make it to the playoffs and then go on a postseason run, they'll have to clear some large obstacles from their path. And these losses to the Red Wings, Blackhawks and Canucks were a helpful reminder. This won't be easy. There is much more work to be done.
Yes, I know that the Blues had two home wins against Detroit, and that's fine. But I go by what Hitchcock said: his "new" Blues will have to raise their game in subsequent showdowns against elite opponents. It will be fascinating to see if the Blues can continue to improve; they have no choice.
The Blues fans who are attacking me for stating the obvious really should take up their protest with Hitchcock. I am only repeating his message. And a special thanks to intelligent Blues fans who were capable of understanding a rather obvious point.
* One more note about the recent encounters vs. Chicago, Detroit and Vancouver: Brian Elliott started all four games in goal, and had an .890 save percentage in the four contests. Not saying he played poorly. Not saying the losses were his fault. Not saying that he should have, or could have, made stops on the goals that got by him. But an .890 SP isn't going to put you in the winner's circle on a consistent basis. I wonder if Coach Hitchcock will give Jaro Halak a shot at the big boys the next time?
* And what about the goaltenders that opposed Elliott in those games? Ray Emery (Chicago), Jimmy Howard (Detroit) and Roberto Luongo (Vancouver) saved 114 of 120 shots for a save percentage of .950.
* Here's a question: were Emery, Howard and Luongo really that sensational ... or was it more of a matter of Blues' skaters being inept or otherwise incapable of finishing scoring chances? My vote goes to the latter category. This team has had many great chances to score goals but simply does not have enough guys that can deliver the killshot at key moments. Thursday's outcome would have been different if David Backes or T.J. Oshie could have beaten Luongo on their second-period breakaways.
Moving On ... (Updated):
* Will Jeff Fisher wear sunglasses inside The Ed?
* The new NBC series "The Firm": I'm in.
* Sorry, but I won't see you at the Winter Warmup. It frightens me.
Moving On...
* New Orleans over San Francisco: why? Red Zone. I'm tempted to take the 49ers in an upset; they seem to be the trendy pick this week. But here's the difference between these two outstanding teams: the Saints score touchdowns; the 49ers kick field goals. For all of the good things that he's done this season, 49ers quarterback Alex Smith has completed only 40 percent of his passes in the red zone this season, with 8 TD passes. New Orleans QB Drew Brees has completed 64 percent of his red-zone passes this season, with 30 RZ touchdown passes. I just don't see this as a 19-16 field-goal game.
* New England over Denver: The Broncos have a good shot at an upset because the Patriots defense isn't anything special. Denver's 41-23 loss to New England during the regular season was misleading; the Broncos led at the half and pounded out 252 yards rushing overall. But turnovers wrecked everything, and that's all Tom Brady needed to begin the carving. Kansas City showed how teams can adjust to Denver QB Tim Tebow in a rematch game; in the final regular-season contest for both teams the Chiefs limited Tebow to 6 of 22 passing and the Broncos were held to a field goal in a 7-3 loss. If any coach is smart enough to come up with a way to slow Tebow's roll, it's The Hoodie. But why have the Patriots come up so empty in recent playoff appearances? This is a compelling matchup for sure. But I'll go with the Pats.
* Baltimore over Houston: The Ravens won 29-14 in Crabtown during the regular season. They held the Texans to 93 yards rushing on 25 carries, and that's with Matt Schaub playing QB for the visitors, with the threat of a wide-open passing game in the air. If the Ravens could choke the Houston run and hold the Texans to 14 points with Schaub at QB, what will they do with rookie TJ Yates as the QB? Tough assignment for the kid. Yes, the Texans have a tough defense but balanced teams generally have done fine against them. And the Ravens have a balanced attack. You go, Ray Rice.
* Green Bay over NY Giants: The Giants have been hot as of late, bagging 13 sacks, forcing a few turnovers and connecting on big passing plays in consecutive wins over Dallas, the NY Jets and Atlanta. The Giants had to win all three games -- or go home -- and won each of them by more than 15 points. Very impressive. But how much should we read into that? This is the same NY bunch that lost to a mediocre Washington team on Dec. 18. And though Green Bay gives up a lot of yards, the Packers also led the NFL in interceptions with 31. It's a big-play defense that stops the bleeding. I do think the Packers are a little vulnerable; after all you can't guarantee on the oppposing team's quarterback throwing the ball up for grabs for easy picks. And if it's close, watch out: Giants QB Eli Manning has been outstanding in the 4th quarter this season. He's been great in close games in the 4th quarter, with a passer rating of 108.3 in those situations. Green Bay is also giving up 4.7 yards per rush, and after being sluggish in the area for much of the season the Giants have finally cranked up an effective ground game. They could control the clock and keep A. Rodgers and the Packers' offense off the field. Also, how will Green Bay deal with the in-family tragedy? Offensive coordinator Joe Philbin's son died this week, and it's a tough time at Lambeau Field. I want to pick an upset here, but I'm wimping out and can't do it. I give the benefit of the doubt to the champs; the Packers squeeze by.
Have a nice weekend.
Thanks for reading.
-Bernie
