Lindholm being sent down to begin with was probably noting more than a way to maneuver the roster deadline so we could waive Colborne immediately after.GDT: Game 1: Avs @ Rangers - Thursday, October 5th, 5pm MT - We Get Hockey Again!
- Thread starter McMetal
- Start date
Lindholm being sent down to begin with was probably noting more than a way to maneuver the roster deadline so we could waive Colborne immediately after.
Freudian
Clearly deranged
- Jul 3, 2003
- 50,423
- 17,194
Rangers had more and better scoring chances last night but Avs don't have anything to apologize for. The goalie is part of the team and Lundqvist have bailed out Rangers on so many nights. Works both ways. Avs created enough scoring chances to win. Avs could have had a couple more goals, as could Rangers.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,145
- 37,293
No way, it had more to do with the 13 trades we were pulling off.
But yeah, they wanted to send Colby down I guess but couldn't because he hadn't cleared at that point
Freudian
Clearly deranged
- Jul 3, 2003
- 50,423
- 17,194
Bednar seems to have more faith in MacKinnon's defense than I do. Had him out there on the PK as well.
CharlesPuck
Registered User
And you can only spew shot stats without critically thinking about the events. The Avs were ahead most of that game, did you want them to pinch in more, to forecheck harder...
If the Avs were outshot and were the team that was down the majority of the game, that would be different. But go ahead and trust those shot stats as your only marker.
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,145
- 37,293
As much as you want to believe the Avs played a "protect the lead" game like it was 4-0 in 2003, that simply wasn't the case. They only held a 2 goal lead for 7 minutes. They didn't change their style or system. They got outplayed at ES. Not by a massive amount or anything, but they got outplayed which is all I've been saying.
CharlesPuck
Registered User
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,145
- 37,293
It's 2017. Who in the hell sits back on a one goal lead? Plus even if they did "protect the lead" (they didn't) that doesn't just mean that they didn't get outplayed.
S3rkie
Registered User
While I agree with you that they got outplayed at various points in the game, I don't think it was all entirely on the Avs, a lot of it was on silly turnovers, bad puck managment. But also the game was so choppy because of the refs, it seemed like every time a team was building momentum the refs would inject themselves into the game. It didn't feel like there was much flow on either side throughout the majority of last night.
Bender
Registered User
- Sep 25, 2002
- 17,252
- 8,459
Agreed. Duchene could have scored on the spin pass from Teri, Rants had a clear breakaway and Bigras hit the post.
Rangers' announcers were making it seem like every single shot from the top of the circle was massively dangerous when the majority ended up in routine saves for Varly.
What I liked was that we didn't seem to get pinned in our own end for long stretches like we used to. When we did, the clears were there but there were a lot of misses on that front and they need to clean that up.
S3rkie
Registered User
I have a feeling the failed clearing attempts should be less prominent as the season goes on. Especially for the left over guys from last year, they are probably still in their heads while defending scared to make the wrong play and just overthinking things. Once the season is older and acts more as a pallet cleanser the panic and nerves should fade.
CharlesPuck
Registered User
Wow, so now they didn't protect the lead in third. Remind me, how many goals did the Rangers score in the third? Did the Avs ever lose the lead?
So glad you know the Avs gameplay and strategy so well!
Cousin Eddie
You Serious Clark?
- Nov 3, 2006
- 40,145
- 37,293
You're being a child. They held onto the lead. What I mean is they didn't play a "protect" the lead game as in sitting back like you're implying. I know you already know this but i'll spell it out anyway so that I don't have to get another notification of you quoting me on particulars.
Bubba Thudd
is getting banned
So they appear to be going with 8D, okay then. I agree if they continue to play Mironov over Zadorov I'll be extremely Pissedov.
Ceremony
blahem
- Jun 8, 2012
- 113,169
- 15,341
You referring to Lindholm's call up?
I'm praying it's so that they can scratch both Barberio and Mironov lol.
Z - EJ
Nemeth - Barrie
Bigras - Lindholm
I WANT, I WANT!
Bigras - EJ
Nemeth - Barrie
Z - Lindholm
That would work tooo
klozge
Avs
klozge
Avs
Except of two decisions I liked the tight way the refs were calling the game. It's about time to finally enforce the rules because NHL hockey was getting uglier and uglier in the last few years.
dahrougem2
Registered User
Lol watch tomorrow night the defensive pairings have both Zadorov and Bigras scratched, and Bednar rolls with
Barberio-EJ
Nemeth-Barrie
Lindholm-Mironov
Barberio-EJ
Nemeth-Barrie
Lindholm-Mironov
S3rkie
Registered User
It's such a tough thing to think about because you want the games to have continuous flow, but I hate all the interference and hacking so I agree something had to be done. Maybe once the team finds a rhythm and adjust to the new rules the special teams wont disrupt the pace of the game so much. I just would much rather watch 5 on 5 hockey then 10+ powerplays a night.
klozge
Avs
I think the players will adjust after a few games if the refs continue to call the games that tightly.
