I don't think it's an overreaction. It wasn't an all time worst performance by any means, so in a way you're right in a comparative sense that we haven't had a lot of bad times but we also haven't had that many games this season either and most of the ones we have have been against bad teams.
But it's also not an overreaction because I haven't been worked up in a panic about our chances either. To the contrary, I'm venting frustration that this team absolutely can be better but just weren't today. That doesn't mean the team's cup chances are doomed and it doesn't mean we're f***ed if we face Colorado in the playoffs or anything like that. But the effort wasn't there, the execution wasn't there, and the focus wasn't there. They played sloppy and uninterested hockey which is bizarre considering how they played in the first game against Colorado, and to a lesser extent, the second. I would've thought the way the previous game ended (and the unique nature of playing an outdoor game for what could be the last time in any of their careers) would inspire them to play more like they did in the 1-0 victory, matching the Avs' intensity shift for shift. But they didn't.
What bothers me about a coach coming out and saying a team looked great when they didn't is it's either 1. posturing for the sake of media positivity or 2. It's a lack of awareness of the issues that are his job to improve. Neither is good, but if it's a case of the latter it's especially grim as a tip off to his ability to adjust in the playoffs. Which he didn't do last postseason but I could give him a pass given the circumstances of the season being disrupted and being thrust into a weird bubble playoff format. This time around he knows what he's getting into and if he fails to adapt to where his team is deficient then it's a problem. And whether it's 1 or 2, it sends a message to his players endorsing whatever play they put out on the ice. Good or bad. If the players hear their coach say they played great when the passing was abysmal, the powerplay was functionally broken, zone entry attempts were poor, execution on transition play was largely being frustrated by the opponent's forecheck repeatedly, and puck decisions in general were poor, where's the urgency to fix these issues? Why fix what supposedly comprises strong play?
A lot of the team's issues, passing, predictable offensive set ups easily frustrated by simple collapse defenses, cement skate powerplays with too slow of a passing game have persisted for a long time. It's annoying enough that those issues haven't seen adaptive changes but to hear the coach say they played great for two periods when they really didn't is concerning if we want to see those adaptive changes made. Personally I don't think we're getting through a Tampa or a Colorado if at least some of these lingering issues aren't improved upon.
And just as an aside, yeah, a lot of the game we were being completely outclassed by Colorado and getting hemmed in for way too long and the only reason we weren't down by more was the defense and Fleury. Just because Colorado didn't bombard us with 45+ SOG doesn't mean the ice wasn't heavily tilted in their favor. Again, I know they can be better but having the coach act like we were for 2/3rds of that game is troubling.