Why can't they both be true? Strong doesn't mean good when it means strong.
You can be hard on the puck and hitting like hell and end up with no high quality chances when you play a team like the Jets.
When I hear "played strong" I think "played well enough to come back or win". 0 high quality chances is contradictory to that statement with that interpretation. And with context I think that was the point that was intended, that the Jets were outplayed in the 3rd period.
It's a bit of an oxymoron to say they "played strong" if they're chasing the game and they didn't get
any high quality chances. You're not really playing good hockey if you're not getting those chances.
I guess saying "played strong" might leave it to interpretation, but I definitely think that they were implying that the Jets were outplayed by Vegas in the third, and I couldn't disagree with them more.