GDT: Round 2, Game 1: Avs @ Fish | 8 PM MT | 26 April, 2019

Pokecheque

I’ve been told it’s spelled “Pokecheck”
Sponsor
Aug 5, 2003
46,083
29,160
The Flatlands
www.armoredheadspace.com
This is true. However, we are facing an old, tired, injured team that got lucky beyond belief to get out of round 1. If we were facing Vegas that'd be another story but right now this is our series to lose.

We will see about that. This is still a 100-point team that features two Norris winners, a surefire Hall-of-Famer still playing top-flight hockey that just got done dispatching the defending Western Conference champs. I’m still treating this series as if the Avs are the big-time underdogs, which they are. My level of expectation will not be raised until next season.
 

hooverdam

Registered User
Feb 21, 2013
2,499
1,748
BuWU1iM.png


Avs won the shot attempts battle pretty well but the Sharks controlled high danger chances, which seems to match the eye test. It happens. Keep owning the shot share and the good chances will come and go in. They're still playing the right way, which is the most encouraging thing to me.
 

Colorado Avalanche

No Babe pictures
Sponsor
Apr 24, 2004
28,808
8,891
Lieto
BuWU1iM.png


Avs won the shot attempts battle pretty well but the Sharks controlled high danger chances, which seems to match the eye test. It happens. Keep owning the shot share and the good chances will come and go in. They're still playing the right way, which is the most encouraging thing to me.

What a bipolar game. Crazy.
 

hooverdam

Registered User
Feb 21, 2013
2,499
1,748
What a bipolar game. Crazy.

Yeah it's pretty funny to me that looking at this, you'd think the Avs' best period was the second, but basically one sequence from the Sharks put the game away in that period. Crazy shit like this happens in the playoffs all the time; these kinds of stats are best as a predictive measure of performance over time.

But I still subscribe to the principle that the longer you have more chances, the better your chances will be. The Sharks capitalizing in spurts can do damage, but the Avs aren't going to roll over as long as they're playing like this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Colorado Avalanche

mapletreemarty

Registered User
Jan 26, 2017
1,384
1,309
Thunder Bay
In the moment I was fuming last night. It felt like the euphoria of the Calgary series turned into a dumpster fire. But in reality after sleeping on it that game wasn't so bad. Yes, the result was not good. But the scoreline flattered the Sharks. They didn't dominate us, and we didn't dominate them. We were strong in the first and then in fits and spurts the rest of the game. They just buried their chances and got some luck on that Makar deflection. We were in it the entire game until near the end. I didn't think the game was over until we were in the final minute. We have the abilities but last night we were just all off kilter a little. Passes were not tape to tape, pucks were bobbling around and jumping over or off sticks. Players were fanning on shots. Gru was giving up some rebounds. Our D work continues to be worringly seam-of-your-pants stuff. I'm pretty sick of the no-look behind-the-net passes to no one, or worse to an opponent. We need to cut that stuff out, keep it simple and clear the zone.

Overall I don't think we got outplayed or out worked by the sharks. I think we were the cause of our own demise with poor communication and puck control. Our mistakes cost us the game, not their brilliance or domination.

If we played the way we did in period 1 we likely win this game. But errors crept in to our game, simple ones too. I'm not concerned that we cannot turn this around. We have the tools, we just need to recalibrate a little. Maybe it was down to the long break, or maybe it's just because sometimes you don't play too well. But the sharks didn't show me anything last night that made me think we are out of this. Far from it, they showed me very little in terms of dominance or being a much better team. We can compete if we stop gripping our sticks too tight, get our passes on the tape and clear our zone. And those things are relatively easy to solve.

As an aside. Get nemeth back in. EJ was ... really not good. Mack and rants showed signs of brilliance it just didn't come together. Gru was ok. Not spectacular. I know everyone is big on Makar, but he looks super shaky out there. I would reduce his ice time and give him protected minutes again. He looks too nervous.

Essentially Jones made a couple saves to bail his team out that we didn't get from Grub (not saying he played terrible or anything, but we just needed him to bail us out on one of those goals in the second). Couple of lucky bounces that go the Sharks way instead of ours and that's the game. SJ did seem to have their way with us along the boards in our own zone which is a little concerning.

Finally, EJ looked like shit last night. Maybe he was playing hurt after blocking that shot but it was just ugly.
 

FALAPARK

Registered User
Apr 27, 2019
1
0
Compher MacKinnon Rantanen
Landeskog Jost Calvert
Andrighetto Kerfoot Wilson
Nieto Soderberg Bourque

Gotta say.. I'm not a real fan of keeping Landy with MacKinnon right now given the way Landy is playing. And MacKinnon only really needs somebody with a nose for driving to the net or to the boards and Compher can do just that. And doesn't hurt that Compher can shoot too. And despite Compher's nonexistent play so far. And I also think that it's time to reunite MacKinnon with Rantanen. To try to maximize MacKinnon's effectiveness.
Landy and Jost worked out at one point and maybe Calvert can complement those two.
 

The Kingslayer

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
76,664
56,679
Siem Reap, Cambodia
MacKinnon looked off today. I think the layoff really did affect the team. We just were missing passes we shouldn't and fumbled the puck much more than regular.
true but some of that goes to the Sharks forecheck and taking away time and space. Something the Flames couldnt do. The Flames couldnt keep up with our speedy forwards. The Sharks can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: drhiii

avsfan09

Registered User
Dec 17, 2010
7,089
3,262
Nova Scotia
true but some of that goes to the Sharks forecheck and taking away time and space. Something the Flames couldnt do. The Flames couldnt keep up with our speedy forwards. The Sharks can.
That's true but making those passes on the mark is the key to getting through that forecheck and neutral zone. If instead of getting a pass with speed your trying to coral it than it ends up with a turnover or dump alot more often.
 

Pierce Hawthorne

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Apr 29, 2012
45,114
42,598
Caverns of Draconis
BuWU1iM.png


Avs won the shot attempts battle pretty well but the Sharks controlled high danger chances, which seems to match the eye test. It happens. Keep owning the shot share and the good chances will come and go in. They're still playing the right way, which is the most encouraging thing to me.


Yep pretty much supports what I said earlier. Very similar to game one against the Flames where we controlled the game from the start but Jones kept them in it early on. Then the Sharks finally got a couple good shifts and that was all it took to grab the lead and take over the game.


Hopefully we learned a lot last game about what works and doesn't work and will be able to play this series out like we did against the Flames by dominating 5 on 5 from here out.
 

The Kingslayer

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
76,664
56,679
Siem Reap, Cambodia
That's true but making those passes on the mark is the key to getting through that forecheck and neutral zone. If instead of getting a pass with speed your trying to coral it than it ends up with a turnover or dump alot more often.
Thats true but perhaps some of those bad passes were the result of a sharks player pressing our guys forcing them into bad passes. I saw alot of our guys over handling and fumbling pucks last night. Might be a result of a lay off or the ice being bad or both. We definitely had some good stretches of hockey last night but when the Sharks pressed us we didnt really have a response. 4 shots in the third when trailing is not gonna cut it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: avsfan09

The Kingslayer

Registered User
Aug 26, 2004
76,664
56,679
Siem Reap, Cambodia
Yep pretty much supports what I said earlier. Very similar to game one against the Flames where we controlled the game from the start but Jones kept them in it early on. Then the Sharks finally got a couple good shifts and that was all it took to grab the lead and take over the game.


Hopefully we learned a lot last game about what works and doesn't work and will be able to play this series out like we did against the Flames by dominating 5 on 5 from here out.
If we (Soderberg) executes on 40% of our chances we win last night. Sharks seemed to score on every good chance they had.
 

Spleenless Wonder21

Done like dinner
Jun 29, 2009
7,389
10,804
Ohio
MacKinnon looked off today. I think the layoff really did affect the team. We just were missing passes we shouldn't and fumbled the puck much more than regular.

He did, yet he was one of the few who played with a sense of urgency for most of, if not the entire 60.

I do wish he would go all the way behind the net, then do an about face (The Foppa?) occasionally, rather than always from low in the corner/slot.
 

Lonewolfe2015

Rom Com Male Lead
Sponsor
Dec 2, 2007
17,268
2,214
I think these pairings could work in Denver but Shark tank we need more muscle to get the puck. Sharks have more bite in their own arena. Nemeth in next game.

Maybe. But I still think Girard is too inexperienced and weak on the puck to cover for Barrie. G and Makar I like, but I saw G and Barrie too much.

Honestly, it's mostly Barrie defensively that is the issue. And Nemeth played best with him, so taking Nemo out is silly.
 

CoachBadkitten

Matt Hunwick
Jul 25, 2012
7,177
2,102
Colorado
Cole was horrendous. Can’t count the number of times he flubbed a clear and turned the puck over. Rocked a 17% Corsi too. Both him and EJ need to play so so much better for us to compete in this series
 

avsfan09

Registered User
Dec 17, 2010
7,089
3,262
Nova Scotia
He did, yet he was one of the few who played with a sense of urgency for most of, if not the entire 60.

I do wish he would go all the way behind the net, then do an about face (The Foppa?) occasionally, rather than always from low in the corner/slot.
Didn't mean it as a shot against MacKinnon btw. Just he bobbled a few times that we haven't seen lately when he's been in god mode.
 

Spleenless Wonder21

Done like dinner
Jun 29, 2009
7,389
10,804
Ohio
Didn't mean it as a shot against MacKinnon btw. Just he bobbled a few times that we haven't seen lately when he's been in god mode.

No one’s play was above criticism last night. Didn’t mean for that to read so snarky. I guess of all the players I was frustrated with MacK was low on the list, as he at least brought energy/aggression.
 

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
49,291
51,970
3 points:

1) It sucks that Soda seemed to have run out of gas at the end of the season and entering the playoffs. If we'd get mid-season Soda it would make a huge difference.

2) Kerfoot is a nuisance for the first line. While I agree that he does make some good plays sometimes, the bad outweights the good by a fair margin.

3) The price to pay for having a D that is good at transitioning the puck is having a D with problems vs heavy forechecking. Girard, Barrie and possibly Makar will always have issues with that.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,305
19,200
w/ Renly's Peach
Why are people talking about size & toughness? We lost control of the match when we lost our structure with the puck, giving it up much more cheaply than in the first half, and against it, as our forecheck became less effective & suddenly every SJ rush stopped turning into a 3-on-4 in our favor when that 4th backchecker was no longer in position to bounce every time they started to transition.

How the hell would size & physicality have helped with either of those issues? What failed us was our skill, not our size.
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,305
19,200
w/ Renly's Peach
3) The price to pay for having a D that is good at transitioning the puck is having a D with problems vs heavy forechecking. Girard, Barrie and possibly Makar will always have issues with that.

...that's a strange point considering that it was EJ who was most bothered by SJ's forecheck last night...

Him getting pinned in our zone repeatedly -- alongside both Girard & Cole -- really fed SJ's momentum & let them take charge of the match.
 

Balthazar

I haven't talked to the trainers yet
Sponsor
Apr 25, 2006
49,291
51,970
...that's a strange point considering that it was EJ who was most bothered by SJ's forecheck last night...

Him getting pinned in our zone repeatedly -- alongside both Girard & Cole -- really fed SJ's momentum & let them take charge of the match.

EJ just plain sucked last night, at both ends. He didn't have a good season either, I'm starting to think he may be getting over the hill already.
 

Grackle Party

Full of guts!!
Jun 11, 2007
3,098
1,938
Cream City
Kerfoot was the player that pissed me off the most last night.

Its such a hockey cliche but after they didnt score on the double minor it was just written that the Sharks would come back.

Really hope the Sharks dont have the team of destiny thing going for them with a win it for Jumbo Joe mission
 

cgf

FireBednarsSuccessor
Oct 15, 2010
60,305
19,200
w/ Renly's Peach
EJ just plain sucked last night, at both ends. He didn't have a good season either, I'm starting to think he may be getting over the hill already.

No disagreements from me here, but between EJ suffering under pressure, Zadorov's issues under pressure, and Cole/Nemeth's lack of puck skills to move the puck up ice...I'm not seeing why it's the lil fellas that are getting pilloried for the effectiveness of SJ's forecheck in the 2nd half?
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad