That is always thrown around as a very general idea, and I don't buy it. I don't mean to attack you personally, but I always wonder how that would look like. Are there multiple instances per game where McDavid/Draisaitl flee the zone which lead to chances/goals against? Are they really worse than other Oilers forwards defensively or is this just a baseless assumption because they score more? Some numbers would suggest that.
Frankly, if McDavid doesn't do what he did exactly how he did it in game 1, chances are the Kings are up 2-0 in the series. What assist should he have 'sacrificed' to prevent a goal against?
And if they really flee the zone and don't play defense 'correctly', how many times does this happen, and does that set off the loss in offensive output if they change that? What does that mean for the way the team is playing? And do you really think the McDavids and Draisaitls just don't think of that or care to do it if it was that simple? Do people really think McDavid is playing for 2 ppg and losing in round 2 instead of 1,5 ppg and winning the cup? Sounds a little stupid, doesn't it?
I just think saying the best offensive players in the game should 'sacrifice' offense for defense is lazy if there is no follow-up.
Yes, there are differences in how good players are defensively, but could someone please just explain a little more how that 'sacrificing offense' should look like exactly. As long as the people are just throwing that around, I trust the McDavids of the world much more that they know how to help their team instead of the hfboards-defensive-play-analysts.
Oh, and why is it never the other way round? If teams get shut out I never hear 'the defensive third line center should just sacrifice some defense for offense'. Perhaps it is not that simple? But hey, what do I know.