Wings 4, Avalanche 5 (SO)

So we knew the Wings weren’t going to go 82-0-0. The first loss had to come at some point. Last night just happened to be it. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Shots: The Wings were outshot 38-28, though that doesn’t tell the whole story. The Avs managed to block 26 shots and the Wings sent a further 11 wide. That’s a lot of shooting. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. either.

Possession: Time of possession isn’t a stat in hockey like it is in football, but if it were, I’d say the Avs would have owned that statistical category last night.  They had the puck, it seemed to me, in the Wings’ end far more than the Wings had it in the Avs’.

The Wings arguably had the better scoring chances, but they were somewhat isolated and though the stats showed they had a ton of offense generated with pucks headed toward the net, I almost don’t believe the numbers because that’s not how it felt in-game. The Avs were causing trouble for the Wings in the defensive end all night as the Wings struggled to get control of the puck and then get it out.

Defense: So that’s what I mean when I say maybe the first loss coming now is a good thing. During the Ducks game, Hollis tweeted this:

#redwings may be up by four, but there’s alot of room for improvement in their own zone. Lots of turnovers. Need to stay focused.

I think that perspective was somewhat lost in the excitement over the 2-0 start. But as far as I’m concerned, it was thrown in full relief last night (and after registering the Ducks’ two followup games). The season is young, but so far the Wings are leaning fairly heavily on the offensive side of things, to the detriment of the defensive.

That’s been a problem the past two years, the first as the prime issue and the second as a contributing factor second only to the injuries. I feel like I say this a lot, but they need to find a way to return to the wholesale sacrificial team defense of 2008. The Wings have the offensive talent to win more often than not, but that’s the easy way and it’s not the key to real success.

You want to see the Wings racking up the shot blocks and limiting the opposition to under 30 (preferably low 20s), not getting hemmed in their own end and watching the goalie get peppered. They have the opportunity to fix this before they get too comfortable.

Goaltending: Some nights, the goalie is the victim of his team’s failures to do their jobs. He showed up to play, even though they didn’t. He puts on a heroic, but failing effort as he is inevitably overwhelmed.

I may face an angry pro-Jimmy mob for this, but last night as I saw it was not such a night. The Wings’ skaters had a rough outing, and so did Jimmy. The Avs’ second, third and fourth goals were all weak and on a night where the Wings’ offense managed to net four despite being outplayed in their own end, giving up three softies is not acceptable.

I point out above that the defense wasn’t so strong last night, so the defense most often used for games where Osgood is shellacked seems to apply, right? I say wrong, because like I didn’t see Howard’s effort as a heroic failing one, despite a few big saves. It’s one thing for a goalie to be overwhelmed. It’s another for him to whiff on shots he should be stopping.

The Avs were getting a lot of traffic out front and in the crease (as on the first goal), so maybe that threw Jimmy off his game. Whatever the cause, he didn’t give the Wings a chance to win a game they didn’t deserve to win. And if you’re a big believer in fairness, that’s not a problem. But the Wings did manage to score four and that should be enough to win most nights, even if it’s not fair.

He did almost make up for it in the shootout, but the shooters did the letting down in that phase.

It’s not nearly early enough to detect a trend, but when you look at how bad the Ducks apparently are and how he looked last night, that game one shutout is looking somewhat ess shiny. I hope he plays Thursday so he can bounce back.

Third Line: Not their best night. -3 for all three guys? Rough.

Janik: Made me wish Meech was on a two-way.

Mule: 2 more goals, but still seems like he’s not going all out. Yet. Which should be a scary thought for the 29 other teams.

Passing: Another thing the Wings had a hard time with last night. A lot of passing to spots on the ice, which is all well and good if you have guys skating to get to those spots. But they weren’t. So a lot of pucks got missed. especially those sent up ice by the D. A definite area where Rafalski was missed. Could have used his breakout passes.

Thursday: It’ll be Mike Modano’s return to Dallas, so that’ll be a little awkward. Here’s hoping he lights it up for fun.

Filed under: 2010-2011, Game Reports

Tags:

Comments

  1. RyanV says:

    I agree with the passing. The whole team seemed to be struggling with their passes last night. Then again, everybody was struggling in the shootout too, so maybe the ice was terrible.

    I don't actually agree about the time of possession. Total shot attempts usually correlates pretty strongly with time of possession, and the Wings had more shot attempts than the Avs (55-42) at even strength. Part of the reason it may have felt like the Avs had more posssession is because they had four PPs to the Wings' one.

    Also, the Datsyuk-Zetterberg line looked incredible to me last night. Just like they have in the other games so far. I think they'll have good years.

    • Matt Saler says:

      Yeah, the ice may not have been great. Either Sobotka is slipping or the Joe's refrigeration is, but the ice quality does seem down some.

      Throughout the game I was thinking, "Ugh, the Avs have had the puck in the Wings' end too long." Then the Wings would get it out and get 1 or 2 scoring chances, but not much sustained and the Avs would be grinding it out in the other end again. Apart from a few isolated shifts, the Wings never had much sustained pressure, it seemed.

      If the stats suggest the Wings had the puck more and were using it more, there's no disputing that. But it certainly didn't feel like it.

      Yeah, the Eurotwins line is looking great together. I hope the second line keeps clicking so there's no need to break up Z and Pavel.

  2. adam says:

    I think the time of possession was more for the Wings. I saw a couple of those clinics the Wings can put on, where they hold possession in their scoring zone and manage a shift change. The Avs offense was sporadic and opportunistic, while the Wings was generated. Jimmy sucked. Overall, I think the Wings should have won but managed to get a point out of it anyways. Not the worst outcome. The defense was iffy but that's partially due to Rafalski being out. I'm not worried at all.

    • Matt Saler says:

      There were a couple of those clinics, but I would actually characterize the Wings' offense as sporadic and opportunistic, as it seemed to me they'd weather an Avalanche pressure shift and then take it the other way for a couple quick chances. Like I wrote in my reply to Ryan above, I thought the Wings lacked their usual concentration of pressure shifts. To some degree, the four goals were surprises, because it usually takes much more work in the opponent's end to rack up that many.

      I think the Wings should have won but managed to get a point out of it anyways.

      I disagree–I think they were outplayed and would have been stealing the game to win it outright. Given that they did score four goals, a point is more deserved than a regulation loss, but a win would have been fortunate, not necessarily deserved.

      That said, I'm not worried at all, either. It's still very early in the season and given the injury issues of the pre-season and the team's resultant inability to really get in sync, there's still work to be done to get rolling, and plenty of time to do it. No worries.

  3. Shane says:

    "the Avs had more posssession is because they had four PPs to the Wings’ one."

    I'm not so sure the Avs PP led to them possessing the puck that much more often. A lot of times, it felt like it led to less.

    "Also, the Datsyuk-Zetterberg line looked incredible to me last night."

    They freaked the crap out of me every time they had the puck. It's ridiculous what they can do and it pisses me off that they're on your team.

    To be honest, I'm still a bit surprised that the Avs walked away with this one as the Wings felt like the more dangerous team most of the night.

    • Matt Saler says:

      Yeah, the Avs' power play had issues with the Wings' PK, which has been the standout defensive phase so far.

      The Wings may have been more dangerous in that they had the better scoring chances and tended to capitalize on them, but those were isolated compared to what I saw as the Avs' steady if mundane work in the Wings' end. I was shocked at Dater's tweet in the first that they looked terrible, because they seemed to be doing pretty well to me…

  4. John W. says:

    Yeah, the defense (as in team as a whole, not just the D-men) played poorly and Jimmy did too. I thought they played Eastern Conference hockey last night, and Jimmy wasn't in a bailing out mood. He should never have to face 38 shots against that team, but shouldn't be giving up 4 goals either.

    • Matt Saler says:

      Eastern Conference hockey's a good way to describe it.

      No, he shouldn't have to face 38 shots, no matter who the opponent is. The Wings are too deep on defense and too good at team defense to give up that many, if they chose not to. Like you suggest, the overall team D has to be better.

  5. Pete K says:

    one bright spot for me, just looking at the box score, not having seen the game — is that bert, mule, and modano are all ahead of hank in the shootout order now (i think fil belongs in there somewhere too). i love z, but he has never excelled in the shootout. glad babcock finally wised up.

    • Matt Saler says:

      Yeah, I'm a card-carrying Hank fanatic, but everyone has to admit he's not so great in the shootout. I was glad to see him bumped back, too, but I wonder if the Wings shouldn't hold auditions in practice because none of the shooters are all that successful. Fil would be a good guy to try out, though.

  1. [...] 6 takeaways.  Against Chicago, they totalled 18 turnovers.  Versus Anaheim, 20.  Matt touched on this in his Avs game recap, but they really need to shore up and get back to displaying [...]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>