Square Peg?
by Mike @ MHH on Dec 11, 2007 9:02 PM MST
in NHL News
Email
PrintThe Avalanche have, by all accounts, an enviable depth of legitimate goal-scorers on the roster. They have the personnel to roll three scoring lines, with the third likely to be one of the best thirds in, as a minimum, the Western Conference . Even though the fourth line brings much needed grit, it still generates plenty of chances. The defensive corps is heavy with offensively-gifted blueliners, with even more recent draftees with similar skill-sets in the developmental system. Taking that kind of macroscopic, big-picture kind of view into consideration, I find myself asking the following question: Is Quenneville the right kind of coach for that kind of team?
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t Coach Q renowned for his defensive systems and considerations? What about the current Avs roster (heck, what about the Avs roster since the Lockout), suggests that this team has the personnel and experience to win with a defense-first approach? Not much, in my opinion. Maybe I’m wrong, but I really think that Quenneville was the sentimental choice for head coach and might not be suited for a team with the makeup of the 2007-2008 Colorado Avalanche.
I’ve watched the Avs forwards peel off from applying pressure in the offensive zone to assume defensive stands milliseconds after a turnover next to the opposing goalie, I’ve seen the entire team play dump-and-don’t-chase with a one-goal lead, and I’ve seen too many comfortable leads slip away in the late stages of games for me to wonder if the style of play/system/scheme that is being employed is the right one for the current crop of players. Is a defensive mindset being rammed down the throat of the players to the detriment of their potential? Wouldn’t a more open, run-and-gun, take-your-shots-and-hustle style of play allow the team to dominate more frequently? Sure we’d still see the occasional stinker of a game like the nightmares in Dallas and Columbus, or the shoot-the-lights-out insanity of the last Blues game, but I’d much rather see this team do what it does well (score goals) on a regular basis instead of waiting for them to luck into a decent defensive night and eek out a one-goal win. Or even worse, squander a good performance by the top lines by taking their foot off the gas when the game is still in doubt because they don't have the manpower or skills to play the system Coach Q wants them to utilize.
Maybe I’m crazy, and if so, tell me why or why not. I’m interested to see if I’m the only one seeing this or if Avs-nation is collectively starting to wonder if somebody else behind the bench would be able to get this team to reach its potential on a nightly basis, and not just after horrendous losses.
13 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Dude, that's what I've been sayin!
I don't know how closely you follow basketball, but the Phoenix Suns play strictly run & gun offensive basketball. They have a coach who coached the same wide open style in Europe for several years. They are a very good team. There's also the San Antonio Spurs; who play choke-down defense, very similar to what the Devils used to play. They have a defensive minded coach; who embraces defensive play, they also have a very good team. Now imagine if San Antonio's defense-first coach coached the Phoenix Suns, what would that look like? It would look a lot like the Avs' current situation. The Suns would still be a good team, because of the players, but they would struggle. Same thing is happening now, the Avs have a good team because of our great players, but we do struggle because we are coached by a defense-first coach.
Quenneville is not a good fit for the Avs. I am very happy that the Avs are a good offensive team. I am very happy we play an aggressive offensive game and don't sit back. We never have. Imagine how much it would suck to be a Devils fan, how boring is it to watch the trap 82+ games a year? Quenneville is a coach for a team like the Devils, not the Avs. I hope he doesn't try to turn us into a defensive team. Sometimes that's what it looks like; it looks as if he's trying to turn an offensive team, with offensive minded players into a defense-first team. That's not a very good idea at all.
And that's my little rant there, lol.
btw, did I mention he has never coached a really good goalie? Is it because he never had one, or because they all started sucking because of him?
by Mike the Avs Fan on Dec 11, 2007 10:10 PM MST reply actions
I like Joe's idea
Lets kidnap Lindy Ruff!!!!!
On a side note, I don't believe the "Defense wins championships" quote always works. The quote covers all with the NHL, NFL, NBA, etc. Offense heavy teams win as well. If the Avs could put up 5+ goals in every game, who cares if they let 3 in.
It's not the offense
The Avs are 6th in the league in goals scored this year, they were tied for 3rd last year, and they were fourth the year before that. Whatever Q's problems are, lack of offense doesn't seem to be one of them.
You guys have a little more of a point with shots, where the Avs are 11th in the league this year, 6th last year, and 15th the year before.
Note: I've also gotten to watch maybe three periods of hockey this season, so maybe the stats are hiding something, but it doesn't seem like a lack of offense is the problem, so much as their abysmal, 29th in the league, goaltending. Budaj has allowed more goals then Tim Thomas, whose faced around 270 more shots.
Five goals a night is not going to happen on a regular basis, and probably never in the playoffs. Either Budaj hits 88 mph and lands in last April, or the Avs are doing not much of anything this April.
by andrew @ Mile High Hockey on Dec 12, 2007 1:15 AM MST reply actions
Re: It's not the offense
I think the fact that the Avs continue to score a good number of goals despite Coach Q adds weight to Mike's point. We all know the Avs are perfectly capable of scoring 5 or more goals a night. The reason they don't (at least to some of our eyes) is because they're being held back by a coaching system that stunts scoring chances in favor of defense.
With the players on the Avalanche roster, they should be challenging Detroit for first overall in goals scored, not sitting down in sixth. In my humble opinion (ha!), the reason they aren't is the fault of Coach Q.
Mighty Detroit
is averaging all of a third of a goal a game more than the Avs.
Since 2000-20001, all of three teams have averaged more than 3.5 goals a season. Admittedly, two of those teams did since the lockout, but still, I just don't see that much room for improvement in 5-on-5 offense with this team. In fact, Detroit and Colorado have both scored 87 goals at even-strength, and Detroit's got a game in hand.
Which is the real problem with the Avs: inept special teams - 20th in the league in PP and 18th in PK, and especially, their terrible, sub .900 save percentage, goaltending.
Since Q isn't much of a goaltending guru, maybe it's still his fault, but I'd take an improvement in any of these areas vs. demanding Q push the offense from very good to great. Even if he does, it's probably not going to lead to much of a playoff run. Remember that Lindy Ruff's best playoff performance cam with an unconscious Hasek, and not with Briere/Drury
by andrew @ Mile High Hockey on Dec 12, 2007 11:16 AM MST up reply actions
Re: Mighty Detroit
I see no way to argue with the fact that the true problem with the Avs is a weak power play. With as much offense they have to tap into, they should be scoring goals at will with the man advantage.
Clearly this is also a coaching problem.
the PP is showing signs of waking up
they're not behind the net as much, im seeing more point and halfboard shots. I'm happy with the way that whoever is coaching it is adjusting, be that Q or Granato. I think it'll end up fine.
I still think Q is liable for the defensive issues, the goaltending, and the line/pairing merry-go-round. He's showing signs of settling in on lines though...who knows, maybe he's decided it's time to stop? Hell, if he picks a damn goaltender I may not have much to be mad at him about.
{Obligatory Arnason hate here}
Don't read too much into my post
I'm not suggesting that there is a problem with the offense (outside of Arny and the PP of course). My beef is that I still think he hampers the offensive production of the team with his insistence on a rigid defensive system that he doesn't have the personnel to make work. It's not all his fault, since management hasn't exactly signed the defensive stalworts (sp?) of the league to bolster that part of the team, but still.
Why not run-and-gun? Why settle for being one of the better offensive teams when I think they could blow most western conference teams out of the water?
If this was an NFL team that ran a a short-yardage, West Coast offense dependent on screens, good tight ends and a mobile quarterback, would you sign Dan Marino and an over-sized O-line and expect it to execute? Nope. I see the same thing with this roster. There aren't a ton staunch two-way players on this team, and I just question the coach and the system being utilized.
Exactly
The offense is good. But it could be so much better in the hands of an offensive coach. While they say defense wins championships--it is hella boring to watch.
by Mike the Avs Fan on Dec 12, 2007 1:45 PM MST up reply actions
Re: Exactly
Defense wins championships except when it faces a real offense. Anyone remember the run-and-gun Avalanche beating the trap-and-hold Devils back in 2001? And what about all those Detroit championships, especially in 2002? They weren't a trap team by any stretch of the imagination.
And how about the Hurricanes of 2005-06? All offense all the time---except Rod The Bod, who played "both ways," so to speak. Rowr.
actually
Actually, the 2001 Devils and the 2001 Avs were, statistically, pretty similar - the Devils had the highest scoring offense in the league, and the Avs had a very good offense, and both teams had great goaltenders who didn't allow a lot of goals, and neither team's D allowed a lot of shots.
The 2002 Wings had the highest-scoring offense that year, but also the 3rd least goal allowing defense.
The 'Canes had a legitimately mediocre D, but if you look at the GF and GA, they and the 03 Devils are the only Stanley Cup Champs to finish outside the top 10 in either GF or GA.
http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/statis...
/contrarian stattery
In other words, and I assume Phoenix would have had priority anyways, but in other words, signing Bryzgalov would have done more for the Avs than an extra half a goal a game.
I know there's more to good and bad hockey than goals scored and goals allowed, and like I said, I haven't gotten to watch a lot of the Avs this year, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Avs' offense, the power-play excepted, is just fine. It's the horrible defense and execrable (Budaj and Theo have two of the four worst save percentages in the league) goaltending that explains why the team is stuck in 8th place.
Also, it is possible that if the Avs played a more aggressive style, their D would benefit insofar as it was being asked to do less, so it's entirely possible y'all's overall point (Q is not the right coach for this team) is correct anyways.
by andrew @ Mile High Hockey on Dec 12, 2007 4:05 PM MST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Mile High Hockey
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
