Looks Like I Picked The Wrong Week...
by Joe Dunman on Apr 30, 2008 6:53 AM MDT
in NHL News
Email
Print...to watch playoff hockey. Or to be an Avs fan.
At this point, with the Avs down three games to none, crippled by a constant string of injuries and a starting goalie who can now officially be labeled "done," things couldn't get much worse. At least we can point to injuries as a major reason for the collapse. Sharks and Rangers fans don't have that luxury.
Just add Paul Stastny to the latest Avs injury list. There’s only one game left in the season for the Avs to sustain any more injuries, however, so it’ll all be over soon. This really is ridiculous, the number of injuries that came in bunches this year. I’m serious when I say this, I think the Avs need to hire some more medical personnel next year. Whether it’s a yoga guru or a faith healer or whatever, their players need to stay healthier if they’re ever going to win a Stanley Cup again. I know injuries are freak things, and maybe nothing could have prevented them. But if I’m the owner of the team, I would want to look into this and just try to figure out something that’s going to maybe make a little difference health-wise in the future.
Anyway, in recognition of the pain and suffering we, as Avalanche fans, have all felt these past three games (and most of the regular season), I think these clips from Airplane! are pretty appropriate:
27 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Done?
Joe, I realize you don't like Theodore, but what exactly did he do yesterday to make you think he's "done"? I thought he looked solid last night. I didn't see any goals that could be considered his fault. I thought the defense left him hanging and he did the best he could have. He was solid.
Wait, I just remembered. You said last night that you didn't watch the game.
Injuries aren't an excuse for this team, even with the injuries the Avs have, they still have a deeper forward corps, the D corps isn't missing anyone significant, and both goalies are better than either of the Wings' goalies. Injuries aren't an excuse, but they are definitely a reason.
It'd be nice if Sakic would make an appearance at some point in this series. 0g and 4 invisible assists from our franchise player. That's a key reason why we're down 0-3. To steal a Melroseism, you need your best players to be your best players, and Sakic definitely has not been that in this series.
Forsberg? Nothing but a distraction. Hejduk? Nothing since Game 1. Smyth? Nothing since Game 1. Stastny? Too bad he's injured, we're going to miss his nothing.
At this point, the Avs are much better off scaling back these guys' minutes (those who are still in the lineup anyway) and giving them to Hensick, Jones, and anyone else who is actually willing to put in some effort.
This team needs a serious re-tool in the offseason.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 12:26 PM MDT reply actions
Not quite
I didn't see any goals that could be considered his fault. I thought the defense left him hanging and he did the best he could have. He was solid.
The second goal was pretty bad. It wasn't all his fault, but it was soft, and he should have stopped it.
Even though I disagree with you (Sakic had an excellent game last night, the first 2 of the series were not so good), Sakic only has 2A this series (of course it's 3 games so that's not too terrible)
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 2:14 PM MDT up reply actions
I'm sorry
but a solid goalie doesn't let in 4 goals in each of the three games. Nothing against Theo, in part because he did play exceptional down the stretch and in the first series, and part because the defense is leaving him flapping in the wind. But despite the reasons...Detroit has his number and they have their sights dialed in, there should have been a change in goal last night, if for nothing else other than to shake things up.
Unfortunately, no matter what excuses we want to make, injuries, goalie, star players, coaching....I blame first and foremost the coaching. And the most unfortunate thing is, due to the fact that we made the playoffs, we'll probably have to put up with Q "Adams" for another few years.
Almost.
Last night was the first game where Theo was (I'm assuming) healthy. They've already gone on record as saying he was sick the first two games.
Last night, he was solid.
Look, when your defense doesn't cover their man and leaves someone wide open in front of the net, it's not Theo's fault when the goal is scored. I assume you've never played the position before, as otherwise you'd know that Theo's responsibility is to play the shot. His DMen are charged with playing the pass and covering the man in the slot.
Looking at the 4 goals allowed doesn't tell the story. You have to look at how the goals were scored, and you have to do so with the knowledge of who has which responsibilities.
There was no reason to have made a goaltending change last night. The defense was atrocious, and Theodore did everything he could have for the Avs to have won the game.
If you want to criticize one of Q's decisions, criticize the fact that he played the 3rd and 4th lines the last three minutes of a one-goal playoff game. He didn't even have his best players out there on the ice as the game was winding down, and the Avs weren't even attempting to press at the end.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 2:30 PM MDT up reply actions
Wait...
You want Hensick and Jones in as much as possible, but you're ripping Q for having them on the ice at the end of the game? Which is it?
It's both.
I want Hensick and Jones to be given first line minutes. And in the last minute of a 1-goal game, you have to have your best players out there.
What's the confusion? The two concepts aren't even similar.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 10:43 PM MDT up reply actions
Plus
Plus, there's also a huge difference between the last minute of a 1-goal Game 3 and Game 4 as a whole. The Avs are essentially toast at this point. Game 3, they weren't toast. Basically, we have nothing to lose in Game 4, whereas we had a lot to lose in Game 3.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 10:45 PM MDT up reply actions
Re: Confusion
I want Hensick and Jones to be given first line minutes. And in the last minute of a 1-goal game, you have to have your best players out there.
What's the confusion? The two concepts aren't even similar.
That only makes sense if you think that star players don't get first line minutes. The confusion stems from your desire to see the two-headed monster of Jones-Hensick get first line minutes because they've been some of the better players (due to them giving 100%) and stomp some egos of the star players, but in the same breath criticize Q for keeping them out in the waning moments of a must-win Game 3. Either you believe they have warrented first-line, ie 'star player', minutes or you don't. They can't get the treatment for all facets of the game except when the game and series are on the line.
I also believe that the Avs WERE toast in the 3rd period of Game 3. They brought little to the table after the second intermission other than the PP goal, which was a gift. When Detroit wanted to, they flipped the switch and their puck-possession robbed precious minutes from the comeback bid. Hensick and Jones weren't out there trying to hold a lead, they were out there because they were the best line in the game at regular strength. We had a ton to lose in Game 3 because THEY WERE LOSING GAME 3! Watching that period, those two guys generated more chances than any other line. I honestly believe that they gave the Avs the best chance of tying up that game.
I think I understand where you're attempting to come from, but you have to admit that the way you presented it reeks of having your cake and eating it too. You managed to pat them on the back and poke them in the eye at the same time.
Re: Confusion
You managed to pat them on the back and poke them in the eye at the same time.
That's how I train dogs.
It's really not that hard.
Put them on a line. Give them first-line minutes. That doesn't mean that they are star players. Think about it. There have been a lot of games this year where Idiot has given the 3rd line 1st line minutes.
That doesn't mean that I am saying that you put the Hensick-Jones line out there for every situation in which you'd play the first line. It also doesn't mean that you treat them as if they are your best players. It just means that you're giving them first line minutes.
Your best players have to be out there in the final minutes of a 1-goal Game 3 (or any playoff game, for that matter).
The two concepts aren't even remotely related.
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 3:06 PM MDT up reply actions
You know what happens when you assume things?
You realize I stated I don't fully blame Theo, but I still say you can not say a guy is playing "SOLID" in the position when he is giving up 4 goals a game. Make all the excuses you want, but in this round he isn't getting the job done. This is the NHL and the playoffs and 4 goals against isn't getting the job done. One game fine, but 3 straight, sorry it doesn't cut it.
Sometimes a change isn't about the other goalie being at fault, sometimes you need to shake things up. But I know nothing, I've just been coaching sports for 8 years...
by Americanario on Apr 30, 2008 8:16 PM MDT up reply actions
He's not...
He's not "giving up 4 goals a game". He gave up 4 goals in the one game he was healthy.
I haven't given a single excuse. There's nothing to excuse him for. He's been healthy for one game, and in that game, he's been solid.
You don't pull your starter for Game 3 against your biggest rival when said starter had a two year bad streak because of a lack of confidence. Not if you plan on bringing said starter back next year, which the Avs most definitely should (they don't really have a whole lot of other options, and there hasn't been a better goalie in the league since Theodore got his confidence back).
Look, I get it. Avs fans don't like Theodore. That's fine, but you can't throw him under the bus for things that aren't his fault.
What really sucks is that I don't even like the guy and I keep having to defend him because people keep making irrational arguments about him.
by Neptune on Apr 30, 2008 10:38 PM MDT up reply actions
You're making no sense
He gave up 4 goals in the one game he was healthy.
I agree. He shouldn't be held responsible for the two games he was sick. On the other hand, if he was that sick, he shouldn't have been playing period, and a REAL team player (something you claim to be an expert on) would have stood up and realized he was hurting the team more than helping.
Also, I don't think there is a goalie on the planet who is tagged as 'solid' after a four goal game in the playoffs. He was average in Game 3. Wasn't your main argument for Theo over Boots that he had the potential to steal important games? That didn't happen in Game 3. Theo didn't stand out as especially good or bad, that's all I'm saying.
Solid Game 3.
You can't look at a box score and determine whether or not a goalie was solid. You have to take things in context. Osgood wasn't spectacular in Game 2, but he only allowed one goal. He was solid. Theodore was good in Game 3, but he allowed four goals. There wasn't a whole hell of a lot he could have done about any of them.
For further evidence, see Grant Fuhr. Fuhr built a Hall of Fame career while allowing over 3.5gpg in his prime. How did he do that? He allowed four, but he wouldn't allow the fifth.
Theodore was good enough for the Avs to have won Game 3. The Avs played awful defense, and they didn't get enough offense generated to have won the game. None of the goals Theodore allowed were his fault.
And the notion that you can criticize a goalie for not stealing games is silly to me. The whole idea of stealing games is that you win games that you shouldn't. You can't expect someone to do something that you don't expect them to do.
If you expected him to steal Game 3, then it wouldn't have been a stolen game if he had won it, because you expected him to do it. And if he didn't win the game and you didn't expect him to, then he didn't do anything wrong - he did what you expected.
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 3:15 PM MDT up reply actions
This is not Earth shattering news
But Woody Paige is an idiot. From his latest column:
There's got to be bad fluoride in the water here. Avs and Nugs 0-for-7, zilch-for-postseason. One more — anytime soon — and here we come Rockies, winners of one game in a row.
I didn't realize the Wild series wasn't part of the post season for the Avs. Good thing he's got all that credibility and checks everything he writes, unlike us lowly bloggers who make the most basic of factual errors.
by Jibblescribbits on Apr 30, 2008 2:19 PM MDT reply actions
He is
The Post's version of Hlinka. Too bad they can't scratch him from their lineup then banish him to Europe.
by Bob in Boulder on Apr 30, 2008 2:36 PM MDT up reply actions
Re: He is
You know, he might be getting older, but I bet Woody Paige could take a body check better than Hlinka.
And in other news
Your pen pal Sandy now has a blog:
by Bob in Boulder on Apr 30, 2008 6:21 PM MDT up reply actions
Re: and
Hahaha
Got to love the lousy format, the weird paragraph breaks and the failure to capitalize his name.
What no comments?
Re: and
Oh god, I just had to click on that link didn't I? Now I have this image of Sandy in his underwear, sitting in his mom's basement typing away. I am forever emotionally scarred.
What makes...
What makes you think he wears underwear?
Yeah, I just made it a little worse, didn't I?
by Neptune on May 1, 2008 1:36 AM MDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
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.
