Rapid Reactions to Game 4
Avs lose a hard fought game in the shootout 4-3.
1. Defense.
This team is gradually improving on D. Far fewer shots allowed in this game. Also, Foote and Liles were no longer turnover machines this game. But Clark...
2. Brett Clark
Awful game. I know Hopfenkopf predicted you would cause X number of shorthanded goals this year doesn't mean you have to live up to that prediction. Those kind of mistakes are excusable from the rookies because, well, they're rookies. You should not be making those mistakes. Between you and Salei, the Avs lack a 6th D-man. Pressing maybe?
3. Matt Duchene
I am itching for that first goal. So are you I bet. You need some linemates, badly.
4. 3rd and 4th lines
Bottom two lines were very good tonight. Darcy Tucker? What the hell man? This is the energy guy I thought we were getting last year. O'Reilly? Killer game. Great play on the 5 on 3. The Avs need more games like this from their bottom lines. Now only if they had a true 2nd line.
5. The Shootout
I was wondering how Anderson would do in the shootout. After a shaky beginning, he seemed to correct himself and gave the Avs a chance to win. On the shooting side, some strange shooters after Stastny at 5th. Tucker was a good call since he scored but Stewart? Hendricks? Sacco, you have them on the 4th line. What about Galiardi? Or a D-man like Liles or Quincey. This is mostly water under (over?) the bridge since shootouts rarely go this many rounds but this is atleast an insight to your coaching decisions.
6. Officiating
Many bad calls and non-calls. Not to mention, Kopecy harrassing Anderson all night. Bad night for calls.
MileHighHockey.com is a fan community, allowing members to post their own thoughts and opinions on the Colorado Avalanche and hockey in general. These views and thoughts may not be shared by the editors of MileHighHockey.com.
0 recs |
49 comments
Comments
Duchene. I really think he needs to not try so hard and just play. Easy to say, not so easy to do. But he had Huet beat- he just overplayed it.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
by TheRed on Oct 10, 2009 10:01 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Agreed. I think they will come but with the amount of talent he is showing, it is borderline frustrating.
Hopefully #9 is not ten less than #19
by InYoFace on Oct 10, 2009 10:13 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
he will get there. I think he is still acclimatizing.
Thanks Joe...
by mfured20 on Oct 11, 2009 2:19 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
not sure I agree on Clark, or at least I didn’t see anything glaring. I also thought Liles turned it over way too much again. agree on the rest.
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Oct 10, 2009 10:07 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Clark was particularly bad in the 2nd period on the PP. Also, it looked like several scoring chances for the Hawks came from poor play on his behalf. To his credit though, he was better in the 3rd.
I didn’t see many Liles turnovers but hence the “Rapid Reaction” title. I may be wrong about that.
Hopefully #9 is not ten less than #19
by InYoFace on Oct 10, 2009 10:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Clark was the turnover in our zone that ended in the shorthanded goal. [I am virtually certain of this, because I am sure I screamed at him a lot after it happened. Someone with TIVO prove me wrong…]
Thanks Joe...
by mfured20 on Oct 11, 2009 2:21 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
Clark screwed up a little bit. But where the hell was the guy covering the late trailer?
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
by TheRed on Oct 11, 2009 2:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I’m not trying to say he was the only problem, because he certainly was not… but giving away the puck in his own end with the rest of his team down-ice and out of position on the PP does not endear him to my heart.
Thanks Joe...
by mfured20 on Oct 11, 2009 2:34 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would be Liles, for the record
Hyphens cause writers more trouble than any other form of punctuation, except perhaps commas.
by David Driscoll-Carignan on Oct 11, 2009 6:39 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
For the record, for the record, Clark had a massive brainfart in the neutral zone that lead to the puck getting back into the d-zone, then he lost a battle along the boards and ALL 5 AVALANCHE players went to or faced the puck-carrier and nobody picked up the wide guy, especially Liles who had backside contain on that play.
I don’t like the Liles/Clark pairing. I was ambivalent during the first game but I think that was a result of Liles’ offensive game.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 11, 2009 9:02 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
another very bad game for my bf. he’s so cut off until further notice.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 11, 2009 2:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Quincey > Liles.
Sorry, Beachie:P
by c0nquistad0rian on Oct 11, 2009 5:12 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah, i know. but liles is still hotter than quincey…tho quince has it going on too.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 11, 2009 5:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fastest Promotion Ever?
to the front page? Anyway, I would say clark had an above average game. Not great, not horrible.
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
by TheRed on Oct 10, 2009 10:09 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
Anderson
Didn’t look so good in the shootout. His unorthodox style was a weakness here, as he was way too quick to go down… like an underclass prom date (ZING!).
Officiating was 8 kinds of awful. The non-call on the Tucker cross-check/high stick was worse than the “foul” ball in the Yankees-Twins game last night. That’s pretty much unforgivable in it’s obviousness. And the on-ice officials called that one a goal when it clearly wasn’t. Charles Barkley would say “Turrible. just turrible”
O’Reilly, I thought, played his best game. He’s getting better. Part of me hopes he’s sent down for the whole contract thing, but I like seeing him play, and I wouldn’t mind it if he made the roster after 9 games.
Tucker is drawing penalties, pissing guiys off, and most importantly, not a liability out there. I don’t know what lit a fire under his ass, but he’s been a completely different player this season.
Defense (including forwards in their own end) were 100x better tonight. The only really bad clear i saw was one by Wolski. Other than that nothing completely egregious that I noticed (not saying there wasn’t one. The waitress had super awesome cleavage going tonight, so I may have been “distracted”).
Really REALLY liked the Galiardi-O’Reilly-McLeod line. They were fantastic in the limited action, but that’s a good checking/3rd line as far as I’m concerned. I can’t believe I didn’t think of that line at all, but it seems like a perfect line.
Duchene and Stewie should be on the same line. The compliment each other well. I’m ok with Svats being on it until Jones comes back, but Stewie-Duchene-Jones needs to happen.
That’s all I got.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 10, 2009 10:20 PM MDT reply actions 2 recs
+1
Rec’d for excellent insight in the face of what was ostensibly overwhelming cleavage.
Well played old man! Well played!
2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche - "Hey Brother, can you spare a Left Winger?"
by Hopfenkopf on Oct 10, 2009 10:26 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s probably the best cleavage I’ve seen since college. It’s certainly the most challenging “don’t get caught looking” night since being married 4+ years ago.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 10, 2009 10:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I agree.
I should have expanded on the Anderson (I thought about doing these Rapid Reaction things last season in the fanposts but never got around too it so it is a bit of a work in progress. I am jumping the gun a bit) but by shaky, I meant went down too early. He seemed to correct himself though and stayed upright for nearly every shooter past the 3rd.
The Stewie-Duchene-Jones line could be awesome. I think Stewie is being wasted on the 4th line.
Hopefully #9 is not ten less than #19
by InYoFace on Oct 10, 2009 10:27 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
agree on all points
After tonight’s showing, I would be pleased to have Radar join the team. I hadn’t counted on it, but I would be pleased.
Duchene needs linemates that compliment him. Not to continue to beat that drum, but Stewie and Davey come to mind.
Officiating = AWFUL.
Anderson had a couple lucky bounces, and a couple non-ice-girl distractions to contend with, but overall I think he did pretty well. I don’t know anything about his experience in the shootouts, but after muffing the first two I think he settled into the role decently enough. Not stellar, but serviceable. Anyone who can stop 6 of 9 shots against Chicago is OK in my book.
Defense WAS a lot better. Very pleased with the progression of the team thus far.
Thanks Joe...
by mfured20 on Oct 11, 2009 2:27 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
When watching this game, I really wanted to pay attention to Anderson’s play after some guys raised concern about his “flopping” and taking too long to get up.
To me, it’s not that Anderson is taking too long to get up, but rather is going down a little too early in some situations. He seems to bite a little early on shots from the boards (I’m giving him a pass on the Keith goal because Versteeg had a clear lane to the net, was eyes on the net the whole way, and 3 Avs defenders got caught staring at the puck, with their backs to Keith).
What makes Anderson different than most current goalies in this situation is that after he drops to his butterfly, he gets back up and does a T push on his skates to get back to the center of the net. He doesn’t raise his far leg from the butterfly position and do a push to execute a butterfly slide across the crease. This is where I think some people are saying that Anderson is taking too long to get back into position. What Anderson is doing may not be as pretty as a butterfly silde. But, butterfly slides are not always the desired movement; they should be reserved for plays in close, from the faceoff circles down and inwards. You definitely don’t want to get caught in a form over function argument, which is all too common with a strict butterfly ideology (and I think something that was all too common with Budaj last year).
A goaltender needs to know how to abandon style and make the desperation save. You saw it on that wrap around almost goal by Fraser. Anderson got beat, but had the presence of mind to dive back and make a great save. Even Fleury’s save on Lidstrom in the waning second of game 7 last year: Fleury dove across the crease and got his chest in front of the puck. And what did he have to say about it? “I was just glad he didn’t shoot low.” He didn’t perform some pretty butterfly slide. He did what he had to do to get there as quick as he could.
On the other hand, I felt that there was a situation where Anderson was TOO quick to get to his feet: The Madden goal. The Madden goal was a broken play: There was a shot from the point that Anderson went down on. But, because of traffic in front of the net, the puck never got too him and he quickly rose to his feet to look for the puck while Madden pounced on the loose puck and fired it in. Those are "blocking"situations. A goalie with lots of traffic in front of him, should have stayed in the butterfly position, flaring his legs out wide to create the largest blocking area. This gives the goalie a chance to make the save solely on positioning and perhaps allow him to be in position for the rebound by being closer to the puck. This isn’t even a strictly butterfly school of thought, either. Russian goalie Tretiak was playing with the philosophy “the closer the puck, the closer you play to the ice” 30+ years ago. By getting back to his feet so quickly, Anderson actually took himself out of the play.
As for the shoot out, ideally, a goalie should skate out towards the shooter, keeping his feet moving to back in and force the shooter to pick a side by the time the goalie gets to the top of his crease. Then, the goalie should make an explosive move from the top of the crease, towards the post. This is called the Y theory on breakaways.
Anderson got burnt in making the first move on those first two goals. It’s impressive that he was able to correct this moving forward in the shoot out. But, even on the saves that he was making, I felt that he wasn’t concentrating on his skating, allowing himself to simply drift back and ending up too deep in his crease in most of the situations, or falling forwards, legs spread eagle behind him. Then again, the shoot out is such a small part of the game and a goalie in Luongo who is considered to be amongst the best often has these same criticisms about how he plays the shoot out. And again, you don’t want to get caught up in a form over function debate; he did make the saves after all. It just looked like Anderson wasn’t as sharp as he could’ve been. My guess is that Sacco hasn’t practiced shoot out situations as much (as evidenced by his selecting Hendricks over Galiardi, Liles, etc.).
I don’t mean all of this to be a harsh criticism of Anderson’s game. I was excited when the Avs signed him. He’s a goalie that’s got something to prove. He controls his rebounds well and has some swagger in his game. I simply wanted to try to explain what people are saying in his game, based on a goalie’s perspective.
by c0nquistad0rian on Oct 11, 2009 9:44 AM MDT up reply actions 2 recs
Thank You For this!!
I always enjoy reading well thought out analysis. I just might have learned something today!
I was there when they lifted #19 to the rafters. Were you?
by gl avfan on Oct 11, 2009 10:10 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks. I agree with your assessment nearly 100%. However, I did notice in the shootout that he isn’t telescoping out too much, but that may just be his style. He’s a bigger guy and coming out, stopping, and starting back may hinder him somewhat from a momentum standpoint, so he’s more patient as the player approaches.
I WAS shocked on how long it took the Avalanche shooters to tumble to Huet’s terrible 5-hole coverage on dekes. If the shooter would move the puck to the blocker side when he was withing 5-7 feet of the crease, Huet would flip his stick over, drop to a half BF and leave a gaping hole. Unfortunately, all the Avs shooters (till Tucker) then would pull it back to the forehand and try to beat his leg to the post. Nobody elevated the puck either.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 11, 2009 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree with the Anderson shootout comment for the first couple shots. After that he looked pretty good. Going to 10 shooters (I think, I lost track) is pretty damn good.
Also I totally agree that Stewart should be with Duchene. I hope they make that move soon.
by mcarson01 on Oct 11, 2009 10:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t know what lit a fire under his ass
Contract year. Glad it didn’t work for Arnason though.
Speaking of which, can we call Galiardi T.J. “Don’t call me Arnason” Galiardi?
Get rid of the loser point
09-10 Avs- Nowhere to go but up!
by TheRed on Oct 10, 2009 10:26 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs
Haha
We need to. Seriously, we are all traumatized by the number. Something has to shake the association.
An ounce of confidence can carry you a mile toward winning. Oh, and Red Wings suck.
by texacogirl on Oct 10, 2009 10:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes. Yes, I think so.
Hopefully #9 is not ten less than #19
by InYoFace on Oct 10, 2009 10:28 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jibblekopf'd
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 10, 2009 10:39 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was really bothered by Sacco’s lack of Galiardi in the shootout. Doesn’t really make sense to me. And Tucker? What the crap dude? How am I supposed to hate you when you actually play well?
by Rather Dashing on Oct 10, 2009 10:38 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
And Tucker? What the crap dude? How am I supposed to hate you when you actually play well?
That is the question of the century. Ok, maybe just the season, but still.
An ounce of confidence can carry you a mile toward winning. Oh, and Red Wings suck.
by texacogirl on Oct 10, 2009 10:41 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
The start of the season, at least. I was so conflicted when he scored in the shootout. I mean, I was like… ye…no…yes…uhh. That’s nice.
by Rather Dashing on Oct 10, 2009 10:44 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I feel your pain. I really really do. He is still an Av and contributing so far. No matter how difficult it is to accept, those are the facts.
An ounce of confidence can carry you a mile toward winning. Oh, and Red Wings suck.
by texacogirl on Oct 10, 2009 10:46 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He can still redeem himself. Steep hill to climb, but he can.
Hopefully #9 is not ten less than #19
by InYoFace on Oct 10, 2009 10:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Kinda similar to Galiardi redeeming the number 39, I think. Which he’s doing quite well, so far.
by Rather Dashing on Oct 10, 2009 10:50 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don’t get it. Why can’t the referees call a penalty on a replay, but they can change the call on a goal with a replay? That hit on Tucker put a fire under my ass, especially since they scored on it. I felt like kicking those referees in the nuts. No joke. I STILL want to kick them in the nuts.
by AlexanderH on Oct 10, 2009 11:37 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
what really pissed me off is that no one on the avs did anything about it. wtf is up with that?? sacco must have something to do with that cuz last year, even with lappy around, mcleod would’ve been all over that
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 11, 2009 2:21 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
It could be that he’s taken a page from the Carolina’s and Detroit’s of the world and told guys to tone down the fighting because of a perceived problem on the PK.
"I know everyone has their own opinion, but your opinion is wrong. "
by Mike @ MHH on Oct 11, 2009 3:51 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
that could be. and i honestly don’t mind it. the avs have historically (dating back to quebec) been less of a bruiser team than a skill-based team. but still…what they did to tucker and, especially, anderson deserved retaliation.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 11, 2009 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I posted up something earlier in the summer about having great hopes that Tucker would get his act together, citing numbers from his previous seasons, style of play, linemates, etc.
I never really thought that it would happen, tho.
Good job Darcy. For real. Please keep it up.
Thanks Joe...
by mfured20 on Oct 11, 2009 2:31 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
so was anyone else a bit let down by wolski’s shoot out attempt? i know we’ve come to expect magic from the guy, but he seemed either a little cocky or quite uninterested in the whole business.
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 11, 2009 3:57 PM MDT reply actions 0 recs
I think he’s just starting to doubt his own abilities to keep the magic alive. What he did last year was amazing and nobody could expect that it would continue. Hopefully he find it again.
by mcarson01 on Oct 11, 2009 10:57 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I mean we can sit and criticize some of Anderson’s play…but we also have to remember, this is his first full season as a starter…and after 4 games (3 against “top tier” teams), the guy is 2-1-1 with a 1.98 and a .942. None to shabby for a little over a million and a half bucks
by chiavsfan on Oct 12, 2009 6:39 AM MDT reply actions 0 recs
calling all you stats geeks...
where does anderson rank amongst the league right now?
The 2009-2010 Colorado Avalanche: Anything is possible.
"To all the cynics, I'm sorry for you, ... I'm sorry you can't believe in miracles."
-Lance Armstrong
by BeachNSnowGirl on Oct 12, 2009 8:47 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
it depends on how you look at it. If you are looking at goalies who have played 4 games, he is No. 1 in the league in save % and GAA (many goalies have not played all 4 games). If you look at all goalies, including those who have played only 1 game, he is #8 and #9 respectively. So, he is doing very well; it will be interesting to see if he keeps it up through the next couple of months.
All this according to NHL.com league leaders.
Colorado Avalanche: Please excuse the mess while we are under construction.
by hockeymom on Oct 12, 2009 9:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He leads the league in Awesome.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 12, 2009 9:50 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
From my vantage point at the UC, I couldn’t tell about his head angle on Ice Girl timeouts…I probably should have looked harder
by chiavsfan on Oct 12, 2009 10:00 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
I probably should have looked harder
I’m sure Andy was looking hard enough for both of you.
The 2009-10 Colorado Avalanche: Aiming for the Charity Point
Jibblescribbits: C'mon over and waste some time
by Jibblescribbits on Oct 12, 2009 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
He wasn’t looking hard enough, he didn’t burn a hole through their clothes.
MHH: Like the Avs organization, we’ve now officially lost our minds.
I'm The Canary - but I'm not cute nor cuddly, and I don't sing.
by Americanario on Oct 12, 2009 5:48 PM MDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmm, hard to do when they are barely wearing clothes
by chiavsfan on Oct 13, 2009 8:28 AM MDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 





























