I agree. I always have thought they should never stop playing a hard forecheck-style of game, no matter what the score. Hell, if they are up 8-0, they should still be in the offensive zone as much as they can. Let others tell them their douches for running up the score. Whatever. It’s better than sitting on a lead, hoping it will last.

I fully agree. We’re a great forechecking team, so why not play that way for 60 minutes? However, take a look at the shots per period from last night. We were out shot by more than double in every period. It’s not just our “prevent defense” that’s killing us, but our defense from puck drop to the final whistle.

Exactly. 3 guesses where we rank in S/G? That’s right, 30th with 25.8.

Last night at the game, they showed the stat that the AVS were 2nd in the league last year in blocked shots. Who was #1 you ask? Why it was the mighty NY Islanders, who finished dead last in the ENTIRE league. So the two best shot blocking teams, were also the two who finished bottom in their respective conferences.
Hmm….maybe the AVS should focus on defense and not leaving people open around the net, rather than being good at getting hits by things.

It was the first time in a long time that I was embarrassed to be an Avs fan.

There are three big things that are on my mind right now.

First, this team needs to figure out a way to get the puck out of the offensive zone! This team’s inability to get the puck out of the zone is a small problem that is causing several other problems. The first of those being the excessive amount of shots that are making it on net. 32.2 shots per game is too many. Yes, the team has blocked 640 shots through 40 games which is good, but the fact that they are having to block that many is unacceptable. I found it rather comical that McNabb said during the broadcast that the Avs have been limiting the number of shots that teams have been taking over the past few games. What team has he been watching?? They gave up 25 shots against the Caps, 31 shots against the Wild, 30 against the lowly Blue Jackets and then there is last night’s 43 shot explosion by the Ducks.

Second, the fact of the matter is, Craig Anderson is human. Most nights he plays God like because the team in front of him forces him to. My gut tells me that Coach Sacco came to him prior to last nights game and asked him if he was good to go. He said “yes” because that is. Being the competitor that he is, he is going to try and start as many games as the coach will allow him to. That is his net. He just lets Budes borrow it every now and then.

Third, I just went over all of the games that the Avs have played so far this season and they have given up 35 or more shots NINE TIMES! 40 or more shots FIVE TIMES! Most embarassing of all is the 49 shots they gave up against the Red Wings back in October, luckily Anderson somehow managed to stop 48 of them for the win.

If the Avs keep playing like this, the second half of this season is going to look very similar to last season. The sad thing? The are only going to have themselves to blame.

The problem with the Avs’ D, in my opinion, is not it’s style. Keeping teams to the outside and blocking shots can be an effective strategy. Where the Avs run into trouble is when assignments are missed or other mental errors happen that have nothing to do with the defensive strategy.

Let’s look at the 3 goals from last night (excluding the EN goal):

1st goal: The 3 Av forwards allow the 3 Duck forwards, plus Niedermayer, to get behind them in the neutral zone. This creates a 4 on 2 in the Avs’ zone, leading to Niedermayer (whom nobody picks up, by the way; Stastny should have come back deeper and picked up Niedermayer) putting the puck in the empty net. Nothing to do with the keep-it-to-the-outside strategy, everything to do with poor neutral and defensive zone coverage from the forwards.

2nd goal: Good coverage by Duchene on Koivu, but a good move by Koivu allows him to centre it. No problem, both Wilson and Foote are in front of the net. But Foote allows his guy to drive right by him to the net, and Wilson takes his eyes off of his guy (Sexton) for just an instant, allowing Sexton to get position on him. If both Foote and Wilson have position on their guys and have their sticks tied up like they should, Koivu’s centreing pass (barring an unlucky bounce) can be harmlessly cleared away. Again, poor defensive coverage led to the goal, not the Avs’ strategy.

3rd goal: Avs lose a puck battle down low, Stastny loses his man (Perry) as Getzlaf drives to the net without being picked up by Quincey. As a result, Perry is free to pass off to the open guy in front, who then puts it upstairs on Anderson.

Yes, the Avs need to get some more offense going, and get some more shots on net. But their main problem last night (from what I saw from the highlights and last 10 minutes of the third, at least) was breakdowns in the defensive zone and not taking advantage of the chances they did get (particularly on odd man rushes).

Do we not have any cap room to pick up a D-man that can play fundamentally? It seems as if almost, not all, but almost every goal we manage to put into the net seems as a sloppy happenstance goal. Dump, chase, blind centering pass, and a half ass lucky chop infront of the goal is all that puts them in. I know I’ll catch flak for saying that, but it frustrates me. The Av’s look like frantic little kids.
LOOK! The puck! Go get it!

AD cited your post in his blog today and was discussing it.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/avs/2009/12/24/some-other-viewpoints-on-the-avs/#disqus_thread

Excellent Work!

It’s been days, and this loss is still grinding me.

There are two arguments to follow:

1. Get a lead and hold it with good defense.
2. Get a lead and pile on with an attacking offense.

Both options have won Stanley Cups in the past. The default NHL answer is #1, however.

If the AVS adopted #2, there outcomes might be even better than they currently are. As of 23 December games, they are #5 in the 1st period with 36 goals scored and #2 in the second with 47 goals scored. They drop to #27 in the 3rd period with only 29 goals scored as you alluded to in the original blog by sitting back in defensive mode.

Assuming an attacking offense would land with total goals scored in the 3rd period somewhere between the 1st and 2nd period totals, they should be scoring about 42 goals in the 3rd. The additional 13 goals would have potentially taken care of some of those eight, one-goal losses suffered and put them even higher in the standings than they are.

I know I’m late to the party, but I have been advocating this for a year. Thanks for putting it into a clear and concise argument.