By: Maeve Hushman, Staff Writer
After coming off a rough three game stretch, the Avalanche played their last game of their east coast road trip against Tampa Bay before returning to the Ball center to play the Golden Knights, and then going on the road for an early rematch against St. Louis. They beat defending champs the Lightning in the shootout 4-3, lost to Vegas Golden Knights 3-1, and then beat the Blues 4-3 in their best game of the season.
Things to fix:
Not to sound like a broken record, but net front defense in the Tampa game: all three of the goals were scored either on the doorstep or with the assistance of a screen. It can definitely be difficult to stop fluky opportunities like the Joseph goal or Stamkos rebound but you have to try as those goals can be the difference between a win or a loss. Tampa pushed the game to overtime after Brayden Point scored, a by-product of Corey Perry screen. Perry is known for being a player who lives at the net front, he puts in dirty rebounds, screens the goalie, and also works to disturb the goal to the best of his ability. No one tried to move him out of the way or disrupt his screen. It is nitpicky, I know, but it is something to watch. If the weak spot in their game becomes that they can’t protect the net front, then other teams will learn to exploit it and defeat the Avalanche in must win games.
They started slow again in the Vegas game. Vegas scored both their goals in the first, defended well, and then scored an empty net goal in the third to seal their victory. Cale Makar managed one goal at 4-4, but other than that Lehner shut it down as well as some excellent defense played by Vegas. Honestly, the Vegas defense really seemed to have the Avalanche’s number the whole time. I wrote in my earlier article on the preseason game between the Avalanche and Knights that the Knights do a great job of controlling the space. They do; they don’t allow a lot of open ice when they can’t control it. It seems that when teams play solid defense and take away space the Avalanche can’t figure out how to score. The answer is scrappy, dirty, ugly, net front rebounds and tip-ins. Winning net front battles is essential. Vegas also is one of the best teams at controlling zone entries and exits. Colorado really had a hard time stopping Vegas from getting zone time, and the Golden Knights were really good at making sure that Colorado couldn't sustain offensive zone pressure. There were no odd man rushes on behalf of Colorado. When Colorado started forechecking they had better chances, but they only started that effort in the second. Playing a team like Vegas means that the Avs are going to have to fight for open ice and for sustained zone time. So, the forecheck has to be intense from moment one. They also need to get as many shots on net as possible to increase the likelihood of a rebound chance or just a goal in general.
The power play still needs work, while they were able to convert in Tampa and Saint Louis, they allowed a short-handed goal in the Vegas game and in their first two power plays in that game only got one shot on goal. How can you get this star studded power play going? (I’m a Leafs fan, so completely clueless how to get a stacked power play to convert). My easy answer would be to get more sustained zone time and avoid turnovers. However those are obvious answers even though they aren’t always being exhibited in the current power play. An interesting statistic I heard in Andrew Berkshire’s Game Over Montreal podcast was that power plays without a designated “net front” guy tend to convert at 44% higher rate. Removing the designated “net front” player gives the other players on the power play more flexibility and more options to pass to. This doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have players close to the crease, but that they should feel free to move if the play requires it. Personally, I think the role of a net front guy is important and serves a critical role as both a method for deflections and as a screen. However, that statistic has challenged my thought process. With how abysmal the power play has looked in some games, it might be worth it to try something new and different.
.
Positives:
Darcy Kuemper looked amazing in the game against Tampa, I was so excited when Sakic made the move to acquire Kuemper. I’ve long been a big proponent of his abilities especially after watching him pull the Coyotes into the first round in the bubble of 2020. He was even able to steal one game in the series against the Avalanche. His goal tending has been hard to assess in the first five games (really, what goalie is easy to assess after that small of a sample size) but he was great in game one, a little rough in game 2, game 3 the Avalanche played so badly you really couldn’t blame Kuemper for most of those goals. He played well again in the Tampa game. It is a good sign when it comes to the Avalanche’s goaltending situation. The Avalanche took a risk by not resigning their proven goaltender this off season and bringing in Kuemper. It looks like that decision might pay off as it gave them the ability to re-sign Landeskog and Makar. Kuemper only allowed two goals in the Game against Vegas, and given some of the chances it is a miracle that the Vegas game wasn’t more of a blow out.
In the game against the Bolts, the Avalanche were able to convert on the power play. MacKinnon scored on the power play which has been struggling as of late. The power play has a success rate of 10% percent which is insufficient. However, in the Blues game I noticed a real improvement especially in the second unit. Ranta scored on the first power play of the game but it was waived off due to an offsides review. Then JT Compher scored on the power play with the first unit, which had been successful in the Tampa game as well. The power play looked dangerous in that game against the Blues. It looked like a power play that will make any team regret taking a penalty against the Avs. It was such a large step in the right direction. Their power play was at 20% in the Blues game, which is respectable. I worry how it will hold up against teams like Vegas who do a good job of gap-control and zone-clearing but only time will tell. Regardless, this is such a positive omen after how much the power play has been struggling in the games prior.
The Blues game also was one the Avalanche’s best efforts. They kept their foot on the gas and played a full 60 of hockey. The Avalanche did what they should always do. They pushed the pace and made Saint Louis have to fight to catch them. Utilizing their speed allowed the Avs to draw penalties and maintain possession of the puck. By coming out strong, the Avalanche made the Blues play their game which put them at an advantage. Sure, technically the Blues scored first, but the Avalanche were absolutely dominating. It was such an impressive effort, especially after the Vegas game. They got pucks on net, they limited shots for the Blues to only 18 to their 42, and they kept Saint Louis back. They look like the Avalanche promised on paper and by the oddsmakers. If they continue to play like they did in the Blues game while cracking down on their little mistakes, it will be hard to find an opponent that can beat them.
Conclusion:
While the Vegas game was brutal, both the wins against the Lightning and the Blues were such positive signs. If the Avalanche continue to play the way they did against Saint Louis, then I have no doubt that their losing woes will be long forgotten.