Playoff Game No. 1

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

Sorry if this has already been posted. I found it to be an interesting perspective.

blog.dispatch.com/cbj/2009/04/playoff_game_no_1.shtml

Well, now it's over with; after nine years and eight seasons, the Jackets finally played Game 1. Or, they played half a Game 1, and they lost 4-1 to the Detroit Red Wings at Joe Louis Arena.

Several hundred Jackets fans were in the building, dispersed through the crowd of 20,066. This Western Conference quarterfinal is underway. The thumbnail sketch: Jackets roar through the first period, Osgood good, Mason good, Wings take over, Jackets stop roaring, Wings cruise.

One of the beautiful things about the Stanley Cup playoffs is how this tournament incubates the deeper regions of a team’s roster. More "unlikely heroes" are born in hockey in April, May and June than in any other sport. Why is that? One reason is simple game planning.

Tonight, the Jackets did a good job of containing Pavel Datsyuk and Henrik Zetterberg, and the Red Wings did good work on Rick Nash, who had four shots on goal in the first period and none in the second and third periods. Every time Nash came over the boards, Nicklas Lidstrom came over right behind him. Lidstrom talked about how Nash had to be blanketed, because Nash’s anticipation for free pucks is extraordinary and makes him so dangerous. Nash was effectively blanketed.

Oftentimes under these conditions, the checking and energy players emerge as scorers �" and if they don’t, it’s going to be a hard go.

In Game 1, the Wings’ third line of Jiri Hudler-Valtteri Filppula-Mikael Samuelsson came up enormous. Hudler had a goal and two assists. Filppula had two assists. Samuelsson was a big body.

“They were the best line on the ice, for (either of the) teams,†Jackets coach Ken Hitchcock said.

While on the subject of unlikely heroes, it’s worth mentioning that Wings defenseman Jonathan Ericsson scored the game-winner �" and it was the first playoff goal, and only the second goal of his career.

You’ll have that in the playoffs.

Porty and Condor will have all the details about the game, the scene and the Xs and Os in Friday’s edition of the Dispatch. I wrote a column that concluded that, at the very least, the Jackets are in the proper frame of mind to play a series. That notion was illustrated well in a post game scene: Mike Commodore was handed the final stats sheet. He took a look at it, then crushed it into a ball and tossed it into the garbage can.

“That’s where that goes,†Commodore said.

In Hitchspeak, he was saying, “Fight and march.†One fight is done, it didn’t go well, and now the Jackets are marching toward Game 2 Saturday.

Notes

--The Jackets’ power play, the worst in the league, went oh-for-four in the first period. A conversion might have cemented the Jackets’ aggression, but there was no conversion, and eventually the Wings took over the game. A number of Jackets said the PP wasn’t bad �" Nash: “I thought it was pretty good compared to the regular season" �" but it failed to produce a goal on eight shots. The question about whether it will be their millstone still lingers.

--Hitchcock pointed out that the Jackets “gave†the Wings two goals. Ericsson and Kronwall scored on successive shots from the right point in a span of 48 seconds. Each of the shots was redirected off a Jacket �" one off Manny Malhotra’s hand, the other off Jan Hejda’s posterior �" and that was the ballgame. They turned a 1-1 game into a 3-1 Wings’ lead.

--Hitchcock was asked whether he would make any lineup changes for Game 2. “Yes.†He said. Then, he was asked whether he cared to elaborate. “No,†he said.

--Antoine Vermette broke things down thusly: “I think we had the success we wanted to have at the start of the game, when we were aggressive and had the mindset to pressure their D, advance the puck and push the forecheck. We created speed and power-play chances. After that, we kind of drifted away. We didn’t have the same jump, and we gave them too much time and space.â€

--Hitchcock said the Wings took control of the game by dominating in the faceoff circle, which gave consistent possession of the puck to a team that relies on puck possession. The Jackets won 12 of 21 faceoffs in the first period. Detroit won 16 of 21 in the second and seven of 14 in the third.

Posted by Michael Arace on April 17, 2009 12:29 AM |

[Ms_Hockey 0]

They gave us two goals, huh?

Translation: We got outplayed and had unlucky deflections, and I'm bitter.

[Echolalia 2,961]

I really don't get all of this "two lucky deflections" nonsense that's been floating around through the media. Players score on deflections all the time, both from their team and the others. It isn't something new, and it certainly isn't something lucky and out of the ordinary. Especially if you're playing a team like the Jackets who have the desire to put five bodies between the goalie and the shooter. The puck is almost certainly going to be A) blocked or B) redirected. Nothing is getting through cleanly. Heck, I would consider it lucky if the puck didn't get redirected and made it to the net.

[MidMichSteve 1,115]

I really don't get all of this "two lucky deflections" nonsense that's been floating around through the media. Players score on deflections all the time, both from their team and the others. It isn't something new, and it certainly isn't something lucky and out of the ordinary. Especially if you're playing a team like the Jackets who have the desire to put five bodies between the goalie and the shooter. The puck is almost certainly going to be A) blocked or B) redirected. Nothing is getting through cleanly. Heck, I would consider it lucky if the puck didn't get redirected and made it to the net.

Agreed. When goals like that are scored against us there is little, if any, talk about deflections.