Shiny Happy Rambles (mostly) – Mammoth Game for the Stars
1. Nils Lundkvist coughed up the puck right in front of the stars net less than 30 seconds into the game and nothing came of it. Then the Mammoth carried play with pace and purpose for the next four minutes but Oettinger was equal to the task and kept the game knotted at zero. That’s good, right? Or…Oettinger bailed the slow-starting, Stars skaters out early in the game. Both work.
2. The Columbus Blue Jackets hired Rick Bowness as their new head coach on Tuesday and their fans and players seem to be pretty excited about winning their first game under him. They are also amped over his view of how he wants the team to play, including, “When you can play fast, you’re putting pressure on the opposition. I hate playing slow.”
Ummm, wait, what? What did you do with the real Rick?
Then I read more, and Bowness said, “In our league, you don’t score your way into the playoffs. This isn’t the ’80s, man. You defend your way into the playoffs, and you get your offense by playing solid team defense.”
There he is!
The Athletic - “He said he was looking forward to practice Wednesday, when the Blue Jackets will likely get their first full exposure to the system Bowness wants them to play.”
Those poor Columbusonians and the players have no idea what they just signed up for.
3. I really have to start rethinking titling these Rambles under a theme before the game starts because that was not a shiny happy first period.
Smart Side of Brain: “Don’t look at the possession share from that period.”
Less Smart Side of Brain: *looks…regrets doing so immediately.
4. The stars came out in the second period quite unlike the team from the first. They stood up strong at the defensive blue line we're able to make clean breakouts and when they were able to hold on to it in the offensive zone they were able to hold on to it for long stretches. It was refreshing. Then Oettinger made two blue ribbon saves off of Dylan Guenther before having to stop J.J. Peterka in all alone. Then the Benn Faksa-Erne line started mashing pucks at the Mammoth net from all over and almost came away with something good before Vamelka stopped Robertson breaking in all alone.
Repeated push back. Nice to see.
Both teams playing fast, great goaltending, and counter-punches all over. 0-0 but this is fun!
5. Neither team stopped pushing all period as proven by a Mammoth goal with less than seven seconds left after Harley made a nice play at his blue line (I know, right!) to strip the puck from Guenther but Benn just barely missed it with a clearing attempt and the Mammoth scored on a driving tip very few humans on earth could defend.
The Stars trailing 1-0 after two is the same score as it was against the Ducks two nights ago. The weather of the two games may be the same but the climate is vastly different.
6. The Mammoth rank 4th in expected goals for (5v5), and the Stars 22
1st, so this game was going to be an interesting one way or another.
7. The second best power play in the league proves why they are the best power play in the league to make it 1-1 early in the third. If this game is not fun, at least it’s shiny. Nah, it’s fun too.
8. A short time later, Utah takes a usually innocuous shot from the point that Oettinger is partially screened on, he gets a shoulder on it, but the puck Klinko’s 10 feet over his head and into the net. Give the puck some credit, it tried to skitter along the goal line for three feet in an attempt to deny the goal. The post stood firm, denied it's escape, and rejected it back into the net . Weird.
Hockey, y’all.
9. Ten minutes left…2-1 Mammoth…
Utah color commentator: “have we seen a better game all year”
Play by play announcer: “I don't think so.”
Hard to argue. It felt like the playoffs.
10. I have no words for the last 10 minutes of that game. Actually, too many of them.
Both teams played extremely well. Maybe the Mammoth a little better but the Stars never looked out-matched like has been too often the case lately. They put in a full 60 minutes and ran up a team that did likewise.
If the Stars keep doing what they did in this game, good things will follow come playoff time.
Of course, the Stars were still outplayed somewhat and, again, out-possessed fairly badly. But this loss was less bad than even some of the recent wins. At the very least, there was "try" - whatever that is. Both low bars, to be sure, but at least it was evident they gave a shit for a refreshing change.
Midway through the 2nd I was thinking "anyone who claims a 0-0 hockey game is boring needs to watch this" and about 5 seconds later Razer talked about this looking like a playoff game. Very entertaining game to watch.
Robert, I rarely disagree with you but we obviously watched different games. This was another awful display. Yes, better than Anaheim but so what. Every team in the league is flawed, maybe not the Avs, but they're positioning in the D zone is pathetic and their forecheck shows up about 5 minutes a game, if that... You can't score if you don't shoot (I trust #99 on this one more than Gulikson)... Shot attempts differential is disgusting. #96 and #21 are shining lights with sporadic good performances from others. Early season, every single break went their way so they loaded up on wins, AWESOME! Those breaks assured a playoff spot even with this "slump". Can they right this ship? Who knows, but really all that matters is to get in I guess. These games are not enjoyable to watch... And I have to endure this during dry January!!!!!!
I do think their forecheck has yet to really become a weapon, but I think otherwise, this game was more good than bad. But just not by enough of a margin.
My comment "These games are not enjoyable to watch" is of course my opinion so it is neither right or wrong for anyone other than me. Personally, watching teams that don't play positional hockey in the defensive zone and simply don't attempt to forecheck more than 5 minutes a game and take under 10 shots a period are just boring. I'm glad Victory+ is a free service LOL. You may enjoy this brand of hockey, and you are totally welcome to that. I still hold out some degree of confidence that this team has enough quality players to turn it around when it counts, starting in April.
The Stars were better tonight. Still not good enough, but at least they didn't spend a majority of the game defending in their own zone or dumping pucks in the offensive zone without retrieving enough of them to be any significant threat at even strength.
I'm not sure how to word this, but I would be curious to know what Gullutzan and his coaching staff are aiming for exactly in terms of style and strategy. The forwards and D rarely looked connected in the Ozone. For example, it's clear they want to chip the puck in and forecheck but more often than not, all 3 forwards are caught in deep and the opposing D beat them with one simple pass up ice to an open winger. There's sooooo much open space between the 3 forechecking Dallas forwards and the Dallas D. So what exactly is Gullutzan's strategy? Are they running a traditional 1-2-2 forecheck in the Ozone? Are they swarming? Nothing they do makes sense, and it's been like that the entire season. Basically, what's the identity of this team??
All that to say that part of me thinks the coaching staff isn't leveraging the team to maximize the players they have. But what do I know, I'm just a casual fan.
They were good. The Stars had a full 60 minutes of hard compete at the end of a brutal road trip and Oettenger was really good for the second straight game. This is a step forward.
What has changed from the first half of the season. Are teams attacking the Stars differently? I agree with the earlier comment, very little forecheck. First half they were more aggressive.
Comments above saying this is a step in the right direction. I just don't see it. Even my 13 year old son (who plays hockey) said this is ugly to watch.
1. That was a massive improvement from Tuesday. That was a high compete game the looked more like the 2nd or 3rd game of a playoff series than a Thursday night game in the dog days of an 80 game season.
2. Stars were a bit unlucky but didn't do enough to earn more luck. Kind of the way things are going. But if they put that effort in moving forward they'll be pretty successful.
3. NHL refs are the worst; I'm sorry. Every sport has problems with refs because it's a really hard job. But the NBA and NHL really suffer from officials letting their feelings, people's reputations and player "status" drive their calls. Rantanen is clearly a marked man now and is getting called for virtually anything he does while getting virtually no calls in return. It's pathetic bc it's refs determining that player X is to be treated differently than other players. Add the linesman nonsense last night and you have to wonder about the mindset of some of these guys.
4. Harley>>>Miro as the PP QB. I think him getting more PP time also makes the rest of his game better. The solution to reducing Miro's wear and tear throughout the season seems obvious...let Harley QB the #1 PP even after Miro returns.
5. Duchesne and Benn just aren't making plays. Tuesday was disastrous for both (along with many others) but they just can't seem to finish when they have opportunities and often seem on the wrong side of bad plays.
6. More Capobianco please. He brings some offense from the blueline that we just don't see with the other guys he's trading time with.
I’ve been meaning to write this for about a week. Each time, I talked myself out of it with the same refrain: “Let’s give it one more game—maybe the Stars will invalidate everything I’m about to say.”
Well, it’s been a few games now. While there have been signs of improvement, I still haven’t seen clear evidence that they’re working their way out of this rough patch. So here goes.
This probably isn’t news to anyone, but in short: the Stars have a 5v5 problem. KK and others have pointed to possession metrics and other indicators, and the conclusion is hard to dispute. The new coaching staff seems to have installed more defensive discipline—xGA/60 has improved—but whether you rely on advanced stats or the good old fashioned eye test, it’s tough to argue that the Stars aren’t losing more often than not at 5v5.
Because I apparently enjoy killing brain cells by pondering unanswerable questions, I’ve spent some time thinking about why this might be the case. Hockey is fast and played in a confined 200-foot space. What happens at one end of the ice often directly affects the other, creating a constant chicken-and-egg problem where clean cause and effect is hard to isolate. I don’t have the answer—but I might have a few chickens. Or eggs.
1. Offensive puck retrieval
I wish there were a stat that measured how often a team successfully retrieves the puck and establishes possession in the offensive zone after a dump-in. I’d be very curious to see where the Stars would rank, though my suspicion is they wouldn’t fare well.
Context matters, of course. The Stars are skilled enough to generate offense off the rush, and on some nights that may be sufficient. But we all know that in tightly contested games—especially in the playoffs—you need to be able to put the puck behind the defense and go get it. Whether it’s a lack of speed getting F1 in quickly or simply losing too many board battles, it doesn’t feel like opposing defenses are being forced to work very hard to clear their zone after a dump-in.
2. Offensive possession
Great—we retrieved the puck. Now what? KK, this section is for you. When the Stars do establish possession in the offensive zone, I don’t think they generate enough chaos. And chaos is good. It forces defenders to chase, pulls them out of structure, disrupts assignments, and creates space. Because the roster is loaded with skill (duh), the Stars appear almost pre-programmed to look for the perfect play: the seam pass into the slot, the cross-rink feed to the weak side. When those work, they’re beautiful. The problem is that against a team in a decent defensive posture , those plays are extremely difficult to execute—no matter how skilled your forwards are. Often, you need chaos first to create the opening that skill can then exploit. Right now, the Stars tend to lead with skill. It wouldn’t hurt to balance that with a bit more chaos: pucks to the point, bodies in front, shots through traffic. Wing it at the net. Create a mess. Then grab the rebound, make the deft pass, and elevate to finish. Shoot the puck and get interior, as Razor would say.
3. Neutral zone
I don’t have much to add here beyond one observation from the past few games: the Stars’ gap control looks almost nonexistent. Opponents seem to have far too much space through the neutral zone. Whether it’s forwards not tracking back or defensemen not stepping up aggressively, teams are consistently hitting the blue line with speed—or, at minimum, getting clean dump-ins that go deep. Clogging the neutral zone doesn’t seem to be a thing right now.
4. Defensive zone
To be clear, I do think the defensive coverage system implemented by the new coaching staff has helped. The Stars aren’t chasing nearly as much in their own end, and after some early-season growing pains, major coverage breakdowns have become relatively uncommon.
That said, they still get hemmed in their zone more often than you’d like, and to me that’s largely a personnel issue. Simply put, the current D-corps feels physically outmatched. Against heavy forechecking teams, the Stars struggle—and that will matter even more in playoff hockey.
Miro and Harley can mitigate this with skating and puck movement, and Esa is skilled and strong enough to compete. Beyond that, though, the depth becomes an issue. Capobianco skates and moves the puck well but can struggle defending the interior. Lyubushkin and Petrovic play smaller than their size. Lundkvist, in my view, has had a particularly rough stretch.
I know a top-six winger is at the top of most trade-deadline wish lists, but for my money, adding another legitimate top-four defenseman is the higher priority.
This ended up much longer than I intended. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading. It was cathartic to get all of that off my chest. Feel free to comment, disagree, flame, or ignore entirely. I’ll try to keep my mouth shut for the foreseeable future... ;)
John, great post and not just because I agree with most of what you touched upon. I was just writing a long rant (shocker, I know) about some of the same things but it felt too negative to post. And, don't keep quiet. It's great to hear others’ perspectives whether in step with one’s own or not.
My humble take on your more chaos in the offensive zone suggestion: “Yes, please.”
First off, I agree the Stars skill makes them one of the most dangerous teams when it comes to setting up the “perfect play”. A skillset to be fostered, for certain.
But chaos doesn’t have to be random and indiscernible. Controlled chaos works just as well, if not better.
I see no reason why the two can’t coexist. A meeting somewhere closer to the middle if you will, especially given that the Stars are consistently out-paced by opposing teams in high danger chances-for percentage (and demonstrably over the past 18 games). There seems to be a conflict or, at least, a perceived conflict between creating high danger chances versus a higher volume of chances. The two need not be as dichotomous as the focus currently seems to be. At least, I believe they don’t need to be.
As you said, the Stars excel when the opportunity is there to make skilled plays. When those plays aren’t available, what is the next plan? So far, it’s been to keep pushing the same way - looking for the “perfect play”, as you put it. If those plays aren’t there, what is the harm in mashing some pucks toward the net? Why not try to create rebounds, bounces, tips, luck, pressure on the goalie and defense if the defense is honed in on defending perimeter passing? I don’t believe it needs to be as close to an all or nothing affair as it seems to be. One where you play one way but not the other.
Although I can’t substantiate this, there are two reasons, in my mind, this may work (though there may be more):
1. If the skilled plays (HDCF) are being defended well or you are not having puck luck, you have an easy identifiable fall back. One which may not be as efficient but can still work well. Medium and low danger chances are still chances in the absence of anything else. And, in general, more chances overall seems to be a simplistically logical means of generating more goals.
2. More chaos (shot share/generation/net-front turmoil) can keep the defense off balance if they are sitting back, clogging up the Stars’ cross-seam passes, and playing tight man-to-man coverage. They now have different approaches to defend rather than sitting back and waiting for the expected. If the pass is not perfectly there, maybe a shot can generate something rather than continuing to search for an absent passing lane.
My eye, and nothing more, tells me the rest of the league is starting to catch up to the Stars attempts at high quality chance generation. Attempts which don’t work nearly as well at 5v5 as they do on the power play, as their 5v5 numbers reflect.
This is not a large sample but one need only look back at the last couple of games where simple plays have worked out: Faksa’s low danger shot from the top of the circle that forced a rebound against Washington resulting in the opening goal, Robertson’s fluke of a backhand from the blue line that proved the game-winner against LA, hell, even the weak, blue-line wrister that bounced ten feet into the air off Oettinger’s shoulder and into the net against Utah. All game altering goals. None of them remotely close to high danger chances.
Lower danger doesn’t mean no danger and if, as has been the case recently, the Stars aren’t converting their high danger chances, lower danger chances are still chances nonetheless.
I don’t see why, given the right circumstances, some sort of convergence closer to the median cannot be met.
Beyond all that, I am sick of dredging up the hockey ghost of my father while I too often think “Shoot the effing puck!”.
I don’t want to occlude anything y’all are discussing with my interjections; however, I am compelled to say that comments and discussions like these happening here make me very, very happy. Y’all are just great.
Thanks for the defensive breakdown. The offense seems to dominate discussion but there’s been defensive eye test items that have been bothering me since the beginning of the season. I know the money and term for Taney were unrealistic but he was so good at shutdown and exit. It feels like this defense is missing the 4th guy that can do what he did.
Shiny Happy Rambles (mostly) – Mammoth Game for the Stars
1. Nils Lundkvist coughed up the puck right in front of the stars net less than 30 seconds into the game and nothing came of it. Then the Mammoth carried play with pace and purpose for the next four minutes but Oettinger was equal to the task and kept the game knotted at zero. That’s good, right? Or…Oettinger bailed the slow-starting, Stars skaters out early in the game. Both work.
2. The Columbus Blue Jackets hired Rick Bowness as their new head coach on Tuesday and their fans and players seem to be pretty excited about winning their first game under him. They are also amped over his view of how he wants the team to play, including, “When you can play fast, you’re putting pressure on the opposition. I hate playing slow.”
Ummm, wait, what? What did you do with the real Rick?
Then I read more, and Bowness said, “In our league, you don’t score your way into the playoffs. This isn’t the ’80s, man. You defend your way into the playoffs, and you get your offense by playing solid team defense.”
There he is!
The Athletic - “He said he was looking forward to practice Wednesday, when the Blue Jackets will likely get their first full exposure to the system Bowness wants them to play.”
Those poor Columbusonians and the players have no idea what they just signed up for.
3. I really have to start rethinking titling these Rambles under a theme before the game starts because that was not a shiny happy first period.
Smart Side of Brain: “Don’t look at the possession share from that period.”
Less Smart Side of Brain: *looks…regrets doing so immediately.
4. The stars came out in the second period quite unlike the team from the first. They stood up strong at the defensive blue line we're able to make clean breakouts and when they were able to hold on to it in the offensive zone they were able to hold on to it for long stretches. It was refreshing. Then Oettinger made two blue ribbon saves off of Dylan Guenther before having to stop J.J. Peterka in all alone. Then the Benn Faksa-Erne line started mashing pucks at the Mammoth net from all over and almost came away with something good before Vamelka stopped Robertson breaking in all alone.
Repeated push back. Nice to see.
Both teams playing fast, great goaltending, and counter-punches all over. 0-0 but this is fun!
5. Neither team stopped pushing all period as proven by a Mammoth goal with less than seven seconds left after Harley made a nice play at his blue line (I know, right!) to strip the puck from Guenther but Benn just barely missed it with a clearing attempt and the Mammoth scored on a driving tip very few humans on earth could defend.
The Stars trailing 1-0 after two is the same score as it was against the Ducks two nights ago. The weather of the two games may be the same but the climate is vastly different.
6. The Mammoth rank 4th in expected goals for (5v5), and the Stars 22
1st, so this game was going to be an interesting one way or another.
7. The second best power play in the league proves why they are the best power play in the league to make it 1-1 early in the third. If this game is not fun, at least it’s shiny. Nah, it’s fun too.
8. A short time later, Utah takes a usually innocuous shot from the point that Oettinger is partially screened on, he gets a shoulder on it, but the puck Klinko’s 10 feet over his head and into the net. Give the puck some credit, it tried to skitter along the goal line for three feet in an attempt to deny the goal. The post stood firm, denied it's escape, and rejected it back into the net . Weird.
Hockey, y’all.
9. Ten minutes left…2-1 Mammoth…
Utah color commentator: “have we seen a better game all year”
Play by play announcer: “I don't think so.”
Hard to argue. It felt like the playoffs.
10. I have no words for the last 10 minutes of that game. Actually, too many of them.
Both teams played extremely well. Maybe the Mammoth a little better but the Stars never looked out-matched like has been too often the case lately. They put in a full 60 minutes and ran up a team that did likewise.
If the Stars keep doing what they did in this game, good things will follow come playoff time.
This pretty much sums it up.
Of course, the Stars were still outplayed somewhat and, again, out-possessed fairly badly. But this loss was less bad than even some of the recent wins. At the very least, there was "try" - whatever that is. Both low bars, to be sure, but at least it was evident they gave a shit for a refreshing change.
It was a really entertaining game.
Midway through the 2nd I was thinking "anyone who claims a 0-0 hockey game is boring needs to watch this" and about 5 seconds later Razer talked about this looking like a playoff game. Very entertaining game to watch.
Robert, I rarely disagree with you but we obviously watched different games. This was another awful display. Yes, better than Anaheim but so what. Every team in the league is flawed, maybe not the Avs, but they're positioning in the D zone is pathetic and their forecheck shows up about 5 minutes a game, if that... You can't score if you don't shoot (I trust #99 on this one more than Gulikson)... Shot attempts differential is disgusting. #96 and #21 are shining lights with sporadic good performances from others. Early season, every single break went their way so they loaded up on wins, AWESOME! Those breaks assured a playoff spot even with this "slump". Can they right this ship? Who knows, but really all that matters is to get in I guess. These games are not enjoyable to watch... And I have to endure this during dry January!!!!!!
I do think their forecheck has yet to really become a weapon, but I think otherwise, this game was more good than bad. But just not by enough of a margin.
Ugh....no. Not awful hockey. Not remotely close.
My comment "These games are not enjoyable to watch" is of course my opinion so it is neither right or wrong for anyone other than me. Personally, watching teams that don't play positional hockey in the defensive zone and simply don't attempt to forecheck more than 5 minutes a game and take under 10 shots a period are just boring. I'm glad Victory+ is a free service LOL. You may enjoy this brand of hockey, and you are totally welcome to that. I still hold out some degree of confidence that this team has enough quality players to turn it around when it counts, starting in April.
The Stars were better tonight. Still not good enough, but at least they didn't spend a majority of the game defending in their own zone or dumping pucks in the offensive zone without retrieving enough of them to be any significant threat at even strength.
Also, what KK said tonight.
I'm not sure how to word this, but I would be curious to know what Gullutzan and his coaching staff are aiming for exactly in terms of style and strategy. The forwards and D rarely looked connected in the Ozone. For example, it's clear they want to chip the puck in and forecheck but more often than not, all 3 forwards are caught in deep and the opposing D beat them with one simple pass up ice to an open winger. There's sooooo much open space between the 3 forechecking Dallas forwards and the Dallas D. So what exactly is Gullutzan's strategy? Are they running a traditional 1-2-2 forecheck in the Ozone? Are they swarming? Nothing they do makes sense, and it's been like that the entire season. Basically, what's the identity of this team??
All that to say that part of me thinks the coaching staff isn't leveraging the team to maximize the players they have. But what do I know, I'm just a casual fan.
They were good. The Stars had a full 60 minutes of hard compete at the end of a brutal road trip and Oettenger was really good for the second straight game. This is a step forward.
5‑7‑3 in their last 15 games.
What has changed from the first half of the season. Are teams attacking the Stars differently? I agree with the earlier comment, very little forecheck. First half they were more aggressive.
Comments above saying this is a step in the right direction. I just don't see it. Even my 13 year old son (who plays hockey) said this is ugly to watch.
Tuesday was objectively terrible hockey. Last night was a highly competitive, well played game.
Not being able to distinguish the two is...something.
It wasn't a game to game comparison. It was look at the past 15 games compared to the first half.
1. That was a massive improvement from Tuesday. That was a high compete game the looked more like the 2nd or 3rd game of a playoff series than a Thursday night game in the dog days of an 80 game season.
2. Stars were a bit unlucky but didn't do enough to earn more luck. Kind of the way things are going. But if they put that effort in moving forward they'll be pretty successful.
3. NHL refs are the worst; I'm sorry. Every sport has problems with refs because it's a really hard job. But the NBA and NHL really suffer from officials letting their feelings, people's reputations and player "status" drive their calls. Rantanen is clearly a marked man now and is getting called for virtually anything he does while getting virtually no calls in return. It's pathetic bc it's refs determining that player X is to be treated differently than other players. Add the linesman nonsense last night and you have to wonder about the mindset of some of these guys.
4. Harley>>>Miro as the PP QB. I think him getting more PP time also makes the rest of his game better. The solution to reducing Miro's wear and tear throughout the season seems obvious...let Harley QB the #1 PP even after Miro returns.
5. Duchesne and Benn just aren't making plays. Tuesday was disastrous for both (along with many others) but they just can't seem to finish when they have opportunities and often seem on the wrong side of bad plays.
6. More Capobianco please. He brings some offense from the blueline that we just don't see with the other guys he's trading time with.
I’ve been meaning to write this for about a week. Each time, I talked myself out of it with the same refrain: “Let’s give it one more game—maybe the Stars will invalidate everything I’m about to say.”
Well, it’s been a few games now. While there have been signs of improvement, I still haven’t seen clear evidence that they’re working their way out of this rough patch. So here goes.
This probably isn’t news to anyone, but in short: the Stars have a 5v5 problem. KK and others have pointed to possession metrics and other indicators, and the conclusion is hard to dispute. The new coaching staff seems to have installed more defensive discipline—xGA/60 has improved—but whether you rely on advanced stats or the good old fashioned eye test, it’s tough to argue that the Stars aren’t losing more often than not at 5v5.
Because I apparently enjoy killing brain cells by pondering unanswerable questions, I’ve spent some time thinking about why this might be the case. Hockey is fast and played in a confined 200-foot space. What happens at one end of the ice often directly affects the other, creating a constant chicken-and-egg problem where clean cause and effect is hard to isolate. I don’t have the answer—but I might have a few chickens. Or eggs.
1. Offensive puck retrieval
I wish there were a stat that measured how often a team successfully retrieves the puck and establishes possession in the offensive zone after a dump-in. I’d be very curious to see where the Stars would rank, though my suspicion is they wouldn’t fare well.
Context matters, of course. The Stars are skilled enough to generate offense off the rush, and on some nights that may be sufficient. But we all know that in tightly contested games—especially in the playoffs—you need to be able to put the puck behind the defense and go get it. Whether it’s a lack of speed getting F1 in quickly or simply losing too many board battles, it doesn’t feel like opposing defenses are being forced to work very hard to clear their zone after a dump-in.
2. Offensive possession
Great—we retrieved the puck. Now what? KK, this section is for you. When the Stars do establish possession in the offensive zone, I don’t think they generate enough chaos. And chaos is good. It forces defenders to chase, pulls them out of structure, disrupts assignments, and creates space. Because the roster is loaded with skill (duh), the Stars appear almost pre-programmed to look for the perfect play: the seam pass into the slot, the cross-rink feed to the weak side. When those work, they’re beautiful. The problem is that against a team in a decent defensive posture , those plays are extremely difficult to execute—no matter how skilled your forwards are. Often, you need chaos first to create the opening that skill can then exploit. Right now, the Stars tend to lead with skill. It wouldn’t hurt to balance that with a bit more chaos: pucks to the point, bodies in front, shots through traffic. Wing it at the net. Create a mess. Then grab the rebound, make the deft pass, and elevate to finish. Shoot the puck and get interior, as Razor would say.
3. Neutral zone
I don’t have much to add here beyond one observation from the past few games: the Stars’ gap control looks almost nonexistent. Opponents seem to have far too much space through the neutral zone. Whether it’s forwards not tracking back or defensemen not stepping up aggressively, teams are consistently hitting the blue line with speed—or, at minimum, getting clean dump-ins that go deep. Clogging the neutral zone doesn’t seem to be a thing right now.
4. Defensive zone
To be clear, I do think the defensive coverage system implemented by the new coaching staff has helped. The Stars aren’t chasing nearly as much in their own end, and after some early-season growing pains, major coverage breakdowns have become relatively uncommon.
That said, they still get hemmed in their zone more often than you’d like, and to me that’s largely a personnel issue. Simply put, the current D-corps feels physically outmatched. Against heavy forechecking teams, the Stars struggle—and that will matter even more in playoff hockey.
Miro and Harley can mitigate this with skating and puck movement, and Esa is skilled and strong enough to compete. Beyond that, though, the depth becomes an issue. Capobianco skates and moves the puck well but can struggle defending the interior. Lyubushkin and Petrovic play smaller than their size. Lundkvist, in my view, has had a particularly rough stretch.
I know a top-six winger is at the top of most trade-deadline wish lists, but for my money, adding another legitimate top-four defenseman is the higher priority.
This ended up much longer than I intended. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for reading. It was cathartic to get all of that off my chest. Feel free to comment, disagree, flame, or ignore entirely. I’ll try to keep my mouth shut for the foreseeable future... ;)
John, great post and not just because I agree with most of what you touched upon. I was just writing a long rant (shocker, I know) about some of the same things but it felt too negative to post. And, don't keep quiet. It's great to hear others’ perspectives whether in step with one’s own or not.
My humble take on your more chaos in the offensive zone suggestion: “Yes, please.”
First off, I agree the Stars skill makes them one of the most dangerous teams when it comes to setting up the “perfect play”. A skillset to be fostered, for certain.
But chaos doesn’t have to be random and indiscernible. Controlled chaos works just as well, if not better.
I see no reason why the two can’t coexist. A meeting somewhere closer to the middle if you will, especially given that the Stars are consistently out-paced by opposing teams in high danger chances-for percentage (and demonstrably over the past 18 games). There seems to be a conflict or, at least, a perceived conflict between creating high danger chances versus a higher volume of chances. The two need not be as dichotomous as the focus currently seems to be. At least, I believe they don’t need to be.
As you said, the Stars excel when the opportunity is there to make skilled plays. When those plays aren’t available, what is the next plan? So far, it’s been to keep pushing the same way - looking for the “perfect play”, as you put it. If those plays aren’t there, what is the harm in mashing some pucks toward the net? Why not try to create rebounds, bounces, tips, luck, pressure on the goalie and defense if the defense is honed in on defending perimeter passing? I don’t believe it needs to be as close to an all or nothing affair as it seems to be. One where you play one way but not the other.
Although I can’t substantiate this, there are two reasons, in my mind, this may work (though there may be more):
1. If the skilled plays (HDCF) are being defended well or you are not having puck luck, you have an easy identifiable fall back. One which may not be as efficient but can still work well. Medium and low danger chances are still chances in the absence of anything else. And, in general, more chances overall seems to be a simplistically logical means of generating more goals.
2. More chaos (shot share/generation/net-front turmoil) can keep the defense off balance if they are sitting back, clogging up the Stars’ cross-seam passes, and playing tight man-to-man coverage. They now have different approaches to defend rather than sitting back and waiting for the expected. If the pass is not perfectly there, maybe a shot can generate something rather than continuing to search for an absent passing lane.
My eye, and nothing more, tells me the rest of the league is starting to catch up to the Stars attempts at high quality chance generation. Attempts which don’t work nearly as well at 5v5 as they do on the power play, as their 5v5 numbers reflect.
This is not a large sample but one need only look back at the last couple of games where simple plays have worked out: Faksa’s low danger shot from the top of the circle that forced a rebound against Washington resulting in the opening goal, Robertson’s fluke of a backhand from the blue line that proved the game-winner against LA, hell, even the weak, blue-line wrister that bounced ten feet into the air off Oettinger’s shoulder and into the net against Utah. All game altering goals. None of them remotely close to high danger chances.
Lower danger doesn’t mean no danger and if, as has been the case recently, the Stars aren’t converting their high danger chances, lower danger chances are still chances nonetheless.
I don’t see why, given the right circumstances, some sort of convergence closer to the median cannot be met.
Beyond all that, I am sick of dredging up the hockey ghost of my father while I too often think “Shoot the effing puck!”.
I don’t want to occlude anything y’all are discussing with my interjections; however, I am compelled to say that comments and discussions like these happening here make me very, very happy. Y’all are just great.
I serve at the behest of my hockey leader, Robert. 🫡
KK, you say it way better I can. YES EXACTLY.
Nah, I just followed your lead-in.
After a couple days of practice, the Lightning game on Sunday will be interesting. Good or bad, I don't know, but definitely interesting.
Thanks for the defensive breakdown. The offense seems to dominate discussion but there’s been defensive eye test items that have been bothering me since the beginning of the season. I know the money and term for Taney were unrealistic but he was so good at shutdown and exit. It feels like this defense is missing the 4th guy that can do what he did.