DETROIT — When Simon Edvinsson was ruled out through the Olympic break earlier this week, this five-game stretch became something of a test for the Detroit Red Wings. So far, they’re failing it.
There was always going to be some hardship, down a top-pair defenseman. But in three consecutive home losses, the latest a 5-0 drubbing at the hands of the Colorado Avalanche on Saturday, the Red Wings haven’t looked ready to meet the challenge.
“They won five-nothing, and we were just kind of watching,” Red Wings captain Dylan Larkin said. “You’ve got to find a way to get something going.”
And right now, they have very little going.
A pair of late pushes in their first two losses of this homestand showed flashes, but outside of three six-on-five goals in those games — including Alex DeBrincat’s miracle bounce off a dump-in to steal a point Thursday — the Red Wings have just one other goal across the three contests.
Each of the three games has been different, and some down stretches are inevitable in a season. But in the midst of a heated Atlantic Division race, this has been a discouraging showing ahead of the Olympic break.
So, what’s gone wrong? Five thoughts:
1. Red Wings coach Todd McLellan summed up Saturday’s game like this:
“A lack of energy, a lack of drive, a lack of execution. You can’t have all of those things disappear at one point and expect to have success. I didn’t think we skated well at all. I didn’t think we passed real well at all, which affects your skating. And then when it was time to do some of the harder or the heavier things, battles, 50-50s, loose stuff, the four-foot races, they were much better than we were.”
And where the Red Wings showed some late urgency in their first two losses, Saturday’s game was so out of reach by the third period that there wasn’t even that saving grace.
The reality is, they were flat for the majority of this homestand. McLellan theorized some possibilities for what could be driving that — a lack of focus, stale line combinations, complacency or some fatigue — and certainly he and his staff will be sorting through to figure out which of those apply and how to solve them.
“We have six periods left (before the break), and these points — tonight’s points, the next game and the game after that — could be the deciding points,” McLellan said. “For whatever that decision is. I don’t know. But those could be the deciding points, and if we aren’t completely willing to dig in and get after them, then regret comes in many different ways and at many different times.”
2. The Avalanche got some easy offense in this one, which hasn’t been a trend of late. The Red Wings pulled John Gibson before the third period, after he let up four goals on 17 shots, but that felt more like a shake-up pull more than anything.
Being without Edvinsson doesn’t help the blue line, of course, especially defending transition — which the Avalanche happen to excel at.
“Probably the best transition team in the league,” J.T. Compher said. “They probably get the most chances, they score on probably the most chances, from what I’ve watched this year. And we fed right into it. We didn’t establish (a) forecheck, which means we didn’t play enough offense. And they played enough offense.”
And that latter piece is the more concerning trend. The Avalanche are dynamic and tough to defend. But Colorado was down some key pieces, too, missing Canadian Olympian Devon Toews and star forward Martin Necas, and had lost four of its last five coming in — giving up five or more in three of those losses.
You’d never have known that watching, though. While the game sheet will read that the Red Wings outshot the Avalanche 28-21, it would be hard to say Detroit was even close to threatening enough in the offensive zone.
The Red Wings had two big chances early, first on a pass from Andrew Copp to Patrick Kane, and then with DeBrincat on a two-on-one, but neither Kane nor DeBrincat could turn those looks into shots on goal. From there, the Avalanche got to their game, and the Red Wings never really did. The offensive shortcomings that have plagued them for the bulk of this homestand were quite visible again.
“To me, we’re playing — one guy’s working and doing some honest work, really, he’s protecting pucks, and four other guys are standing,” McLellan said. “I was barking on the bench tonight, ‘Move, move.’ If you don’t have the puck, move. But right now, offensively, we’re not supporting each other well, we’re not creating open ice for other people, we’re not getting to secondary chances.”
3. It would be hard to say any of the Red Wings forwards outside of DeBrincat (who had all three six-on-five goals) and perhaps Marco Kasper (who is back to creating havoc around the net) have been good enough in these three losses. But when a team is slipping, the eyes turn first toward its stars.
Detroit’s power play went 0-for-10 across three games, a huge issue for a team that doesn’t create enough at five-on-five. It also didn’t create any momentum, with pressure building up on opponents.
“I think our high-end players, whoever they might be, played better on the trip than they have here at home,” McLellan said. “Is that gas tanks? Is that execution? Is that whatever it might be? But it’s not at the level that it needs to be.”
Larkin talked about the team needing to have more desperation, “especially around the net, and wanting to get there and score goals,” and said he could “probably look in the mirror and could lead the charge on that.” His four five-on-five points since Dec. 1 speak to that, and Detroit will need more offense from its top center down the stretch.
At the same time, this is a deeper problem than one player right now. In past years, one of the Red Wings’ biggest flaws has been not creating enough hard offense via rebounds, tips, screens and chances in the middle of the ice. That appears to remain the case, though James van Riemsdyk has helped in that regard. It can’t all fall to one player, though, especially when that player is predominantly deployed in the bottom six.
4. The scars of late-season collapses are real for Red Wings fans. But as ugly as Saturday was, and while the timing of losing four of their last five certainly isn’t a good sign, it’s worth pointing out that Colorado also just lost four of five. It does happen, even to good teams.
That’s not to say the Red Wings have earned the same benefit of the doubt, though, and won’t until they can prove they can weather the adversity at this time of year. To their credit, they’ve shown growth in bouncing back from losses for most of this season. But the degree of difficulty is going up now, especially with their next two on the road at Colorado and Utah.
“We’ve bounced back,” Larkin said. “We’ve been kind of just chugging along and … get a little bump in the road and we just pick ourselves back up and keep going. And that’s what we need to do, and there’s probably no better test than to go into that building in Colorado and play against that offense. If we’re going to win, it’s going to be a team win. And that’s the way it’s gotta be.”
5. McLellan’s comment on regret coming in many different ways and times made me think of the upcoming trade deadline. Technically, that deadline is more than a month away, but because of the Olympic break and trade freeze, the Red Wings have only six more games before March 6 to make their impression on general manager Steve Yzerman.
To me, it shouldn’t even be a debate. After nine years outside the playoffs, the Red Wings have basically just let things play out at the last two trade deadlines and missed the playoffs both times. Inaction at this deadline would feel tone deaf to that.
No one is saying Detroit needs to abandon all reason in its dealings, mind you. But there’s a clear need on the blue line, and the lack of offense recently points toward a need up front as well. Addressing at least one of those could go a long way, and it doesn’t have to just be a rental.
That being said, the Red Wings’ players can make the conversation a whole lot easier by putting their best foot forward going into the break and coming out of it. They can’t afford to give Yzerman any reason to second-guess their trajectory.
