The Colorado Avalanche returned to practice today after their thrilling 6-5 loss to the Tampa Bay Lightning last night. Given the team gave up three goals during four on four situations last night, it was no surprise to see the team working extensively on the format as they seek to iron out some of the kinks that likely cost them at least one point.
The group on the ice skated as normal, including injured forward Alexander Kerfoot who has missed the last three games with an injured foot after an Erik Johnson slap shot took him out last week against the Pittsburgh Penguins. He has begun wearing the skate guards that have been commonplace with the Avalanche since the Patrick Roy coaching days.
With those same Pens in town tomorrow, head coach Jared Bednar said Kerfoot’s return is a possibility. The lineup remains in flux as the organization awaits word on Johnson’s hearing with the Department of Player Safety after his questionable hit on Lightning forward Vladislav Namestnikov. He received a five-minute Boarding major and a game misconduct. Namestnikov, while initially injured on the play, did not end up missing a shift as he hopped out on the ensuing power play.
A potential Johnson suspension might put a stop to the recent Avalanche trend of using 11 forwards and seven defensemen, especially if Kerfoot is healthy enough to play. The peculiar alignment has been used recently by the Avalanche as they shorten the leash on their forwards, giving their big guns more ice time, and allowing each of their defenders a chance to play every night in a rotation of roles. One such player who has seen his ice time dip recently is defenseman Patrick Nemeth, who returned from a back injury six games ago and says he’s no longer feeling its effects.
“I feel pretty good,” Nemeth told BSN Denver. “There’s always some small things that are going to linger a little bit. We decided to, with the same injury there for a little bit, I was in and out, so we just decided to shut it down and let it heal right away. That injury is not a problem anymore.”
The rotation of defensemen versus the regular partners of a six-defenseman lineup has its own set of strengths and weaknesses but Nemeth feels the more it’s being used, the more comfortable the blueliners are with the rotation.
“It’s tougher, for sure,” Nemeth admitted when asked about finding a rhythm with irregular partners. “It is. It’s one more guy you’ve got to rotate in but so it is a little bit of a mix back there. I think we’re handling it pretty good. We’ll see what we do in the next couple games.”
While the rotation at even strength has brought on its own struggles, the Avalanche penalty kill has been a staple of success for Colorado in the month of December. Once mired deep at the bottom of the league, the Avalanche PK unit has risen to 16th in the NHL. While not spectacular overall, it’s a strong response after a very leaky start to the season.
“When you start to settle into some pairs and the same forwards come out, you kind of know each other and you talk through how you want to play certain situations,” Nemeth explained. “I think that helps a lot. I think a lot of guys have bought into how we want to play and guys are really digging in and doing the right things on the PK. It’s been pretty good but next game is a tough game, tough power play against Pittsburgh so we need to step up there as well.”
If the Avalanche do go back to using six defensemen, don’t be surprised to see Nemeth return to seeing the majority of his time on the ice with Tyson Barrie, his most frequent partner so far this season. Their mixture is the classic stay-at-home defenseman and offensive dynamo who pushes play. After his three-assist game last night, Barrie is tied for second in the NHL in defensemen scoring with Drew Doughty (LAK) and John Carlson (WSH).
“He is good,” Nemeth said behind a smile. “I want him to jump up and play. I kind of want to be the guy who goes back to pucks and makes the first pass to him so he can jump up ice. It’s been pretty good.”
Ultimately, the decision may be out of Colorado’s hands a bit here if they decide on further punishment for Johnson. If No. 6 does not receive any suspension, expect Colorado to continue with their recent lineup experiment.
0 Comments (2 conversations)
Mark T
Good insight from Nemeth. I wonder who the scratch will be if they go back to 6 permanently even with EJ in the lineup? Before last game I would have thought Gerard. Now I’m not sure. Lindholm?
I also am torn about EJ being potentially suspended. I obviously hope he isn’t, but that is precisely the kind of play the NHL wants out of hockey, and I hate when the NHL/refs take into account whether or not an injury happened. The Tampa player very easily could have been seriously injured there. The fact that he wasn’t is due to luck as much as anything. I know if that had been one of our forwards and Hedman had propelled them into the boards, I might be expecting a suspension. In any case, if he is out I hope it’s for 1 or 2 games at most.
Bob_W
NHL.com says EJ suspended for 2 games.
Mark T
Thanks. It sucks but I think that’s fair.
Bob_W
I’ve never played hockey nor was I on the ice for that push so I do not know how hard of a shove EJ gave him or whether his own momentum and loss of edge caused the “injury”. But I do not see it as “boarding”. I do see those types of pushes in games all the time and they do not produce injury and are not called as penalties.
Av-a-dabba-doo
Interesting you say that, Bob. I watched this game with my one and only hockey pal, who is very knowledgeable and also plays competitively. [BTW, I’ve been trying to get him to start posting on here — yeah I’m looking at you, Larry.] Anyway, when the Johnson penalty was announced he said, “They called that BOARDING?”. So your sentiments aren’t yours alone.
Mark T
How is it not boarding though? He pushed him into the boards. There’s no way EJ would have thought he wouldn’t smash into the boards (and if he didn’t think so he should have). Maybe he thought the guy would stay on his feet, but no matter which way you look at it that push was certainly going to lead the guy directly into the boards. Hitting someone into the boards when they’re a couple feet away and unable to stop is the definition of boarding, no?
I’m not a ice hockey player either, so take my opinion with a grain of salt, bit I haven’t seen a strong argument against my opinion on this yet.
Yep, no matter what Larry may think that was a pretty clear-cut boarding penalty, and a completely unnecessary one at that. If the guy still had the puck when EJ hit him it would still have been boarding, but he could at least have said he was trying to disrupt the puck carrier… but that hit was after the guy had got rid of the puck, there was absolutely no reason to hit him like that at all. EJ had already got a slashing penalty, was frustrated, and he took it out on a guy who was headed towards the boards.
Boarding is one of the few penalties where the location and the result defines it as much as the action itself. Yes, that same push in another spot in the ice is no penalty 98% of the time, and would be maybe a weak interference call the other 2%. That same push near the boards but that doesn’t force the player violently into the boards is not a penalty most of the time either, maybe a cross check or something. But that same push to player near the boards that also causes him to hit the boards violently is boarding. It’s one of the more subjective rules in the rulebook, but that doesn’t mean that all boarding calls are iffy calls… this one was pretty obvious IMO.
Bob_W
I must confess that after reading the rule in the NHL rulebook that I have had to change my mind about what constitutes boarding. Previously I had based my opinion upon what was said in TV broadcasts about hitting from behind and whether or not the player could see the numbers before the hit. I also had a general impression that it involved using the body to jam a player against the boards. None of these impressions are correct. The rule does not mention hitting from behind at all,Here is the rule:
41.1
Boarding
– A boarding penalty shall be imposed on any player who
checks or pushes a defenseless opponent in such a manner that
causes the opponent to hit or impact the boards violently or
dangerously. The severity of the penalty, based upon the impact with
the boards, shall be at the discretion of the Referee.
There is an enormous amount of judgment involved in the
application of this rule by the Referees. The onus is on the player
applying the check to ensure his opponent is not in a defenseless
position and if so, he must avoid or minimize contact. However, in
determining whether such contact could have been avoided, the
circumstances of the check, including whether the opponent put
himself in a vulnerable position immediately prior to or simultaneously
with the check or whether the check was unavoidable can be
considered. This balance must be considered by the Referees when
applying this rule.
Any unnecessary contact with a player playing the puck on an
obvious “icing” or “off-side” play which results in that player hitting or
impacting the boards is “boarding” and must be penalized as such. In
other instances where there is no contact with the boards, it should be
treated as “charging.”
Av-a-dabba-doo
Ha ha, poor Larry. Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned his name! Anyway, so as not to give the wrong idea: Neither of us disagreed with the penalty at all (which perhaps seems to be the implication of your above comment). I wasn’t even saying that we disagreed with it being boarding. Rather, that the initial reaction raised a question about it, b/c it was not your typical instance of that penalty. IOW, initially it didn’t look like it, but that’s because it was a less common example.
Av-a-dabba-doo
Sorry, I didn’t realize your post was in response to mine (I thought you were talking to Bob above). Anyway, yeah, I would say it is boarding. My point was that at first it didn’t look like your run of the mill boarding infraction. The more commonly seen example happens when a player who is near and facing the wall gets blasted into it from behind by an opposing player impacting their back (numbers).
Chris DeMott
Although, I do think EJ was a bit unlucky as the push occurs at the bottom of the face off circle several feet from the boards and most of the time players would have been able hold a better edge to avoid careening out of control into the boards, this too would have to be considered an undisciplined penalty by one of the team leaders. EJ and Lando will need to stop hurting their team with this kind of stuff before we can expect to see things like disciplined team defense.