Looks like a long winter

I haven't been the greatest Wild fan since its inception, so I got curious. Looking at each NHL season since 2000, the Wild have never ranked in the top-fifteen in goals scored. That's mostly due to Jacque Lemaire's "don't lose" system, which never let defensemen join the attack, and kept the center from forechecking as well. In an ideal scenario, no goals would be scored, and some luck in the overtime/shootout would give the Wild a better than .500 record. Marion Gaborik did enough to actually score enough goals, but now both he, Doug Risebrough, Lemaire are gone.

What's left are Gaborik's replacement (Marty Havlat), Mikko Koivu, Brent Burns, and all the mediocre players that Risebrough signed and drafted during his tenure. As a collection, they don't have many offensive skills. There were chances, but they couldn't finish. Chris Mason admittedly made some great saves, but so did Chris Anderson, Roberto Luongo, Nikolai Khabibulin, Jonas Hiller, Evgeni Nabokov, Jonathan Quick, Jean-Sebastien Giguere, and Steve Mason. So which is more likely, that all of those goaltenders are spectacular or that the Wild just don't take good shots?

The Wild's only goal was a rebound that just barely squirted through Mason's pads. They seemed to keep up a pretty good effort, but the inability to control the puck in key situations lead to multiple odd man rushes, which Backstrom can only stop so many of those. Niklas played spectacularly after a few rebound issues early on. He's by far the Wild's best player, and has single-handedly kept the Wild in more than one game. He deserves better goal support.

Which won't happen until the opposing goaltenders stop being so spectacular. Or maybe until the Wild are completely healthy, and take shots on the edges of the net, instead of the middle, where those spectacular goaltenders have an easy time of getting it. I'm talking to you, Captain.