Houston Aeros 1994-2013: Thank you for all the great memories and two decades of great hockey and entertainment.

Monday, October 15, 2012

The 0-2 Aeros have a week to think about it.

Matt Hackett makes a save against the Rampage on Sunday.
-- photo courtesy of San Antonio Rampage
When you are lucky enough to work more than 500 games as a sports reporter, you start to notice trends after awhile.

One of those trends for me is how teams react to losses, streaks and other parts of the game that non sports people may view as trivial.

Many times over the years, when a team I have covered loses a bad game, a player has stated his desire to want to get right back out there and "put it behind him."

In other words, players generally like when there is another game right away for the chance to make amends.But when you lose on a Sunday in the AHL, many times you have to wait at least four days for another crack, and that is the case this week for the Aeros.

They are 0-2 with two regulation losses for just the third time in franchise history. Two other times, they've lost both games to start the year, but they at least got a point in one of the games by getting to overtime.

Prior to this year, the Aeros started 2-0 in three of the last four years, so Aeros fans had been spoiled recently with good stars. I guess the good news is that 0-2 starts are very rare for the Aeros. The bad news is that the other two 0-2 Aeros teams failed to make the playoffs.

Those two teams each needed seven games to record their first win, and I think it's very likely the Aeros will win at least one of their games next weekend. Right now it would be silly to hit the panic button. You can wait to do that next Monday, if the results don't pan out this week.

Not surprisingly, the most common two-game start for the Aeros is a win and a loss. That has happened 10 times in 19 years. The perfect 2-0 starts have only happened four times, which is as rare as two losses (two in OT) to start the year.

I know the Aeros wish they could get right back out there and try again, but they'll have a few practices to work out the kinks before they take on the perfect 2-0 Texas Stars.

And on another note, I continue to detect a lot of unfair criticism toward Matt Hackett. In no way can he be blamed for the two "Ls" this weekend. If you lose a 6-5 game, you can blame the D and the goalies, but Hackett only gave up four goals in two games. The second goal he gave up in San Antonio was entirely his fault, but other than that, I thought he played quite well this weekend.

This is a big year for Hackett, who wants to be in the NHL full time next year.


Forecheck said...

The Aeros' problem is they have five skaters on the ice who are going in five different directions.

Torch has about three practices to get the ox ot of the ditch.

Patience, hell. I want a win!

artandhockey said...

It's just so easy to blame the goalie. When blame should be apportioned evenly.
But you see, a goalie stands out by nature of his get up and, perhaps, a percieved 'hiding' behind a mask!
Which is there really to protect his/her handsome face :-) of course!

Anonymous said...

Not sure where you get this information from about Matt being a bad person of the ice ??? But writing that just made me loose all respect for this blog

John Royal said...

Dear Anonymous, you need to work on your reading comprehension. The author was defending Mr. Hackett against fans who have been criticizing him.

Mitch said...

While criticizing his off ice conduct, which is an absolute joke. Matt Hackett is one of the nicest guys I have ever met, and known. For you to jump to conclusions and say that he there have been reports from "fans" who don't think he is a good guy off the ice, just shows how terrible you are in your own profession. Do your research before you jump to conclusions, and further more post such a stupid thing. Find a new job you mutt.

Andrew J. Ferraro said...

After talking to several of my colleagues, I have decided to remove the reference to Hackett's off-ice conduct from this blog.

My intent was nothing other than to defend him from all of the criticism I hear both via comments and emails.

It was a poor choice of words, and my colleagues agree that the phrase did nothing to add to the story.

I do apologize to all who were offended.