Takeaways: Games One and Two

1. The Ducks have now gone down 2-0 to begin a series six times in their history. The results of those series are as follows:

1997 Detroit Red Wings win in four.

1999 Detroit Red Wings win in four.

2003 New Jersey Devils win in seven.

2006 Edmonton Oilers win in five.

2008 Dallas Stars win in six.

2014 . . .

In those first three series, the Ducks were on the road for the first two games, but in the three most recent ones, they've had home ice advantage. In both the 2006 and 2008 series, the Ducks managed to split Games Three and Four on the road. Obviously, that hasn't been enough, but as the old cliche dictates, they have to take it one game at a time now.

2. Marian Gaborik is making Dean Lombardi look like a genius. The fact that Bryan Allen and Ben Lovejoy are helping him do that is distressing. Allen is supposed to be good at clearing people out of the crease, and Lovejoy is supposed to be positionally sound. No doubt about it, the goals that those two defensemen helped Gaborik score hurt, and they hurt a lot. But the bottom line is that the Ducks only allowed two regulation non empty-net goals in each of the games, while scoring two and then one themselves. Allen and Lovejoy made huge mistakes, but when the most potent offense in the league manages to score 1.5 goals per game, it's tough to pin the losses on them. (Lovejoy, by the way, had the best possession numbers of any player in Game Two. I think that's worth noting.)

3. Corey Perry had zero points in the first two games. He did not do his job. That overtime chance he had in Game One has to go in. This series will be over in four if he does not start finding the back of the net. Mathieu Perreault also deserves some blame for his goose egg in the points department. In a series where the Ducks have dominated possession, it's up to the scorers to finish their chances.

4. A competent power play could go a long way toward evening this series. The Ducks are 1 for 8, with their only goal coming on a 4 on 3 that actually looked pretty good. For the most part, their 5 on 4 play has been ugly. Not New York Rangers ugly, but ugly nonetheless. What I do not understand is why Ryan Getzlaf and Cam Fowler don't switch places up top more often. I understand them lining up for the faceoff on the sides that they do because it helps them keep pucks in or defend against a shorthanded attack in the event of a faceoff loss. That is standard for most teams' power plays. What is not standard is the fact that, once puck control is established, the two point men don't switch places to set up for the one-timer. We've all seen how much damage that Getzlaf one-timer can do on the power play, but I don't think we've seen it once in these playoffs. Instead, we're seeing a lot of catch-and-release shots that tend to get blocked because they allow the penalty killer an extra split second to get in the shooting lane.

5. Lineup changes ought to be a big topic of discussion heading into Game Three. The Ducks did play well enough to win each game, which lends support to the argument that the lineup shouldn't be touched. But given the fact that they were unable to finish on their chances despite getting more of them than the Kings did, I think more scoring talent is in order. If it were up to me, Emerson Etem would be sitting out the next one and Kyle Palmieri would take his place alongside Nick Bonino and Devante Smith-Pelly.

6. Saku Koivu has been a popular topic of discussion lately. He obviously hasn't been very effective, and since playoffs should be about winning, not honoring careers with a classy sendoff, he should sit if we have a better option. But we don't have a better option. I'm hoping Rickard Rakell turns into a great player, but that simply hasn't happened yet. Koivu deserves to play simply because he's the Ducks' fourth best center, and that's good enough to get you into the lineup. Blame Bob Murray (or Mike Gillis) all you want for that, but don't blame Bruce Boudreau.

7. Jonas Hiller also deserves to play at Staples Center. This one should be obvious. He's done his job in these two games, and while Jonathan Quick may have played better, we have to accept that Jonathan Quick can do that because he is Jonathan Quick. No point in swapping out our goalie who stopped every shot that most goalies would have stopped. Sure, he could have made a spectacular save on Gaborik once or twice and saved either game. But if you think he's more at fault for his team needing him to make a spectacular save than the porous defense who allowed those chances to happen or the anemic offense that allowed those chances to matter, I can't help but think you were watching a different game.