Anaheim DucksJackson LaCombe's defensive positioning on the penalty kill has become Anaheim's most effective offensive weapon against Edmonton, helping the Ducks take a 4-3 overtime victory. LaCombe's ability to force turnovers while short-handed has generated more scoring chances than Edmonton's power play has created, turning what should be the Oilers' biggest advantage into transition opportunities the other way.
The pattern emerged clearly in the game's second period. After Ryan Nugent-Hopkins scored Edmonton's second goal of the game (a power-play goal) at 6:32 of the first period, extending their lead to 2-0, LaCombe adjusted his penalty kill positioning to pressure the point men more aggressively. When the Oilers earned another power play later in the period, LaCombe's lane denial forced Connor McDavid and Leon Draisaitl into extended possession battles that created the turnover leading to Anaheim's transition goal.
LaCombe's two assists in the game represent the kind of production typically generated from power-play opportunities, not penalty kill situations. His assists came primarily from defensive zone reads that exploit Edmonton's power-play structure. The Oilers' tendency to falter low for cross-ice passes consistently leaves their defensemen isolated at the point, exactly where LaCombe has been most effective at creating pressure and forcing hurried decisions.
The tactical evolution became apparent. Rather than playing a traditional penalty kill box that prioritizes coverage over pressure, the Ducks began allowing LaCombe to cheat higher in the zone. This positioning forces McDavid and Draisaitl to hold the puck longer in traffic, creating the hesitation that has allowed Anaheim to transition quickly once possession changes.
Ryan Poehling's overtime winner came at 2:29, though the goal required video review to confirm the puck had crossed the line. The sequence that created the opportunity - another defensive zone read by LaCombe - initiated the rush leading to the winning goal.
The sustainability of this approach depends partly on Edmonton's ability to adjust their power-play structure. Evan Bouchard's power-play goal at 3:27 of the third period showed the Oilers could work around LaCombe's pressure when they committed to extended zone time. But those adjustments require more energy and leave Edmonton's bench shortened for subsequent shifts, creating fatigue that Anaheim has exploited.
LaCombe's penalty kill minutes have been a primary responsibility throughout the game. The coaching staff's growing trust reflects his ability to create offense from defensive positioning without sacrificing coverage responsibilities. His blocks in the game came primarily on the penalty kill, where his positioning forces Edmonton into lower-percentage shots while creating rebound opportunities for Anaheim's forwards.
The broader tactical picture reveals why LaCombe's approach works specifically against Edmonton's power-play tendencies. The Oilers rely heavily on McDavid's ability to find seams through traffic, but LaCombe's aggressive positioning eliminates the cross-ice passing lanes that make those seams available. When McDavid is forced to carry the puck into traffic rather than distribute it through space, Edmonton's power play becomes more predictable and easier to defend.
LaCombe's possession metrics remain strong even while taking on increased penalty kill responsibilities, suggesting his defensive reads aren't coming at the expense of overall play.
Edmonton faces the challenge of adjusting their power-play structure without sacrificing the movement that makes McDavid and Draisaitl effective. The Oilers' power play showed flashes of adaptation in the third period, but those adjustments required the kind of extended zone time that has consistently left them vulnerable to the quick transitions where LaCombe has been most dangerous. If Edmonton cannot solve this tactical puzzle, Anaheim's penalty kill may continue generating the scoring chances that led to their victory.