Coming Down From 0-2

In the 2001-2002 Western Conference Quarterfinals, the Detroit Red Wings found themselves down 0-2 to the Vancouver Canucks. Detroit went on to win the series and the Stanley Cup.
In the 2005-2006 Eastern Conference Quarterfinals, the Carolina Hurricanes were down 0-2 to the Montreal Canadiens. The Hurricanes also eventually won the Cup that postseason.

Now, every postseason is different. The San Jose Sharks don't have the skill/experience that Detroit has to get out of any situation unscathed. And it is unlikely Brian Boucher will become the next Cam Ward (goaltending isn't even the reason why the Sharks dropped the first two games). But like those two, San Jose got off to a very slow and disappointing start to the postseason, and now what were favorable odds, even after losing game 1, suddenly become "they have to win the next 4 out of 5". And in hockey, no matter who you're facing, 4 out of 5 is a tall task. So let's take a look at what needs to be done.

Obviously, the main problem is the power play. But what is overshadowed by a lack of ability to enter the offensive zone is the fact that the Sharks are being kicked out of the offensive zone with a man advantage in the first place. And first things's first, they have to win the faceoffs. In the second period of game 2, the period where Ryane Clowe broke the ice for San Jose, the Sharks were dominating the faceoff circle, and as a result, the offensive flow of the game. Looking at the first goal of game 2, Anaheim won two of two faceoffs during their first power play and never left the zone. You can say the Sharks need to win the battles along the board or create space in the neutral zone to prevent turnovers that are stifling the offensive play before it even gets started, but it all starts with winning the faceoffs; specifically, Joe Pavelski vs Todd Marchant. You know with home ice, the Ducks are going to go to that match-up all day until Pavs finds a way to win.

But after the post-game interviews of game 2, there are two things you have to notice about the two clubs: Anaheim's response in upsetting the #1 seed (not just in the Western Conference, but the entire playoffs), and San Jose's response in being upset. One was the right approach, and one was not. Anaheim head coach Randy Carlyle said after game 1 his win was more luck than anything. After game 2, he emphasized that the Sharks were a "very, very, very good team", and the rest of his club reiterated those exact words, saying that they haven't won anything yet. And for a club that looks to be in complete control heading home for game 3, they could have not come out with a better mindset. After a 2-0 shutout of San Jose, Carlyle worked his guys in practice so hard, you'd think they had just been blown out in game 1. That is a Stanley Cup champion coach working on a very calm and experienced team.
Now, on the flip side, we see San Jose. Coach Todd McLellon comes out and says "you'd think we're the better team, but you have to give Anaheim credit." Clowe stated "we're hitting posts like no tomorrow, but that's the playoffs." They're both right, but if there is one common theme in every professional sport and their respective postseasons, it is that a key element of winning a championship is hunger. In recent memory, only the Detroit Red Wings really lacked any sort of hunger, mainly because they're so damn skilled they win enough times to supply rings for every club in the NHL. But look at the Boston Celtics last year, who had 3 NBA all-stars who had never won a championship. The Philadelphia Phillies in the World Series bringing a championship to a championship-starved city. Michael Phelps and his teammates willing Phelps to 8 gold medals in the Olympics. US Basketball, humbled several times in the Summer Games, bearing down and taking no excuses as they won the gold in dominating fashion (Dwayne Wade, injured the past two NBA seasons, proclaimed to be washed up, comes off the bench and leads the team in average scoring). They're all hungry, and they all understand when it is time to be calm, and when it is time to be desperate. McLellon and his club probably want to stay calm, and play within the system, especially since it had some pretty promising results during game 2. That is fine, but they need the extra edge that is desperation. They need to play and act like they're down by 2 games, and skate like there is no tomorrow. That same dogged determination and dirty grind work that San Jose forced out of themselves last postseason when Calgary was on the verge of upsetting them and Dallas had a 3-0 series lead, threatening to absolutely humiliate what some considered to be Stanley Cup favorites: the San Jose Sharks. Yes, as McLellon said, the way to execute would be to "play the same way, do the same things, create the same number of chances". But they need that extra ingredient in there. And if we don't see it in game 3, we won't be seeing a longer summer from the San Jose Sharks.
Dan Boyle put it perfectly: Most teams don't come down from 0-2, we have to decide if we're going to be one of those special teams that does. Like I said after the game 1 loss, this is exactly why GM Doug Wilson went out and got guys like Boyle.