There could be more...

...This is an issue, I suppose, when anyone posts their conclusions--they have a head full of thoughts justifying what they feel, but rarely are those thoughts laid out in a careful analytic manner. Here's the main substance of what you posted:

"Our line changes throughout the entire game were head-scratching, the 2 goals given up were incredibly soft, and the offensive scheming, especially, in the 3rd period, was, well, awful. We managed 5 shots in the most important period of hockey in the history of the program (and really only 1 of those shots had a prayer of a chance of going in), and that was with being down 2-1 with our backs against the wall and nothing to lose."

That text provides plenty of opinion, but I don't believe it has plenty of content. It could, if you'd supply it. It would be interesting to know exactly what about the line changes made them head-scratching, and what about the offensive scheming was awful. It's not that I think you're wrong--it's that I don't know exactly what you're referring to and thus there's nothing of substance to respond to.