Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Patronick
    replied
    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    Now the shiite is getting deep... hold on and let me get out my waders. Hellebuyck is an excellent goalie but best goalie in the country... he isn't even the best goalie in the league.

    But it ought to keep the discussion going for a while... well done on a nice flame
    Best save percentage in the country. Deal with it. Oh, wait, Vermont fans don't like things like stats and facts.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by BTV802 View Post
    Plus you've already offered to provide them with the tissues...how much more hospitable can you get?
    I said I was sorry too... dam Lowell fans, you would think that they would a.) have thicker skin and b.) be more appreciative when I guy apologies and offers a tissue...

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    This is a Vermont Lowell thread, if you want to be friends and get all touchy feely do it with yourself (probably the case already) or with the other Lowell fans.
    Plus you've already offered to provide them with the tissues...how much more hospitable can you get?

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by HawkUnderground View Post
    I think you're supposed to respond like jcarter did and tell Kdaddy you're going to provide him with tissues? Not sure
    This is a Vermont Lowell thread, if you want to be friends and get all touchy feely do it with yourself (probably the case already) or with the other Lowell fans.

    Leave a comment:


  • HawkUnderground
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ULowell'81 View Post
    It was for the "Chiefs" reference only; apologies for missing the tongue implanted in the cheek.
    I think you're supposed to respond like jcarter did and tell Kdaddy you're going to provide him with tissues? Not sure

    Leave a comment:


  • ULowell'81
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Kdaddy1968 View Post
    My comments? All I said was that it wasn't really late ("at the whistle") but it was a bit thuggery but nothing to go nuclear over. Whoever went in 2nd is up for the thuggery.. 1st guy in was fine. As for the Charlestown quote that was just making fun of the situation.. there have been far worse missed calls on the grand scheme of things. On a 1 to 10 this is about a 3 in my book.
    It was for the "Chiefs" reference only; apologies for missing the tongue implanted in the cheek.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kdaddy1968
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ULowell'81 View Post
    I don't buy JCarter's assertion nor yours on this topic either. While not every cheap shot gets called a team that has a propensity for that type of play gets a reputation which normally results in more penalty minutes. Statistically speaking since 2003-2004 (I though 11 years would represent a fair amount of your likely viewing history) Lowell has had only one season (2005-06) where they had more penalties called against them than their opponents and only two where it resulted into more penalty minutes (2004-05 and 2005-06). The overall numbers were UML: 2286 penalties/5228 minutes versus Opponents: 2462/5778. I suppose I could drill down further and compare majors, 10 minute, game/gross misconducts, and match calls but the three years I did review (2003-2006) showed them to be about even.

    I'm not calling them choirboys by any stretch but by comparison to the Lowell Chiefs of my undergrad days the current iteration seem more like a bunch of pussycats...at least to my admittedly biased eyes.
    My comments? All I said was that it wasn't really late ("at the whistle") but it was a bit thuggery but nothing to go nuclear over. Whoever went in 2nd is up for the thuggery.. 1st guy in was fine. As for the Charlestown quote that was just making fun of the situation.. there have been far worse missed calls on the grand scheme of things. On a 1 to 10 this is about a 3 in my book.

    Leave a comment:


  • CleggyofUML
    replied
    Originally posted by FiveHole12 View Post
    I always wondered what kept UML fans going to the games. Now I get it. Sleep through the snooze fest, then awaken in time to see the fireworks at the end. Brilliant!
    Given how they have been under Norm, its kind of true to be honest. Usually in terms of both the season and game-by-game I usually see a slower start early and we pick up towards the end. The third period tends to be the fun one for us as BC learned against us.

    Leave a comment:


  • jcarter7669
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by ULowell'81 View Post
    I don't buy JCarter's assertion nor yours on this topic either. While not every cheap shot gets called a team that has a propensity for that type of play gets a reputation which normally results in more penalty minutes. Statistically speaking since 2003-2004 (I though 11 years would represent a fair amount of your likely viewing history) Lowell has had only one season (2005-06) where they had more penalties called against them than their opponents and only two where it resulted into more penalty minutes (2004-05 and 2005-06). The overall numbers were UML: 2286 penalties/5228 minutes versus Opponents: 2462/5778. I suppose I could drill down further and compare majors, 10 minute, game/gross misconducts, and match calls but the three years I did review (2003-2006) showed them to be about even.

    I'm not calling them choirboys by any stretch but by comparison to the Lowell Chiefs of my undergrad days the current iteration seem more like a bunch of pussycats...at least to my admittedly biased eyes.

    You can't go bringing stats into a UVM - UML thread... believe me I've tried and SCottk and PatRonICK have made it clear that stats are not welcome.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Patronick View Post
    Vermont managed to come out on senior night and stave off almost certain NCAA elimination by getting the flukiest of fluke goals past the best goalie in the country and then hanging on for the last 30 minutes of the game despite the River Hawks continually putting themselves a man down.
    Uh huh that's an interesting perspective...but the way I see it UML only managed to stay in the game at all because they hung on to avoid being down 4-0 after a pathetic first period.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jon
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    This thread is awesome. UVM had better play UML in two weeks for the benefit of us all.

    Leave a comment:


  • BTV802
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by BTV802 View Post
    Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...
    Originally posted by UVM Cat in Texas View Post
    Hmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....
    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    I'd go with "Hacksaw Hamilton" or maybe Rob "Van Damme"
    If we are making Slapshot references, how about Rob "Dr. Hook" Hamilton?

    Leave a comment:


  • ULowell'81
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by Kdaddy1968 View Post
    Here is your new slogan... "UML - The Charlestown Chiefs of Hockey East!" ..pure poetry
    I don't buy JCarter's assertion nor yours on this topic either. While not every cheap shot gets called a team that has a propensity for that type of play gets a reputation which normally results in more penalty minutes. Statistically speaking since 2003-2004 (I though 11 years would represent a fair amount of your likely viewing history) Lowell has had only one season (2005-06) where they had more penalties called against them than their opponents and only two where it resulted into more penalty minutes (2004-05 and 2005-06). The overall numbers were UML: 2286 penalties/5228 minutes versus Opponents: 2462/5778. I suppose I could drill down further and compare majors, 10 minute, game/gross misconducts, and match calls but the three years I did review (2003-2006) showed them to be about even.

    I'm not calling them choirboys by any stretch but by comparison to the Lowell Chiefs of my undergrad days the current iteration seem more like a bunch of pussycats...at least to my admittedly biased eyes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Middle Street
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    Originally posted by jcarter7669 View Post
    Hellebuyck is an excellent goalie but best goalie in the country... he isn't even the best goalie in the league.
    Not trying to take anyone's side here, but heck, I'm not even sure he's the best goalie on his own team this year. Doug Carr has been playing great. Its definitely a 1 & 1A situation between those two this year. Last year he was significantly better than Doug.

    Leave a comment:


  • UMLFan
    replied
    Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!

    I'm not sure if there's more trolling in here or on the forum boards right now?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X