Originally posted by jcarter7669
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Collapse
X
-
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by BTV802 View PostPlus you've already offered to provide them with the tissues...how much more hospitable can you get?
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by jcarter7669 View PostThis 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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by HawkUnderground View PostI 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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by ULowell'81 View PostIt was for the "Chiefs" reference only; apologies for missing the tongue implanted in the cheek.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by Kdaddy1968 View PostMy 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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by ULowell'81 View PostI 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:
-
Originally posted by FiveHole12 View PostI 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!
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by ULowell'81 View PostI 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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by Patronick View PostVermont 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.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by BTV802 View PostWell if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...Originally posted by UVM Cat in Texas View PostHmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....Originally posted by jcarter7669 View PostI'd go with "Hacksaw Hamilton" or maybe Rob "Van Damme"
Leave a comment:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by Kdaddy1968 View PostHere is your new slogan... "UML - The Charlestown Chiefs of Hockey East!" ..pure poetry
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:
-
Re: Lowell @ Vermont, 2/28 and 3/1: Let the games commence!
Originally posted by jcarter7669 View PostHellebuyck is an excellent goalie but best goalie in the country... he isn't even the best goalie in the league.
Leave a comment:
-
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:
Leave a comment: