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

[Kdaddy1968]

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

Here is your new slogan... "UML - The Charlestown Chiefs of Hockey East!" ..pure poetry

[FiveHole12]

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

That kind of stuff happens at the end of almost every game I have ever attended. . I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

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!

[jcarter7669]

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

by getting the flukiest of fluke goals past the best goalie in the country

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

[Cat lover]

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

Because if Vermont manages to get past Amherst they're going to get swept in Lowell anyway?

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.

Congrats, good win. There's the banner moment for your entire season.

Like I said before these weekend games, if these that series was played in Lowell it's a River Hawk sweep, and it's not close. Vermont fans, delusional as always, have somehow talked themselves into believing that they're a team Lowell doesn't want to see.

Nope.

Notre Dame is the team that no one wants to play. Bring on Vermont.

Vermont is 7-3 in HE this year on the road and have won 5 straight. They have played much better on the road then at home which
one UML poster tried to use as reason UML would win last week which didt work out so well.

Also your previous post on how UML is a better scoring team then Vermont is now false as Vermont passed UML in GPG several games ago.
And with only 5 goals in its last 4 games that killer OFF seems to have gone cold.

And your claim to the better goalies didnt hold up last week did it, while the stats show that yours are overall better he definately got outplayed
by Hoffman and after Saturday I think teams now know they just need to back up on Hellybuck to score more.

[Patronick]

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

I find it funny that no one has thought to post this side of the story.

How dumb is it to give the team you are most likely going to face in your next games another reason
to really want to beat you. I think UML's coach should be more mad at the players for that then anything
else.

Hope those two guys have eyes in the back of thier heads if VT plays them.

Because if Vermont manages to get past Amherst they're going to get swept in Lowell anyway?

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.

Congrats, good win. There's the banner moment for your entire season.

Like I said before these weekend games, if these that series was played in Lowell it's a River Hawk sweep, and it's not close. Vermont fans, delusional as always, have somehow talked themselves into believing that they're a team Lowell doesn't want to see.

Nope.

Notre Dame is the team that no one wants to play. Bring on Vermont.

[jcarter7669]

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

Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

Hmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....

I'd go with "Hacksaw Hamilton" or maybe Rob "Van Damme"

[jcarter7669]

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

That kind of stuff happens at the end of almost every game I have ever attended. . I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

Because if we weren't this thread would have ended, and since your next games are probably going to be against UVM why bother letting this thread die only to make a new one in two weeks. I thought throwing a cinder on the dried sticks in the mud that are Patrondick and ScottyK would suffice to keep the coals going for another week or two. Looks like I'm smarter then most of you give me credit for...

[jcarter7669]

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

As I saw the play unfolding I thought “oh crap this is going to get ugly.” I won't make an excuse for Holmstrom’s or Arnold’s actions because every time I see an opponent pull one of those stunts I get PO’d. I cannot agree with your hyperbole JCarter; the Riverhawks aren’t a bunch of unsportsmanlike goons. Holmstrom plays with some edge; McGrath toes the Little Ball of Hate Lite line but Arnold’s one of the last guys I would have expected to be involved. Their reaction to Paliotta’s move back towards the boards was so quick and intentional it made me wonder if something had occurred between him and one of them (or a Lowell player) during either game that I'd missed (again…not condoning).

Regardless, I think the penalty fit the crime and that should be the end of it. I don’t know if it was egregious enough to give the Cats more incentive to beat Lowell than they would have otherwise but it certainly appears to have stoked the flames of the fan base.

PS – Thank you UVM for the game feed; I enjoyed watching both games from the friendly confines of home.

I appreciate your level headed and unbiased assessment. Not having watched the river hawks much the past two season I can't speak to their unsportsmanlike goonship over those years, however in years past they have given MC a run for the title.

[jcarter7669]

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

Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

How is the penalty different then ramming a guy from behind along the boards? Still the same chief, only different because everyone wants to protect the goalie.

And speaking of goalies, what is with Hellebuyck, nervous tick or something. The kids head twitches back and forth enough to give me whiplash. Can't argue with his results but man its distracting.

[UVM Cat in Texas]

Well if Rob "Mad Dog" Hamilton has anything to do with it...

Hmmm, I've always known him as "Raging" Rob Hamilton....

[ULowell'81]

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

As I saw the play unfolding I thought “oh crap this is going to get ugly.” I won't make an excuse for Holmstrom’s or Arnold’s actions because every time I see an opponent pull one of those stunts I get PO’d. I cannot agree with your hyperbole JCarter; the Riverhawks aren’t a bunch of unsportsmanlike goons. Holmstrom plays with some edge; McGrath toes the Little Ball of Hate Lite line but Arnold’s one of the last guys I would have expected to be involved. Their reaction to Paliotta’s move back towards the boards was so quick and intentional it made me wonder if something had occurred between him and one of them (or a Lowell player) during either game that I'd missed (again…not condoning).

Regardless, I think the penalty fit the crime and that should be the end of it. I don’t know if it was egregious enough to give the Cats more incentive to beat Lowell than they would have otherwise but it certainly appears to have stoked the flames of the fan base.

PS – Thank you UVM for the game feed; I enjoyed watching both games from the friendly confines of home.

[UML]

Could care less if he chose to use Hellebuyck as an example. He could have used any player on the ice as an example, still wouldn't make what happened ok.

That kind of stuff happens at the end of almost every game I have ever attended. . I'm not sure why we are still talking about it.

[BTV802]

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

I'm not the one that moved them. Your pal jcarter is the one who compared the end of the game with 2 UVM players "plowing into Hellebuyck after the whistle."

Could care less if he chose to use Hellebuyck as an example. He could have used any player on the ice as an example, still wouldn't make what happened ok.

[ScottK]

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

I've no idea what you are even debating anymore. You've moved the goalposts as far as they can go. They won't go any further.

I'm not the one that moved them. Your pal jcarter is the one who compared the end of the game with 2 UVM players "plowing into Hellebuyck after the whistle."

[BTV802]

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

Except that there are different rules for goalies. So, position is not irrelevant.

I've no idea what you are even debating anymore. You've moved the goalposts as far as they can go. They won't go any further.