2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

General comment... would it kill Bob not to get excited about opponents goals?

There was not much else to get excited about. If they didn't change ends b/w periods then I think my neck would be permenantly twisted toward our end. WOw are we struggling. The Mack is pretty good. Carr is really looking OK. Less juicy rebounds.

 

[Babikian]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

i know MC had what 35 shots? Hey Blaise, teach the guys how to close out games. This is getting ridiculous. That's 4 points this season due to not closing the game within the final 4 minutes.



Each mad face = 1 point we coulda had if we could close out the game.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

i know MC had what 35 shots? Hey Blaise, teach the guys how to close out games. This is getting ridiculous. That's 4 points this season due to not closing the game within the final 4 minutes.



Each mad face = 1 point we coulda had if we could close out the game.

Other team takes a penalty and loses their best player with about 7 to go... yeah... it isn't always easy and it doesn't always happen, but I expect to close that one out. Can't say much though... I didn't catch the game until about 10 minutes left in the game.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread



I'm still trying to comprehend what I saw about an hour ago. Haven't see a Lowell choke this bad in a long, long time. With arguably one of the most dangerous players in Hockey East in the sin bin for most of the third period and calling a time out with under 4:00 to play to discuss defense strategy, how do you have a Complete Charlie Foxtrot and give two points away. The players simply looked outmatched in the final 2:20 and for that, I have to put 75% of the blame for this debacle on the coaching.

Even with the three goals, offensively, Lowell laid an egg tonight. Half of it was experience and talent, but the other half was missed opportunities. If it wasn't for special teams, it would have been a very long night. They did absolutely nothing 5-5 with the bigger and stronger Merrimack defense. Still impressed by the underclassmen on the score sheet tonight, perhaps the only bright spot on the game. Once again, Merrimack gave us numerous chances to close escrow. Not capitalizing on the two-minute 5x3, followed by another penalty for four minutes of total shorthand time came back to bite us, though not in the way I expected. BTW, Jessie Todd is one of the most underrated players in the league that HT was no fluke.

Fred Cusick used to get criticized for the same thing by Bruins' fans for getting excited with a goal is score. This is hockey and I don't have a problem with that for the listener. It's a sign of a good announcer. Let's face it, Merrimack scored two "Mike Lange" quality calls because after the third goal it was "stop the press baby, it may not be over yet" and after the fourth goal "Ladies and Gentlemen, Elvis has left the building." All you could hear was the Merrimack fans cheering, it was eerie.

We are going to find out how mentally tough this team is tomorrow night. I hope we don't go back to this game come March 6th.

 

[boblav1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I'm still trying to comprehend what I saw about an hour ago. Haven't see a Lowell choke this bad in a long, long time. With arguably one of the most dangerous players in Hockey East in the sin bin for most of the third period and calling a time out with under 4:00 to play to discuss defense strategy, how do you have a Complete Charlie Foxtrot and give two points away. The players simply looked outmatched in the final 2:20 and for that, I have to put 75% of the blame for this debacle on the coaching.

I would love to know what Blaise said during that time out. Instead of coming out aggressive they played not to lose and gave the game away. They played passive and allowed Merrimack to control the play in their own zone. The players looked like they were afraid to make a play/mistake during that 4 on 4.

It's going to be tough at Merrimack if they can't find a way to generate some more offensive.

Carr looked very good again tonight. Although I think he would like to have that first goal back. He seemed to be cheating and left a lot of room on the short side that Todd took advantage of.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

yeah, less than 5 seconds after teh whistle blew post time out we made a stupid play and coughed up the puck. Pretty painful. The frosh are looking good and seem to make less mistakes than the upperclassmen (could be my bias). It would be nice if they could all pass to where the person is going, not where they have been. Skill learned in kid hockey

 

[RHawk]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

I don't post often, mainly read what others have to say. However after last night, and reading what Mr Fuller wrote after the game, I would say the only thing I would disagree with him on, is it appears that its more then 75% coaching, I would say 90% of a coaching problem with this team. It always seems that most of our talented under classmen, never seem to reach that next level when they are Jr's & Sr's. It can't believe it just the players, it has happened all to often over the past several years with the coaching staff Lowell has. Assistant coaches have left and been replaced with new ones and the trend continues. The coach said after the game that his team was out played in all area's, except goaltending. A correct statement, now do something about it.

 

[Patman]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Fred Cusick used to get criticized for the same thing by Bruins' fans for getting excited with a goal is score. This is hockey and I don't have a problem with that for the listener. It's a sign of a good announcer.

When you don't have your full attention on the game it can be annoying as you get the feeling you've scored to only find out that they've scored... complete emotional swing.

I don't post often, mainly read what others have to say. However after last night, and reading what Mr Fuller wrote after the game, I would say the only thing I would disagree with him on, is it appears that its more then 75% coaching, I would say 90% of a coaching problem with this team. It always seems that most of our talented under classmen, never seem to reach that next level when they are Jr's & Sr's. It can't believe it just the players, it has happened all to often over the past several years with the coaching staff Lowell has. Assistant coaches have left and been replaced with new ones and the trend continues. The coach said after the game that his team was out played in all area's, except goaltending. A correct statement, now do something about it.

If Dennehy can take Merrimack to the NCAAs it will be hard not to consider Blaise a failure... on the other hand, without him we wouldn't have a program anymore.

 

[goUMLgoBC]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Was pretty angry last night because I had to turn off the audio to leave on a business trip flight right as the third period was starting. So hi from Cairo! Just saw the score and read everyone's comments. Carr sounded awesome (and it looked like that continued through the third). Up until the beginning of the third, it sounded relatively even with a slight advantage to Merrimack. Was the third period like that as well? Both of Merrimack's goals were late. After a week off, I can't imagine the team was gassed at the end of the game. Or maybe 'Mack was just in better shape and could stay strong longer?

On a good note, Pendenza continues to impress. His shortie sounded like is was pretty spectacular. Nice to see Scheu and Vallorani pick up assists on the Wetmore goal. Kudos on 2 PPGs and 4300+ in attendance.

I know Ruhwedel's good so he probably spent time out against 'Mack's goal scorers, but seeing him at -4 is disconcerting.

Tough to go to Andover and get two points, but they need to do it tonight. Hope to see Carr again.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

When you don't have your full attention on the game it can be annoying as you get the feeling you've scored to only find out that they've scored... complete emotional swing.

If Dennehy can take Merrimack to the NCAAs it will be hard not to consider Blaise a failure... on the other hand, without him we wouldn't have a program anymore.

I can understand the Cusick point, just the way they are.

The latter is the definition of a "Catch-22". Good book by Joe Heller, is it required reading still?

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Just a killer loss last night. That one hurt ... and tonight I think will be ugly. Player of the Game voting is open.

 

[UMLFan]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

UML Field Hockey wins 6-1, winning the NE-10 and continuing the perfect season.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Was pretty angry last night because I had to turn off the audio to leave on a business trip flight right as the third period was starting. So hi from Cairo! Just saw the score and read everyone's comments. Carr sounded awesome (and it looked like that continued through the third). Up until the beginning of the third, it sounded relatively even with a slight advantage to Merrimack. Was the third period like that as well? Both of Merrimack's goals were late. After a week off, I can't imagine the team was gassed at the end of the game. Or maybe 'Mack was just in better shape and could stay strong longer?

On a good note, Pendenza continues to impress. His shortie sounded like is was pretty spectacular. Nice to see Scheu and Vallorani pick up assists on the Wetmore goal. Kudos on 2 PPGs and 4300+ in attendance.

I know Ruhwedel's good so he probably spent time out against 'Mack's goal scorers, but seeing him at -4 is disconcerting.

Tough to go to Andover and get two points, but they need to do it tonight. Hope to see Carr again.

Not sure what game they were commentating on but Merrimack spent most of the night in our end passing around us while we scrambled. Granted the scrambling was somewhat effective but look at the SOG. Yikes.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

The most embarassing period I've ever witnessed live in my Lowell history--17 years. Two shorthanded goals, one on a 5x3.

A completely inept offensive; a defense that would not pass muster in a bantams' game.

We were outshot 3:1 by our rival and team that may just have better talent and recruits than we do. First time ever Merrimack swept Lowell in a weekend series and to add insult to injury, it's probably the earliest we've lost a season series to Merrimack.

I've never seen this must dominance by a Merrimack team in a two game series vs. Lowell.

There's really not much else to say other than this team is in big trouble.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

time to cut the lossses and sit the upperclassmen- just let the frosh get experience. At least they have excuses for making mistakes as big as have been made.

 

[Patronick]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Field Hockey the #1 seed in the north bracket. Will play the winner of AIC @ Stonehill. If anyone has a chance to watch what may be the worst performance by a wanna be television host in history, go to GoRiverhawks.com and watch the selection show. Seems we're UMass Lu-well now.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Too bad the event is in Louisville, KY. While I'm sure Lousiville is a fine city to host an NCAA tournament, it's a little displaced on where most of the field hockey teams are located. Pretty expensive place to fly into and we are under the 14-day mark.

I wonder if Lowell does make the final if they would open the Tsongas Center and broadcast the game on the new scoreboard. The unfortunate thing is that the potential Championship game and UMA/UML game are at the same time.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Congrats to the Men's XC won the Regionals today and are headed to the Nationals in 2 weeks in Kentucky. UML hosted the event at Franklin Park.

 

[John_Fuller]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

Congrats to the Men's XC won the Regionals today and are headed to the Nationals in 2 weeks in Kentucky. UML hosted the event at Franklin Park.

Excellent news on the non-ice sports for UML.

Getting back to the hockey, I want to throw up a comparision of Hockey East numbers from the freshmen-laden class of 2006-2007 to this year's 2010-2011 class. The numbers aren't pretty through 10 HE games.

<pre>
UML Stats W L T GF GA GFPG GAPG G Dif
2010-2011 2 8 0 21 37 2.10 3.70 -1.6
2006-2007 2 6 2 18 27 1.80 2.70 -0.9
Change 0 2 2 3 10 0.30 1.00 -0.7
</pre>

A few things that surprised me...

• We are actually slightly ahead of the 2006 team in goal production.
• The GA and Goal Differential (GF-GA) is a lot worse than I thought they would be.
• A difference of just ten HE goals in today's league is a huge talking point.
  

Teams played in 2006-2007: BUx2, UNHx3, Providence x2, Vermont, Merrimack, Maine.

Which leads me to the following question. Amongst the upperclassmen whom are hurt, is this going to lead to better defensive numbers upon their return. Right now, there are no major injuries on defense as most are relatively healthy.

Mankato also is struggling this season, if nothing else based on record. Whom do you start on Friday and after this weekend, how do you think they bounce back. Or are we in the midst of another 14-game league losing streak that we saw in 2006-2007.

 

[leswp1]

Re: 2010/2011 UML In-Season Thread

The 8 goals in Maine sorta skew things I would imagine.