USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
- Thread starter Driftryder
- Start date
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
I could use about 5 of those after a game like this. Compared to the Horny Devil?
I could use about 5 of those after a game like this. Compared to the Horny Devil?
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
I never said they were pretty darn good, I said the effort and intensity was. And maybe that distinction will help you in understanding what is meant by the "quality" comment.
I also have to disagree a bit on the talent issue. I see Kloos as the only really proven, veteran "quality" player. Fasching still needs to grow into that. Expectations for him and what he has shown in his previous two years I think were a bit out of alignment.
I've been on record numerous times as saying C. Reilly is a shooter, and not much else. So if he doesn't get fed he is going to disappear for big chunks of time.
The D doesn't really have much in terms of offensive talent outside of flashes from Brodzinsky.
The freshman are still getting their feet wet, and I don't think anyone was expecting any of them to jump right into the college game at a full sprint.
So, when you take that all into account, I thought they showed pretty well in the last half of the game tonight. Yeah, Duluth took up a more defensive posture but I don't think they were content to spend more time in their defensive zone over those final 30 minutes. MN was doing a better job moving the puck D-to-D, doing a better job on the forecheck and cycling, and a better job battling along the boards and in the corners. And that all added up to a territorial advantage and an edge in possession. And it was against arguably one of the best teams in college hockey.
There is no way to sugarcoat the results so far this year. Like I said in the season thread - 1 goal in 3 games, 1/13 on the PP, and being out shot every game is not good. But they have looked better (imo) in each game.
The big test is next weekend. We need to see some goals and some results against NU.
Didn't have the quality means just what it sounds like...
I never said they were pretty darn good, I said the effort and intensity was. And maybe that distinction will help you in understanding what is meant by the "quality" comment.
I also have to disagree a bit on the talent issue. I see Kloos as the only really proven, veteran "quality" player. Fasching still needs to grow into that. Expectations for him and what he has shown in his previous two years I think were a bit out of alignment.
I've been on record numerous times as saying C. Reilly is a shooter, and not much else. So if he doesn't get fed he is going to disappear for big chunks of time.
The D doesn't really have much in terms of offensive talent outside of flashes from Brodzinsky.
The freshman are still getting their feet wet, and I don't think anyone was expecting any of them to jump right into the college game at a full sprint.
So, when you take that all into account, I thought they showed pretty well in the last half of the game tonight. Yeah, Duluth took up a more defensive posture but I don't think they were content to spend more time in their defensive zone over those final 30 minutes. MN was doing a better job moving the puck D-to-D, doing a better job on the forecheck and cycling, and a better job battling along the boards and in the corners. And that all added up to a territorial advantage and an edge in possession. And it was against arguably one of the best teams in college hockey.
There is no way to sugarcoat the results so far this year. Like I said in the season thread - 1 goal in 3 games, 1/13 on the PP, and being out shot every game is not good. But they have looked better (imo) in each game.
The big test is next weekend. We need to see some goals and some results against NU.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
I like the Horny Devil, but there's a reason I have 4 spare bottles of Rum King for future consumption.
That being said, the next bottle will be cracked next summer at the earliest.
I like the Horny Devil, but there's a reason I have 4 spare bottles of Rum King for future consumption.
That being said, the next bottle will be cracked next summer at the earliest.
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
They didn't have the "quality" scoring chances and offensive zone presence to bury one goal tonight is what your saying. So they looked somewhat like a D1 hockey team, got shutout 2/3 games to start the season, but let's be thankful they can pass from zone to zone? It's nice of you to try to take some positives out of this game. As fans we have the privilege of doing that. But I don't buy it...that's BS. BTW there is talent on this team to bury more than 1 goal in three games.
UMD clearly sat on the lead. If they turned up the speed and intensity as in the first 2 periods, I highly doubt the Gophers look like they have "effort and intensity" and lose by at least 5 or 6. Of course they looked a little better than that shipwreck against UVM, but they didn't look better than last night. They sucked tonight, pure and simple.
As a player, you NEVER look at positives in a horrible losing effort like this. Kloos was tentative and was destroyed on the walls tonight. He had 3 poor SOG. Cammarata looked like a pee wee and had ZERO SOG. Lettieri had ZERO SOG. Fasching had 1 SOG. C. Reilly had 2 SOG and on and on... I can guarantee you 100%, the locker room was volatile tonight and these guys are totally ****ed off at themselves. There are no moral victories. Screw that. You don't work your *** off, get your face smashed and fight a mother fk'n war on ice to lose three in a row. They didn't do their job tonight and that will sting for a long time. Has there ever been a Lucia coached team lose 3 opening games of the season, get swept, and shutout in two??? They better right this ship asap or this season is toast.
They didn't have the "quality" scoring chances and offensive zone presence to bury one goal tonight is what your saying. So they looked somewhat like a D1 hockey team, got shutout 2/3 games to start the season, but let's be thankful they can pass from zone to zone? It's nice of you to try to take some positives out of this game. As fans we have the privilege of doing that. But I don't buy it...that's BS. BTW there is talent on this team to bury more than 1 goal in three games.
UMD clearly sat on the lead. If they turned up the speed and intensity as in the first 2 periods, I highly doubt the Gophers look like they have "effort and intensity" and lose by at least 5 or 6. Of course they looked a little better than that shipwreck against UVM, but they didn't look better than last night. They sucked tonight, pure and simple.
As a player, you NEVER look at positives in a horrible losing effort like this. Kloos was tentative and was destroyed on the walls tonight. He had 3 poor SOG. Cammarata looked like a pee wee and had ZERO SOG. Lettieri had ZERO SOG. Fasching had 1 SOG. C. Reilly had 2 SOG and on and on... I can guarantee you 100%, the locker room was volatile tonight and these guys are totally ****ed off at themselves. There are no moral victories. Screw that. You don't work your *** off, get your face smashed and fight a mother fk'n war on ice to lose three in a row. They didn't do their job tonight and that will sting for a long time. Has there ever been a Lucia coached team lose 3 opening games of the season, get swept, and shutout in two??? They better right this ship asap or this season is toast.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
The loss to Vermont hurt. They should have done better in that.
This series? Given the personnel, and the experience discrepancy? I was expecting they were going to be swept. There is no surprise in that. The disappointment was in the first period, and then the immediate goal given up in the 2nd. After that, though, I liked the way they responded. My feeling on that is very much influenced by the "quality" these two teams put up against each other. And again, I have to disagree slightly. I don't think Duluth was content to give up that much zone time. The final 12 minutes of the 2nd was good, hard-nosed hockey - even if it didn't result in scoring chances (for either team). The 3rd looked much more like a Duluth team that was just trying to hold a lead; and I think the fact they took up that posture is a testament to the way MN played in the 2nd period.
The talent for MN clearly needs to be refined. I can't fault (most) the players in that. That can only come with game and role experience. If they keep working, and improving, we will see it come through.
I just hope it is enough, and in time, to extend the season.
And FWIW, of course this is a fan's perspective. If any of the players roll into practice on Monday feeling like they did enough this weekend, that is a serious problem. But from what I saw the last part of this game I don't think that is going to be an issue.
The loss to Vermont hurt. They should have done better in that.
This series? Given the personnel, and the experience discrepancy? I was expecting they were going to be swept. There is no surprise in that. The disappointment was in the first period, and then the immediate goal given up in the 2nd. After that, though, I liked the way they responded. My feeling on that is very much influenced by the "quality" these two teams put up against each other. And again, I have to disagree slightly. I don't think Duluth was content to give up that much zone time. The final 12 minutes of the 2nd was good, hard-nosed hockey - even if it didn't result in scoring chances (for either team). The 3rd looked much more like a Duluth team that was just trying to hold a lead; and I think the fact they took up that posture is a testament to the way MN played in the 2nd period.
The talent for MN clearly needs to be refined. I can't fault (most) the players in that. That can only come with game and role experience. If they keep working, and improving, we will see it come through.
I just hope it is enough, and in time, to extend the season.
And FWIW, of course this is a fan's perspective. If any of the players roll into practice on Monday feeling like they did enough this weekend, that is a serious problem. But from what I saw the last part of this game I don't think that is going to be an issue.
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
We just surpassed the 2009-10 record tonight for three consecutive losses inc. two shutouts. The Gophers didn't make the NCAA tournament that year.
Fri. Oct. 16: 0 @ North Dakota 4 L
Sat. Oct. 17: 3 @ North Dakota 3 T/OT
Fri. Oct. 23: 0 Denver 3 L
Sat. Oct. 24: 0 Denver 3 L
We just surpassed the 2009-10 record tonight for three consecutive losses inc. two shutouts. The Gophers didn't make the NCAA tournament that year.
Fri. Oct. 16: 0 @ North Dakota 4 L
Sat. Oct. 17: 3 @ North Dakota 3 T/OT
Fri. Oct. 23: 0 Denver 3 L
Sat. Oct. 24: 0 Denver 3 L
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
I'm also curious what shot attempts were per period. It seemed MN attempted quite a lot of shots those final 2 periods, but didn't get that many through. My feeling was that was a combination of Duluth's defensive zone performance and MN's poor job of finding shooting lanes/hitting the net. The latter is a "quality" issue that can, and I expect will, be improved upon.
I'm also curious what shot attempts were per period. It seemed MN attempted quite a lot of shots those final 2 periods, but didn't get that many through. My feeling was that was a combination of Duluth's defensive zone performance and MN's poor job of finding shooting lanes/hitting the net. The latter is a "quality"
issue that can, and I expect will, be improved upon.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
If it wasn't clear to folks after three games, it will be soon. The D effort is adequate. Our forwards are way out manned.
If it wasn't clear to folks after three games, it will be soon. The D effort is adequate. Our forwards are way out manned.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
Not a Gopher fan but you are correct on the forwards. Your coach cannot develop the talent that lands in his lap year after year. Upperclassmen rarely improve and it shows against veteran teams like UMD.
Not a Gopher fan but you are correct on the forwards. Your coach cannot develop the talent that lands in his lap year after year. Upperclassmen rarely improve and it shows against veteran teams like UMD.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
The numbers clearly support this contention. It's not that we're getting blown out. It's that we have no offense.
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
Tell me, which numbers are those R2D2? You mean like being outshot in the first period 17-2 and chasing UMD around in our zone without getting dirty and hitting someone? Or do you mean not being able to clear the zone for long stretches for three straight games and being outshot in ALL three? Or do you mean the Gopher D being outblocked in shots 39-26 in three games?
Or maybe you mean Bischoff being totally out of position allowing Toninato to waltz into the zone untouched last night while trying to apply a pee wee effort poke check:
<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">GOAL: Dom Toninato gets <a href="https://twitter.com/UMDHockey">@UMDHockey</a> on the board first to give The Bulldogs a 1-0 lead over <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a>. <a href="http://t.co/mV5fRGv6sI">http://t.co/mV5fRGv6sI</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/655538715398311936">October 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Or maybe you mean allowing opponents to set up, leaving Schierhorn out to dry resulting in 9 goals in three games despite his best efforts in net? Or do you mean the following +/- numbers over the past three games:
Bischoff -3
Brodzinski -2
Collins -1
Glover -2
Johnson -3
Seeler 0
Or maybe you mean allowing Jared Thomas to get behind Johnson with Brodinski in no man's land and score on a breakaway:
<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">GOAL: <a href="https://twitter.com/UMDHockey">@UMDHockey</a> Jared Thomas gets his 2nd goal in as many nights against Minnesota. 3-0 Bulldogs. <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a> <a href="http://t.co/6DGEpdr6sA">http://t.co/6DGEpdr6sA</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/655549520575500288">October 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Now what numbers were you referring to R2D2?
I actually thought the Gopher D would be much better than they are at the start of the season. But this crew is disappointing and entirely too soft and confused in the offensive zone, hanging Schierhorn out to dry in EVERY game and his play in net is the ONLY reason we're not being blown out. They were unengaged for much of the game last night while skating around chasing the puck instead of taking bodies out and protecting their zone. The only decent D we have is Seeler and he knows how to take a man out of the play. If they don't right this ship asap, this team has the dubious potential of being the worst ever in Lucia's tenure.
Tell me, which numbers are those R2D2? You mean like being outshot in the first period 17-2 and chasing UMD around in our zone without getting dirty and hitting someone? Or do you mean not being able to clear the zone for long stretches for three straight games and being outshot in ALL three? Or do you mean the Gopher D being outblocked in shots 39-26 in three games?
Or maybe you mean Bischoff being totally out of position allowing Toninato to waltz into the zone untouched last night while trying to apply a pee wee effort poke check:
<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">GOAL: Dom Toninato gets <a href="https://twitter.com/UMDHockey">@UMDHockey</a> on the board first to give The Bulldogs a 1-0 lead over <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a>. <a href="http://t.co/mV5fRGv6sI">http://t.co/mV5fRGv6sI</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/655538715398311936">October 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Or maybe you mean allowing opponents to set up, leaving Schierhorn out to dry resulting in 9 goals in three games despite his best efforts in net? Or do you mean the following +/- numbers over the past three games:
Bischoff -3
Brodzinski -2
Collins -1
Glover -2
Johnson -3
Seeler 0
Or maybe you mean allowing Jared Thomas to get behind Johnson with Brodinski in no man's land and score on a breakaway:
<blockquote class="twitter-video"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">GOAL: <a href="https://twitter.com/UMDHockey">@UMDHockey</a> Jared Thomas gets his 2nd goal in as many nights against Minnesota. 3-0 Bulldogs. <a href="https://twitter.com/GopherHockey">@gopherhockey</a> <a href="http://t.co/6DGEpdr6sA">http://t.co/6DGEpdr6sA</a></p>— FOX Sports North (@fsnorth) <a href="https://twitter.com/fsnorth/status/655549520575500288">October 18, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Now what numbers were you referring to R2D2?
I actually thought the Gopher D would be much better than they are at the start of the season. But this crew is disappointing and entirely too soft and confused in the offensive zone, hanging Schierhorn out to dry in EVERY game and his play in net is the ONLY reason we're not being blown out. They were unengaged for much of the game last night while skating around chasing the puck instead of taking bodies out and protecting their zone. The only decent D we have is Seeler and he knows how to take a man out of the play. If they don't right this ship asap, this team has the dubious potential of being the worst ever in Lucia's tenure.
Biddco
Follow me on Twitter: @Biddco
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
But if you need a better example of what a "blow out" is in the game of hockey, check out what the Gopher Women are doing to their competition. In their last two series against St. Cloud State and Penn State, they've averaged 9 goals a game while giving up only 1. No need to look at SOG or anything else; the scores tell the story and define what a hockey "blow out" really means.
So far the Gopher men have given up 3 goals in each of their first three games, right around a half goal more than last year's team. Not good, but after just 3 games certainly not a reason to panic. We have a new goalie with zero D1 experience, and that alone could account for the half goal increase to start the season.
But as others have pointed out the big difference this year is that the team is not scoring. Last year's team averaged 3.5 goals over the course of the season. If the current Gophers would have matched that average in each of the first three games - while giving up the 3 in each of them as they did - we would not be off to a 0-3 start. Of course we're a very long ways from averaging 3.5 goals a game. In fact I think it's safe to say our current lineup is simply not capable of averaging 3.5 goals a game over the course of the entire season. I'm just not seeing where all that goal production is going to come from. To have what most of us would regard as a successful season it appears we'll need to emphasize defense much more than typical Gopher teams have done historically. Instead of giving up 2.5 goals a game we'll probably need to get that down to something closer to 2.0, while scoring 2.5 - 3.0. That said, I think it's fair to ask if the current personnel is capable of adopting a clamp-down, opportunistic trap style of game, or if the coaching staff would ever want to implement such a system, something that's never been in the Gopher DNA in the 40+ years I've been following the team.
I'm hoping we'll see the young squad make steady improvement throughout the first half. If we don't I'm afraid it's going to be a very long and very frustrating season.
R2D2? Really? No need to take it out on one of your fellow Gopher hockey fans, someone who's cared enough to buy season tickets for over 40 consecutive years while sharing opinions with other loyal fans in this Forum. Needless to say I think we're all a little frustrated with the Gophers' slow start, but I do believe we'll manage to live through it and better times lie ahead.
But if you need a better example of what a "blow out" is in the game of hockey, check out what the Gopher Women are doing to their competition. In their last two series against St. Cloud State and Penn State, they've averaged 9 goals a game while giving up only 1. No need to look at SOG or anything else; the scores tell the story and define what a hockey "blow out" really means.
So far the Gopher men have given up 3 goals in each of their first three games, right around a half goal more than last year's team. Not good, but after just 3 games certainly not a reason to panic. We have a new goalie with zero D1 experience, and that alone could account for the half goal increase to start the season.
But as others have pointed out the big difference this year is that the team is not scoring. Last year's team averaged 3.5 goals over the course of the season. If the current Gophers would have matched that average in each of the first three games - while giving up the 3 in each of them as they did - we would not be off to a 0-3 start. Of course we're a very long ways from averaging 3.5 goals a game. In fact I think it's safe to say our current lineup is simply not capable of averaging 3.5 goals a game over the course of the entire season. I'm just not seeing where all that goal production is going to come from. To have what most of us would regard as a successful season it appears we'll need to emphasize defense much more than typical Gopher teams have done historically. Instead of giving up 2.5 goals a game we'll probably need to get that down to something closer to 2.0, while scoring 2.5 - 3.0. That said, I think it's fair to ask if the current personnel is capable of adopting a clamp-down, opportunistic trap style of game, or if the coaching staff would ever want to implement such a system, something that's never been in the Gopher DNA in the 40+ years I've been following the team.
I'm hoping we'll see the young squad make steady improvement throughout the first half. If we don't I'm afraid it's going to be a very long and very frustrating season.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
But it's still a fair point. This team has been anemic on offense and made some big mistakes defensively and in goal - but still haven't been blown out on the scoreboard. And considering they were down 3-0 on Saturday 22min into the game, that could have very easily turned embarrassing on the scoreboard. It didn't. And I think the guys deserve *some* credit for that. I don't buy that the reason the Bulldogs didn't score more goals is that they were just sitting around twiddling their thumbs the last 35min of that game.
I think it all comes down to expectations. Coming into this year, looking at the personnel and the experience on the team, I really had no expectations for them to be racking up wins (especially not to start the year). I'm not sure how good they will look by the end of the season, but I've seen improvement and I've seen some compete, and that at least gives me reason to be a little optimistic...and yeah, that optimism is influenced by no real high expectations. But we have to be realistic.
If people want to criticize the coaching staff for the way they recruited, OK. But given what we have, the number of new faces, the number of role players being asked to fill bigger shoes...I'm not sure what anyone was really expecting. Especially against a Duluth team that is stacked with proven, veteran players and is generally considered to be in the upper echelon of college hockey teams this year.
I'd also like to reiterate that the lack of offense, it seems to me, can be partly attributed to the type of D (or the lack of a certain type of D) that we have this year. The forwards bear blame, but so do the guys on the back end. M. Reilly was obviously key to the Gopher offense last year, but guys like Marshall, Skjei, Holl a couple years ago...they didn't put up the numbers, but they were key facilitators. We don't seem to have those kinds of defensemen this year.
But it's still a fair point. This team has been anemic on offense and made some big mistakes defensively and in goal - but still haven't been blown out on the scoreboard. And considering they were down 3-0 on Saturday 22min into the game, that could have very easily turned embarrassing on the scoreboard. It didn't. And I think the guys deserve *some* credit for that. I don't buy that the reason the Bulldogs didn't score more goals is that they were just sitting around twiddling their thumbs the last 35min of that game.
I think it all comes down to expectations. Coming into this year, looking at the personnel and the experience on the team, I really had no expectations for them to be racking up wins (especially not to start the year). I'm not sure how good they will look by the end of the season, but I've seen improvement and I've seen some compete, and that at least gives me reason to be a little optimistic...and yeah, that optimism is influenced by no real high expectations. But we have to be realistic.
If people want to criticize the coaching staff for the way they recruited, OK. But given what we have, the number of new faces, the number of role players being asked to fill bigger shoes...I'm not sure what anyone was really expecting. Especially against a Duluth team that is stacked with proven, veteran players and is generally considered to be in the upper echelon of college hockey teams this year.
I'd also like to reiterate that the lack of offense, it seems to me, can be partly attributed to the type of D (or the lack of a certain type of D) that we have this year. The forwards bear blame, but so do the guys on the back end. M. Reilly was obviously key to the Gopher offense last year, but guys like Marshall, Skjei, Holl a couple years ago...they didn't put up the numbers, but they were key facilitators. We don't seem to have those kinds of defensemen this year.
Re: Minnesota vs UMD: 10/16 & 10/17
Perhaps a bit of an unfair comparison, just trying to define what defines a "blow out" when it comes to hockey. But if you look at Wisconsin's and BC's women's teams you will find similar examples of blowout victories in their results as well. Each have /Domination way beyond 3-0.