SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

[Montelena]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

He's not in LA. Why put the bruised eye observation in the article if Roe denied it had anything to do with the 1 game sit. Did the reporter not believe him. And if he did beleive him what relevance would it then have. When I read the article I immediately got the impression the reporter was searching to connect the bruised eye with the 1 game sit. So did many other readers based on the reporters comments in his blog. That's wrong and it turned out to be wrong because it was not based on fact. There was NO connection. End of story.

Why whine to the public he's not talking to you. Deal with it person to person and get it resolved.

 

[SCSU Euro]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Roe is responsible to his teammates, coaching staff and team when it comes to hockey. The reporter has responsibilities to his readers. Lending the impression that Roe was in an altercation when that was not the case is not responsible reporting. Roe does not need to talk to the reporter if he felt he was wronged.

I get the impression from the reporters latest blog that he's now feeling sorry for himself and is looking for some public sympathy when he did the damage. It's just stirring the pot. He should let it go and hope the player comes around after the dust settles.

Allenspach is responsible to his readers, and when Roe and the team give him absolutely nothing to go on about the suspension, and Roe appears to have a black eye, KA has every right to ask if that has something to do with it. If he'd continued hounding him, then yeah, that's too much, but it sounds like it was just dropped then. Its irrelevant if KA's a tool, Roe's being a baby.

My big issue with it is St. Cloud is a small town with one newspaper, if he feels slighted now, what about if something happens when or if he gets to LA?

I'm one of the biggest Roe fans in this fanbase (I said outloud I should be drafting Rahkshani instead when I picked Roe) and I also am an L.A. Kings fan, and that being said, I don't see Roe being a mainstay with the Kings. I hope I'm wrong, but I have the feeling that IF he makes it to L.A. he'll only play a handful of games, and there won't be a lot of media wanting to hear what the guy who's name they don't remember has to say.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

He's not in LA. Why put the bruised eye observation in the article if Roe denied it had anything to do with the 1 game sit. Did the reporter not believe him. And if he did beleive him what relevance would it then have. When I read the article I immediately got the impression the reporter was searching to connect the bruised eye with the 1 game sit. So did many other readers based on the reporters comments in his blog. That's wrong and it turned out to be wrong because it was not based on fact. There was NO connection. End of story.

Why whine to the public he's not talking to you. Deal with it person to person and get it resolved.

Because it is news and when you are a public figure he has every right to do it. If you like it or not these kids are public figures and Kevin has a job because people want coverage of the team. If the best player on the team is missing a game because he violated team rules and has a black eye it is common sense to report it. If Roe's claims that it had nothing to do with it then tell him how he got it. If Roe wants to be a baby and cheat the fans of his thoughts that is his right. It is Kevin's job to report to us why he won't talk to him. If you don't like Kevin's reporting don't read his stuff. Just like if people don't like what is said on a message board, don't read and post on the message board.

 

[Dude Love]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

The little munchkin probably hit on a girl whose boyfriend was 6' and he beat Roe up.

 

[Skeeterman]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Say what you want about Roe. He plays hard and scores, Lee sucks.

 

[motox]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I'm going to jump on the KA side here. For those that have an issue with him he is always up to speed on the team and provides great coverage. He is constantly updating his blog, getting information out, and following the team. Would you rather not have that kind of coverage? I don't care if it's Roe or any other player on the team, if someone has a black eye and gets suspended for a game a question is going to be asked about it. Especially by a reporter who follows the team as close as KA does. Of course it gets magnified when it's one of the top players on the team, that type of attn comes with being good. It's perfectly fine for Roe and the team not to talk about it but to withhold any future comments/interviews? Come on.

I also think there's more to the situation with Rioux but if they are going to keep that in-house then so be it. I highly doubt it's just that the other guys are playing so much better than him. He was solid last year and imo had good potential. Gaudet has played well but isn't without mistakes. I like having Gaudet out there and thought he should've had more playing time last year, but I still think it wouldn't hurt to rotate Rioux in every once in a while. Who knows, maybe they said first half you're sitting and can prove yourself after that?

 

[Lady wore Black]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I'm going to jump on the KA side here. For those that have an issue with him he is always up to speed on the team and provides great coverage. He is constantly updating his blog, getting information out, and following the team. Would you rather not have that kind of coverage? I don't care if it's Roe or any other player on the team, if someone has a black eye and gets suspended for a game a question is going to be asked about it. Especially by a reporter who follows the team as close as KA does. Of course it gets magnified when it's one of the top players on the team, that type of attn comes with being good. It's perfectly fine for Roe and the team not to talk about it but to withhold any future comments/interviews? Come on.

I agree KA is great to providing coverage, but I just do not like him as a person. You have two strong-headed personalities going against each other.

 

[SCSU Euro]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Thoughts on the weekend:

-When did they start charging $25.00 to see CC?!?
- Oslund is fast becoming one of my favorite Huskies. Not much offensive talent, but he's PHYSICAL, which year in and year out SCSU needs, and he hustles his *** off.
- I don't care how many goals he has, Tony Mosey still looks like garbage. A couple of times he hustles and good things happen, but he doesn't finish enough of his chances, he seems out of place, and half the time you see someone giving half an effort, its good ol' 27!
-Gaudet can't even hold the point, so if he's skating because he offers something offensively, I say give us Rioux.
- Eddy and Johnson aren't finished products yet, but I like what I see. A LOT.
- Lee just looks like a deer in headlights. He's doing stupid things like covering up instead of passing the puck off to his own guy when nobody else is around or the only guy around was offside. And the 4th goal tonight was SOOOO bad. Not only was it a really horrible play, but it just deflated the guys.
- Lauridsen's not there yet, but boy does he look better than last year at this time. I'm excited what he will look like a year from now.
- We could've easily taken 3 or 4 points this weekend, and we've GOT to stop throwing away points.

 

[motox]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Thoughts on the weekend:

-Gaudet can't even hold the point, so if he's skating because he offers something offensively, I say give us Rioux.
- Lee just looks like a deer in headlights. He's doing stupid things like covering up instead of passing the puck off to his own guy when nobody else is around or the only guy around was offside. And the 4th goal tonight was SOOOO bad. Not only was it a really horrible play, but it just deflated the guys.

Couldn't agree more on these two points. As I already posted, last year I thought Gaudet earned more playing time than what he got. But this year, exact opposite. He let at least 3-4 pucks out of the zone on easy passes tonight. I have no idea what it is that Rioux did but he NEEDS to get on the ice, and soon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I do think Lee is GOING to be one hell of a goaltender for the Huskies after all is said and done, but he simply isn't getting it done right now. Teams have figured him out after watching some film, shoot high. All 4 goals tonight were upper half. The teams in this league have too much talent that if they find a consistent weakness, it will get exploited. I don't know if it's the pressure or what but I was surprised that neither Dunn or Hardy were in net to start the 3rd.

The offense was not impressive tonight at all, other than a few shifts they generated few quality chances. So frustrating to see when we know they can play so much better than that. I will give credit to CC, they buried the puck when they had the chance and clamped down on defense when necessary. Leblanc continues to impress me more and more everytime I watch him play. IMO he was one of the few bright spots tonight.

 

[First Time Long Time]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I really don't get you guys when it comes to our defense and who should play and who shouldn't.
All last year it was play Gaudet, play Gaudet, play Gaudet, now he's playing and doing exactly what he would have done last year and now you want Rioux.
You wanted Barta to sit and now that has happened, but it's still not enough.
Can any of you honestly tell me what you think Rioux is going to provide considering he's sat half the season already?
I thought Rioux was decent last year but I didn't see anything that said to me he should be playing every night and until we hear otherwise, he isn't going to play because he isn't getting it done in practice.
I know some of you don't buy that explanation but the question is if it is some other reason, why would Motzko lie?
Why does it have to be that he's in the doghouse or he did something?
Also, we've seen that Allenspach will report a story if there is one so if Rioux is being sat and Motzko is lying about why, wouldn't it be real easy for Rioux to say something?
It's not as though Allenspach only sees or covers the team on game days so if Rioux had a beef and likely figures he won't play here anyway, he's really got nothing to lose so what's to stop him?
Whole team was bad tonight from Lee on out, sad performance after the comeback they had the night before.
They now have 3 weeks to think about it and decide how they want to salvage their season.

 

[Pump It Up]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I
Can any of you honestly tell me what you think Rioux is going to provide considering he's sat half the season already?
I thought Rioux was decent last year but I didn't see anything that said to me he should be playing every night and until we hear otherwise, he isn't going to play because he isn't getting it done in practice.
I know some of you don't buy that explanation but the question is if it is some other reason, why would Motzko lie?
Why does it have to be that he's in the doghouse or he did something?

Listen, I'm not questioning whether he should or should not play... but when you get no chances, none whatsoever, just all Gaudet, all the time, something is up. He's in the doghouse. Or he's really in the doghouse. Either way, he's not playing and not for lack of skill. Bobby is just being coy. He's out for off the ice reasons, take it to the bank.

 

[First Time Long Time]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Listen, I'm not questioning whether he should or should not play... but when you get no chances, none whatsoever, just all Gaudet, all the time, something is up. He's in the doghouse. Or he's really in the doghouse. Either way, he's not playing and not for lack of skill. Bobby is just being coy. He's out for off the ice reasons, take it to the bank.

Then tell me why nothing is being said?
I've asked Allenspach this, my husband has asked him and we've both gotten the same answer, that it is for game reasons only.
Allenspach believes it and makes a good argument in that Motzko has not hidden it before, why start now?
We knew why Weslosky was suspended, we knew Roe was suspended even if we didn't know the reason, so if it is a doghouse thing, why cover it up?
It's not as though we are talking about some star player here who isn't getting time, its a Dman who is at best 4th or 5th on the depth chart.
If the transgression were that bad, he'd be kicked off the team, not just benched for half the season.
Did we hear anything about problems with him last year cause I don't remember any.
It just makes no sense that there has to be some sort of reason other than he isn't getting it done just because he hasn't played.
You'd think by now there'd be a rumor, something, somewhere of something he's done to deserve being benched.
Here, there's not even smoke, much less fire.

 

[Dude Love]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I find it very hard to believe Rioux is so bad that he hasn't even seen one game. If that's the case, why hasn't he just quit? He has nothing to gain by screwing around here when he's not getting playing time.

And remember...Tyler Arnason screwed around in practice too...

 

[wild77]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I find it very hard to believe Rioux is so bad that he hasn't even seen one game. If that's the case, why hasn't he just quit? He has nothing to gain by screwing around here when he's not getting playing time.

And remember...Tyler Arnason screwed around in practice too...

1. What happenned to Zabs last night? He didn't play after sometime in the first period.
2. SCSU gave up four 5 on 5 goals and scored one. Three of the tiger's goals were the result of a forward getting caught too deep and the other was the result of no one picking up a guy on the side of the net.
3. This team seems to be made up of special team players. Some are good on the PK and some are good on the PP. It doesn't seem any are good at 5 on 5.
4. Rioux should play. If for no other reason than to send a message that if you don't make plays you sit. No one on this team should be above riding the pine, but they are. And that's the problem with Bob's teams.

 

[First Time Long Time]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

1. What happenned to Zabs last night? He didn't play after sometime in the first period.
2. SCSU gave up four 5 on 5 goals and scored one. Three of the tiger's goals were the result of a forward getting caught too deep and the other was the result of no one picking up a guy on the side of the net.
3. This team seems to be made up of special team players. Some are good on the PK and some are good on the PP. It doesn't seem any are good at 5 on 5.
4. Rioux should play. If for no other reason than to send a message that if you don't make plays you sit. No one on this team should be above riding the pine, but they are. And that's the problem with Bob's teams.

Zabs seemed fine after the game, nothing else was said.
I wouldn't say they aren't any good at 5 on 5 but yes they are built for special teams play, 5 on 5 will happen as they continue to build chemistry.
Who do you think should "sit for not making plays" and who that's currently riding the pine is going to make those plays?
I'm sorry, but you don't sit your best players if they have a bad game or two.
Dahl tried that and we used to get hammered when he did.

 

[First Time Long Time]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Just to backtrack on Roe a bit, this is what the original article said.

Roe, a junior who has two goals and six assists through eight games, will be a healthy scratch for the first time in his college career because he "broke a team rule," according to SCSU coach Bob Motzko, who would not elaborate.
Roe missed one game because of an army injury as a rookie — and has 101 career points while appearing in 85 of 86 career games. He practiced with the Huskies' fifth line on Monday and Tuesday at the National Hockey Center and again Wednesday at the Municipal Athletic Complex.
He also had a bruised left eye, but both Motzko and Roe maintained that had nothing to do with his suspension. When asked why he wouldn't be playing Friday, Roe — who is making the trip to Grand Forks — referred questions to Motzko.
"I really can't say — but it was nothing big and it wasn't because of a fight, I'll tell you that," said Roe, who wouldn't explain his bruised eye. "Other than that, I can't tell you anything. I can't give details on my personal life."


He's angry about that?
Seriously?

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Then tell me why nothing is being said?
I've asked Allenspach this, my husband has asked him and we've both gotten the same answer, that it is for game reasons only.
Allenspach believes it and makes a good argument in that Motzko has not hidden it before, why start now?
We knew why Weslosky was suspended, we knew Roe was suspended even if we didn't know the reason, so if it is a doghouse thing, why cover it up?
It's not as though we are talking about some star player here who isn't getting time, its a Dman who is at best 4th or 5th on the depth chart.
If the transgression were that bad, he'd be kicked off the team, not just benched for half the season.
Did we hear anything about problems with him last year cause I don't remember any.
It just makes no sense that there has to be some sort of reason other than he isn't getting it done just because he hasn't played.
You'd think by now there'd be a rumor, something, somewhere of something he's done to deserve being benched.
Here, there's not even smoke, much less fire.

I don't get why everybody is so up and arms over Rioux not playing. He is not that good. I will say this though, the defense is not great so why not give him a chance once in a while? I think it is obvious coach has his favorites and likes to ride them. A perfect example of that was Barta. He never should have gotten the leash he got, but it was obvious he was one of coaches guys. just like Lee is one of coaches guys. He should have been pulled last night and coach stuck with him.

I am sorry but Lee this year is a lot like Dunn the last couple of years. His numbers look decent, but he gives up soft goals and it cost the team. I am sorry but when a goalie gives up soft goals it deflates a team and Lee has lost two or three games this year because of soft goals. When Dunn was like that People said he shouldn't play and now that Lee is like that he should automatically play once a weekend. Lee is going to be a good goalie, but handing him playing time becuase he is a second round pick and the projected starter for team USA is crap.

One more thing. I doubt Rioux is sitting because he did something wrong. I do think he is in Motzko's doghouse, but to say he did one thing wrong and the team is hiding something seems silly.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

I find it very hard to believe Rioux is so bad that he hasn't even seen one game. If that's the case, why hasn't he just quit? He has nothing to gain by screwing around here when he's not getting playing time.

And remember...Tyler Arnason screwed around in practice too...

He has a schollie, he has a lot to lose by quitting. It wouldn't be a bad gig getting all or partial tution paid for and all you have to do is practice.....

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

1. What happenned to Zabs last night? He didn't play after sometime in the first period.
2. SCSU gave up four 5 on 5 goals and scored one. Three of the tiger's goals were the result of a forward getting caught too deep and the other was the result of no one picking up a guy on the side of the net.
3. This team seems to be made up of special team players. Some are good on the PK and some are good on the PP. It doesn't seem any are good at 5 on 5.
4. Rioux should play. If for no other reason than to send a message that if you don't make plays you sit. No one on this team should be above riding the pine, but they are. And that's the problem with Bob's teams.

What? Our forwards never get caught to deep.

 

[scsutommyboy]

Re: SCSU 2009-2010 Season Thread

Just to backtrack on Roe a bit, this is what the original article said.

Roe, a junior who has two goals and six assists through eight games, will be a healthy scratch for the first time in his college career because he "broke a team rule," according to SCSU coach Bob Motzko, who would not elaborate.
Roe missed one game because of an army injury as a rookie — and has 101 career points while appearing in 85 of 86 career games. He practiced with the Huskies' fifth line on Monday and Tuesday at the National Hockey Center and again Wednesday at the Municipal Athletic Complex.
He also had a bruised left eye, but both Motzko and Roe maintained that had nothing to do with his suspension. When asked why he wouldn't be playing Friday, Roe — who is making the trip to Grand Forks — referred questions to Motzko.
"I really can't say — but it was nothing big and it wasn't because of a fight, I'll tell you that," said Roe, who wouldn't explain his bruised eye. "Other than that, I can't tell you anything. I can't give details on my personal life."


He's angry about that?
Seriously?

Yeah and KA is the bad guy.