tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

[HarleyMC]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

SOG is an overrated stat. And MN "gave up" two off the wall fluke goals (including an own goal, which is why I said Fisher doesn't deserve any part of anything). And the first one was because of a BS PP (and that penalty happened right in front of me, so yes, I saw it clearly).

fUMD celebrated like they escaped with a win tonight. Which they did.

I'll take a high SOG every night. At least they are hitting the net! The more SOG, GF goes up, simple math. This team needs to start digging deeper or they will be buried in the WCHA. And Lucia needs to stop the nonsense moral victory crap, that's aggravating. The whole team and staff needs to watch Miracle On Ice about 10x.

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

They celebrated like they won in overtime with 12 seconds left. Pretty exciting stuff.

You did NOT outplay us. We didn't outplay you, either, don't think I'm saying that, but please, let's not pretend things happened that clearly did not.

Let's really break it down.

Legit non-fluke goals:

MN 3
tUMD 2

Slight nod to MN in the first, but it was close.

2nd period, despite the PPs, MN outplayed tUMD. Yes, I know about those first 2 goals for tUMD. Won't rehash my opinions on them.

3rd period: 1st half (and that's being generous for tUMD) was all MN. 2nd half was all tUMD.

OT: even

MN showed an aggressiveness that has been missing for most of the year, and it affected play. I will say that without the fluke goals and 1/4 of the shots we took that ended up as lucky-arse saves that tUMD made, MN wins this game 4-2 or 5-2.

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Let's really break it down.

Legit non-fluke goals:

MN 3
tUMD 2

Slight nod to MN in the first, but it was close.

2nd period, despite the PPs, MN outplayed tUMD. Yes, I know about those first 2 goals for tUMD. Won't rehash my opinions on them.

3rd period: 1st half (and that's being generous for tUMD) was all MN. 2nd half was all tUMD.

OT: even

MN showed an aggressiveness that has been missing for most of the year, and it affected play. I will say that without the fluke goals and 1/4 of the shots we took that ended up as lucky-arse saves that tUMD made, MN wins this game 4-2 or 5-2.

Is that what Gopher hockey is all about now, defending "what ifs"? I will venture to say this, if they don't turn this ship around immediately, this season for all practical purposes may be ending very soon.

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Is that what Gopher hockey is all about now, defending "what ifs"? I will venture to say this, if they don't turn this ship around immediately, this season for all practical purposes may be ending very soon.

Way to take part of my post, Jockstrap, I mean Harley.

Take away the what-ifs. We still outplayed 'em, still score more non-fluke goals, and should have won using those facts.

 

[4four4]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

What game were you watching? They couldn't buy a faceoff, were outshot, gave up 3 unanswered goals to blow a lead. That my friend is not good hockey. Let's get real here, if they don't win tomorrow. this team will reap a whirlwind of criticism in Minnesota.

No where did I say they played great.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Let's really break it down.

Legit non-fluke goals:

MN 3
tUMD 2

Slight nod to MN in the first, but it was close.

2nd period, despite the PPs, MN outplayed tUMD. Yes, I know about those first 2 goals for tUMD. Won't rehash my opinions on them.

3rd period: 1st half (and that's being generous for tUMD) was all MN. 2nd half was all tUMD.

OT: even

MN showed an aggressiveness that has been missing for most of the year, and it affected play. I will say that without the fluke goals and 1/4 of the shots we took that ended up as lucky-arse saves that tUMD made, MN wins this game 4-2 or 5-2.

Your second goal was pretty flukey, by your definition. It rolled off Reiter's leg and into the net. Your team cannot connect on passes or control the puck. They cannot fire off a one-timer and thus tUMD had time to react almost every time they were out of position.

The thing about a "fluke" goal is it's still a goal. And unless it's a 180-footer, it's the result of play around the net and pucks put on net, aka offense. You can't win every game with a pretty tic tac toe, and your team doesn't outplay another team because of how pretty their goals are.

Kangas had plenty of luck, too. If he hadn't had his luck, then tUMD would have scored more, too!

It's not really outplaying us if you have to suspend disbelief and imagine a different outcome in order to justify it.

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Way to take part of my post, Jockstrap, I mean Harley.

Take away the what-ifs. We still outplayed 'em, still score more non-fluke goals, and should have won using those facts.

Jockstrap? I need an explanation on this, I'm not this guy. Furthermore, I have no intention of taking apart your post. You disqualified yourself by making the comments you do. Anyone who really knows hockey understands that. You don't.

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Your second goal was pretty flukey, by your definition. It rolled off Reiter's leg and into the net. Your team cannot connect on passes or control the puck. They cannot fire off a one-timer and thus tUMD had time to react almost every time they were out of position.

The thing about a "fluke" goal is it's still a goal. And unless it's a 180-footer, it's the result of play around the net and pucks put on net, aka offense. You can't win every game with a pretty tic tac toe, and your team doesn't outplay another team because of how pretty their goals are.

Kangas had plenty of luck, too. If he hadn't had his luck, then tUMD would have scored more, too!

It's not really outplaying us if you have to suspend disbelief and imagine a different outcome in order to justify it.

You are correct, that second MN goal was a fluke. I stand corrected. That's still 2-2, taking out the what-ifs. And Kangas didn't have his head on a swivel, especially compared to Rieter. I expect Hellje in net tomorrow.

And teams don't normally win with the help of own-goals, and somehow deflecting an aggressive team (like MN played tonight) without utilizing the trap (which tUMD did play in the 3rd when they had the lead, and they did it pretty well).

From the game I saw tonight, MN wins 80% of the time. Tomorrow will be interesting with the adjustments both teams are expected to make. I could see tUMD playing more of a trap (not THE dreaded trap, but more trap-like) and taking advantage of MN's aggressiveness, which leads to more mistake opportunities (which we saw tonight in the transition game).

I expect MN to tighten up their passing, and hopefully not be as (shall we say) "creative" in their playmaking.

And Harley, Dirty already exposed ya. Don't blame the messenger.

 

[bigmrg74]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Way to take part of my post, Jockstrap, I mean Harley.

Take away the what-ifs. We still outplayed 'em, still score more non-fluke goals, and should have won using those facts.

NSFW.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_N1OjGhIFc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/m_N1OjGhIFc&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x3a3a3a&color2=0x999999" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

And Harley, Dirty already exposed ya. Don't blame the messenger.

Ok, I will check with the administrator on it and get back to you. I have no clue what the thing is with Dirty. All I know is suddenly you are thinking I have another screen name which I don't. And one more thing I don't appreciate your candor about it.

 

[Dirty]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

And Harley, Dirty already exposed ya. Don't blame the messenger.

I did who in the what now?

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Ok, I will check with the administrator on it and get back to you. I have no clue what the thing is with Dirty. All I know is suddenly you are thinking I have another screen name which I don't. And one more thing I don't appreciate your candor about it.

If it's not true, why are you getting so worked up over it?

Take the stick out. It's more fun that way.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

You are correct, that second MN goal was a fluke. I stand corrected. That's still 2-2, taking out the what-ifs. And Kangas didn't have his head on a swivel, especially compared to Rieter. I expect Hellje in net tomorrow.

And teams don't normally win with the help of own-goals, and somehow deflecting an aggressive team (like MN played tonight) without utilizing the trap (which tUMD did play in the 3rd when they had the lead, and they did it pretty well).

From the game I saw tonight, MN wins 80% of the time. Tomorrow will be interesting with the adjustments both teams are expected to make. I could see tUMD playing more of a trap (not THE dreaded trap, but more trap-like) and taking advantage of MN's aggressiveness, which leads to more mistake opportunities (which we saw tonight in the transition game).

I expect MN to tighten up their passing, and hopefully not be as (shall we say) "creative" in their playmaking.

And Harley, Dirty already exposed ya. Don't blame the messenger.

Not sure who Hellje is. Hjelle will play. We have a goalie rotation, so it is not reactionary. Kangas had some rebound troubles, but I would be shocked to see Patterson tomorrow, as would the entire GPL community.

Please don't talk about Dirty exposing anything.

I expect tDogs to make adjustments but not the ones you suggest. It's also one thing to watch tape and tighten up your passing, but it's another thing to go out and execute it. Mariucci was a freaking sauna tonight, though. Maybe they just need to lower the temperature a bit to get ideal ice.

 

[brianvf]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Jockstrap = Harley?
Where is the exposing?

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Not sure who Hellje is. Hjelle will play. We have a goalie rotation, so it is not reactionary. Kangas had some rebound troubles, but I would be shocked to see Patterson tomorrow, as would the entire GPL community.

Please don't talk about Dirty exposing anything.

I expect tDogs to make adjustments but not the ones you suggest. It's also one thing to watch tape and tighten up your passing, but it's another thing to go out and execute it. Mariucci was a freaking sauna tonight, though. Maybe they just need to lower the temperature a bit to get ideal ice.

Sorry for the mis-spell.

I know it's not reactionary, but well, we've seen weirder things concerning goalies in this camp.

Yep, it's definitely execution. I agree, for real. I was surprised at the aggressiveness of the Gophers tonight, I admit, because tUMD always has been pesky and gnat-like against MN. They swarm over ya, wait until you try and swat them, then BOOM they react and score. So, being overly aggressive usually isn't the best plan.

And yeah, the ice was a little odd tonight. Some of the bounces off the back boards were weird, too.

Edit: vf: Harley posted something, Dirty quoted to respond, Harley deleted post, then a couple minutes later (if that) Jock posted the exact same thing word for word. Lengthy post too, and it was quick enough to not be a C&P job.

 

[HarleyMC]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

If it's not true, why are you getting so worked up over it?

Take the stick out. It's more fun that way.

I'm not "worked up" about anything. I simply want to clarify you're statement. "Take the stick out"? I think it's the other way around.

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

I'm not "worked up" about anything. I simply want to clarify you're statement. "Take the stick out"? I think it's the other way around.

Clearly your disillusioned. No sticks here. Just having fun, discussing hockey with a diehard tUMD fan. Amazing, I know.

 

[brianvf]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

Edit: vf: Harley posted something, Dirty quoted to respond, Harley deleted post, then a couple minutes later (if that) Jock posted the exact same thing word for word. Lengthy post too, and it was quick enough to not be a C&P job.

Nice detective work boys.

 

[Runninwiththedogs]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

The other way around? Does that mean put the stick in?

Why am I awake? Stupid work tomorrow.

 

[The Rube]

Re: tUMD @ UMTC : The in-state rivalry revisited!

The other way around? Does that mean put the stick in?

Why am I awake? Stupid work tomorrow.

Ha ha. I have a day that involves no required activity. It's beautiful.