What's new
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.

UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

thoughts for slogans for '10-'11

Lowell Hockey...it is what it is.

Lowell Hockey...if you ain't got nothin good to say...

Lowell Hockey...its our arena, its your net.

Lowell Hockey...come see us play some of the best teams in the country! (Probably to a one point loss.)

Or as the guy on SNL says.... FIX IT!
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

that this has happened in his absence is no coincidence.

that this happened at all is unacceptable but i'll concede that its more likely to happen when your top defensive player is out.... then again that goes without saying.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

thoughts for slogans for '10-'11

Lowell Hockey...it is what it is.

Lowell Hockey...if you ain't got nothin good to say...

Lowell Hockey...its our arena, its your net.

Lowell Hockey...come see us play some of the best teams in the country! (Probably to a one point loss.)

Or as the guy on SNL says.... FIX IT!
Not my team so I probably don't get a vote, but I'd go with "it is what it is." That's good. :)
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

Another terrible performance by UML. They had 10 shots on goal after 2 periods and 21 for the game. This weekend they only could manage 39 shots for 2 games.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

right but it's one player that plays literally half the game in every situation imaginable and is asked to start everything offensively. dehner's puckrushing is unmatched on this team and the breakout has been the biggest problem in the two games for which he's been out. lowell gets stapled into its own zone far too frequently and has had no success at actually getting the puck deep in the O zone and keeping it there without him.

dehner's been out for two games and if you take half the periods they've played without him (the first against NU and the first and third against BU) they've been outshot 39-11.

that this has happened in his absence is no coincidence.

Merrimack announcers said that dehner was out for the season, so I guess Lowell is done anyway. Anyone want to buy my tickets?
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

I've got a few thoughts running along... not going to go with them all needless to say.

People look at the 05-06 team and say "man if Ben Walter hadn't left"... the team on the ice (as of the last time i looked) is much faster than that team and better over all... but I'm wondering if there isn't some other issues that come along with having the same players in their roles for so long. I don't know if there's something specific I'm thinking of or trying to address but we've seen this pattern develop twice now under similar situations. I just wonder if there's something that happens by having a large core play together so long and maybe too long. In that you develop and adhere to certain styles... you don't have to change too much... you don't have typical patterns of leadership and roles... in most cases the role is shifted to the large class as soon as they are sophomores... some of those people maybe still in need of leadership or in the need to learn from upperclassmen... I don't know... that's just speculation.

A lot of what I'm saying I'm just throwing out there... but its hard not to look at the last 4 years and compare them to the 4 years preceding. I'm not ready to dump on the coach because there are too many surrounding positives in the program... we wouldn't get some of the people around the program if they thought Blaise is a dud... we wouldn't have McEachern... we wouldn't have gotten Fitzgerald before him... we wouldn't (probably) have our goaltending coach so on if they thought Blaise couldn't do it... but necessarily I'm not ready to say "in Blaise we trust" anymore... in the end player management falls on him. That and I don't know how many years are left on his contract so its not like you could just jettison him if you wanted. It would be really nice to put the finger on what we lack. People seem to trust in him or else we wouldn't see the types of persons we have surrounding the program.

I need to watch the next Saturday home game... Friday's are an issue since I get home so late. What the heck is going on out there? My instinct is to blame the players because they are the ones who take the shots and perform the actions but this is getting ridiculous.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

I am going to work on the "If you have nothing nice to say" theory...
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

:confused: To try to answer Patman question, I don't believe "blame" is the proper word. We can easily point fingers at coach or the players but keep in mind these are college kids (aka student athletes) who are likable, hard-working citizens of the UML community and have a positive impact on Lowell. I have a policy that "struggle" is the only negative word I will use towards a player and right now, you can take your pick.

Watching this team now for more than fifteen years and I have never have a felt so dejected for a Lowell team as I do right now. This team deserves and should be better but the execution is non-existent. It's been a long time since a Lowell team was outworked by Merrimack for large portions of that game. I mean, Merrimack is an improved team from last year but a measly ten shots after two periods and 0 for 7 on the PP is unacceptable. Half of the shots tonight for Lowell came on the PP.

The loss of Dehner is immeasurable but where have we seen this before when one guy (conceded important) goes down or away from this team and it falls down like a house of cards. I'm not saying that there won't be issues or hardships but this is the second straight year that one member of the River Hawks goes down and they go winless. This is not what I had in mind of a balanced team.

I have said it before but one dimensional dump and chase is a failed method in HE over a long haul. It simply doesn't work over a long course of a season. Every team has a game plan for Lowell and it works almost every time against the BU's, Maine's, BC's and UNH's of the world. Nobody on this team wants to shoot the puck and I don't understand why. As I have said numerous times, it’s pass, pass, pass and when they do shoot, it's nowhere close to the target. I know I've been both applauded and criticized before, but if this is not a head game, please tell me what it is. They always look for the perfect play in an imperfect game.

There is still about 1/3 of a HE season left and the River Hawks are reeling into a very big hole just one point from eighth place. They have their toughest test of the season with three of the next four games on the road against two teams that will likely have home ice in the HE playoffs. They must win Friday, otherwise they may get swept by BC and ME. Right now, I don't see how they can win at Alfond w/o Dehner. Bob Ellis was mentioning NCAA during tonight's post games but it's going to be difficult enough try to claw back into home ice, never mind Garden at this point.

Getting back to the first part of this discussion, the system isn't working between coaches and players. There is a disconnect that started during Thanksgiving week and hasn't corrected itself since. As much as I do like Blaise and his staff I can't help to wonder if the message is lost. At the same time, Patman is right...it's going to be harder to defend the coaching staff as a whole if this season of large expectations (for me: it was an HE Championship/NCAA appearance). It has been ten years and it will be three teams that should have reached the NCAAs (02, 06, and soon to be 10 if things don't turn around quickly). Whether or not people believe a regime change is needed will be something to talk about after the season is over but I don't see the light at the end of the tunnel for a year or two to come after this year.

I'm done for tonight...I was really hoping to see a win at the Alfond Arena to finally break the sixteen year drought (I've never seen a win live in 17 games at Alfond, 0-16-1), but at the rate we are going we are lucky to beat Providence in a couple of weeks.

Time is running out and in some ways, it is probably too late for an at-large NCAA bid.
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

:confused: To try to answer Patman question, I don't believe "blame" is the proper word. We can easily point fingers at coach or the players but keep in mind these are college kids (aka student athlete) who are likable, hard-working citizens of the UML community and have a positive impact on Lowell's community. I have a policy that "struggle" is the only negative word I will use towards a player and right now, you can take your pick.

I've never been that type but I've never been that type on myself... I've never been one to discount lack of performance by age of its own right (maturity)... so I tend the view the players not executing like not being able to perform in other aspects. Though, yes, I tend to think that lack of play speaks to other deficiencies in a player beyond that of talent... which is something that probably isn't necessarily true and I need to look beyond.
 
Last edited:
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

You are probably not interested in an arms length assessment from a distance but I'm going to add it.

I think your pre-season expectations (and that of the coaches and media) were considerably overdone based on the finish to the prior season where the team "peaked" late in the season at the right time. During that peak the team played over its head (sum of parts much greater than actual collective skill). During that peak the team also was not feared by the opponent, which does help as the opponent is not as focused.

I saw the final 4 UML games in person last year and they won two of the three games due to timely scoring (usually late), confidence, and luck. They did not dominate the games other than arguably the second W at Vermont. They were not any better than the competition on balance - it just was what it was - they were on the right side of the bounces and calls.

Somehow that strong finish was extrapolated over the summer by the fans and media into "this is one of the top teams to beat in HE and a sure NCAA tourney team". That applied a lot of pressure that has certainly not helped.

They are a middle of the pack HE team. Maybe they will be better next year with less pressure and expectation on them.

Be happy they are not Clarkson
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

They were not any better than the competition on balance - it just was what it was - they were on the right side of the bounces and calls.
I think this can be counted as another endorsement of the "it is what it is" team slogan. ;)
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

I think this can be counted as another endorsement of the "it is what it is" team slogan. ;)
Lest anyone think I'm trying to be smug, I'm not. Obviously, a quick check of the standings reveals that my team is faring no better.

I just check this thread occasionally because I'm curious about y'alls reaction to a season that clearly isn't living up to expectations.
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

A reasonable post from snowbrdr that I happen to agree with.

The team peaked late last year (and got screwed at the Garden) and everyone saw what they had coming back in terms of overall numbers and experience and said, look out. Certainly not out of the realm of possibility but just not enough to formulate a reasonable expectation. In the end, it's still Lowell (no offense but it is what it is).
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

UML had the fewest question marks coming into the season. That's why so many people, including myself, viewed them as the preseason favorite. However, they've created questions as the season has gone along. Offense didn't appear to be a problem before the season because they had so many people coming back up front. There was no reason to think it would struggle, but it has.

Meanwhile, UNH, BC and Maine have answered most of the questions that surrounded them before the season. UNH did have enough offense to make up for the loss of JVR. Foster has improved in net. BC's veterans have bounced back from a down season. Their freshman defensemen have been just fine. The combination of Muse and Milner has been good enough. Maine's sophomore class has been tremendous. Other young players have stepped up. Darling's been very good in net.

The key to those three teams are guys stepping up and improving, in some cases by leaps and bounds, from last season. You look at UML, though -- who's really shown significant improvement from last season? It seems like everyone's kind of just playing at the same level, and some of the forwards have even regressed. UML had/has plenty of experience, but they weren't good enough last year to win HE this year by just playing at the same level. They still needed people to step their game up from last year, and that hasn't happened (with a few exceptions).
 
Re: UML '09/'10 Season Thread Part II

UML had the fewest question marks coming into the season. That's why so many people, including myself, viewed them as the preseason favorite. However, they've created questions as the season has gone along. Offense didn't appear to be a problem before the season because they had so many people coming back up front. There was no reason to think it would struggle, but it has.

Meanwhile, UNH, BC and Maine have answered most of the questions that surrounded them before the season. UNH did have enough offense to make up for the loss of JVR. Foster has improved in net. BC's veterans have bounced back from a down season. Their freshman defensemen have been just fine. The combination of Muse and Milner has been good enough. Maine's sophomore class has been tremendous. Other young players have stepped up. Darling's been very good in net.

The key to those three teams are guys stepping up and improving, in some cases by leaps and bounds, from last season. You look at UML, though -- who's really shown significant improvement from last season? It seems like everyone's kind of just playing at the same level, and some of the forwards have even regressed. UML had/has plenty of experience, but they weren't good enough last year to win HE this year by just playing at the same level. They still needed people to step their game up from last year, and that hasn't happened (with a few exceptions).

This is a pretty good synopsis of the season. Getting back to a couple of the other posts, I'm in 100% agreement that Lowell has been a middle of the road team for over ten years. While there were some tough years, there have been some very good years. However, these good years haven't paid off into what's been desperately wanted in this town for the past 14 years, a return trip to the NCAA's.

Certainly, from the outside, being picked by some to win Hockey East to some by a team that's never won a D-1 hockey regular or post season may have been a bit much. With practically the same team coming back, I think you would have had a hard time convincing anyone around HE that Lowell would not at least get a home ice spot in the playoffs. This probably was the minimum expectation of this team, getting to the Garden was second, and to some, back to the HE championship was third. By doing so, Lowell more than likely would have been in the NCAA's.

Let's take a look, other than maybe BC, BU, and UNH, even with questions, who would have been a legitimate threat to Lowell at the beginning of the season. Half of the Maine fans were already jumping into the Penobscot on October 2nd. NU fans were jumping in front of the E car with Thiessen gone. UMA, while a good team, was a lot like a Lowell, good defense and goaltending but could they score. UVM is another team like Lowell that could have made some noise but have struggled as well.

Lowell was a team that was #3 in the nation at one point this season and in firm control in HE. The team we saw destroy UNH in the third period on ESPNU in November was the team everyone in this town wanted and expected to see. Since then, for a variety of known and unknown reasons, they haven't been back to that form. Every four years, Lowell gets a senior-laden team and the expectations go through the roof that we are going make some noise. The lack of Lowell responses since the loss last night is a prime indication of how far the disappointment has reached.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top