jk

Members
  • Content count

    2,320
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

About jk

  1. I've seen a few questions about Cam in the game, not moving side-to-side well enough. Just my opinion, but no one's getting over on those two back door plays. Really the only one Cam had a chance on was the breakaway, and just reading that tells you all you need to know. The one in tight in the third, there were five Sioux players packed down low, but no one picked up the guy in front of the net. I guess they were maybe out of practice playing defense, since BU hadn't touched the puck much in the game to that point. About those cross-ice back door plays. The winner didn't look dissimilar to the Schmaltz/Caggiula title game goal. Schmaltz was looping in the other direction, but the pass got sent from a similar spot. I believe it was Simpson in the FF game against MN who sniffed out several of those plays, especially when MN was on a PP. Just got his stick in the passing lane at the last minute. It reminded me of how Leopold was able to break that play up a lot of years earlier. Anyway, that play is made by a savvy defenseman reading it, not by athleticism (though it doesn't hurt of course). It makes me wonder if UND's best defenseman, with the longest reach, might have seen those coming and gotten a stick in the way. I still think the most amazing thing about that game is the absence of garbage goals. Not one. After 145+67 shot attempts. (Bowen's would have been.)
  2. They keep score based on goals, I know. Shot attempts were 145-67, so UND attempted 78 more shots. Midway through the second OT, BU seemed to find their legs and the Sioux hit a wall. It may have been the hockey rope-a-dope, as the Sioux wore themselves out shooting the puck. Oddly, none of the 212 shot attempts resulted in a garbage goal, as all seven goals were on nice plays. (The OT winner that wasn't would have been the only one.)
  3. This one might have to be at the top of the list. I'll always think of 2011 as that type of game, but the 2011 team didn't play its best game that night. They were a better team than Michigan by a lot more than the 2016 Sioux were better than BU, but the 2016 team was absolutely at the top of its game, and outplayed BU much more than the 2011 team did Michigan. Which makes it that much harder to take. 2004 and 2005 also come to mind. In 2004, Parise and co. outclassed Denver badly, with Denver scoring on its first shot of the third period with about three minutes left. 2005 might feel more like last night, with a shorthanded, banged up squad outplaying what might have been a more talented Denver team. The Sioux had the puck a lot, but Denver got the bounces. I guess they're all different. I can't recall any other hockey games with so great a disparity between lopsided play and result as last night.
  4. It would seem to me that the guys deserve the benefit of the doubt. Especially this one, who had so much to do with a national title, and could have gone last year.
  5. OK, it was bad, but it's probably time to get over it. It was a meaningless game, and UND did end up on the PP for what seemed like half the game. At this point, it's time to look to Friday, for me. Pionk may experience renewed interest in the topic when the teams first meet in the regular season next year. For this weekend, if both NCHC teams are fortunate enough to advance, I doubt you'll see more than about six PPs in the game. They both will know what's on the line.
  6. I really disliked Denver for a long time, almost enough to move them past MN. That's how I feel about UMD at the moment. We had so many good UMD fans around us at the Final Five, and this time, along with the antics on the ice, I had one try to tell me the guy ran the UND goalie because UND was so cheap, referencing the Travis Roy injury, among other things. Seriously. I actually wouldn't mind DU winning, because they're really good, because Monty has been so fair-minded, and because it's good for the league. I wouldn't feel that way if 2016 hadn't happened, but I'm more charitable now. Monty tweeted this when Caggiula scored in the third period of the title game: There it is! Boom @TheNCHC @UNDmhockey. This may be just a passing interlude, but it feels like this could be similar to UND/Wisconsin in the early 80s, where we hated each other but there was a ton of mutual respect.
  7. Tough call for me. If you could put the x in mpls, it would be ideal. It's so much easier to get to, to park near, with many more eating options.
  8. UND: Sr 1, Jr 5 Duluth: Sr 8, Jr 4 Just hope for improvement. But beware the Duluth, MN, Denver, SC schedule run. Swept, split, swept, split?
  9. Air Force, on the other hand, typically has no problems flying to games.
  10. Something is different in Beantown ... Agganis Arena.
  11. I'm less optimistic. The team loses two of the best D we've had in a long time in LaDue and Stecher, and two of the best forwards we've had in Caggiula and Schmaltz, plus other important players. Replacing them requires everyone down the line to step up a notch, and we won't know if they are capable of it until it happens. I think some will, and some won't, just because that's usually how it works. Can they be there at the end? No doubt, although you can say that about perhaps 25 teams each year. I'll enjoy "good" or "very good" anyway, and I'll be thrilled to be wrong if "great" shows up again.
  12. Agree with everything here. Honest question: If Denver finishes the comeback on its late PP, does this thread even exist?
  13. I don't know if some of you have ever actually watched the NCAA hockey tournament, but it's hard to win. Strange things happen to good teams. Not only that, but it might be hard to even get into it. There's a lot of potential on next year's team, but it will be missing half the regular defensemen from last year's team, including arguably the top two. Also subtract five forwards from last year. There's no way to know if they'll be able to generate the kind of chemistry this group had. I shudder to think what this forum might look like if they struggle.
  14. Veering off topic here, you've hit on one of the keys to the effectiveness of this outstanding defensive corps: their age. Give me a well-seasoned Ladue or Poolman over a green Thompson, Forbort, Lee or Chorney any day. Those guys eventually developed into fine players (some are works in progress), but they were not as ready to play college hockey at an elite level. And I mean that more mentally than physically.
  15. The bolded part above is very true, thanks for noting it. Credit for #8 needs to be spread far and wide, including all the way out to Philadelphia. Congrats to everyone who had a hand in it.