burd

All true, but to be fair, you don't win with great defense without everyone being on board, and that includes forwards you might look to for scoring. I think this team knows it must will with good defense first, and it influences the game plan. That doesn't include an agreement to shoot the puck into the goalie's logo, of course.

I agree. I trust our coaches too.

Despite their relative success, this team must win with defense and team play. Snipers are few and far between, but we knew that coming into the season.

I thought there was a reasonable chance for a split, and this was damn close to that. Rest up, spend some time with family, and come back hungry for a strong finish. Not a bad first half, all in all.

Shouldn't even need that for two minutes, should you?

If this night continues to go the wrong direction, I hope the discussion isn't all about the refs.

What scpa is saying is that he feels terrible. Nothing more.

Boys are allowing a Cloud some possession in our zone but covering their men very well.

Saturdays are interesting in the same way second periods are: coaching adjustments. In games where we have been outplayed in the first this year, the boys have usually come back pretty well. I think this coaching staff, as a unit, is a damn good game coach.

From a team standpoint, what I see there is that UND has given up 10 PP goals, which is as bad as all but two of those teams and double what OSU and BSU have allowed. We may play a physical game, but we've also seen a lot of dumb penalties that have little to do with physical play. We are better than we were in the Hakstol years, though, I will say that.

thx

Where do you go for those stats, goon?

Our PK is good, but that will ultimately lead to problems and has to stop

The boys seem to have struggled with speed this year. Hopefully, they are not a step slow and chasing this weekend. That's when the penalties happen.

Very good point. We have spent WAY too much time talking about refs the last couple of weeks instead of the hockey our boys are playing.

By illogical I meant that if the original hit/hook/trip was real, some degree of fakery does not really embellish unless it turns a legit 2 to a 5. But a faked trip or hook does embellish if it gets a 2. Does that make any sense? But you're right: the ref has to call embellishment if he sees it, regardless of whether the hit/trip/hook was a legit penalty.

From all I've seen, the right call would have been to give them both 2. Although it has always seemed a little illogical to call both the diver and the other player on the same hit.

I hope they play the same game but do a better job staying out of the box. Do what Wolanin did when the guy mugged him in the third: stay cool.

The boys did just that for the first 50 minutes last night. I think they played better than many are giving them credit for. Too bad there has been so much discussion about refs, when they gave us a good night of hockey to talk about.

And someone made that point earlier. It's a fast moving game, and refs do not have the benefit of slo mo or replay when they make their calls, so they are often difficult to make. Divers make refs look bad, something that I'm sure pisses them off. They will remember the divers next time they are on the ice with them, just as I'm sure they remember the dirty players. What DiPietro did may have helped his team last night, but now that the crew has had the chance to review the play, I suspect he is much more apt to draw a 2 the next time he tries it with these refs.

It was fun to watch. I do think the waived goal was a fair call. If it had been WMU's goal, I would have been calling for it to be waived off.

WMU far from sucks this year. Not first place in NCHC material, but definitely dangerous.

I think so too. And he needed to improve.

One way of saying dumb azz.

Boys played good hockey until about half way through the third, when it got ragged. Being short probably contributed to that. They came out forechecking and clearing their own zone very well.