redwing77

I agree totally. Smaby has made a few mistakes, but he's solid otherwise. Most of his penalties are his failure to adjust to the size of the player he's checking. Not his fault he is 6'5" tall. I don't know where BDB got his opinion, but he can keep it. Bina has been getting significant ice time and he's done very well, however, I also saw Bina get bushwhacked vs. UAA and come to realize that, though he's a great defenseman, sometimes tough decisions must be made. I trust Hak choosing Bina and Radke for the rotate-a-defenseman. Bina will more than likely get the call in the big games this season, like UMD, but Radke will continue to get ice time. If Smaby was benched for the first half of his freshman campaign, he wouldn't have had the second half as good as it was. Radke needs to adjust, especially as he is being expected to buy into the system of "Defense first" among defensemen. He's an offensive threat with his shot, but he's been getting caught a lot and needs the experience or he'll never develop. Your opinion, BDB, is yours to keep, but I'll disagree with you. I like Smaby, I'll be honest with that. He's done a lot this season already, including contributing offensively. His play is going to have to get more experienced because next season we lose Jones and MAYBE (probably) Greene. We need a big man to anchor the defensive unit and it could be Smaby.

Brian didn't participate because, at the time, I believe he was still out due to a knee injury. As for AJ, he is probably the biggest surprises of those who didn't make it followed closely by Earl. You don't make All American as a freshman and not get serious consideration. Zach Parise made it as an example.

Wow, a flurry of resentment regarding an honest question. I wasn't really paying much attention to the bias thing the last time around because I don't recall it at all. What I thought as an honest question must have been taken in poor taste. My apologies.

Some things to note: First, if you are adding everyone, why not add alternates? Matt Smaby was named an alternate to the team last year. I agree completely about AJ Thelen and Robbie Earl. Johnson is supposed to be the best defenseman out there right now in juniors. I guess Lee was more impressive. Both Lee and Johnson are up in this next draft. I'm wondering if this will affect their draft rankings. Brown shouldn't have made the team. I do have a question for you all: Since Canada went on to be extremely reluctant to name any US college players to their roster (those players who are Canadian attending US universities), only naming (to my knowledge) one. What do you think about being extremely reluctant for the US team to name any Americans to their roster currently playing in a Canadian based major junior team? If politics is going to enter into the field of play, then let's play ball?

As I understand the rule, no defensive player may land on a player who is a teammate. They implemented this rule solely to prevent injury and to prevent teammates from using each other as springboards. It isn't so much to protect the leaping player from injury, but rather the player who is landed upon. 250+ pounds of player landing on you isn't that good for you, especially when you are bent over at the angle of a grappling linesman. I would understand it more if the rule was for landing on opponents rather than teammates, but I don't even think that isn't allowed (meaning you actually can land on the opposing players). What I don't understand about the penalty is why it had to be called in the first place. I would understand completely if the play was a blocked field goal. SOmething was done that wasn't right. If effected the play. In this case, the jumping player completely missed the ball. It doesn't effect the play, it shouldn't be called. It is like holding. Is there a single play that is done from scrimmage where holding DOESN'T occur? The answer is no. It is called when the hold prevents a player from making a play... if affects the play. This is a penalty that is based, loosely, in legitmacy, but is called for the wrong reasons. Nevertheless, we didn't lose by 3 points, so the argument is rather moot.

I agree totally. This was a tough loss, as I explained earlier. But this time, we can't blame JPar. Sorry Federov. I'll say it again: We HAVE TO get players to rush the nets. Players like Massen, Stafford, Zajac (who already does this on occasion), Porter, and perhaps anyone on our checking line (McMahon, Kaip, Prpich..) should all be able to rush the net or provide a screen. They are big, feisty, good stick handlers, and can deflect shots. In the case of our checking line, perhaps they can provide intigation of penalties... Who knows? But we need to rush the net and/or put someone in front of the net more often. Minnesota utilizes this strategy. I think BC does as well. I haven't seen Michigan play, so I'm not sure if they do it.

Take it from an "expert": Let Lashoff sit out.

Yeah, there are a number of security out there that suck. But JR and Russ seem to be cool guys.

Jim is just plain too nice. What we're saying here is: Congrats Sioux for a great season. If you want kudos and a few other forms of "Yeah we rock so much better than everyone else" type of praise, find Pitt State's message board. PSU was good, but I'd rather talk about the SIOUX on the SIOUX board than talk about Pitt State. They won. Good for them. They were really good on offense. There. Now back to the topic of the thread: The Sioux, for as much as I harped on them, did WAY WAY better than expected. As others pointed out, we won a lot of great games. The fact that we made the semifinals, runner up, and championship just shows what quality we had in all of the positions. Good work seniors. You'll be missed. Underclassmen, let's keep up the tradition, invite PSU to our backyard and show them the same courtesy they showed us next year! Only this time, let's have Lennon on the post game interview explaining our victory!

I don't know. I'd love to see Boise St. vs. Utah in the Orange Bowl. It won't happen, but it would be fun to watch. This season, by enlarge, has been a great season. Especially if you are like me, and despise every team ESPN adores. It was fun watching UNC, Clemson, and Virginia Tech defeat the Hurricanes. It was fun to watch Boise St., Louisville, Utah, and Auburn. I think the BCS is flawed, but no worries. They've revamped it coming up (2006 it goes into effect?). After that, when that also fails, I'm optimistic that enough schools will buy into the BCS being a flawed, failed system and scrap it for the playoff system that works so much better.

Something I'm wondering about is depth. We've had a LOT of injury problems this season. This is a problem we didn't deal with much all of last season. Massen and Fabian are down now, there are questions as to whether or not Stafford is at 100 percent. I think we are rather shallow at forward. With our offense being the issue, not potential, I think what we need is really more time. Unfortunately, most of us (myself included) have high expectations for our team. Also, there is a sense of urgency regarding our defense. A lot of our defense will be leaving at the end of the season and with freshmen defensive units come questions in that regard. I really don't know what is going to happen the second half of the season. We could go either way, up or down, but I think we're not doing too badly. Our youth is doing fine. Radke has settled down quite a bit. Spirko and Zajac have been contributing from the beginning. Kaip has been solid. Phil has been unbelievable. In that regard, we're not that bad off. Have faith.

I don't know much. The injury happened below and to the right of me. All I saw was Massen going down to the ice. I thought he was pinching to keep the puck in the UAA zone. My neighbor told me he was slashed. I didn't see any slash. All I know is that they showed Massen's face on the jumbotron and he looked HURT. Judging ONLY from looks, this is serious.

I think this was a pretty good game from the 2nd period on. I'll tell you two things about UAA: 1. Lawson is the real deal. A quality goaltender that can and will do everything King and Reiter did for UAA and probably improve on it. Very impressed by his play tonight. Very athletic. 2. UAA will not finish last in the WCHA.

I like that Also could be the "Hair today, Goon tommorrow" with a picture of the Wookiee before and after the haircut... Or "Shear Stupidity with the same pictures... Cheesy, but what the heck kind of hockey program is Canisius anyway?

Most of the sign holders and creators from last season are now in the upper deck. Personally, I don't see the point in holding up a sign in the upper deck. It's not like anyone from the lower deck can read them and the upper deck doesn't get as much jumbotron time.

I sure as heck don't feel cramped for space riding on your coattails

Having been burned over saying something like this in the past, I can now say with all honesty: No, I don't. I respect Montoya but Michigan can have him. I respect your opinion, but I think you are wrong. JPar was among the top 10 in goaltenders last year. To say his performance last year was not impressive, well, doesn't impress me at all. I wouldn't trade the goaltenders we've got for any trio out there. Not anymore. Goaltending is the least of our issues. I'd rather have a great D and good goaltending than vice versa. It so happens that we have great D and great goaltending this year. If our offense were a bit more explosive, this thread probably wouldn't exist.

Uh, I guess I'll disagree with you on MTU, but my thoughts on UAA: UAA and UAF fans always look forward to facing off against each other. A Natural rival AND a natural travel partner, perhaps. The con with UAA going to CCHA is, of course, scheduling and cost related. It's not going to cost UAA any more to be in the CCHA travel wise, but it is going to cost all of the other CCHA teams (sans UAF) extra travel expenses because instead of one opponent (2 weekends perhaps) you will essentially be doubling their travelling to Alaska, which is expensive for even 1 2 game series. The question is: Does a rivalry constitute a bigger upside than travel expenses of all of the other teams in the division? Right now, the answer is no. UAA will remain part of the WCHA. MTU I will not agree to leave the WCHA. Here's why: First of all, MTU was, if I recall correctly (you all will correct me if I'm wrong), one of the founding members of the WCHA. They devised the McNaughton Cup. They still own it as well despite it's travelling. Michigan was a founding member of the WCHA as well, but they left voluntarily to help the CCHA get off he ground. You can't kick a founding member out of the division just because the place they are from doesn't convenience you. We'll see the WCHA expand before we'll see them contract. The obvious teams to be welcomed into the mix would be Bemidji State and UNO.

Can we drop the past issue? If past was as big of an issue then we'd have a lot of problems justifying Bochenski cracking the lineup after his money scandal and Phil cracking the lineup because of JPar's stellar freshman campaign. What about Massen last season? If he didn't play well last season why is he in the lineup at all this year? The fact is, pulltabs or not, history has very little to do with why Brandt isn't cracking the lineup. It has to do with current performance. Talent gap is subjective, truly. Brandt did well last year and so did JPar. What has to do with everything right now is what works and what isn't working. Right now Phil is working as the starter and JPar is close behind during practice (I guess). I don't know really what seperates JPar and Brandt from #2 and #3 goaltenders. I'm not sure any of us do. WHat we do know is that Phil is doing GREAT in games and we would be stupid to take him out of the game. JPar has had 2 bad games so far. Brandt has had less bad games and less starts. If JPar could keep his regular playing status through the shaky and bad games he's played, then doesn't that speak volumes about Brandt's practice habits?