jimdahl Posted April 12, 2003 Posted April 12, 2003 After the 1st: I think Minnesota read my post about the UNH D smothering them on shots -- the Gophers seem to be doing whatever they can to put the puck on net, taking a lot of low percentage outside shots. Of course, that's not a criticism, a slapshot straight into Ayers slipped in the five-hole. Up until Minnesota scored it looked like they controlled the ice, easily skating around UNH like they did Ferris. However, I thought UNH really stepped up the neutral zone checking (in both directions) after UMN's first goal. They really started limiting the outside shots at that point, too. What's up with UNH's power play? The first one was one of the most pathetic I've ever seen in playoff hockey. Then on the power play right before the period ended they could shoot and pass at will -- it was like it was a drill with no D on the ice. UMN had two pretty good power plays; as a lot of people predicted, stupid penalties by UNH might be the key to this game. Quote
sprig Posted April 12, 2003 Posted April 12, 2003 If UNH doesn't lose the weak one-man forecheck and start using their speed to create some opportunities, they cannot win (unless the Gophs get a few more stupid penalties). Get two men down deep and put some pressure on the Goph D. Can't play the entire game in your own end. Nice looking PP (the last one), but they sure missed a lot of passes before the goal (where two passes connected perfectly). Quote
jimdahl Posted April 12, 2003 Author Posted April 12, 2003 If UNH doesn't lose the weak one-man forecheck and start using their speed to create some opportunities, they cannot win I think the forecheck improved a bit after Minnesota's goal (as I mentioned above), but not nearly as much as the backcheck improved. They definitely seem to lack aggressiveness on offense so far. My end of the 2nd update: That period looked much more like I expected the game to look. UNH successfully choked off a lot more of the shots, Ayers was superb. Lucia now says the way to win is to get more shots off with traffic in front of the net (I said that yesterday!) UNH failed to generate much offense. I was really surprised UNH didn't generate better opportunities on that end-of-the-2nd power play (and almost gave up a SH!) Their offense has been spotty. Quote
sprig Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 Ayers is playing great. Weber is giving up huge rebounds. If one of those ends up on a UNH stick, the Gophs will be beat. Would still like to see a little more aggressive forechecking in the MN end. Gophs still getting the better of the opportunities, although that period was a bit more even. Quote
~SiouxHockeyLover~ Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 Who's winning now? Hopefully not the Goophers. Quote
flatspin7 Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 The score is now 3-1 Gophers (8 minutes left in the game) U of M on Power play. Vanek is playing like he is on a mission from God. On the second U of M goal he made Ayers his Biotch. . -------------- Now Its 4-1 on the powerplay. Tallakson (sp) was sitting on the backdoor and got a great pass from Gino Guyer. Looks like the proverbial nail in the proverbial coffin. Quote
jimdahl Posted April 13, 2003 Author Posted April 13, 2003 A UNH choke, how familiar... Minnesota seems to have been saving all of their steam for a late third period burst. I'm a little surprised they became more aggressive at that point in the game rather than more defensive, but you can't argue with the result. Quote
~SiouxHockeyLover~ Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Stupid Dirty Gophers!! hahaha! Ayers is Vaneks biotch!! That's funny! Quote
sprig Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 Don't know if Umile designed that awful weak forecheck, neutral zone trapping game but it certainly wasn't the game that got UNH to the championship. A Vanek third period; he was impressive. Will he come back now that he's got his championship? I'd guess he'll get a good offer from whomever drafts him. Waibel line was good throughout the game. Nice coaching by Lucia putting Vanek on that line to help finish (appeared Vanek was double-shifted throughout the third?). Quote
jimdahl Posted April 13, 2003 Author Posted April 13, 2003 A Vanek third period; he was impressive. Will he come back now that he's got his championship? I'd guess he'll get a good offer from whomever drafts him. I would guess that Vanek is as good as gone. Ballard wouldn't surprise me either (Buffalo could use the help). Quote
leifolson Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 I have to agree...I'd be surprised of Vanek sticks around...and I'll say it: a bit dismayed. Oh well...congrats to the Gophers. Here's to next season. Quote
U2Bad1 Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 Gopher fans may disagree with me, but Vanek has established absolute dominance at the college level. I really think he has nothing else to prove so i predict with high certainty that he won't be in a gopher uniform next year. We will see what happens. Quote
schmidtdoggydog Posted April 13, 2003 Posted April 13, 2003 I would guess that Vanek is as good as gone. Ballard wouldn't surprise me either (Buffalo could use the help). I just returned from Buffalo. Although Vanek is telling everyone that he is coming back, the word, which I heard over and over again while there, is that he has let people in NHL circles know that if he is offered over a million a year, and why wouldn't he be, he will strongly consider leaving. With regard to the championship game, the difference in play between Minn. and UNH was remarkable. Once the Gophers woke up they were a far superior team. Hats off to them for doing something no one else has done in many, many years. Quote
Goon Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 I just returned from Buffalo. Although Vanek is telling everyone that he is coming back, the word, which I heard over and over again while there, is that he has let people in NHL circles know that if he is offered over a million a year, and why wouldn't he be, he will strongly consider leaving. Hum lets see one million or another year in college studying and not making any money. I say that is a pretty tough choice... Quote
Hammy Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 Hum lets see one million or another year in college studying and not making any money. I say that is a pretty tough choice... I wonder if you use that logic for Parise too? Quote
sagard Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 Hum lets see one million or another year in college studying and not making any money. I say that is a pretty tough choice... I don't think Vanek will turn down the money if it is offerred. Even if Vanek leaves, I think he would be easier to replace than the combination of Demarchi/Martin or Demarchi/Ballard. With or without Vanek, the Gophers will still have one of the best offensive teams next year. Whether or not players will be able to step up and score the crucial playoff/OT type goals remains to be seen. Losing two of the top four Gophers defense will be hard to replace. Especially since the Gophers goalies aren't really successful when they face alot of rubber. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 Hammy: I'll answer for Goon. Same logic does apply for Parise; however, the catch is, as in any business deal there must be a buyer and a seller. "The buyers" all know that Parise is smaller and needs to add mass. They'll want to see how he plays in that frame before they "buy." sagard: I really can't find a hole in your analysis. Paul Martin, Ballard, Harrington, and Stevens scares me much more than (pick one) PM/KB, Harrington, Stevens, and ____? (Atherton? MacKinnon? Vanelli?) Quote
sagard Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 sagard: I really can't find a hole in your analysis. Paul Martin, Ballard, Harrington, and Stevens scares me much more than (pick one) PM/KB, Harrington, Stevens, and ____? (Atherton? MacKinnon? Vanelli?) I shouldn't imply that I'm too worried about the Gophers defense for next year. If Ballard/Martin leave two of the following will need to step into the top pairs. I'm guessing J. Martin and Stevens will remain a solid third pairing. Choices are: Vanelli Taylor Kennedy Atherton MacKinnon I don't doubt in the least that the Gophers will develop strong defense by the end of the year, and win another title! However, if they are replacing two defensemen the Gophers will not go 29-3-2 and have 50 pts in the WCHA like the 1999 regular season for the Sioux. Personally, I'd like to see the Gophers win the regular season title, but that has proven to be an anchor since '97 so maybe not. Quote
schmidtdoggydog Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 Personally, I'd like to see the Gophers win the regular season title, but that has proven to be an anchor since '97 so maybe not. Why? Although it is nice to have, it is generally nothing more than a curse!!! As for Martin leaving, don't the Devils have his rights? If so, with Hale's recent signing, I don't foresee Martin being signed this offseason. Quote
The Sicatoka Posted April 14, 2003 Posted April 14, 2003 Trifectas like 1997 are very tough. However, if you are only going to do one or two legs of the trifecta, Minnesota has chosen the correct leg in each case the last two seasons. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.