NORTH DAKOTA @ Denver - Saturday

[Goon]

OK, ha ha. Joke's over. Sioux game ended an hour ago and no post from gfhockey yet?

He's probably drunk or face down in the gutter somewhere.

[Oxbow6]

OK, ha ha. Joke's over. Sioux game ended an hour ago and no post from gfhockey yet?

jusk boyt to head to holkywoof studios

cant waot

in hak we trusy

bring

bavk

bubba

[I Ranger]

Johnson took two penalties tonite. Someone needs to have a conversation with him about playing smart.

The conversation should include Caggulia as well and it should be pretty simple. You have to stop jumping when you hit someone. I think we are lucky that neither of these guys have gotten a major for contact to the head.

[burd]

jusk boyt to head to holkywoof studios

cant waot

in hak we trusy

bring

bavk

bubba

Well done, Oxbow. Brought to mind that line from Hook: "Is that you, Peter?"

[SiouxScore]

Und did look better than DU both night....I wouldn't worry too much about facing them in the playoffs ( at least not compared to scsu and Miami for that matter). Brittain is one hell of a goalie and had one of his best nights on paper I'm guessing. I think that first line of ours has to become more productive and ausmus has to sit in favor of Thompson until he realizes when it is ok for him to take a dumb penalty and when it is not. I thought Saunders looked fine and hopefully the team is comfortable with him back there until gothberg is healthy again.

Didn't get to see the game last night but listened to TH did Ausmus take a dumb penalty? TH said it was a horrible call and Ausmus didn't even have 2 hands on his stick when he got called for the cross-check and he also got stuck with a bad call on Friday night on Loney. I like that Ausmus brings more of a physical element to the d core but I am also fine with him and Thompson to continue rotating Friday/Saturdays.

[SiouxScore]

From listening to TH last night and not getting to see the game it sounded like Brittain came up big and Saunders gave up a couple he wished he could have had back but overall another pretty good performance from the team aside from the lack of finishing some chances.

[Godsmack]

I meant to ask if anyone knows why Montgomery switched goaltenders late in Friday's game with about 4 minutes left?

[siouxweet]

From listening to TH last night and not getting to see the game it sounded like Brittain came up big and Saunders gave up a couple he wished he could have had back but overall another pretty good performance from the team aside from the lack of finishing some chances.

saunders isn't the reason und lost, if you can't score you can't win. giving up two goals on the road to a good opponent is not a bad thing.

[scpa0305]

Didn't get to see the game last night but listened to TH did Ausmus take a dumb penalty? TH said it was a horrible call and Ausmus didn't even have 2 hands on his stick when he got called for the cross-check and he also got stuck with a bad call on Friday night on Loney. I like that Ausmus brings more of a physical element to the d core but I am also fine with him and Thompson to continue rotating Friday/Saturdays.

Saunders was clearly going to cover the puck and ausmus hit the guy who didn't even have the puck. Do I think it should have been called, not a few years ago however the game is changing. You can't hit a guy that doesn't even have the puck....it's interference. They called a cross check however it should have been interference. When the game is still in reach and your deep into the game, you cannot even attempt to do something iffy.

[scpa0305]

From listening to TH last night and not getting to see the game it sounded like Brittain came up big and Saunders gave up a couple he wished he could have had back but overall another pretty good performance from the team aside from the lack of finishing some chances.

Both goals were not good however Saunders made a couple big saves and he was not the reason they lost.....Brittain was.

[burd]

Saunders was clearly going to cover the puck and ausmus hit the guy who didn't even have the puck. Do I think it should have been called, not a few years ago however the game is changing. You can't hit a guy that doesn't even have the puck....it's interference. They called a cross check however it should have been interference. When the game is still in reach and your deep into the game, you cannot even attempt to do something iffy.

Quite honestly, we have had a history of players who don't seem to understand that. That's why I cringe a little when I hear fans crying out for old school physical Sioux hockey. A good solid physical game is a good thing, but players need to understand what predictable consequences are. Instead of looking for the big hit or sending a message, I'd like to see them use their physical strength to play the boards like Parks does and to control the area in front of the net at both ends of the ice. That's physical play that wins games.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Quite honestly, we have had a history of players who don't seem to understand that. That's why I cringe a little when I hear fans crying out for old school physical Sioux hockey. A good solid physical game is a good thing, but players need to understand what predictable consequences are. Instead of looking for the big hit or sending a message, I'd like to see them use their physical strength to play the boards like Parks does and to control the area in front of the net at both ends of the ice. That's physical play that wins games.

I think you have a warped idea of old time fighting Sioux hockey. To most people, including the guys that get payed to cover the games it means fast, physical hockey. Do penalties come with the territory when you play that type if hockey? Absolutely, but would I have it any other way? Nope. Much better every playing fast and finishing their checks hard then do a flyby swinging for the puck. That's what the Sioux hockey tradition is about, hitting guys until they don't want to get hit anymore. Have we had to tweak that approach to the new game? Yeah but it's still based on the same ideal.

[burd]

I think you have a warped idea of old time fighting Sioux hockey. To most people, including the guys that get payed to cover the games it means fast, physical hockey. Do penalties come with the territory when you play that type if hockey? Absolutely, but would I have it any other way? Nope. Much better every playing fast and finishing their checks hard then do a flyby swinging for the puck. That's what the Sioux hockey tradition is about, hitting guys until they don't want to get hit anymore. Have we had to tweak that approach to the new game? Yeah but it's still based on the same ideal.

I don't think there is a hockey fan on the planet who does not prefer fast and physical hockey, and there is probably not a coach who doesn't coach it. I doubt there is a coach out there who teaches his players to "fly by swinging at the puck." This isn't polo. The trick is in how you adjust to the new rules. There are, believe it or not, fans who want the Sioux to play the game the way it was played in the 80s and 90s, because that is the last era when the Sioux were winning banners--it's a matter of association for some fans. But it's a different game in the NHL and it's a different game at the college level as well.

We all love a crunching body hit, and we all want Sioux adversaries to be intimidated physically. But those who don't play a very smart physical game these days will watch too much of the game from the wrong box.

[scpa0305]

I don't think there is a hockey fan on the planet who does not prefer fast and physical hockey, and there is probably not a coach who doesn't coach it. I doubt there is a coach out there who teaches his players to "fly by swinging at the puck." This isn't polo. The trick is in how you adjust to the new rules. There are, believe it or not, fans who want the Sioux to play the game the way it was played in the 80s and 90s, because that is the last era when the Sioux were winning banners--it's a matter of association for some fans. But it's a different game in the NHL and it's a different game at the college level as well.

We all love a crunching body hit, and we all want Sioux adversaries to be intimidated physically. But those who don't play a very smart physical game these days will watch too much of the game from the wrong box.

Exactly, like it or not, if we get these guys who soley run around and lay big hits well after the opposing team players have the puck we will be sitting in the box a lot. Simply called out Ausmus because it was obvious to me that a play like that would at least get the refs thinking 'should I blow the whistle' those are not the plays we want towards the end of a very close game. That's not being physical that's simply not using your head.

[fightingsioux4life]

A split on the road in a place like Denver is a solid weekend IMO. The idea that last night is Saunders' fault is absurd. He'll hold down the fort until Gothberg comes back. Going into the playoffs, I expect to have two goaltenders we can turn to in any situation. It does look like we will have to win the NCHC tournament in March to advance to the NCAA's, but if we can play like we did this weekend, we will have a shot.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

I don't think there is a hockey fan on the planet who does not prefer fast and physical hockey, and there is probably not a coach who doesn't coach it. I doubt there is a coach out there who teaches his players to "fly by swinging at the puck." This isn't polo. The trick is in how you adjust to the new rules. There are, believe it or not, fans who want the Sioux to play the game the way it was played in the 80s and 90s, because that is the last era when the Sioux were winning banners--it's a matter of association for some fans. But it's a different game in the NHL and it's a different game at the college level as well.

We all love a crunching body hit, and we all want Sioux adversaries to be intimidated physically. But those who don't play a very smart physical game these days will watch too much of the game from the wrong box.

Yeah, I'm sure most coaches do want to coach fast and physical hockey but no one pulls it off like the Sioux, which is why our program, specifically, is known for it. People don't say that about Minnesota or Boston College, they say it about us because we do it the best. The key to our program is riding that line and when we're able to, we have a good team. When we let our emotions get the best of us is when we take bad penalties but I don't think our problem is the "old style fighting Sioux" hockey that makes some people cringe. Thts actually our strength and gives us a mental edge before even taking the ice. That's my only point.

[smokey the cat]

I don't think there is a hockey fan on the planet who does not prefer fast and physical hockey, and there is probably not a coach who doesn't coach it. I doubt there is a coach out there who teaches his players to "fly by swinging at the puck." This isn't polo. The trick is in how you adjust to the new rules. There are, believe it or not, fans who want the Sioux to play the game the way it was played in the 80s and 90s, because that is the last era when the Sioux were winning banners--it's a matter of association for some fans. But it's a different game in the NHL and it's a different game at the college level as well.

We all love a crunching body hit, and we all want Sioux adversaries to be intimidated physically. But those who don't play a very smart physical game these days will watch too much of the game from the wrong box.

What are the new rules?

[MafiaMan]

Might have to wait a couple weeks for that...

And why is that? I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from him lately. Just the usual 'in Hak we trust' and 'Saturday letdown' stuff. I must have missed something big somewhere. Maybe it's in the football thread.

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

Exactly, like it or not, if we get these guys who soley run around and lay big hits well after the opposing team players have the puck we will be sitting in the box a lot. Simply called out Ausmus because it was obvious to me that a play like that would at least get the refs thinking 'should I blow the whistle' those are not the plays we want towards the end of a very close game. That's not being physical that's simply not using your head.

I didnt see the play and don't doubt your take on it at all. I was watching the game on FaceTime which isn't the best quality

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

A split on the road in a place like Denver is a solid weekend IMO. The idea that last night is Saunders' fault is absurd. He'll hold down the fort until Gothberg comes back. Going into the playoffs, I expect to have two goaltenders we can turn to in any situation. It does look like we will have to win the NCHC tournament in March to advance to the NCAA's, but if we can play like we did this weekend, we will have a shot.

We are about 3 spots out if being in the tourney, why would we have to win the NCHC tournament?

[Siouxman]

What are the new rules?

In all honesty, the rules have not changed that much. The enforcement of the rules has changed a lot. Even though the rules prohibited it, you used to be able to hook, hold, impede, and interfere with players. The rules were against it, but it just wasn't called. You used to be able to beat the crap out of guys standing in front of the net and not get called unless it was really bad. The best example I can recall is the year UND got sent out to the east regional with BU and BC during the Matt Greene era. Matt and the boys literally beat the snot out of those two teams. They did get called for some penalties but in today's game they would have played the entire game shorthanded.

There are a couple of reasons. Scoring is way down in hockey from what it used to be. Goalie equipment has gotten to be much bigger, making it tougher to score and that is why there are now some restrictions on the size of goalie pads. Some people are clamoring for even smaller pads. Goalies and all hockey players are physically much bigger and much better athletes, making defensive play much better. When questions arose about how to increase scoring, enforcing the rules in the books became one of the choices.

During the last NHL lockout and renegotiation of the NFLPA, the NHL made some significant changes which altered the game. There used to be many players in their late 30's and well into their 40's who still played. They really weren't fast enough, but since the hooking, clutching, and grabbing was allowed the game was played at a slower pace. Following the lockout, the NHL started enforcing the rules and suddenly the NHL had a much faster more exciting game. Older players retired by the dozens because they could no longer keep up. The change in rule enforcement trickled down to colleges and other leagues as a result.

Yes, there have been a few rule changes but most of the change has been in enforcement of the rules (also now known as a point of emphasis) when leagues point out stuff they want the refs to start calling.

Thus, what many people understand as good old fashioned hockey style can no longer be played without spending penalty time in the box. There is still tough hard nosed hockey, but not like it used to be.

[Wilbur]

Sitting right now at 17 in pwr. Not great, but we've been sitting worse at this point of the season in Hak's tenure.

[burd]

What are the new rules?

You're right to call me on that. I would have been more accurate to say new enforcement of rules. Interference, holding, cfb, crosschecking, contact to the head, hooking, slashing, even elbowing--all those are more strictly enforced now than they were even 15 years ago, some for safety reasons and others to speed the game up.

I'm obviously not an authority on this game and am not trying to taken as one, but these guys play a game that is officiated differently than it was even 10 years ago. I suppose since most college players have played most of their careers under those rules (at least in the US--I don't know about the Canadian leagues for school-age players), so they understand them--or should. But many older fans (like me) are slower to appreciate how different the checking game has become, with both the stick and the body.

But I don't disagree with Heaven, really. And the Sioux tradition of physical play probably does give our players a mental edge. But it seems that when they lose they lose because they are not transitioning out of the zone well, are not covering in front of our own net, and are not creating enough presence in front of theirs. There is a separate thread for hot goalies, so I won't go there.

[jodcon]

And why is that? I haven't seen anything out of the ordinary from him lately. Just the usual 'in Hak we trust' and 'Saturday letdown' stuff. I muat have missed something big somewhere. Maybe it's in the football thread.

Probably the f-bomb he dropped the other night didn't help. Another time out I suppose.

[scpa0305]

A split on the road in a place like Denver is a solid weekend IMO. The idea that last night is Saunders' fault is absurd. He'll hold down the fort until Gothberg comes back. Going into the playoffs, I expect to have two goaltenders we can turn to in any situation. It does look like we will have to win the NCHC tournament in March to advance to the NCAA's, but if we can play like we did this weekend, we will have a shot.

I think we'll get in regardless....slowly but surely.