University of North Dakota Hockey 2015-16 season

[MafiaMan]

1 hour ago, Oxbow6 said:

The game vs QU was as lopsided as the score. QU had minimal chance to compete 5 on 5 from the drop of the puck. The 5 on 3 showed that was their best chance to score all game long. 

The first period was dominated by UND and yet, the score was 2-1 when it was over.  There were stretches of the 2nd where QU was more than holding their own against the Ha, er, Sioux.  Sam Anas hit at least two pipes and there was another nice move by I belive St. Denis that almost led to a goal.  The game is often a matter of breaks, and a break the Bobcats' way was the difference between 4-1 and 2-2.  

[burd]

1 hour ago, InHeavenThereIsNoBeer said:

Agreed, at least from the upper deck of Amalie Arena it appeared to me that QU was a tier below and a step behind UND.  The only sustained pressure they could muster for the most part was on the powerplays. Sure they hit 2 or 3 posts but we did too. Could we have lost? Sure(See: 2011 Michigan game) but we were absolutely the best team in the country this year and had some stone cold finishers to make sure we didn't.

Our defensive corps was as good as we have had in quite a while, when you factor in their offensive capabilities, but the "stone cold finishers" we had in Boeser and Caggiula were difference makers all year long.  We've had so many extremely gifted forwards in recent years who just weren't pure goal scorers, but those two definitely were, in addition to their other contributions (Can you imagine Bochinski backchecking like Boeser, Schmaltz and Caggiula did?).  And obviously it was Schmaltz who put them in a position to score much of the time.  That's partly why it would be so nice to see Nick and Brock possibly team up with Jost this fall.

[burd]

One other thing about this team.  Even though we are now all warm and fuzzy and throwing love all over the place, we need to be honest:  those guys still haven't given us a full 60 minutes of hustle.   Sooner or later, that has to change. 

[InHeavenThereIsNoBeer]

8 minutes ago, burd said:

One other thing about this team.  Even though we are now all warm and fuzzy and throwing love all over the place, we need to be honest:  those guys still haven't given us a full 60 minutes of hustle.   Sooner or later, that has to change. 

You need to at least throw a winky face in if you're going to joke. It's tough to tell otherwise.

[Godsmack]

Just one guy's opinion-yah, QU hit some posts and had a few opportunities and the score was close for two periods but to me, it felt like so many times when a less talented team hangs around for a bit but as the game wears on, the talent and depth of the other team simply takes over. Coming into the game I was nervous simply based on all the success and accolades thrown at Quinnipiac, and for good reason-they're a great hockey team. However, it didn't take me or I'm sure many other viewers, long to determine that this game was UND's to lose. 

[Sodbuster]

Anyone know without looking it up how many short-handed goals UND had this year? I thought I heard on the broadcast QU had only given up 2.

[Mhockey]

1 hour ago, MafiaMan said:

The first period was dominated by UND and yet, the score was 2-1 when it was over.  There were stretches of the 2nd where QU was more than holding their own against the Ha, er, Sioux.  Sam Anas hit at least two pipes and there was another nice move by I belive St. Denis that almost led to a goal.  The game is often a matter of breaks, and a break the Bobcats' way was the difference between 4-1 and 2-2.  

I agree, it could have been 2-2.  It also could have been 3-2, 3-1. If I remember correctly poolman nailed a pipe in the first aswell. North Dakota did get the bounces but the bounces more often than not go to the better team.

[MafiaMan]

11 minutes ago, Mhockey said:

North Dakota did get the bounces but the bounces more often than not go to the better team.

Unless North Dakota loses, then it's "the underdogs always get the lucky bounces against us!"

[burd]

12 minutes ago, Mhockey said:

I agree, it could have been 2-2.  It also could have been 3-2, 3-1. If I remember correctly poolman nailed a pipe in the first aswell. North Dakota did get the bounces but the bounces more often than not go to the better team.

The thing I took away from that game and all the past FF games the Sioux have been in the past 16 years, is that we deserved the win, but Q probably deserves more respect than the score indicates.  Part of that, I realize, is that this UND team was the whole package. 

[Cratter]

My tv guide says there's no game tonight.

[siouxfaninseattle]

8 hours ago, burd said:

The thing I took away from that game and all the past FF games the Sioux have been in the past 16 years, is that we deserved the win, but Q probably deserves more respect than the score indicates.  Part of that, I realize, is that this UND team was the whole package. 

They played great and had lots of puck luck that they hadn't had in quite a few FFs. Lots of great play by everyone for 200'. 

[Mhockey]

22 hours ago, MafiaMan said:

Unless North Dakota loses, then it's "the underdogs always get the lucky bounces against us!"

This couldn't be more true!lol green glasses all the way!haha

[UND-RedSox fan]

On 4/15/2016 at 1:05 PM, MafiaMan said:

Unless North Dakota loses, then it's "the underdogs always get the lucky bounces against us!"

I can say I wouldn't have said that. If we lost to Denver on Thursday it would not have been because of puck luck. They played well enough to beat us. If we would have lost on Saturday to QU, then I would have put that partially on puck luck. I wouldn't say we were without a doubt better than QU for the season, but we definitely were on Saturday. Sounds like QU didn't play as well as they could have and their best player was seriously injured. We played just about as well as we did all season. We may have played slightly better against Denver in December and in the regionals than we did at the Frozen Four, but we played great last week.

When we lost to BU last year, we lost to the better team in my opinion. Didn't help that Zane had what may have been the worst game of his career but BU was really good. We lost to the better team in Philadelphia when we lost to Minnesota. We had the puck luck to even get there. We were without a doubt the better team against Michigan in 2011, but their goalie played great. That happens in hockey. So I guess we could say we were lucky that Garteig was a terrible floppy fish this year and we were unlucky that Hunwick stood on his head. 

[snova4]

13 minutes ago, UND-RedSox fan said:

I can say I wouldn't have said that. If we lost to Denver on Thursday it would not have been because of puck luck. They played well enough to beat us. If we would have lost on Saturday to QU, then I would have put that partially on puck luck. I wouldn't say we were without a doubt better than QU for the season, but we definitely were on Saturday. Sounds like QU didn't play as well as they could have and their best player was seriously injured. We played just about as well as we did all season. We may have played slightly better against Denver in December and in the regionals than we did at the Frozen Four, but we played great last week.

When we lost to BU last year, we lost to the better team in my opinion. Didn't help that Zane had what may have been the worst game of his career but BU was really good. We lost to the better team in Philadelphia when we lost to Minnesota. We had the puck luck to even get there. We were without a doubt the better team against Michigan in 2011, but their goalie played great. That happens in hockey. So I guess we could say we were lucky that Garteig was a terrible floppy fish this year and we were unlucky that Hunwick stood on his head. 

It blows my mind how people forgot that we needed a miracle to even be in the tournament that year, let alone get to the Frozen Four. Then on top of it, we gave the season long #1 team in the country a serious run for their money. With them only beating us off a fluke goal with .6 remaining. 

[UND-RedSox fan]

Just now, snova4 said:

It blows my mind how people forgot that we needed a miracle to even be in the tournament that year, let alone get to the Frozen Four. Then on top of it, we gave the season long #1 team in the country a serious run for their money. With them only beating us off a fluke goal with .6 remaining. 

Definitely the best game that group played the entire season. 

[stoneySIOUX]

DDC isn't letting go of 15-16 quite yet

http://daddydumpandchase.blogspot.com/?m=1

[geaux_sioux]

On April 16, 2016 at 5:17 PM, UND-RedSox fan said:

I can say I wouldn't have said that. If we lost to Denver on Thursday it would not have been because of puck luck. They played well enough to beat us. If we would have lost on Saturday to QU, then I would have put that partially on puck luck. I wouldn't say we were without a doubt better than QU for the season, but we definitely were on Saturday. Sounds like QU didn't play as well as they could have and their best player was seriously injured. We played just about as well as we did all season. We may have played slightly better against Denver in December and in the regionals than we did at the Frozen Four, but we played great last week.

When we lost to BU last year, we lost to the better team in my opinion. Didn't help that Zane had what may have been the worst game of his career but BU was really good. We lost to the better team in Philadelphia when we lost to Minnesota. We had the puck luck to even get there. We were without a doubt the better team against Michigan in 2011, but their goalie played great. That happens in hockey. So I guess we could say we were lucky that Garteig was a terrible floppy fish this year and we were unlucky that Hunwick stood on his head. 

Gartig was not that bad. Also, I'm not sure id say BU was the better team. They only beat us because of Zane that night.

[UND-RedSox fan]

3 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

Gartig was not that bad. Also, I'm not sure id say BU was the better team. They only beat us because of Zane that night.

The only thing he did well in that game was dive.

[geaux_sioux]

35 minutes ago, UND-RedSox fan said:

The only thing he did well in that game was dive.

He was better than BUs goalie last year.

[siouxbois10]

20 minutes ago, geaux_sioux said:

He was better than BUs goalie last year.

Just not in the frozen four 

[UND-RedSox fan]

1 hour ago, geaux_sioux said:

He was better than BUs goalie last year.

That's kind of like being the taller midget 

[geaux_sioux]

2 hours ago, siouxbois10 said:

Just not in the frozen four 

Not many goalies would have stopped our goals. The Boeser one was the only one that was his fault. He made some big saves in that game. We could've had a lot more than 5. 

[Emerald joker]

On 4/16/2016 at 5:17 PM, UND-RedSox fan said:

I can say I wouldn't have said that. If we lost to Denver on Thursday it would not have been because of puck luck. They played well enough to beat us. If we would have lost on Saturday to QU, then I would have put that partially on puck luck. I wouldn't say we were without a doubt better than QU for the season, but we definitely were on Saturday. Sounds like QU didn't play as well as they could have and their best player was seriously injured. We played just about as well as we did all season. We may have played slightly better against Denver in December and in the regionals than we did at the Frozen Four, but we played great last week.

When we lost to BU last year, we lost to the better team in my opinion. Didn't help that Zane had what may have been the worst game of his career but BU was really good. We lost to the better team in Philadelphia when we lost to Minnesota. We had the puck luck to even get there. We were without a doubt the better team against Michigan in 2011, but their goalie played great. That happens in hockey. So I guess we could say we were lucky that Garteig was a terrible floppy fish this year and we were unlucky that Hunwick stood on his head. 

I wouldn't say the other team was the better team in any of those games. All Michigan had to do was play deffence and Hak didn't want to stop doing the dump and chase even thought it clearly wasn't working. Minnesota beat us cuz the Sioux decided the period was over for those .6 seconds. And I'm not going to say BU was the better team last year. And Denver this year, it's pretty hard to get the puck out of the zone when the team is doing everything in there power to keep it in including things that shouldv been called but were "missed". And Quinnipiac hadnt played a team like the Sioux the whole year. So I'm not going to say any of those teams were the better teams because I don't thing they were. This year was for the SIOUX and they proved it, plain and simple!

[BigGreyAnt41]

On ‎4‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 5:33 PM, snova4 said:

It blows my mind how people forgot that we needed a miracle to even be in the tournament that year, let alone get to the Frozen Four. Then on top of it, we gave the season long #1 team in the country a serious run for their money. With them only beating us off a fluke goal with .6 remaining. 

Not only that, but didn't we play a handful of games with only 17 skaters dressed because of injuries? 

[joeyjr]

25 minutes ago, Emerald joker said:

I wouldn't say the other team was the better team in any of those games. All Michigan had to do was play deffence and Hak didn't want to stop doing the dump and chase even thought it clearly wasn't working. Minnesota beat us cuz the Sioux decided the period was over for those .6 seconds. And I'm not going to say BU was the better team last year. And Denver this year, it's pretty hard to get the puck out of the zone when the team is doing everything in there power to keep it in including things that shouldv been called but were "missed". And Quinnipiac hadnt played a team like the Sioux the whole year. So I'm not going to say any of those teams were the better teams because I don't thing they were. This year was for the SIOUX and they proved it, plain and simple!

What? At the very least, I would say that we did completely outplay Michigan and Hunwick won them the game. The other arguments I can see both sides.