vjr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Regarding point 2, Zach doesn't dive. Ballard had both arms around Zach's head. If you had followed the Sioux all year you'd know that Zach doesn't dive and doesn't fall. In the Fri. game here against UAA, Zach was hooked down 3 times before the penalty was called and then it was only called because he took a stick to the throat. And as far as Ballard being such a good defenseman, how come he got beat by someone who supposedly can't skate worth a crap??? To quote Beavis and Butthead(Frank and Doug) "(Frank)...and Ballard has to be careful Bochenski beats him badly back hand and a goal!! (Doug)HO HO!!! (Frank)Brandon Bochenski to tie on a shorthanded goal! (Doug)And he beats Minnesota's best! If Ballard's so good how come he let Brandon move to the inside. Ballard was about 3 feet of the boards if he'd made him go wide he could've shut him down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Regarding point 2, Zach doesn't dive. Ballard had both arms around Zach's head. If you had followed the Sioux all year you'd know that Zach doesn't dive and doesn't fall. In the Fri. game here against UAA, Zach was hooked down 3 times before the penalty was called and then it was only called because he took a stick to the throat. And as far as Ballard being such a good defenseman, how come he got beat by someone who supposedly can't skate worth a crap??? To quote Beavis and Butthead(Frank and Doug) "(Frank)...and Ballard has to be careful Bochenski beats him badly back hand and a goal!! (Doug)HO HO!!! (Frank)Brandon Bochenski to tie on a shorthanded goal! (Doug)And he beats Minnesota's best! If Ballard's so good how come he let Brandon move to the inside. Ballard was about 3 feet of the boards if he'd made him go wide he could've shut him down. Is it me or is there an influx of Gopher fans that just joined SS in the last week or so? Not a problem...outside of Rickie Ricardo... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 The following is quite clear: 1. Sioux fans do not follow every single Gopher game of the year 2. Gopher fans do not follow every single Sioux game of the year Because of this indisputable FACT neither side will ever truly see the full picture and we'll be left with erroneous comments like the above (that Vanek lolly gags and costs his team Games). Very true. And that's why I don't waste a minute of my time going on opposing teams' fan sites to try to convince them that they should think like I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Very true. And that's why I don't waste a minute of my time going on opposing teams' fan sites to try to convince them that they should think like I do. Exactly, and there are a lot of gopher newbies here since they won last weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 I'll repeat what I heard one time again: Thomas Vanek -- the Randy Moss of college hockey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GopherK2 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Regarding point 2, Zach doesn't dive. Ballard had both arms around Zach's head. If you had followed the Sioux all year you'd know that Zach doesn't dive and doesn't fall. In the Fri. game here against UAA, Zach was hooked down 3 times before the penalty was called and then it was only called because he took a stick to the throat. And as far as Ballard being such a good defenseman, how come he got beat by someone who supposedly can't skate worth a crap??? To quote Beavis and Butthead(Frank and Doug) "(Frank)...and Ballard has to be careful Bochenski beats him badly back hand and a goal!! (Doug)HO HO!!! (Frank)Brandon Bochenski to tie on a shorthanded goal! (Doug)And he beats Minnesota's best! If Ballard's so good how come he let Brandon move to the inside. Ballard was about 3 feet of the boards if he'd made him go wide he could've shut him down. No question Bochenski got the best of Ballard there - I don't think I've ever seen Keith get tooled like that. In his Defense - and after having watched the play on Tivo several times - two critical things worked against him as that play developed: 1. Bochenski benefited from a fortitous bounce when moving the puck ahead off the side wall. Ballard actually had his stick in position before Bochenski to push the puck behind Brandon but he didn't get enough of it. Because Ballard was not able to push the puck out of harm's way number 2 quickly developed 2. Bochenski accellerated so quickly it was amazing - he was on and past Ballard in a matter of 1 or 2 lightning seconds - I think Keith was gambling too much on moving the puck out of harms way and thought he was going to be able to do it. When that didn't happen he was toast due to lack of separation and Bochenski made him pay dearly. So dearly that it almost looks like Ballard took a dive to try and draw a penalty because he knew he was beaten (not a bad play if it had worked although it would have been dubious character - gotta love Ballard not going down with the ship before exhausting all options). Anyways - mad props to Bochenski for an incredible play - not just beating Ballard so badly but taking it to the house with a beautiful backhander. Maybe that was payback for the Ballard shirt pull a few years ago! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-per Villain Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 No, Vanek is not the first person in the history of college hockey to take a similar shot (doesn't make it right but it sure seems to make it easier to pile on criticism - or is it envy?) It must be envy because for some reason I wish it were Matt Greene who would have cheap shotted Vanek. Of course that would have drawn blood, a stretcher, an ambulance, picketing at the Austrian embassy, etc. etc. What's worse, Greene would have definitely gotten 5 minutes. By the way, I have watched most of the Gopher games this year and I have come to a couple of conclusions. Keith Ballard is the best offensive D-man in college hockey and will likely be a Hobey Finalist again next year if he's still around. However, he's also the chippiest player in the WCHA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vjr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 A defensive breakdown is the only thing that worked against them on that play. Go back and look at the 5 or 10 seconds before that. Vanek lost the puck and gave up on the play. That is the point that was being made earlier. Vanek didn't make the effort to stop Brandon and he had every opportunity to do so. He was too busy trying to tie Zach up and then let him go so you had Brandon and Zach alone in front of Briggs. Not to mention #24 (Koalska?) stood and watched the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SIOUXPERGREEN Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 You're right - Lucia should just bench his lame ass for the rest of the NCAA's. What the heck was Don thinking anyway bringing this all world offensive superstar into such a defensive minded conference anyway?!? And then he has the gall to let him drive the team to it's second championship in a row and on pace for a third - maybe somebody in Minny should have Lucia's head too - they just don't get it, do they?!! Whatever, Yea, Vanek was the ONLY reason they repeated last year....right!!! By the way Lucia benches Vanek all the time...Ever seen the Gophs penalty kill??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC_transplant Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Shorthanded goals - 2003-04 Vanek: 1 Parise: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vjr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Mike Prpich has a shorthanded goal. Does that mean that Vanek isn't any better than him? Lundbohm and bochenski each have 2. Does that mean they're better?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TC_transplant Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Nope, it means Vanek's been on the penalty kill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back to Back Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 cry me a river, no gopher player will ever be better than a precious sioux player i your eyes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 cry me a river, no gopher player will ever be better than a precious sioux player i your eyes Thanks for join to tell us that...I can rest a lot easier now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vjr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 So what does that have to do with Parise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Nope, it means Vanek's been on the penalty kill. Vanek being on the penalty kill just tells me just how good the pK unit is and how no team in the WCHA shouldn't be able to score on the PK unit. Here's my reasoning: 1. Vanek doesn't play defense, which means there are 3 other players on the ice at the time that are 1) trying to actually play defense and 2) trying to spring Vanek for the SHG. Those three players alone, should they kill off the penalty, show just how good the PK unit is. 2. Teams should score when Vanek is out on the PK because there are only, really, 3 players on the ice on the PK with one floating around near the blue line not playing D at all (Vanek). Therefore, it is really a 5 on 3 power play with a pylon near the blue line that can move. Even writing this post I am even more impressed with Vanek's PK linemates now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back to Back Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 wow, i have never seen more whining about Vanek than now. you lost, so what, suck it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKnowIt Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 If you guys sat and watched a couple of UND's defensemen for just a few seconds on the ice, I think you would probably quit your constant complaining about how cheap the Gophers are. Greene and Jones are among the most dirty players I've seen in the WCHA for quite some time, and have been known to use their sticks similar to a way a machete is used. So, maybe some of you are a little bit biased in your complaining of the cheapness of other teams, notably Minnesota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jojordan23 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 wow, i have never seen more whining about Vanek than now. you lost, so what, suck it up. That's not the point, the point is that Vanek's linemates on the penalty kill should be worshipped by all Gopher fans for esentially, killing penalties 5-3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vjr Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 The only complaining about Vanek was that he took a cheap shot. Others started coming on to say how good he is. If you guys don't like hearing it, go elsewhere. This isn't vaneksports.com. We don't care how many shg's,ppg's, or anything else that he has. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 If you guys sat and watched a couple of UND's defensemen for just a few seconds on the ice, I think you would probably quit your constant complaining about how cheap the Gophers are. Greene and Jones are among the most dirty players I've seen in the WCHA for quite some time, and have been known to use their sticks similar to a way a machete is used. So, maybe some of you are a little bit biased in your complaining of the cheapness of other teams, notably Minnesota. Thanks for joining today to tell us that........Did you miss that first step on the bandwagon enplaning? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cfm567b27 Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 wow, i have never seen more whining about Vanek than now. you lost, so what, suck it up. Whining would be if we were typing things like "we should have won" ..."we got screwed" etc. What the he$$ do you think a message board is for? Show me where a post is whining about losing - otherwise shut your trap or go pack to pi$$ on it.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 If you guys sat and watched a couple of UND's defensemen for just a few seconds on the ice, I think you would probably quit your constant complaining about how cheap the Gophers are. Greene and Jones are among the most dirty players I've seen in the WCHA for quite some time, and have been known to use their sticks similar to a way a machete is used. So, maybe some of you are a little bit biased in your complaining of the cheapness of other teams, notably Minnesota. Ok, Vanek shot at Jones...time to set the record straight. Jones is a dirty player . Jones is one the best ALL-AROUND defenseman in the WCHA if not the country. I'd take him before any defensman in the country (ok, my sig line may give away a slight bias, as he is my favorite player...but I digress). Ballard is better offensively, but Jonesy doesn't let a Hobey candidate walk around him to go on a short handed breakaway when down by a goal. And, yes, I'm aware that Ballard is a fianlist for said award, but when was the last time a defensman who...get this...plays defense...was a finalist? Would I take Ballard on the Sioux?...of course, I'd be stupid to say I wouldn't. Would I take Vanek?...yes, again I'd be stupid not to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back to Back Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 i believe whining about the gophers "home ice advantage" is ridiculous. Don't they play at Mariucci? Is it possible that maybe Vanek might be a better player than Parise, I suppose I have no idea what I'm talking about. I don't think you get drafted #5 overall for being a lazy, no talent hack. cry me a river. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted March 23, 2004 Share Posted March 23, 2004 Nope, it means Vanek's been on the penalty kill. Because Vanek is incapable of playing in the defensive zone. I mean really did you guys see him, he was giving it the college try when UND had the puck in his own zone but he is a suck hole. Now granted he is a good player but for anyone to suggest he plays defense is on crack and needs to stop smoking the pipe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.