SFSIOUX#1 Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Good point! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 I just think Rosemary, excuse me, Basil (I always confuse all those herbs) just has poor reading comprehension skills. I base this on my observation that they apparently do not understand the purpose and usage of quotation marks in a written work of non-fiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Can please elaborate on this stat? I just counted up (and if I was correct with my counting) and came up with a record of 21-4-2 when the Sioux allowed 2 or fewer goals. I'm not quite sure where you came up with any of that information. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Can please elaborate on this stat? I just counted up (and if I was correct with my counting) and came up with a record of 21-4-2 when the Sioux allowed 2 or fewer goals. I'm not quite sure where you came up with any of that information. 10/18/2003 - Boston College 2, UND 1 11/14/2003 - SCSU 2, UND 1 1/10/2004 - UAA 2, UND 2 1/24/2004 - Minnesota 2, UND 1 1/31/2004 - Denver 1, UND 1 3/27/2004 - Denver 1, UND 0 The point is that there were six games during the season that the Sioux lost or tied not because of poor goaltending, but because their scoring was significantly below average. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigGreyAnt41 Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I read his stats the same way Big Grey Ant. This puts a very different spin on things. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 When you insert the word "only" into the text I wrote, it certainly does give a different and never-intended spin. Perhaps that's why I didn't use that word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 When you insert the word "only" into the text I wrote, it certainly does give a different and never-intended spin. Perhaps that's why I didn't use that word. No but the "only" was at least implied when you look at the post. You listed a small sample of results, but in the context in which it was presented it gave the impression it was a representation of a more substantial sample as in the whole year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 No but the "only" was at least implied when you look at the post. No, it wasn't. My intent within the context of the post was to cite six specific instances during which the Blais' formula for success failed because the Sioux scored two or fewer goals. In other words, the goalies did their jobs in those six games, but the offense didn't. If the Sioux had met just 75 percent of the expectation, four "L"s and two "T"s become six "W"s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 5, 2004 Share Posted April 5, 2004 There were six games during the season in which the Sioux held opponents to two or fewer goals, and yet they were 0-4-2. The most important loss of the season was a game in which the Sioux didn't score a single goal! That reads pretty clearly to me: "There were six games .... in which .... held opponents to two or fewer ... and were 0-4-2." The goalies were meeting the Dean Blais formula: Give <25 shots and save 90% (GAA under 2.5). Where was the offense those nights? Here are UND's scoring lines from those six games: Genoway from Greene Bochenski from Jones McMahon from Fylling and Canady Fylling from Jones and Greene Lundbohm from Murray Parise (U) (none) Those games were a case of "Minnesota Wild" effect: great goaltending, no offense to get the win. Are people blaming Roli the goalie for the Wild's problems? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 (edited) That reads pretty clearly to me: "There were six games .... in which .... held opponents to two or fewer ... and were 0-4-2." The goalies were meeting the Dean Blais formula: Give <25 shots and save 90% (GAA under 2.5). Where was the offense those nights? Here are UND's scoring lines from those six games: Genoway from Greene Bochenski from Jones McMahon from Fylling and Canady Fylling from Jones and Greene Lundbohm from Murray Parise (U) (none) Those games were a case of "Minnesota Wild" effect: great goaltending, no offense to get the win. Are people blaming Roli the goalie for the Wild's problems? Disclamier----I am not blaming/flaming Sica I am just using his post as a good illustration of how awesome I believe the goaltending was this year: You can't blame the goalies for this seasons failures (and there wasn't many). I personally think the Goalies played awesome (and you can flame away for all I care) And f anyone thinks Parise aka Jordan the Goalie was to blame in lose in the Regional playoffs they need to have their head examined. Jordan let in one goal in 2 games. Those numbers don't sound too bad even for a guy that isn't a math (or spelling) major in college. Oh by the way UND lit some good goaltenders up this season too. Berkol, Riechmuth, Bruckler (3 goals against Him is good) Edited April 6, 2004 by Goon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cratter Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Goaltending wasn't an issue this year and won't be next year. End of Discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Goaltending wasn't an issue this year and won't be next year. End of Discussion. I agree, however, does anyone know what the He!! is going to happen with 4 goalies in the stable? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I agree, however, does anyone know what the He!! is going to happen with 4 goalies in the stable? Yeah, only 1 will start each game Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I would be very surprised if Ziggy is still a member of the team next year. If he could not crack the line-up this year, I don't see it happening next year with another goalie coming in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 My point a week ago, and still today is that I'd rather see Parise rather than Brandt in the nets next year. As far as goaltending NOT being an issue, I would just ask that you review some of the Herald's quotes of Blaise to see if you really want to go with a full fledged denial of that as an issue. I don't have the time (or the Herald) to do that, but I KNOW I read some Blaise remarks that showed his concern about this topic. Isn't that why Parise not Brandt played in the Regionals? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I don't think Brandt has gained Blais full confidence, even after 3 years in the program. I really hope next year we have an established go to guy in the pipes for the post-season. It has to be a distraction when the players do not know who is going to be in goal. We have not had post-season success since Karl left and a big issue in my opinion has been musical goalies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AZSIOUX Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I don't think Brandt has gained Blais full confidence, even after 3 years in the program. I really hope next year we have an established go to guy in the pipes for the post-season. It has to be a distraction when the players do not know who is going to be in goal. We have not had post-season success since Karl left and a big issue in my opinion has been musical goalies. I like both goalies that we have. they are 2 different guys on and off the ice but both play well when they are in there. i would not blame post season on the goalies at all. theres no way thats accurate when you look at the numbers the last couple of years. i see where you are coming from though because thats what everyone seems to look at when we lose, the goalie!! i was at the game in c springs. if you can't put the puck in the net, its hard to win.. jordan should have been able to let 2 or 3 in and we still sould have been ok but it was not our night when it came to the puck bouncing.. jake is up and down with blais. he is a hell of a goalie. he scares people with his style but he wins a lot of games. Jordan will continue to get better with time and the off season. i'm sure he gets quality work in wherever he goes in the summer. the talented freshmen goalie phillip?? coming in will push both of these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I think someone needs to prove themselves quick and keep up the pace otherwise Blais is going to mix it up. Brandt was the #1 guy most of the year but then when he'd slip they'd switch. I see Blais's strategy but I think it might mess with the goaltenders confidence too, also I don't coach the team and know whats said in practice to the goalies from the coach so I don't know how they interpret getting replaced all the time. We do have alot of ALOT of goalies but I'm still wondering about Kasey Moreland. Where is he going? I haven't checked the recruit sites to see if he's following his big bro and going to St. Cloud. I know he hasn't had an outstanding season in the USHL but he was outstanding in the NDSHS Hockey tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 My point a week ago, and still today is that I'd rather see Parise rather than Brandt in the nets next year. As far as goaltending NOT being an issue, I would just ask that you review some of the Herald's quotes of Blaise to see if you really want to go with a full fledged denial of that as an issue. I don't have the time (or the Herald) to do that, but I KNOW I read some Blaise remarks that showed his concern about this topic. Isn't that why Parise not Brandt played in the Regionals? I recall only one time during the season that Blais was down on goaltending and that was after the first game at Wisconsin when he had some harsh comments about Brandt. As I'm sure everyone recalls, the very next night, Parise let in 3 goals on 13 shots and was pulled. That was the only weekend out of the entire season when neither goalie played well. After that, Brandt came back with five straight wins (four on the road) and played a large role in the Sioux winning the WCHA title. He deserves credit for his performance down the stretch. He also deserves credit for two wins against SCSU and a road win against Minnesota. Parise also deserves credit. He had two big nonconference wins over UMD and BC to start the season. He also had some good conference wins and played well enough in other games to earn wins, but came away with a tie (DU at home) or a loss (Minnesota on the road). People are making too much over Brandt and Parise splitting time in the nets. It worked out very well for the team. Blais says that. Both Brandt and Parise say that. It was a strength, not a weakness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I see Blais's strategy but I think it might mess with the goaltenders confidence too, also I don't coach the team and know whats said in practice to the goalies from the coach so I don't know how they interpret getting replaced all the time. The assumption many make is that Brandt and Parise have fragile psyches that can't handle Blais' decision on who sits and who plays. But that's not the way it is. They both realize that the goalie who's playing best and practicing best will get the start. They have no problem with that. It creates a healthy competition that drives each of them to stay on top of their game. It's an advantage that teams with one primary goalie don't have. When I asked Parise if people read too much into who's playing in goal and who's not, his response was, "People are reading way too much into that." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandman Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 NHL teams usually switch it up during the season then stick to one in the playoffs I think? If they were both healthy what would you do in Detroit with Hasek, Joseph, and with a little hope, Legace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 I agree that some NHL teams switch things up, but I bet (and I mean A LOT) that the team that wins the Cup doesn't switch goalies at all during the playoffs. I hate to repeat myself, but this whole on-again-off-again #1 goalie is reminiscent of a couple that date for awhile and then break up only to commence the whole sordid situation again. My point: One goalie needs to step up. ONLY one. Based on what I saw this year and what I've seen of Brandt in the past couple of years, I'm guessing it's Parise. (THE ABOVE IS ONLY AN OPINION: I READILY ACKNOWLEDGE I COULD BE WRONG.) But I doubt it:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1siouxfan22 Posted April 6, 2004 Author Share Posted April 6, 2004 since one of u was talkin bout kasey moreland he would have had a better year but his team didnt really have many outstanding players and i would like to kno if any one has heard if any colleges have talked to matt moreland who went to sioux falls with his bro as soon as the hs season ended Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 6, 2004 Share Posted April 6, 2004 Shep, only time will tell who's right or wrong. Next season, if a goalie clearly establishes himself as being better and more consistent than the others, I'm confident that Blais will have no problem with making him as the number-one goalie. I won't go out on a limb and say who it will be. I could see either Parise or Brandt stepping into that role. And maybe Phil Lamoureux will come in and blow them both out of the water. For that matter, Blais, Brandt and Parise were all saying that Nate Ziegelmann could have stepped in and played well. Looking ahead, I think it's safe to say that goaltending should not be an issue going into next season. 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.