From a Gopher fan to the Sioux fans...

[PCM]

On to Phil; so are you suggesting we suffer through another year of telling Phil its not his fault? PCM your a better hockey mind than this.

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that even though Lamoureux deserves some of the blame for some of the goals given up, the events that set up those goals weren't entirely his fault.

For example, in Friday's game, Jake Dowell scored a heck of a goal in picking the top corner with a shot that not even Mike Eaves thought he could make. Perhaps you could say that Phil should have made the save, but it happened on a three-on-one rush. The odds were pretty good that the Badgers were going to score on that play, a play that resulted from mistakes made by other members of the team.

The first goal in Friday's game came as a result of horrible team defense. Lamoureux stopped two point-blank shots in a row before the third one finally went in. Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers got so many quality chances in close?

On Wisconsin's fourth goal Friday, was it Lamoureux's fault that Skille got past Lee and made a centering pass to Ford who was left uncovered directly in front of the crease? Despite that, Lamoureux made a heck of a save on Ford's first shot. How many saves do you expect him to make when he's hung out to dry?

On Dowell's first power play goal Saturday, Lamoureux was clearly screened and it was another great shot by Dowell. So why was Dowell allowed to skate unchecked and uncovered all the way from behind the goal line to the top of a circle where he had all the time in the world to unload a blistering slap shot? Was that Lamoureux's fault?

On Dowell's game-tying power play goal, how is it that Dowell was able to stand between Chorney and Porter and get two shots off? Why did Porter skate into the crease and interfere with his own goalie -- preventing him from having any chance of making a save -- rather than putting Dowell on his butt where he belonged? Was that Lamoureux's fault? Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers were on the power play at a crucial point of the game?

On Carlson's game-winning goal, was it Lamoureux's fault that Finley totally ignored Carlson coming in on the other wing? Sure, you could fault Lamoureux for giving up a big rebound, but if Finley was doing what he was supposed to do, there's no way Carlson ever gets that shot off.

I'm not saying this to excuse or put the blame on any single player. The goalie is always the easiest target, so he's the one who usually catches the most blame. But I went back and reviewed every goal Wisconsin scored frame by frame. Other than the one that trickled through, there wasn't a single goal scored by the Badgers that was entirely Lamoureux's fault.

Could Phil be playing better? Certainly. Would his job be easier if the defensemen in front of him did their jobs better? Without a doubt. Would his job be easier if the team was averaging 4 goals per game rather than 3? Or even 3.5? You bet it would.

Although Hakstol wasn't happy with Lamoureux's performance immediately after Friday's game, I suspect that the reason he started Phil on Saturday was because he did the same thing I did. He reviewed the plays that led to the goals and concluded that there was only one goal allowed that was clearly the goalie's fault.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. Is it more realistic to hope that Lamoureux or Grieco or Walski will morph into Patrick Roy overnight or is it more realistic to expect our D-men do a better job of clearing screens and preventing second chances? Isn't it more realistic to expect our forwards to pick up their scoring a bit and do a better job of covering their defensive assisgnments in UND's zone? Or should we just write off the season and hope that Hak can recruit the next Marty Turco?

Scoring more often and playing better team defense will work wonders for a goalie's stats and the team's won-lost record.

Edited December 13, 2006 by PCM

[82SiouxGuy]

On to Phil; so are you suggesting we suffer through another year of telling Phil its not his fault? PCM your a better hockey mind than this. Seriously, I hope the coaches are combing the BCHL and the other Junior leagues looking for a goalie that can actually play and make saves at 90%. Just think of the Goalies recruits we lost or passed up this past season, we were telling them we are set at goalie. While they are making saves at other programs we are losing games on ticky tacky bag goals that Jordy used to save.

Like I said earlier we should have stud goaltenders lined up to play for UND. I heard a rumor a few years back that UND snubbed Nate Lawson., apparently he wanted to play for UND and we didn't want him. Hum, he wouldn't look too bad in a Sioux uniform right now.

Lets use the comparison, UND hockey is kind of like FSU and Florida football, so when they need a new quarterback they fill the void with another star. It should be the same at UND for players including goaltenders.

This season is more frustrating than the past two, because I see no hope for us turning it around. Goaltending and defense win championships.

Lamoureux has had save percentages above 90% in other years. He should be able to get there again. Here are his stats for the past 3 years.

|---GOAL AVERAGE---| |--SAVES--| |----RECORD----| |-----GOALS------|

## Name GP-GS Minutes GA Avg Saves Pct W L T Sho PP SH EN PEN SOG

2006-2007

1 Philippe Lamoureux 10-10 573:39 28 2.93 217 .886 4 6 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

2005-2006

34 Philippe Lamoureux 14-11 734:26 32 2.61 327 .911 5 7 0 1 13 2 0 0 0

2004-2005

34 Philippe Lamoureux 18-17 1043:26 38 2.19 406 .914 7 8 2 0 12 0 0 0 0

[A.B.T.G.]

Lamoureux has had save percentages above 90% in other years. He should be able to get there again. Here are his stats for the past 3 years.

|---GOAL AVERAGE---| |--SAVES--| |----RECORD----| |-----GOALS------|

## Name GP-GS Minutes GA Avg Saves Pct W L T Sho PP SH EN PEN SOG

2006-2007

1 Philippe Lamoureux 10-10 573:39 28 2.93 217 .886 4 6 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

2005-2006

34 Philippe Lamoureux 14-11 734:26 32 2.61 327 .911 5 7 0 1 13 2 0 0 0

2004-2005

34 Philippe Lamoureux 18-17 1043:26 38 2.19 406 .914 7 8 2 0 12 0 0 0 0

Just change his jersey number back to 34....

[Slap Shot]

First that is funny how the Sieve comes in here to try to cheer us up. What is going to happen the Gophers finally come crashing back down to earth and Briggs remembers he is not a playoff goalie and Frazee wigs out and teams expose the Gophers defense. SCSU did give us a glimsp a few weeks back.

I thought the Gophers were legitimate contenders.

Do you believe the Gophers will collapse, do you hope it will happen, or did you simply write the above because of bucky? Do you believe UND will turn around their play or will they remain in a funk? We can assume that previous strong finishes under Hak indicate it's again likely to happen, but then in all fairness we've seen the Gophers finish strong under Lucia as well as fall apart - which is more likely? Don't get me wrong - I'm not predicting anything specific because there's way too much hockey left, but I think it's just as logical to predict at least a run to a FF as it is to predict another HC debacle.

As for UND I don't konw enough about this year's team to positively assert anything. Based upon history alone it's more probable that they'll put together a better second half. However if for some reason they don't, the cupboard of the future is certainly not bare and one down season would only be an aberration and not a trend.

[redwing77]

PCM- Love your responses. It makes me feel a lot better about this year's team.

As for how we are currently playing. I hope we come together solid and the opponents think we are only as good as what we did vs. Maine and UW. That way we'll knock them flat on their butts and run away with it the second half of the year.

[PCM]

I thought the Gophers were legitimate contenders.

Just hope that Goon's foresight is much worse than buckysieve's hindsight.

[Frontroguy]

As you all know by my posts (few they may be, I just don't believe in trolling), I too am a Gopher fan. Mainly in support of keeping the Sioux name, but an occasional hockey thread as well. I truly believe that come March, I will be lending my support to whatever team has to face the Sioux on Thurs or Friday. I expect your record to pick up some steam this weekend, and make it to St. Paul in March. (of course, I can't cheer for your squad anymore than you can cheer for mine)

Don't drink the Koolaid!

[Diggler]

Using 20/20 hindsight, anyone could make that statement and pretend they're a genius.

I'm glad I don't have to pretend.

[skateshattrick]

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that even though Lamoureux deserves some of the blame for some of the goals given up, the events that set up those goals weren't entirely his fault.

For example, in Friday's game, Jake Dowell scored a heck of a goal in picking the top corner with a shot that not even Mike Eaves thought he could make. Perhaps you could say that Phil should have made the save, but it happened on a three-on-one rush. The odds were pretty good that the Badgers were going to score on that play, a play that resulted from mistakes made by other members of the team.

The first goal in Friday's game came as a result of horrible team defense. Lamoureux stopped two point-blank shots in a row before the third one finally went in. Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers got so many quality chances in close?

On Wisconsin's fourth goal Friday, was it Lamoureux's fault that Skille got past Lee and made a centering pass to Ford who was left uncovered directly in front of the crease? Despite that, Lamoureux made a heck of a save on Ford's first shot. How many saves do you expect him to make when he's hung out to dry?

On Dowell's first power play goal Saturday, Lamoureux was clearly screened and it was another great shot by Dowell. So why was Dowell allowed to skate unchecked and uncovered all the way from behind the goal line to the top of a circle where he had all the time in the world to unload a blistering slap shot? Was that Lamoureux's fault?

On Dowell's game-tying power play goal, how is it that Dowell was able to stand between Chorney and Porter and get two shots off? Why did Porter skate into the crease and interfere with his own goalie -- preventing him from having any chance of making a save -- rather than putting Dowell on his butt where he belonged? Was that Lamoureux's fault? Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers were on the power play at a crucial point of the game?

On Carlson's game-winning goal, was it Lamoureux's fault that Finley totally ignored Carlson coming in on the other wing? Sure, you could fault Lamoureux for giving up a big rebound, but if Finley was doing what he was supposed to do, there's no way Carlson ever gets that shot off.

I'm not saying this to excuse or put the blame on any single player. The goalie is always the easiest target, so he's the one who usually catches the most blame. But I went back and reviewed every goal Wisconsin scored frame by frame. Other than the one that trickled through, there wasn't a single goal scored by the Badgers that was entirely Lamoureux's fault.

Could Phil be playing better? Certainly. Would his job be easier if the defensemen in front of him did their jobs better? Without a doubt. Would his job be easier if the team was averaging 4 goals per game rather than 3? Or even 3.5? You bet it would.

Although Hakstol wasn't happy with Lamoureux's performance immediately after Friday's game, I suspect that the reason he started Phil on Saturday was because he did the same thing I did. He reviewed the plays that led to the goals and concluded that there was only one goal allowed that was clearly the goalie's fault.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. Is it more realistic to hope that Lamoureux or Grieco or Walski will morph into Patrick Roy overnight or is it more realistic to expect our D-men do a better job of clearing screens and preventing second chances? Isn't it more realistic to expect our forwards to pick up their scoring a bit and do a better job of covering their defensive assisgnments in UND's zone? Or should we just write off the season and hope that Hak can recruit the next Mary Turco?

Scoring more often and playing better team defense will work wonders for a goalie's stats and the team's won-lost record.

Great post! I agree 100%.

However, as Hakstol said also, occasionally we need a goalie to make a great save, not just the routine ones that he is supposed to make. I only saw one of those on Saturday and none on Friday. I saw Elliot make 3 in the first period on Friday alone. In the current funk the Sioux are in, they really need that. Plus, the tying goal on Friday was absolutely deflating. The game winner on Saturday can be looked at two ways: If Finley ties up his man, there is never a shot. On the other hand, there was no reason to kick out that big rebound, so the converse is also true. I really do believe that the Sioux will turn it around, but it is critical that the goaltending be better AND that the defense starts playing better. The Sioux have to start winning some 2-1 games or 3-2 games if they expect to be a legitimate contender in the WCHA.

[Goon]

That's not what I said. What I'm saying is that even though Lamoureux deserves some of the blame for some of the goals given up, the events that set up those goals weren't entirely his fault.

For example, in Friday's game, Jake Dowell scored a heck of a goal in picking the top corner with a shot that not even Mike Eaves thought he could make. Perhaps you could say that Phil should have made the save, but it happened on a three-on-one rush. The odds were pretty good that the Badgers were going to score on that play, a play that resulted from mistakes made by other members of the team.

The first goal in Friday's game came as a result of horrible team defense. Lamoureux stopped two point-blank shots in a row before the third one finally went in. Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers got so many quality chances in close?

On Wisconsin's fourth goal Friday, was it Lamoureux's fault that Skille got past Lee and made a centering pass to Ford who was left uncovered directly in front of the crease? Despite that, Lamoureux made a heck of a save on Ford's first shot. How many saves do you expect him to make when he's hung out to dry?

On Dowell's first power play goal Saturday, Lamoureux was clearly screened and it was another great shot by Dowell. So why was Dowell allowed to skate unchecked and uncovered all the way from behind the goal line to the top of a circle where he had all the time in the world to unload a blistering slap shot? Was that Lamoureux's fault?

On Dowell's game-tying power play goal, how is it that Dowell was able to stand between Chorney and Porter and get two shots off? Why did Porter skate into the crease and interfere with his own goalie -- preventing him from having any chance of making a save -- rather than putting Dowell on his butt where he belonged? Was that Lamoureux's fault? Was it Lamoureux's fault that the Badgers were on the power play at a crucial point of the game?

On Carlson's game-winning goal, was it Lamoureux's fault that Finley totally ignored Carlson coming in on the other wing? Sure, you could fault Lamoureux for giving up a big rebound, but if Finley was doing what he was supposed to do, there's no way Carlson ever gets that shot off.

I'm not saying this to excuse or put the blame on any single player. The goalie is always the easiest target, so he's the one who usually catches the most blame. But I went back and reviewed every goal Wisconsin scored frame by frame. Other than the one that trickled through, there wasn't a single goal scored by the Badgers that was entirely Lamoureux's fault.

Could Phil be playing better? Certainly. Would his job be easier if the defensemen in front of him did their jobs better? Without a doubt. Would his job be easier if the team was averaging 4 goals per game rather than 3? Or even 3.5? You bet it would.

Although Hakstol wasn't happy with Lamoureux's performance immediately after Friday's game, I suspect that the reason he started Phil on Saturday was because he did the same thing I did. He reviewed the plays that led to the goals and concluded that there was only one goal allowed that was clearly the goalie's fault.

I'm just trying to be pragmatic here. Is it more realistic to hope that Lamoureux or Grieco or Walski will morph into Patrick Roy overnight or is it more realistic to expect our D-men do a better job of clearing screens and preventing second chances? Isn't it more realistic to expect our forwards to pick up their scoring a bit and do a better job of covering their defensive assisgnments in UND's zone? Or should we just write off the season and hope that Hak can recruit the next Mary Turco?

Scoring more often and playing better team defense will work wonders for a goalie's stats and the team's won-lost record.

So I can put you in the camp that you expect Phil to be in net the next two years? If that is true UND is going to have to score 4+ goals each game to have a decent chance to win and that is going to be tough, probably even with the poetential stars we have coming in next season.

[Goon]

Just hope that Goon's foresight is much worse than buckysieve's hindsight.

Did I say that they weren't contenders, I said wait till Briggs remembers he isn't a playoff goalie.

I personally think the Gophers are a good team and if we play like we have we are going to lose 8-2 and 7-3 if we are lucky. That being said they aren't my pick for winning the frozen for. Unforunately I see an HE team doing this year.

[PCM]

So I can put you in the camp that you expect Phil to be in net the next two years?

No, you can put me in the camp that believes hockey is a team game. Goaltending is but one aspect of UND's game in need of improvement if the Sioux are going to be in the post-season mix.

[Goon]

No, you can put me in the camp that believes hockey is a team game. Goaltending is but one aspect of UND's game in need of improvement if the Sioux are going to be in the post-season mix.

Well, so then your answer is yes probably? Thats fine. Put me in the camp that I am hoping that coaches looking long and hard about recruiting another goalie to bring in next season.

[Goon]

No, you can put me in the camp that believes hockey is a team game. Goaltending is but one aspect of UND's game in need of improvement if the Sioux are going to be in the post-season mix.

Its kind of like hitting in baseball no matter how good your pitching is if your not scoring runs your not winning. On the flip side of that if your giving up 4 goals a game after bascially haveing the same defense as last season minus one adding back a veteran I am going to say that the goalie is a big factor.

[Slap Shot]

Did I say that they weren't contenders, I said wait till Briggs remembers he isn't a playoff goalie.

If he isn't a playoff goalie than the Gophers aren't contenders.

Maybe Briggs is maybe he isn't a playoff goalie, but I don't think that we've seen enough to know for sure. Remember that people made similar comments about Hauser and Weber and we know how they did in the end. We know that Briggs has put up career numbers at the U despite supposedly never playing in front of a good defense. We know that Frazee was great for the USNDT, had a great start last season and struggled at the end, but so far looks very good this season. This means he should be able to spell Briggs during the season and giving him fresh legs leading into the end of the year. We know that the Gophers are playing with greater depth this season than they did last season and are giving up fewer quality scoring chances, all of which will help whatever goalie the Gophers start.

One last thought - if Briggs isn't a playoff caliber goalie, does that bode well for UND's NCAA chances until they get someone to replace Lammy? Because something tells me you've not given up on UND making a run and imho you shouldn't.

[PCM]

Well, so then your answer is yes probably?

Nope.

My answer is that I'm concerned about winning this season with the players we have this season. If it's Lamoureux, that's fine by me. If it's Grieco, that's fine, too. If it's Walski, still fine.

My primary point is that we wouldn't be harping on our goaltending so much if the forwards were scoring at a higher rate and we were playing better team defense. Both of those areas need improvement, along with goaltending.

So my questions to you are: Are the Sioux scoring at the rate we should expect given the talent they have? Is the team capable of playing better defense in front of whoever the goalie might be?

If you're throwing in the towel on the team improving in those areas, then you're correct that we need some sort of super-goalie who's not currently on the roster. And since we don't have that super-goalie, we should just flush the entire season down the toilet because there's absolutely no hope that the team will improve.

Is that what you expect me to believe?

[siouxnami]

Am I correct in assuming that the Sioux are one of the if not the youngest team in the nation?

[redwing77]

Am I correct in assuming that the Sioux are one of the if not the youngest team in the nation?

One of the youngest. Not the youngest though. I bet we would be the youngest if Bina and Walski weren't included.

[Goon]

Nope.

So my questions to you are: Are the Sioux scoring at the rate we should expect given the talent they have? Is the team capable of playing better defense in front of whoever the goalie might be?

If you're throwing in the towel on the team improving in those areas, then you're correct that we need some sort of super-goalie who's not currently on the roster. And since we don't have that super-goalie, we should just flush the entire season down the toilet because there's absolutely no hope that the team will improve.

I would imagine that we are going to need to score 5+ goals a game, so the answer to your question is not yet. Wether we are flushing or not I will still be sitting in the stands. I am just like everyone else, I HATE LOSING. IT SUCKS.

[Smoggy]

I would imagine that we are going to need to score 5+ goals a game, so the answer to your question is not yet. Wether we are flushing or not I will still be sitting in the stands. I am just like everyone else, I HATE LOSING. IT SUCKS.

Then be thankful you aren't a UAA or Tech fan. At least Tech had some success back in the day.

[Goon]

If he isn't a playoff goalie than the Gophers aren't contenders.

Maybe Briggs is maybe he isn't a playoff goalie, but I don't think that we've seen enough to know for sure. Remember that people made similar comments about Hauser and Weber and we know how they did in the end. We know that Briggs has put up career numbers at the U despite supposedly never playing in front of a good defense.

One last thought - if Briggs isn't a playoff caliber goalie, does that bode well for UND's NCAA chances until they get someone to replace Lammy? Because something tells me you've not given up on UND making a run and imho you shouldn't.

LOL, I think the Gophers could win this year with giving up four goals a game, the offensive fire power Minnesota is mind boggling. Wether they come down to earth is another thing. I was kind of crossing my fingers and hoping. Actually praying. You and I could probably get 10 points in a season just being on a line with KO and Stoa. Your offense alone is scoring 5 goals a game, your team defense is giving up about 2 goals a game. Even if your defense started giving up 3-4 goals a game your probably still going to win.

[AZSIOUX]

after this weekend i have concluded the phil is not the answer at this point so far. simple. he has been given the shot to play every weekend and it hasnt worked out. he had a minor injury this year yes, but hes back and we just got swept at home AGAIN by a average sconnie team. does this mean not play phil?? not sure, we are not scoring to much either but we need a goalie to win some games on his own every once in a while. lets hope that he can get his sh#t together because it would really help out a sioux team that is lighting it up offensively on a consistent basis. if he doesnt then use grieco i guess or go find a big time recruit, i know sounds simple i am not giving up on the sioux AT ALL. we have the talent and i do think we will turn it around but we will need some help between the pipes as well.

[fightingsioux4life]

With all of this talk about what our biggest problems are as a team, I'd like to simplify things a little.

Just as football is composed of three major components (Offense, Defense, Special Teams), hockey is also composed of three major components: Offense, Defense and Goaltending. There are also two subcomponents that supplement the main three components: Powerplay and Penalty-Kill, sometimes collectively known as Special Teams. I believe that if you can be solid in two of the three main components, you will have a chance to win any game. If you are solid in all three areas, you probably should win a championship, but this is pretty rare.

Let's look at some real-life examples:

1) North Dakota 1996-97, NCAA Champions: Did not have great defensemen, but blueliners played well enough to slow down other teams. Goaltending was solid. Offense is what drove this team (Blake, Hoogsteens, Panzer, Calder, Ulmer, Kallay, you get the picture). Don't remember Special Teams, but I don't think they were a big liability. Two out of three (offense and goaltending).

2) North Dakota 1999-2000, NCAA Champions: Had one of the greatest goaltenders in College Hockey history (Karl Goehring, I don't care what the critics think), solid defensemen like Travis Roche and Mike Commodore, and a productive, but not explosive offense with players like Lee Goren and Jeff Panzer leading the way. Not as good of an offensive team as 1997, but better on defense and in goal. Special teams not a liability. Two out of three (defense and goaltending).

3) Minnesota 2001-02, NCAA Champions: Average in goal (Adam Hauser), solid on both offense and defense. Special teams an asset. Two out of three (offense and defense).

4) Wisconsin 2005-06, NCAA Champions: Great goaltending (Brian Elliott), solid defense in front of him and just enough offense to get the job done. Special teams an asset. Two out of three (defense and goaltending).

See the pattern? Two out of three gives you a chance, along with special teams that either don't hurt you or make you even better. After that it's up to solid coaching of the talent you have, staying healthy and having good team chemistry, the latter two of which are impossible to quantify and/or predict. Three out of three (North Dakota, 1986-87; Maine 1992-93) are rare and tough to pull off, which is why those teams are special and remembered so vividly for so long.

Right now, North Dakota isn't solid in any of the three major areas I discussed above. They are clicking on the Powerplay, which is usually an area this team struggles in. Penalty-Kill is a trouble spot, so special teams are a wash right now. Based on this, we should feel fortunate that this team has only one more loss than win. The Powerplay has probably helped prevent a worse record. We are probably doing as well as can be expected based on our play so far. Whether we can fix what is wrong before it's too late is another matter.

[siouxforeverbaby]

One of the youngest. Not the youngest though. I bet we would be the youngest if Bina and Walski weren't included.

um, Fabian, Foyt, Kaip. and Bina are all older than Walski

[xxx24jml]

Or should we just write off the season and hope that Hak can recruit the next Mary Turco?

I just gotta ask, who is this chick?