hockeygrl Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I honestly thought that Jake should have played the rest of the game. He made a lot of really good saves. I really didn't blame him for any of the goals that went in. In my opinon, three of Ferris State's goals were caused by faulty moves by the defenseman. Jake really didn't have a chance on that breakaway goal. After Matt Greene fell down, I knew it was trouble. I have to admit that I was shocked when Blais pulled Jake and put Josh in. Jake looked pi$$ed! I wasn't happy with Josh when he let in a goal on five shots. Either way, the season is over. I am hoping Jake returns next year, because he is finally understanding what it takes to be a great goalie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthDakotaHockey Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I am with you girl, hockeygrl. Brandt was playing reasonably well, and was certainly a stronger play than Josh. The goal Josh let it, a relatively soft one, was a back breaker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airmail Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I have to admit that I was shocked when Blais pulled Jake and put Josh in. Jake looked pi$$ed! I wasn't happy with Josh when he let in a goal on five shots. Thanks for starting this thread! I've been wanting to vent on this... and please, This is all only my "humble non-hockey coaching" opinion....... I did a double take also. The whole BS about stirring up the bench by replacing the golie is a bunch of crap. I'm sure that the team was really fired up and confident and gung-ho when a cold Josh S. got thrown in the crease. Give me a friggin' break. It's the mind game crap that turned the team south through the second half of the year. All we've heard on the goalie situation is "we need Jake to give us a chance to win." Well, he did. It was the rest of the flat footed INDIVIDUALS (capitalized purposely) that didn't live up to their part of the deal. You're damn right Jake looked pissed. He should be. Complete bull$%!#. Thanks, I'm better now....... (I apologize for taking profanity liberties, it's the only way I could truly express my thoughts) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I have to agree 100%. It is not often I second guess Blais, but I think it is warranted on this one. Bringing in Siembida, who has had no confidence all year and has had a poor season was not the answer at that point. I guarantee you the team has little confidence in him this year and a soft goal was the result. As usual Siembida was out of position on that one. A big part of a goaltender is confidence and none of our goaltenders could find any this year. I think the revolving goaltenders was part of the second half collapse. I wish in hindsight we had just gone with one guy (Brandt) in the second half and tried to instill some confidence in him. I think he has potential but realizing that potential is another thing!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmidtdoggydog Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 It made no difference. UND only scored two goals and Brandt had let in three so even if he stays in and shuts down Ferris in the third, it still ends 3-2 for Ferris, which is still a loss. Placing any blame whatsoever on Siembida is wrong. Of course I understand all the "what ifs" and realize that people will say Siembida letting in the fourth goal killed UND's momentum, but to that I say, what momentum? Regardless of momentum, UND did have an outstanding third period, but they still didn't score, and neither goalie can be blamed for that. Bottom line, they didn't score enough goals to win and that has nothing to do with goaltending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Siouxrock Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 jake brandt rules Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BAM Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I was listening to the game on the net. As far as I could hear the team wasn't playing for the goalies. Jake did a good job, and so did Josh. THey were great saves but no defense and we all know what happens when the goalie comes through with a big save and no one on his team is there to cover the rebound. Why all of the fans think they know what Blais is doing baffles me. I am waiting for next year and will be happy to see both in net as both have had their glory and their upsets. HAVE A GREAT SUMMER ONE AND LOOKING FORWARD TO ALL YOUR COMMENTS THIS FALL TAKE CARE ONE AND ALL BAM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Just to make myself clear, I am not blaming either goaltender for the loss. The team as a whole, especially the D, did not play well enough to win. My main point is I found it really surprising that Blais would put in Josh in the most important period of the season after not having any confidence in him all season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatspin7 Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Brandt was playing just fine. There was not reason to pull him, he was playing solid he had gotten beaten on 2 really nice tips and a breakaway. Josh did let in a weaker goal and never really look comfortable IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airmail Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Placing any blame whatsoever on Siembida is wrong. Bottom line, they didn't score enough goals to win and that has nothing to do with goaltending. You have excellent points, and I agree that no blame should be on goalies' shoulders. I think I made that clear in my ealier post. The point of the thread, however, is that Siembida shouldn't have been in there in the first place. As of this post nobody has voted "pull Jake." The reason this team lost is a lack of motivation and teamwork. You can't win a game by playing hard only the 3rd period. Well at least not this time of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 Was Jake playing a bad game? No. Was the defense giving him any help? No. But was the team doing anything up to and at that point? No. Yes, something had to be done to "light a fire" under those guys. Before the third period I thought the guys in green should have been charged admission because they were watching a game. The goal Siembida let in? Let's look back on it. He stopped the first shot and it was a shot that should have never come because the defenseman there should have never allowed it. The defense takes the rebound (which was directed properly toward the corner) and does what with it? They try some drop-pass tricky-ticky-tacky crap ten feet off the right pipe of their own net at the goal line with FSU guys in on the forecheck. What happens next? An FSU player kicks it back up the slot on the backhand and no one covers the next FSU guys crashing down the slot. Shot. Goal. The second shot only happened because the defense got cutesy didn't maintain control of the puck in its zone. Josh Siembida made the initial save and put his defense in position to control the puck. (That is his job description, yes?) The defense failed at that point. Don't blame Josh for that second goal going in. The blame goes to the defenders who (a) didn't maintain possession and (b) didn't keep the trailer from crashing down to get the second shot off. I've harangued Josh throughout the season; however, this is one time that he does not deserve it. Look at the tape. Look at the total defensive zone breakdown leading up to that goal. Josh did his job on the first shot and gave the puck to his team. The second shot should have never happened and the blame for the second shot does not belong to Josh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprig Posted March 31, 2003 Share Posted March 31, 2003 I agree, Sic. Two glaringly bad giveaways in rapid succession. Excellent save on the first giveaway, directing the puck exactly where it should have been to a Sioux player in the corner. Not sure who that player was but that backhanded blind "pass" from the corner back toward the net (and right to an FSU player) was supposed to be to whom? Looked more like an offensive pass than a defensive one; wonder if the Sioux player forgot what end of the ice he was in. Bad timing when the Sioux were trying to come back, but hardly Siembeda's doing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 Absolutely not...Bradt was having a phenomenal game, IMO he was in the zone, the first two Ferris goals were some of the most beutiful tips I have ever seen in my hockey career. If neither was tipped, the first missed the net, and Brandt makes the save on the other. I've seen Patrick Roy and Dominik Hasek let thos by. As far as the 3rd goal, he maybe committed a little early, but that is a tough call for a goaltender to make and iI think Legue (or was it Nesbitt?) hesitated just long enough to fool him. The back breaker for the Sioux was that goal let in by Siembida. Yes, the D should have helped him out a lot more, but at the same time, he had a clear view of the shot, he needed to stay on his feet. Don't forget that teams play differently when they're down by 1 goal then when they are down by two. I don't fault Josh for the loss, all I'm saying is that Brandt should have been left in, it's never a good idea to replace your goalie when he is playing well, especially since Siembida had been sitting on the bench cold for the last two periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmidtdoggydog Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I am sorry, but this has turned into a ridiculous thread. They lost. They gave up three goals with Brandt in net, but only scored two for the entire game - the result, a loss and out of the tournament. After watching Blais rotate goalies without rhyme or reason throughout the season, it was no surprise that he made the move that he did. Jeez, a few games back we were singing DB's praises for doing what few other coaches dare do and that is pulling his goalie with several minutes left against Denver. Back then it paid off and UND won. Against FSU, he makes a move that really had NO impact on the outcome of the game and the fans dwell on it??? I think we can agree, folks, UND had bigger issues the last two months than the goalie swap in the regional game. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 1, 2003 Share Posted April 1, 2003 I agree. No sense worrying about this. There is one thing no one has mentioned. Brandt took a slapshot to the solar plexis after the whistle in the second period. He went down hard and was in serious pain. He finished the period but I was a bit surprised about that. Could he have tightened up between periods? I thought the team came out buzzing in the 3rd period, and really took it to Ferris. Admittedly, Ferris was trying to sit on their lead but the Sioux really took it to them. Could the goalie switch be component in that effort? I mean, isn't that what we hear coaches say when the swap goalies, it's to spur on the team? 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.