PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota Gophers 2012-2013: From Dinkytown to Steel City!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 [40] 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

D2D
12-13-2012, 06:16 PM
Reading between the lines, sounds like he didn't want to play for the old man.

Probably the best decision for all concerned. Same could be said for Mario Lucia going to Notre Dame (as much as we'd love to have him as a player).

Slap Shot
12-13-2012, 10:21 PM
Not sure why it's interesting. Certainly not surprising.

state of hockey
12-13-2012, 11:30 PM
Not sure why it's interesting. Certainly not surprising.

Not at all. I was surprised when Tony came and played for Don.

Tiggsy
12-14-2012, 09:50 AM
Not at all. I was surprised when Tony came and played for Don.

Tony wasn't a "star" that Mario and Jake are being billed as. Tony knew his role and played it quite well. He didn't have to worry about the old man holding him back.

GopherFan89
12-14-2012, 11:06 AM
Pretty sure Gopher fan will find this interesting:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20121212/MAVS/712129850/1085#former-uno-assistant-s-son-to-join-mavs

Reading between the lines, sounds like he didn't want to play for the old man.

Maybe you're right, but have you considered the possibility of the families not wanting their sons playing for their fathers?

Think about all the flak that Tony and Don got from people. I'm sure there were critics who thought that Tony got preferential treatment and there's the pressure of playing well to make your dad look better. If you have a player that's struggling and you stick with them instead of benching him, its a coaching choice, think about how that would seem if you stuck with your own kid. As a former college athlete, I wouldn't have minded having my dad as a coach. Parents want their kids to have the best opportunities possible and I can easily see Mike and Don guarding their kids from unneeded criticism.

And as for Mario's choice it's interesting that he chose his day's alma mater.

Hammy
12-14-2012, 11:18 AM
Pretty sure Gopher fan will find this interesting:

http://www.omaha.com/article/20121212/MAVS/712129850/1085#former-uno-assistant-s-son-to-join-mavs

Reading between the lines, sounds like he didn't want to play for the old man.

They've learned from their experiences. Tony Lucia did not have the easiest time and it did create problems. Don wasn't too thrilled at the idea of having Mario on the Gophers and Guentzel was the same way about Jake. Both good players but it's better to avoid the land mines of nepotism. Even if a kid deserves to be on the top line or top PP, a coach will always have people (including some of the guys in the locker room) that are going to wonder if it is really earned or if it is just dad playing favorites.

The Gophers have/will recruit players better than Jake (not ripping on him as he is a quality kid and a good player... but he's not irreplaceable by any means). Mario is a tough one to "replace" though. But I can't fault the head coach on that one. ****ed if you do, ****ed if you don't on that one.

jerryj
12-14-2012, 03:13 PM
hammy- how does tyler nanne project in your mind, in terms of style? would you compare him to jake guentzel?

Koho
12-15-2012, 08:56 AM
I am re-posting this comment I made at GPL:

One negative trend they need to fix (although how they go about it I am not sure because the correlation seems illogical) - the Gophers are outshooting their opponents by 49, 54 and 59 per period, but the difference in goals scored is +14, +9 and 0. One could argue mental/physical conditioning but you'd think the SOG disparity would similarly trend in the other direction.

If you were to only count shots from inside the dots, I am guessing you wouldn't see the same discrepancy. In games where they have a lead late, they have been much more content to fire shots on net from outside, rather than commit to many players to the front of the net where an odd man rush could result. Often times in this situation, the player will carry it into the zone and put a shot towards the net, just to keep it out of their own zone. That can account for the 10 more shots in the third. So I think those numbers can be deceptive. And I am not saying that if that is the explanation it is necessarily justified. I don't remember how it ended up last year, but it seemed like they were outscoring opponents in the third by a pretty large margin by the middle of the season. It would be nice to see a return to that. Prevent hockey with small leads can get scary.

D2D
12-15-2012, 11:13 AM
Prevent hockey with small leads can get scary.

Not to mention the fact that traditionally 'prevent hockey' has not been a Gopher strength.

When they have a small lead I would like to still see them VERY aggressive on the forecheck and still trying to make plays, but with two forwards only! Then they need to ALWAYS make sure that the other forward and BOTH D do not get caught. They get in trouble when all the forwards get caught deep, and then one of the D misses on a pinch or misplays the puck at the blueline.

But I don't like seeing them get too cautious, too early, when they are willing to just dump it in or throw it in on net from the outside and hang back. This doesn't kill any time of the clock by keeping their opponent bottled up in their own end, but instead allows them a free and easy break out, with momentum coming back through the neutral zone.

burd
12-15-2012, 11:23 AM
I know that the gophers have Rau and a bunch of others who can play at an extremely high level, but it is Bjugstad who scares me, at least, as a player whose size, along with his skills, gives him the tools to dominate, despite what teams do to contain him, much like Vanek did from time to time. Very few can do that.

GopherFan89
12-15-2012, 11:35 AM
I know that the gophers have Rau and a bunch of others who can play at an extremely high level, but it is Bjugstad who scares me, at least, as a player whose size, along with his skills, gives him the tools to dominate, despite what teams do to contain him, much like Vanek did from time to time. Very few can do that.

I've felt Bjugstad has been kind of lackluster lately. .76 points per game is nothing to be ashamed of, but when you're named Bjugstad and have set a precedent for doing better as well as carry the hype of being an NHL-ready player who is coming back for one more season, I guess I expected a bit better. Hope his stick gets hot.

Diggs13
12-15-2012, 01:13 PM
I typically just read this site, but have a few observations/ questions about the lines and players being used.

Rau, Bjugs and Budish made up one of the best forward lines in college hockey last year, why is tDon messing with this? Guess I'm hoping for an answer different from what has been posted countless times (spread out the scoring). Anyone have any other ideas on this?

Along with many others, I agree that Paranteau needs to play defense every game. I have no issues with Holl playing forward, but I'd like to see him remain there for the entire year. Larson has looked solid in the games he has played, IMHO. Horn on track to be red shirted? Paranteau and Helgeson are our only 2 defensive minded defensemen we have, and I'd like to see them both in the game most, if not all nights. Disappointed with Alts' and Skeijs' play thus far, and wouldn't mind seeing them sit a few more games if they continues on this track. Would like to see Marshall, Schmidt, Reilly, & Paranteau play every game, and mix in the others per deserved ice time.

I agree with D2D's earlier post regarding our late game forecheck (with a lead). 2 guys deep would be a nice change to see in the second half. Keeping the opponents pinned down, and not giving up the neutral zone so easily would go a long ways towards protecting the leads we have given up thus far. Something needs to change, regardless of what they try.

I realize it's still early in the season, but I'd like to see some form of continuity in the lines. These guys need time to play together, so they know what to expect from one another out there i.e. knowing where their linemates will be in certain situations, etc.

Obviously, the inconsistent effort put forth is driving me nuts, along with the rest of you. The change from last year to this year in the effort department has been disappointing thus far.

Finally, hats off to Ambroz for his growth as a player. He has taken a huge step forward in his mental game this year, and has been in much better control of his emotions on the ice this year.

mnstate0fhockey
12-15-2012, 03:51 PM
I've felt Bjugstad has been kind of lackluster lately. .76 points per game is nothing to be ashamed of, but when you're named Bjugstad and have set a precedent for doing better as well as carry the hype of being an NHL-ready player who is coming back for one more season, I guess I expected a bit better. Hope his stick gets hot.

I think he's pressing. He needs to relax, let the game come to him, and just get the puck to (and on) the net more.

D2D
12-15-2012, 04:17 PM
I think he's pressing. He needs to relax, let the game come to him, and just get the puck to (and on) the net more.

He did seem to be grasping his stick a little tight in the last few games. I'm not sure if "relax" is the right word, but I think I know what you're saying...he needs to let his instincts take over when a scoring chance develops.

Koho
12-15-2012, 08:04 PM
I think he's pressing. He needs to relax, let the game come to him, and just get the puck to (and on) the net more.

I don't know if I quite agree completely. On one hand, he does seem to feel the pressure causing a couple mistakes. But on the other hand, he should play more the power forward role he is built for. He does well using his size and reach on the perimeter to control the puck, but he needs to show more intensity to take the puck to the net at times. He's not just there to set up others, or to wait for someone to set him up for a shot. He does those things well. But he also needs to create his own chances like a true power forward, and he hasn't done that much. There aren't a lot of D who are gonna win that battle often if he starts exerting himself in that way. If he starts doing that, I would say his point production starts heading north or a point a game, and the rest of his line would also see an increase.

Koho
12-15-2012, 08:11 PM
Not to mention the fact that traditionally 'prevent hockey' has not been a Gopher strength.

When they have a small lead I would like to still see them VERY aggressive on the forecheck and still trying to make plays, but with two forwards only! Then they need to ALWAYS make sure that the other forward and BOTH D do not get caught. They get in trouble when all the forwards get caught deep, and then one of the D misses on a pinch or misplays the puck at the blueline.

But I don't like seeing them get too cautious, too early, when they are willing to just dump it in or throw it in on net from the outside and hang back. This doesn't kill any time of the clock by keeping their opponent bottled up in their own end, but instead allows them a free and easy break out, with momentum coming back through the neutral zone.

I agree. Just want people to realize that it is that approach that also leads to Marshall trying to pinch in last week to keep the pressure on and giving up the odd man rush. That is the danger. That was a bad decision at any point in the game, and uncharacteristic of his play for most of this year. So you can see why the coaches might go with a single forechecker deep and chipping it out of the zone when there isn't a clear way to breakout. However, you have to trust your players to make the smart play more often than not. And when the Gophers have a lead, and have possession of the puck in the other team's zone, that is also a prevent defense, and one that is surely more fun for the fans.

D2D
12-15-2012, 09:42 PM
I agree. Just want people to realize that it is that approach that also leads to Marshall trying to pinch in last week to keep the pressure on and giving up the odd man rush. That is the danger. That was a bad decision at any point in the game, and uncharacteristic of his play for most of this year.

I don't believe that bad goal was the result of the "approach" that I was advocating, which in part said, "they need to ALWAYS make sure that the other forward and BOTH D do not get caught. They get in trouble when all the forwards get caught deep, and then one of the D misses on a pinch or misplays the puck at the blueline." Marshall missed badly on the pinch, and in fact on that play had little chance to keep it in the zone. He should have played it more conservatively in that situation, and you can bet he knew this right away...no doubt, a teachable moment without him even having to see the video replay. I would call this an individual mistake, unrelated to the SYSTEM being employed at the time.


So you can see why the coaches might go with a single forechecker deep and chipping it out of the zone when there isn't a clear way to breakout.

Two different things. I have no problem with the Gophers "chipping it out of the zone when there isn't a clear way to breakout". Always a good tactic when there is not a SURE pass to be made while breaking out and maintaining possession. My point was being more aggressive on the offensive zone forecheck, with two forwards down low, but absolutely making sure both D do not get beat and always having one forward back in position to defend against the opponent's rush.


However, you have to trust your players to make the smart play more often than not.

Well you do, to the extent that they're out there making the plays and you're not. But as I know you would agree the coaches still have to let them know, in no uncertain terms, what they expect them to do, given the circumstances at that particular moment in the game.


And when the Gophers have a lead, and have possession of the puck in the other team's zone, that is also a prevent defense, and one that is surely more fun for the fans.

Agree 100%! But coach however you have to coach to get the win, and surely that will result in "more fun for the fans". :)

Koho
12-15-2012, 10:20 PM
I don't believe that bad goal was the result of the "approach" that I was advocating, which in part said, "they need to ALWAYS make sure that the other forward and BOTH D do not get caught. They get in trouble when all the forwards get caught deep, and then one of the D misses on a pinch or misplays the puck at the blueline." Marshall missed badly on the pinch, and in fact on that play had little chance to keep it in the zone. He should have played it more conservatively in that situation, and you can bet he knew this right away...no doubt, a teachable moment without him even having to see the video replay. I would call this an individual mistake, unrelated to the SYSTEM being employed at the time.



Two different things. I have no problem with the Gophers "chipping it out of the zone when there isn't a clear way to breakout". Always a good tactic when there is not a SURE pass to be made while breaking out and maintaining possession. My point was being more aggressive on the offensive zone forecheck, with two forwards down low, but absolutely making sure both D do not get beat and always having one forward back in position to defend against the opponent's rush.



Well you do, to the extent that they're out there making the plays and you're not. But as I know you would agree the coaches still have to let them know, in no uncertain terms, what they expect them to do, given the circumstances at that particular moment in the game.



Agree 100%! But coach however you have to coach to get the win, and surely that will result in "more fun for the fans". :)

I think you took my comments as a personal criticism of your point, when it was just a comment to all the people who advocate for more aggressive play with the lead (as I have done for awhile), that the risk increases of a mistake costing the team by pushing too hard. I was not saying the coaches were telling Marshall to pinch in that situation (or that you were advocating for that sort of play), but that if the coaches say "we're going to keep the pedal to the metal rather than play in a shell", in that split second Marshall has to decide if he should go forward or drop back, he is more likely make that mistake to pinch in than if they were told to play conservatively.

And the comment about trusting the players, was meant to say that the coaches need to be able to trust them to execute late in the game with a lead with continued pressure, rather than have them play in a shell to avoid a mistake.

Of course all of this also depends on the player making the correct decision late in the game regardless of what the coaches said. He may be that this team plays more conservatively DESPITE the coaches. How a team plays is really decided by a series of decisions, often in a split second by each player on the team. If the majority of the players on the ice are nervous about being the one to mess up, they will be dumping the puck, or staying back rather than attacking in that split second, rather than holding a second longer like they did earlier in the game. And that can be contagious. I don't think this team has developed the full swagger to feel like they can win each game going away yet. And it is hard to judge what percentage of the play late in the game is due to coaching versus team make-up.

Stauber1
12-15-2012, 11:05 PM
Not going to try to quote each particular part of the preceding posts, I'll just say:

I get what Koho is saying. When developing a gameplan or "team identity" as a coach, often it gets broken down into simpler terminology like "we want to stay aggressive and put the pressure on them in their own end" or "when leading late in the game, we need to be a bit more conservative." Tactically, that can mean different things to different players, and sometimes different things to the same players depending on the situation. That's the gift of an effective coach (getting guys to understand those nuances) and the gift of aware players (recognizing when particular situations call for particular things).

To be a bit more concise, if the coaches are preaching that the team needs to continue to turn the screws offensively even when leading late in the game, that can lead to the kind of mistake we saw from Marshall last weekend. And if the coaches are preaching that they can't afford to take unnecessary risks when clutching a 1 goal lead in the waning minutes, that can lead to the "prevent hockey" that people have commented on. It's a maturation process, and I trust Lucia to help the guys along in that process in an effective manner. I'm really not concerned in the long run; just frustrated in the present.

As far as the talk about Bjugstad....I still maintain that given the current line combinations, he is being asked to fill too many roles right now. If Lucia really wants to keep Budish on a separate line, okay....but at least move Rau onto that line and give Bjugstad a little more support so that he can do the things that make him exceptional. Rau's numbers aren't that far off from last year, bu I get the feeling that is because Bjugstad is trying to play both the roles that he and Budish played last year. And while that is giving Rau some looks at the goal, it's preventing Bjugstad from being as productive himself.
And that has a bit of a snowball effect. He's not producing the way he knows/thinks he should, and that leads to "gripping the stick" a bit tighter or trying a little too hard to do a little too much a little too often.

Golden Tuuk
12-16-2012, 01:20 AM
but it is Bjugstad who scares me, at least, as a player whose size, along with his skills, gives him the tools to dominate, despite what teams do to contain him, much like Vanek did from time to time. Very few can do that.

Bugstad does not appear to be one of them to me. I mean he's a good player but I would never ever compare him to Thomas Vanek.