PDA

View Full Version : North Dakota at Minnesota 1/18-1/19 - Just Ring The F*ing Bell You Pansy



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

Bonin21
01-19-2013, 12:01 AM
Again, Minnesota had nothing to do with North Dakota's poor passing, poor decision making, and a lack of effort.
So if the Gophers were replaced by a Mites team, these same things would've happened? Confused.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:01 AM
I feel fine regardless of what you think. We won :D

Do you really think that North Dakota played well?

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:03 AM
So if the Gophers were replaced by a Mites team, these same things would've happened? Confused.

Yes. North Dakota's poor passing, poor decision making, and lack of effort had nothing to do with the opponent.

Now, I would think that our speed, talent, and size would overcome a Mites team...unless Wilcox was in goal. :p:D:D

HarleyMC
01-19-2013, 12:05 AM
Harley appears to be going with the JDubbs defense of not proving any evidence to back up his claim.

I thought that was your line?

Golden Tuuk
01-19-2013, 12:05 AM
I don't think Minnesota had anything to do with constantly missing wide open passes, poor/shaky goaltending, poor decision making when you have all day in your own end, and playing with a lack of emotion. It wouldn't have mattered if we were playing Sacred Heart or Minnesota tonight...we weren't going to win.

Minnesota played well. As I've said many times, they are a pretty consistent group. They didn't play lights out tonight, but they didn't need to either. That being said, Minnesota wasn't the reason that North Dakota played as awful as they did. Tonight's loss was completely on North Dakota playing like, in the words of the eloquent KenGernanderguy, "poop."



This is true. If North Dakota had played decent, and Minnesota played very well, then I would think Minnesota would win. Maybe we'll see that storyline tomorrow. I would rather see that than the abomination on ice that I saw tonight.

Too many preposterous statements in your quotes to count. Stop the blather, your posts don't even make sense.

Bonin21
01-19-2013, 12:06 AM
Yes. North Dakota's poor passing, poor decision making, and lack of effort had nothing to do with the opponent.

Now, I would think that our speed, talent, and size would overcome a Mites team...unless Wilcox was in goal. :p:D:D
If you guys couldn't go tape to tape against a Mites team, I'm a little worried for you haha

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:06 AM
Too many preposterous statements in your quotes to count. Stop the blather, your posts don't even make sense.

I'm sorry that you can't follow what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I am not explaining it as well as I should be.

Enjoy your victory.

HarleyMC
01-19-2013, 12:06 AM
Well for one the Gophers did block shooting lanes and force some bad passes and pressured in the offensive zone, which can create turnovers. I thought the Gophers also played great on the back end and gave little to NoDak for most of the game minus a chance here and there.

The Gophers didn't have to show up tonight. They didn't affect the Whioux's play at all. Any team could have laced up and beaten the Whioux tonight, even Sacred Heart. Someone please punch FS23 in the mouth.

state of hockey
01-19-2013, 12:06 AM
Do you really think that North Dakota played well?

I don't. They came out strong, but were also cautious during the "get a feel for your opponent" stage. Things went stagnant for them after the PP goal. But after the Gophers went up 3-1, they turned it on again. Bad luck led to the shorty by Condon and the wheels fell off.

Dirty
01-19-2013, 12:06 AM
I thought that was your line?

I haven't made any claims in this thread, sport.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:07 AM
If you guys couldn't go tape to tape against a Mites team, I'm a little worried for you haha

Going tape to tape should have nothing to do with the opponent if the lane is there.

Gurtholfin
01-19-2013, 12:11 AM
Harley appears to be going with the JDubbs defense of not proving any evidence to back up his claim.


He's also a big crabby-pants.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:12 AM
I don't. They came out strong, but were also cautious during the "get a feel for your opponent" stage. Things went stagnant for them after the PP goal. But after the Gophers went up 3-1, they turned it on again. Bad luck led to the shorty by Condon and the wheels fell off.

The first 20 was less than stellar, but Minnesota wasn't very good either...it was a pretty even period. The 2nd period is where North Dakota just couldn't get things going. I was hopeful that the PP goal would get the guys going and start playing with some emotion, but it just never happened. They played well for about a 5-6 minute stretch in the 3rd, but Wilcox came up with some nice saves to keep the Gophers ahead. The Shorty was a combination of bad luck and just a great play by Condon.

Initially, I felt Saunders was awful, but in reflecting on the game, I don't think he played all that poorly. The first goal was a very good shot by Budish. The 2nd goal was a softie for Saunders, but he certainly didn't get bailed out by his teammates the way he should...that was the back breaker (as I said in the Score Updates thread at the time). The 3rd goal was a weird deflection, and again, the Condon shorty was just a great shot...although Saunders may have been a tish out of position. Obviously, Saunders wasn't in net for the 5th goal...a weird decision by Hakstol...something he almost never does, but perhaps he was trying to send a message to his team.

Bonin21
01-19-2013, 12:12 AM
Going tape to tape should have nothing to do with the opponent if the lane is there.
Well color me confused. So if you were playing Mites, you still wouldn't complete passes in open lanes? Pressure from the Gophers (a lot more pressure than a 5-year-old could apply) did NOTHING to cause passes to miss?

HarleyMC
01-19-2013, 12:14 AM
i haven't made any claims in this thread, sport.


you keep making all these crazy claims but never have any evidence to back them up.

:d

MinnesotaNorthStar
01-19-2013, 12:15 AM
Sorry, but still sounds like sour grapes to me. Minnesota was the better team tonight, and is the better team in general IMO. Though it isn't by much.Minnesota was the better team tonight. Neither team brought their A game.

One of the most poorly played games in this series all around, and there aren't many of those.

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:15 AM
Well color me confused. So if you were playing Mites, you still wouldn't complete passes in open lanes? Pressure from the Gophers (a lot more pressure than a 5-year-old could apply) did NOTHING to cause passes to miss?

For example, North Dakota was failing on passes in our own zone when there were no Minnesota players in the zone. If you want to claim that Minnesota was causing pressure to disrupt those passes, I would claim that you need to get your vision checked.

willythekid
01-19-2013, 12:15 AM
The better team won tonight... if UND doesn't get some major things squared away, it's going to be much worse tomorrow. Congrats to gopher fans on the win.

MinnesotaNorthStar
01-19-2013, 12:16 AM
Well color me confused. So if you were playing Mites, you still wouldn't complete passes in open lanes? Pressure from the Gophers (a lot more pressure than a 5-year-old could apply) did NOTHING to cause passes to miss?What part of unpressured passes are you not comprehending?

Fighting Sioux 23
01-19-2013, 12:16 AM
Minnesota was the better team tonight. Neither team brought their A game.

One of the most poorly played games in this series all around, and there aren't many of those.

Agreed. Minnesota was less than stellar. I thought they played about average. I just thought that North Dakota played awful.