There could be more...
by Kbyrnes (2018-04-08 13:17:04)
Edited on 2018-04-08 13:32:11

In reply to: Uh, there was alot more to my post than the subject line ...  posted by MinnesotaFats


...This is an issue, I suppose, when anyone posts their conclusions--they have a head full of thoughts justifying what they feel, but rarely are those thoughts laid out in a careful analytic manner. Here's the main substance of what you posted:

"Our line changes throughout the entire game were head-scratching, the 2 goals given up were incredibly soft, and the offensive scheming, especially, in the 3rd period, was, well, awful. We managed 5 shots in the most important period of hockey in the history of the program (and really only 1 of those shots had a prayer of a chance of going in), and that was with being down 2-1 with our backs against the wall and nothing to lose."

That text provides plenty of opinion, but I don't believe it has plenty of content. It could, if you'd supply it. It would be interesting to know exactly what about the line changes made them head-scratching, and what about the offensive scheming was awful. It's not that I think you're wrong--it's that I don't know exactly what you're referring to and thus there's nothing of substance to respond to.


on the line changes, you're right ...
by MinnesotaFats  (2018-04-08 13:35:37)     cannot delete  |  Edit  |  Return to Board  |  Ignore Poster   |   Highlight Poster  |   Reply to Post

I didn't provide any context to that. I wasn't referring to the line changes during clock stoppage time. Those seemed to me to be fine, as Jackson had the last line change (if I recall correctly, because we were the higher seed) and appeared to be putting what he thought to be the right combo of players in response to who UMD put out there. What I thought was head scratching was the line changes on the fly. I was at the game, sitting very high up, so I could see all of that. Way too often (in my opinion) we would carry the puck into the neutral zone and 3 players would immediately head to the bench while the puck carrier dumped the puck in. That was probably the product of shortening the shifts, but it decreased the number of forechecking opportunities, and opportunities to make plays in UMD's zone because their simply weren't players to chase the puck. The very few number of shots we had in the game, and particularly in the 3rd period (only 5 in the 3rd period) I think was a product of this.