Alaska-Anchorage v. GOPHERS

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Sun 11/01/09 9:10 pm

Greyeagle wrote:

by **bienek** » Sun 11/01/09 9:16 pm

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DHG- Remember when there was someone referring to as "Dumb Hockey guy". Well, you're sounding pretty Dumb!

I know, I am dumb. But I am not the person who keeps taking the bait, so I guess that makes you and him extremely dumb then, eh?

I know, I am wicked cleaver.

No, you're not cleaver, Just Dumb

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Sun 11/01/09 9:18 pm

bienek wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DHG- Remember when there was someone referring to as "Dumb Hockey guy". Well, you're sounding pretty Dumb!

I know, I am dumb. But I am not the person who keeps taking the bait, so I guess that makes you and him extremely dumb then, eh?

I know, I am wicked cleaver.

No, you're not cleaver, Just Dumb

God, I am going to go away and cry now never to post again. I got called dumb. I just don't know what to do, if only I could find a 10 story building. :bored:

by **ex_goldy** » Sun 11/01/09 9:19 pm

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DHG- Remember when there was someone referring to as "Dumb Hockey guy". Well, you're sounding pretty Dumb!

I know, I am dumb. But I am not the person who keeps taking the bait, so I guess that makes you and him extremely dumb then, eh?

I know, I am wicked cleaver.

No, you're not cleaver, Just Dumb

God, I am going to go away and cry now never to post again. I got called dumb. I just don't know what to do, if only I could find a 10 story building.

There's a couple in Duluth. If you need any help, just ask.

by **GOPHER FREAK** » Sun 11/01/09 9:20 pm

Nice weekend for the Gophers.

Now next weekend is huge. A sweep by the Badgers and we are right back where we started. If the Gophers sweep, we are on our way. If the can get through the next four games 3-1 we are in good shape.

by **Melvin** » Sun 11/01/09 9:32 pm

Jupiter wrote:
DMP wrote:Some.. what's the word here?... interesting reading:

http://uaafan.blogspot.com/

Donald is an idiot.... No seriously, he's an idiot. There is a reason why he was booted off this site and other sites too.

Yeah he is a piece of work, he has been kicked off Sioux Sports as well as USCHO. He said the hit was legal so I guess he is the expert eh? UAA is not good and the minute they get behind they try running the opposition through the boards.
Portwood is a waste of skin. Does anyone have a YouTube Video of the hit?

by **Iceburg** » Sun 11/01/09 9:34 pm

A little short, but you can't beat the view :mrgreen:

by **bienek** » Sun 11/01/09 9:35 pm

GOPHER FREAK wrote:Nice weekend for the Gophers.

Now next weekend is huge. A sweep by the Badgers and we are right back where we started. If the Gophers sweep, we are on our way. If the can get through the next four games 3-1 we are in good shape.

We need to keep the ball rolling, I was thinking the same about going 3-1 in the next four games. That would put us right in the middle of the pack with alot of season to play.

by **Hobey Baker** » Sun 11/01/09 9:36 pm

Handyman wrote:
Franklin wrote:
Golden FE Ranger wrote:I have to agree that the hit appeared legal to me. The rule as stated would suggest that there would be a penalty, but I think there is an implied intent for the player to make the contact to the head. For example, if I fall down and slide headfirst into the goalie, does he get a penalty for making contact with my head? It is hard to penalize a player if the oppenent puts themself in a bad position. It appeared to me that the AA player did everything to keep his arms down and make a clean, but aggressive hit. I wish Nick a speedy recovery.

I hope the teams both keep todays game clean and don't turn it into a penalty fest.

Hitting to the head is never legal, end of story. It's not subjective like a baseball strike zone. The rule is in place to protect players from injury. Contact to the head in football is illegal and called.

At the youth level, you teach kids that checking is used to separate players from the puck. In the case of Leddy, the puck had already been released and he was in a vulnerable position.

As for keeping it clean, Herb Brooks would have that picture in the locker room.

Good luck to the Gophers today, speedy recovery for Nick.

That is ridiculous...then you might as well field a team of midgets because no one will be able to touch them for fear of making contact to the head accidentally. Tall players will be handcuffed against checking because of it. How can someone who is 6 feet tall or greater check a guy 5' 5'' legally if you enforce that rule to the letter?

Youth level is one thing, but college level?

Good game again today. It was nice to hear the "Battle Hymn" again. Kangas was very good .. he is seeing the puck well and made the big save when the team needed it. I love watching Matson play .. he plays so hard and you see that the kid has some skill.

As for the Leddy hit, when it happened, i too thought it was late, up high and cheap. We should have seen a penalty called on that play, IMO. Leddy had his head down but the AA player took two plus steps and drilled Leddy (without the puck).

Just an FYI, the suites and club room are ghost towns without the alcohol upstairs. It is sad because the atmosphere is shell of itself. A lot of empty seats on Friday and Sunday (Vikes had something to do with it also).

by **Handyman** » Sun 11/01/09 9:37 pm

How boring is your existence if the highlight of your day is going to another teams website to talk smack...

Now come on, quote KFAN and make yourself sound really cool :roll:

As for Leddy...Wooger had the same opinion as me...I will defer to him.

by **Hobey Baker** » Sun 11/01/09 9:43 pm

Handyman wrote:
As for Leddy...Wooger had the same opinion as me...I will defer to him.

YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING? You just lost the little amount of credibility that you had left!!! Most of the stuff Wooger says is back asswards or just flat out wrong!

by **g_manpucker** » Sun 11/01/09 9:43 pm

Going into the weekend some people might have been worried that the more "mature" seapups might be able to throw their age around against the Gophers. I think that the Gophers played extremely well compared to the two previous series this year. They showed some urgency and the balls to skate the puck into the zone and create some opportunites...and take advantage of some of those opportunities. Was it a perfect weekend...no. Their were a lot of defensive mis-cues that NEED to be addressed, Kangas definitely kept the score low today...d-men hung him out quite a few times. tDon even showed a little fire during interviews and during the game...nice to see! Losing Leddy for 6-8 weeks sucks because I think him losing this game experience hurts him a bit. Highlights of the weekend were Tony, Jordan, and Alex having big weekends...Lowlights were the defense at times, lazy skating, and poor passing when they weren't playing with some urgency. If they take the positives and look at the negatives and improve, I think a 3 point weekend is possible against becky...but they can't afford a let down, because becky will be up for this game.

by **ex_goldy** » Sun 11/01/09 10:52 pm

I was impressed at how many people were at the game. Some are saying on here it was a minimal crowd and it was low but I've seen a lot less people before. The student section was at their best and the team won, so all is well in gopher hockey land. If they had lost I don't know what the hemmoraging would have been like on this board. I am still impressed with Kangas, the D left him high and dry several times and he came through. He should have been the heart of the game, Lucia got it which was a surprise. The D is improving, better this year than last year, but that's not saying much. I'm looking forward to next weekend. If they gained some momentum from this it'll be a great series. I really like what I saw from Matson, Budish is moving up, and Carmen even had more presence in the middle. Barribal continues to be the fire in this team. If he doesn't dress the team isn't going to win. Hoefel is not improving, Stoa's replacement - he's not. Ness is a work in progress. Defensively he's a puck mover, not a man mover, and when he passed to Shroeder, more than once today it's on his backhand. A couple of times Schroeder was poised for a slapper and Ness passes it to the wrong side. He'll be a Gopher for another year after this one, maybe longer. The power play was bad, but not awful - AA didn't score shorthanded.

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Sun 11/01/09 11:57 pm

Handyman wrote:How boring is your existence if the highlight of your day is going to another teams website to talk smack...

Now come on, quote KFAN and make yourself sound really cool

As for Leddy...Wooger had the same opinion as me...I will defer to him.

Wow handy, way to wake up on the wrong side of the bed today. I always loved that one......now I'm cool. :dance:

You definitely know me well though, this for sure was the highlight of the day....or watching the vikes win might have been, or putting together the baby room for my kids on the way....but nope, this was definitely it. You're a fantastic judge of people man. You should think about being a shrink. To think, you didn't even need me in a room on a couch to know what I was thinking. :bored:

by **Handyman** » Mon 11/02/09 12:00 am

I am in a great mood, I just think it is rather lame how much you post on this site in hopes of getting people's goat. But hey whatever keeps you off the ledge...

Did I strike a nerve DHG? Nice edit on your post...looks like someone can't take it when people don't think he is the funniest guy around...oh well carry on here I will even set you up...IALTO.

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Mon 11/02/09 12:06 am

Handyman wrote:I am in a great mood, I just think it is rather lame how much you post on this site in hopes of getting people's goat. But hey whatever keeps you off the ledge...

Did I strike a nerve DHG? Nice edit on your post...looks like someone can't take it when people don't think he is the funniest guy around...oh well carry on here I will even set you up...IALTO.

Edit to my post....trying to figure out what you are talking about there. Nope no nerve, just wanted you to know unfortunately for you, this site isn't the highlight of my day, maybe 3 or 4 on the list, but not number 1.

by **Handyman** » Mon 11/02/09 12:12 am

Your original post was had nothing about the Vikings game or putting together your babies room or any of that BS...it had a KFAN line and you saying "I am cool" or something similar. Its ok, you post as much as anyone around here (more than me on this side) we all know you can't get away from it.

Don't worry Jup I am done...just wasn't going to let trollboy post too much without someone calling him out on it.

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Mon 11/02/09 12:25 am

Handyman wrote:
Don't worry Jup I am done...just wasn't going to let trollboy post too much without someone calling him out on it.

Well thank god for that. As for the edit, i never edited it, so you might want to check your computer.

by **MhdGopher** » Mon 11/02/09 1:00 am

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DHG- Remember when there was someone referring to as "Dumb Hockey guy". Well, you're sounding pretty Dumb!

I know, I am dumb. But I am not the person who keeps taking the bait, so I guess that makes you and him extremely dumb then, eh?

I know, I am wicked cleaver.

I really didn't take your bait Spongebob. It just get's tiresome for those of us that aren't in your clique to have to read through your 5 year old "did too.....did not....my dad is bigger than your dad" arguments with people on here on a daily basis. They add nothing to the content of the site and I get enough of that with my kids......but at least with them, it's funny.

The fact of the matter is if you weren't buddies with the people that run the website, you'd have been banned for being a troll a long time ago. As I've said before, your act is tired. That you haven't been banned is unfortunate for the rest of us and to be honest, it isn't a positive for the site that you haven't been.

My 2 cents.

by **trixR4kids** » Mon 11/02/09 3:08 am

Our team definitely showed some improvement in a lot of areas, most noteably intensity. We really played well from the opening puck drop both nights which is something that has been lacking for a while. Last year we couldn't get a friday win or a sweep against any teams for that matter, and Alaska is a team with a lot of seniors. They aren't a great team but those are some points worth noting.

Also glad to see people like Patrick White create more goals and Hoefful causing problems in front of the net.

It will be interesting to see how we do against better goaltending though, that could be a problem.

by **Slap Shot** » Mon 11/02/09 4:11 am

The rule of no tolerance for hits to the head is pretty black and white. The hit on Leddy should have been a penalty. Was it cheap? I don't know I won't make that call, but it was a hit to the head.

As for the weekend, it was good to get a sweep and score some goals but they will need to improve dramatically (especially the PP) to have any chance in Madison.

by **Zwak** » Mon 11/02/09 6:04 am

Favorite Woog - Mazzocco exchange from the weekend and in a long time (slightly paraphrased).

Frank (talking about Budish): "He's a very imposing figure"
Doug: "Yeah, and he's a big guy too"
Frank: "That would make him an imposing figure"

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Mon 11/02/09 6:37 am

Slap Shot wrote:The rule of no tolerance for hits to the head is pretty black and white. The hit on Leddy should have been a penalty. Was it cheap? I don't know I won't make that call, but it was a hit to the head.

As for the weekend, it was good to get a sweep and score some goals but they will need to improve dramatically (especially the PP) to have any chance in Madison.

So any word on how long he is out for?

by **go4hcky** » Mon 11/02/09 6:49 am

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
Slap Shot wrote:The rule of no tolerance for hits to the head is pretty black and white. The hit on Leddy should have been a penalty. Was it cheap? I don't know I won't make that call, but it was a hit to the head.

As for the weekend, it was good to get a sweep and score some goals but they will need to improve dramatically (especially the PP) to have any chance in Madison.

So any word on how long he is out for?

Lucia told us last night that they aren't going to wire his jaw and hopefully he's back in less than 6 weeks. But it could be more depending on how Leddy can cope with it.

by **Neely** » Mon 11/02/09 8:11 am

trixR4kids wrote:Our team definitely showed some improvement in a lot of areas, most noteably intensity. We really played well from the opening puck drop both nights which is something that has been lacking for a while. Last year we couldn't get a friday win or a sweep against any teams for that matter, and Alaska is a team with a lot of seniors. They aren't a great team but those are some points worth noting.

Also glad to see people like Patrick White create more goals and Hoefful causing problems in front of the net.

It will be interesting to see how we do against better goaltending though, that could be a problem.

It was nice to see the boys get rewarded for some hard work. Some great chances were created and a even a few more pucks could have been buried.

I was surprised, however, by the number of odd man rushes against us. There were seveal times where our defense was trying to pinch with a 3 goal lead that led to 2 on 1s the other way. A bad Kangas and the outcome could have been different. It sounds like Wisconsin is the real deal so I think a split next weekend would be a very good result for our squad.

by **Breakaway** » Mon 11/02/09 12:25 pm

Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

by **Breakaway** » Mon 11/02/09 12:38 pm

... And while waiting for this Friday's game, enjoy the following news passage from an Anchorage reporter:

"...Kangas ran the show against the Seawolves.

He rebuffed Kevin Clark and Tommy Grant early. He robbed Clark on a power-play rebound late in the first period. He snuffed Daniel Naslund's point-blank foray early in the second period -- granted, Naslund mustered only mediocre wood on his shot -- and dismissed Jade Portwood's breakaway bid late in the period."

by **FIRE HELMET GUY #26** » Mon 11/02/09 12:45 pm

Breakaway wrote:Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

by **Breakaway** » Mon 11/02/09 12:46 pm

FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:
Breakaway wrote:Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

Dunno. He talked to Shepherd, it says, but it didn't say what about, specifically. I say if you're talking to Shepherd in the first place, you're wasting your time. :roll:

by **Cardinal** » Mon 11/02/09 1:13 pm

FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:
Breakaway wrote:Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

Could be doing it just to show he has his player's backs in situations like this that could help the player-coach relationship(s) down the road.

Kind of like Chilly going for it on 4th-and-short yesterday ... didn't get the goal accomplished on the field since Green Bay stuffed them, but at the same time the players liked that he had confidence in them, etc.

by **Doc Holliday** » Mon 11/02/09 1:16 pm

Zwak wrote:Favorite Woog - Mazzocco exchange from the weekend and in a long time (slightly paraphrased).

Frank (talking about Budish): "He's a very imposing figure"
Doug: "Yeah, and he's a big guy too"
Frank: "That would make him an imposing figure"

Honestly, the first thing I thought of when I heard that was another addition to the GPL Woogism's section.

by **pjoyn** » Mon 11/02/09 1:28 pm

Cardinal wrote:
FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:
Breakaway wrote:Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

Could be doing it just to show he has his player's backs in situations like this that could help the player-coach relationship(s) down the road.

Kind of like Chilly going for it on 4th-and-short yesterday ... didn't get the goal accomplished on the field since Green Bay stuffed them, but at the same time the players liked that he had confidence in them, etc.

Maybe Richards called from the Wild and told Don that if he not going to develop these kids, the least he could do is protect their investment. :wink:

by **FIRE HELMET GUY #26** » Mon 11/02/09 1:34 pm

pjoyn wrote:
Cardinal wrote:
FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:
Breakaway wrote:Don Lucia has now done a 180 on his view of the Leddy situation:

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/684445 ... DieyckcUsI

Good news: Now it's a maximum of 6 weeks, with a probability of being less than that.

What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

Could be doing it just to show he has his player's backs in situations like this that could help the player-coach relationship(s) down the road.

Kind of like Chilly going for it on 4th-and-short yesterday ... didn't get the goal accomplished on the field since Green Bay stuffed them, but at the same time the players liked that he had confidence in them, etc.

Maybe Richards called from the Wild and told Don that if he not going to develop these kids, the least he could do is protect their investment.

I always.....I always......I always loved that one!!!

by **Eliot Rosewater** » Mon 11/02/09 1:43 pm

FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

I don't understand the argument that because Leddy's head was down it is somehow OK to make contact with his head, even though contact with the head is specifically against the rules, under any circumstance, with a zero-tolerance clause.

Can you help me better understand why you think the "no contact with the head" rule should be ignored just because Leddy had his head down?

by **FIRE HELMET GUY #26** » Mon 11/02/09 1:53 pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote:
FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:What does he want to get out of this? I don't think it warrants a suspension on the UAA players part. Was just one of those things that happens in hockey, Leddy had his head down.

I don't understand the argument that because Leddy's head was down it is somehow OK to make contact with his head, even though contact with the head is specifically against the rules, under any circumstance, with a zero-tolerance clause.

Can you help me better understand why you think the "no contact with the head" rule should be ignored just because Leddy had his head down?

Granted I haven't seen the replay THAT many times to me it was a "clean" hit, not a dirty hit. Leddy had his head down obviously not seeing the UAA player. The UAA player appeared to be taller then Leddy and it looked to me like it was just a bad accident. Did it warrant a penalty during the game? Probably,just because of the rule. But to go after it now just seems silly.

by **Eliot Rosewater** » Mon 11/02/09 2:05 pm

I agree that going after the player and trying to get him suspended isn't really doing any good. At most the guy should have gotten a penalty, maybe a major. I'm not even sure he should have been kicked out of the Friday game (or does a major penalty == kicked out of the game). I don't think a suspension is in order at all.

I do, however, think there is merit in bringing the incident to the attention to the league so that they can reiterate the zero-tolerance aspect of the rule to the referees and have them pay particular attention to this in the future.

by **FIRE HELMET GUY #26** » Mon 11/02/09 2:08 pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote:I agree that going after the player and trying to get him suspended isn't really doing any good. At most the guy should have gotten a penalty, maybe a major. I'm not even sure he should have been kicked out of the Friday game (or does a major penalty == kicked out of the game). I don't think a suspension is in order at all.

I do, however, think there is merit in bringing the incident to the attention to the league so that they can reiterate the zero-tolerance aspect of the rule to the referees and have them pay particular attention to this in the future.

Agreed. The article makes it sound like Lucia is going to argue the UAA player should be suspended for a game or two, thats what I don't agree with at all!

by **ex_goldy** » Mon 11/02/09 2:10 pm

MhdGopher wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:
bienek wrote:
DHG- Remember when there was someone referring to as "Dumb Hockey guy". Well, you're sounding pretty Dumb!

I know, I am dumb. But I am not the person who keeps taking the bait, so I guess that makes you and him extremely dumb then, eh?

I know, I am wicked cleaver.

I really didn't take your bait Spongebob. It just get's tiresome for those of us that aren't in your clique to have to read through your 5 year old "did too.....did not....my dad is bigger than your dad" arguments with people on here on a daily basis. They add nothing to the content of the site and I get enough of that with my kids......but at least with them, it's funny.

The fact of the matter is if you weren't buddies with the people that run the website, you'd have been banned for being a troll a long time ago. As I've said before, your act is tired. That you haven't been banned is unfortunate for the rest of us and to be honest, it isn't a positive for the site that you haven't been.

My 2 cents.

wow, more like 20 cents. It needed a bump.

by **Eliot Rosewater** » Mon 11/02/09 2:21 pm

FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:Agreed. The article makes it sound like Lucia is going to argue the UAA player should be suspended for a game or two, thats what I don't agree with at all!

Now that I think about it, maybe they should have given him a major and game misconduct, which is pretty much what they do with with a dangerous check from behind. That sounds fair to me. Is there any instance when a check from behind is called and a player gets suspended for the next game?

by **Lars Sauve** » Mon 11/02/09 3:06 pm

Eliot Rosewater wrote:
FIRE HELMET GUY #26 wrote:Agreed. The article makes it sound like Lucia is going to argue the UAA player should be suspended for a game or two, thats what I don't agree with at all!

Now that I think about it, maybe they should have given him a major and game misconduct, which is pretty much what they do with with a dangerous check from behind. That sounds fair to me. Is there any instance when a check from behind is called and a player gets suspended for the next game?

Players can be given a game disqualification instead of a game misconduct when they receive a checking from behind major. Craig Smith of Wisconsin was DQ'd for one against Mankato recently (Wisconsin added the second game to the suspension).

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Mon 11/02/09 10:08 pm

So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

by **JWG** » Mon 11/02/09 10:10 pm

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

No, and I'm gonna get beat for saying this, but the UAA player didn't leave his feet, so Leddy's is technically worse.

by **Gopher** » Mon 11/02/09 10:13 pm

DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

That hit is totally ok because the kid getting hit is from Edina. :dance:

by **Next Crosby** » Mon 11/02/09 10:29 pm

Gopher wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

That hit is totally ok because the kid getting hit is from Edina.

by **DrunkHockeyGuy** » Mon 11/02/09 10:40 pm

Gopher wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

That hit is totally ok because the kid getting hit is from Edina.

Well played, lets just hope that Budish doesn't see that eh?

by **Breakaway** » Mon 11/02/09 10:51 pm

A comment from Woog I found funny from Friday's game (re-watching it now):

Gophers get their first PP.
Woog: "All right, here we go, about to be the number one power play in the nation... after this, they're gonna be one for one."
Frank: (after a minute) "Are you gonna erase the previous twenty to give them that hundred percent?"
Woog: "Yep."

by **dxmnkd316** » Mon 11/02/09 11:25 pm

Gopher wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

That hit is totally ok because the kid getting hit is from Edina.

I'm officially nominating this for the hall of fame. Second?

by **ex_goldy** » Mon 11/02/09 11:35 pm

Gopher wrote:
DrunkHockeyGuy wrote:So is this hit Leddy is putting on this Edina kid similar to the hit the UAA guy put on him? Leaving his feet and a shot to the head?

That hit is totally ok because the kid getting hit is from Edina.

Wow, that is funny! Anyone from Edina?

HoF - second.

by **Slap Shot** » Tue 11/03/09 6:19 am

Breakaway wrote:A comment from Woog I found funny from Friday's game (re-watching it now):

Gophers get their first PP.
Woog: "All right, here we go, about to be the number one power play in the nation... after this, they're gonna be one for one."
Frank: (after a minute) "Are you gonna erase the previous twenty to give them that hundred percent?"
Woog: "Yep."

Love Woog, and credit to Frank for playing the straight man to set him up.

by **Loc85** » Tue 11/03/09 9:31 am

Breakaway wrote:A comment from Woog I found funny from Friday's game (re-watching it now):

Gophers get their first PP.
Woog: "All right, here we go, about to be the number one power play in the nation... after this, they're gonna be one for one."
Frank: (after a minute) "Are you gonna erase the previous twenty to give them that hundred percent?"
Woog: "Yep."

Anyone else hear this one? (paraphrased a bit)

Doug: I am trying to figure out if there's a powerplay?
Frank: Look at the scoreboard. Do you see that black area on the lower half?

Who is online