Page 2 of 3
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:40 pm
by hockeyxfan01
I doubt Tartan will get a shut out against Hill, even with the missing players. This will hurt them but really, 10-0? I'm definitely not a fan of Hill but that's a little ridiculous.
Tartan 5
Hill 1
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:29 pm
by GreekChurch
titanzdman wrote:sachishi4 wrote:what exactly makes Tartan magically so good they can blow HM out? You think Timmy will allow 8 goals? We have played without Alex Kelly and Kohls was non existant for some games already this year. Widing will hurt the most, and prescott can be replaced. The younger Sova and younger Phillippi can probably step up and be on Varsity now and they are both good players. Loren French may make the jump too
Timmy S!!! He's what you're banking on? He's an untested average at best, little sophmore goaltender. He has been blessed to play with above average players in front of him! Well...now he's gonna have to show that he's better than average, cuz he's lost 4 horses!!! Tartan will go low stickside on Timmy all day. Now you're bringing up JV players to fill in spots??? Sorry bud, they're on JV for a reason, not ready for the BIG SHOW! The transfer rule the state implemented last year hurt HM's depth. Now you're gonna have to go deeeeep into that daunted JV team roster to come up with some truly average hockey players to fill in. TARTAN wins!!! Bank on it!!!
They are Hill Murrays JV for a reason, not just any JV. There are a few on that team that could play in the SHOW with many high school teams. I don't know how they will respond after losing 4 top players, not to mention their losing skid they've been on, but they still will have as much talent on the ice as Tartan even with JV call ups. To think they won't is pure ignorance.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:58 pm
by DoubleDeuce
Just my opinion comming your way. It don't mean that's the way it shoud be. I feel bad for these kids, but not the program (that's another opinion for another day). I understand they signed the waiver, but booting them off for the season is too harsh. They didn't hurt anybody did they. They made a mistake. If the MSHSL states a 3 game suspension, shouldn't that be good enough? OK maybe a second violation would be acceptable to me. Kid's make mistakes that they think they can get away with, they can learn from these mistakes. If it WERE just a 3 game suspension, don't you think these kids would be embarrased enough from just that being out there publicly? "Hey! I'll never do that again!" is what I think they would say unless there is a bigger problem. Were all these kids seniors? And if not, will it hurt them getting on the team next year. Will this hurt them in any way for College hockey be it at any level? Again, I know they signed a waiver and it's done. It won't be changed, I just don't think it's right!
Let me add this. I'm not a religious person at all, but WWJD? This is a Catholic School after all - Forgive and forget?
Too good
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:21 pm
by HShockeyz
Feel bad for the players and parents but couldn't have happened to a better school. Now they get to play with the depth most of their conference has.
Very interesting to see the quality of shots go up and how they react to that. I wish I could go but from what i saw in a couple games this year, I would say Tartan 5-2. Goalies weak and Tartan will get more quality shots today than ever before on a Hill team.
Glad the Cadets got their's in so there is no asterisk, no questions the Cadets out coached and outplayed them in Hills home rink. Watching Vannellis team pick off and deflect Hill's break out passes left and right without Hill EVER changing strategy, was stunning. Great coaching vs not so... Good Goaltending vs not so...
About the only way Tartan can lose is poor coaching and poor scouting, cause there is a big weakness on Hill.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 2:35 pm
by TheNightman
All I can say is, it's a good day to be a White Bear fan. I'll take Tartan 56-0.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:26 pm
by mnhcky65
People should stop feeling so bad for the team and players. Also, who cares if the names and offenses are dropped on here. If i am not mistaken there was a thread last year all about the WHite Bear players who were kicked off and the names and offenses were dropped very soon after the incident.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:29 pm
by mnhcky65
DoubleDeuce wrote:Just my opinion comming your way. It don't mean that's the way it shoud be. I feel bad for these kids, but not the program (that's another opinion for another day). I understand they signed the waiver, but booting them off for the season is too harsh. They didn't hurt anybody did they. They made a mistake. If the MSHSL states a 3 game suspension, shouldn't that be good enough? OK maybe a second violation would be acceptable to me. Kid's make mistakes that they think they can get away with, they can learn from these mistakes. If it WERE just a 3 game suspension, don't you think these kids would be embarrased enough from just that being out there publicly? "Hey! I'll never do that again!" is what I think they would say unless there is a bigger problem. Were all these kids seniors? And if not, will it hurt them getting on the team next year. Will this hurt them in any way for College hockey be it at any level? Again, I know they signed a waiver and it's done. It won't be changed, I just don't think it's right!
Let me add this. I'm not a religious person at all, but WWJD? This is a Catholic School after all - Forgive and forget?
I heard this was the second or maybe even third offense by these kids.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:32 pm
by Scoutbanana
I think everybody agrees the kids should face the consequences, and if people feel bad, so what everyone makes mistakes, hopefully they will learn by them. All kids make mistakes it is a part of growing, I know I did and if anyone thinks that there kids are not making them they are fools, they are the ones that just don't get caught. Why does anyone really need to know the names go to the game you will know then -really is it anyones business but the families and school.
Mnhockey ---- don't post if you do not know your facts first offense------
HM - Tartan
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:40 pm
by stpaul
After 1
HM 1, Tartan 0
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:45 pm
by hockeyfan2009
mnhcky65 wrote:DoubleDeuce wrote:Just my opinion comming your way. It don't mean that's the way it shoud be. I feel bad for these kids, but not the program (that's another opinion for another day). I understand they signed the waiver, but booting them off for the season is too harsh. They didn't hurt anybody did they. They made a mistake. If the MSHSL states a 3 game suspension, shouldn't that be good enough? OK maybe a second violation would be acceptable to me. Kid's make mistakes that they think they can get away with, they can learn from these mistakes. If it WERE just a 3 game suspension, don't you think these kids would be embarrased enough from just that being out there publicly? "Hey! I'll never do that again!" is what I think they would say unless there is a bigger problem. Were all these kids seniors? And if not, will it hurt them getting on the team next year. Will this hurt them in any way for College hockey be it at any level? Again, I know they signed a waiver and it's done. It won't be changed, I just don't think it's right!
Let me add this. I'm not a religious person at all, but WWJD? This is a Catholic School after all - Forgive and forget?
I heard this was the second or maybe even third offense by these kids.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:46 pm
by Husky88
Hill is winning 1 to 0 after one period .... I wonder if Titanzdman is still sticking with Tartan in a laugher over Hill?
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 3:50 pm
by hockeyfan2009
This was a couple of the kids first offense. Do not post unless you know what your talking about. I feel bad for the first offenders as they were not given a second chance. Life's lessons are hard ones sometimes and too bad these kids had to learn the hard way. Hopefully, the kids and families can heal from this. Other kids from other schools get caught for the same things but I guess HM has higher standards. These kids ruined it for themselves, they just were not thinking.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:03 pm
by sachishi4
Lechner means business. He is a man of his word and trust me, these kids won't be back. He has high expectations for his players and getting busted with what the did goes against his rules. You don't think it hurts him as much as it hurts these kids? He knows what he just let go and the probability of not making it to state or even the section final.
It was one of the kids second offense, too.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:06 pm
by hockeyfan2009
I said 2 of the kids it was their first offense, and he has given others second chances and even third chances. He should probably be looking at other kids also.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:12 pm
by east hockey
Husky88 wrote:Hill is winning 1 to 0 after one period .... I wonder if Titanzdman is still sticking with Tartan in a laugher over Hill?
It would be kind to say Titanzdman doesn't know much about hockey. That had to be as bad a prediction as I've seen on this Board, and I've seen a lot.
Sometimes newbies need to post less and read more before making themselves look foolish.
Lee
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:31 pm
by Husky88
After 2 periods, Hill is still winning 1 to 0.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:32 pm
by Scoutbanana
Sonds to me like maybe different kids are held at different standards some can have one, some two, some three. I know someone that was caught with possesion at the same school and only received three game suspension. So maybe they should set there standards equally for all.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 4:52 pm
by douglasdoright
sachishi4 wrote:Lechner means business. He is a man of his word and trust me, these kids won't be back. He has high expectations for his players and getting busted with what the did goes against his rules. You don't think it hurts him as much as it hurts these kids? He knows what he just let go and the probability of not making it to state or even the section final.
It was one of the kids second offense, too.
You have to respect a coach that is a man of his word. That might not happen in other situations. Good for Lechner....he obviously has been Hill's coach for many years for good reason. Life's lessons can stink sometimes, but I am hopeful that it will all work out fine.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:00 pm
by hockeyfan2009
But is he of his word if he gave others 2 and 3 chances.........you know the penalty should fit the crime and I agree they should have consequences but one offense and out for the rest of the year is unjust.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:03 pm
by douglasdoright
What was the final???
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:04 pm
by Indians forever
last heard it was going into ot. anyone have an update???
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:23 pm
by GreekChurch
1-1 final
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:26 pm
by Indians forever
GreekChurch wrote:1-1 final
Ouch looks like Hill is fading!!!
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:48 pm
by pucknutz
Indians forever wrote:GreekChurch wrote:1-1 final
Ouch looks like Hill is fading!!!
Hill only faded because of the short bench! An exciting back and forth game. Titanzdman is ignorant, don't ever kick a dog when it's down. Shaugnessy played like a veteran, both goalies made several nice saves. Tartan looked impressive...seemed to have more jump at the end. Tartan fans were very "nice" no ugly chants. All in all the best $6 i've spent this year.
Posted: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:09 pm
by thorhockey
Goalie battle with Hill having more quality chances.
Gierke comes up big for the Titans with 35 saves. Shaugnessy with 33
Good game Hill, thanks for the entertainment. Best 6 bucks I spent too.
The place was packed with standing room only (not a rivalry huh PPG??) Good sportsmanship from the Titan fans - plenty of chances to embarrass the Hill players but was proud that they kept their mouth shut. I'm sure other teams won't be as nice in up coming contests. We shall see