HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

TheMeanRichJokeMan wrote:

scoreboard33 wrote:
BTW, read fightingsiousforevers post about how if AHA has a good day defensively against Edina and you will see my point.

While his post was poorly worded and slightly arrogant, It could happen. Defensive breakdowns killed AHA the other night. If they were to say tighten things up defensively the outcome could be different. I don't think Edina (or any team) can play much better than they did thursday. And while AHA wasn't bad, They certainly were not at their best. What does this all mean? Maybe nothing, Maybe Edina will beat them again in sections. But then again Maybe it means something, Maybe it means that one game is no way to judge exactly where two teams sit and what their chances are for the rest of the season.

I also find it kinda funny that on tuesday some people were calling AHA's 6-2 win over STA close(r) because AHA scored all their goal in a couple of flurries. The Edina game was remarkably similar and suddenly it's a it's an arse whooping of epic proportions.

scoreboard33 wrote:

TheMeanRichJokeMan wrote:

scoreboard33 wrote:
BTW, read fightingsiousforevers post about how if AHA has a good day defensively against Edina and you will see my point.

While his post was poorly worded and slightly arrogant, It could happen. Defensive breakdowns killed AHA the other night. If they were to say tighten things up defensively the outcome could be different. I don't think Edina (or any team) can play much better than they did thursday. And while AHA wasn't bad, They certainly were not at their best. What does this all mean? Maybe nothing, Maybe Edina will beat them again in sections. But then again Maybe it means something, Maybe it means that one game is no way to judge exactly where two teams sit and what their chances are for the rest of the season.

I also find it kinda funny that on tuesday some people were calling AHA's 6-2 win over STA close(r) because AHA scored all their goal in a couple of flurries. The Edina game was remarkably similar and suddenly it's a it's an arse whooping of epic proportions.

Shots were 40-18 and Edina controlled the play of the game the entire time. Edina held the offensive zone for most of the game and broke the out with ease and amazing speed. If Edina pressured for the third period the game would have been a lot worse.

Defensive breakdowns weren't really the problem for AHA, Edina's offense was. You can say that AHA wasn't at there best, but have no way of knowing whether AHA really was at there best and Edina really was that much better.

He said AHA would win all ten games in a row against Edina if they played their best. That is the definition of arrogance and probably something that would never happen. We'll never know, but I'd guess most people will agree that that won't happen.

oneIdmonsta wrote: and i really dnt think punctuation and grammar really matter on a hockey forum my main mean joke man

FightingSiouxForever wrote:

scoreboard33 wrote:

TheMeanRichJokeMan wrote: While his post was poorly worded and slightly arrogant, It could happen. Defensive breakdowns killed AHA the other night. If they were to say tighten things up defensively the outcome could be different. I don't think Edina (or any team) can play much better than they did thursday. And while AHA wasn't bad, They certainly were not at their best. What does this all mean? Maybe nothing, Maybe Edina will beat them again in sections. But then again Maybe it means something, Maybe it means that one game is no way to judge exactly where two teams sit and what their chances are for the rest of the season.

I also find it kinda funny that on tuesday some people were calling AHA's 6-2 win over STA close(r) because AHA scored all their goal in a couple of flurries. The Edina game was remarkably similar and suddenly it's a it's an arse whooping of epic proportions.

Shots were 40-18 and Edina controlled the play of the game the entire time. Edina held the offensive zone for most of the game and broke the out with ease and amazing speed. If Edina pressured for the third period the game would have been a lot worse.

Defensive breakdowns weren't really the problem for AHA, Edina's offense was. You can say that AHA wasn't at there best, but have no way of knowing whether AHA really was at there best and Edina really was that much better.

He said AHA would win all ten games in a row against Edina if they played their best. That is the definition of arrogance and probably something that would never happen. We'll never know, but I'd guess most people will agree that that won't happen.

Really now? I posted that they would win all ten games? Read the orginal post. I did not give out an exact number of who would win those games. That's just blasphemy!

9 out of 10? Thats rather an outlandish statement. Edina is a good team and AHA didn't play exceptionally well. Play the Stars on a good day (defense) and they will sweep the Hornets. AHA has a lot to work on until Sections and Trebil is still trying to work out all the kinks with the first and second line.

Sure, AHA probably won't "sweep" the Hornets. Wrong wording, I apologize---if that's what you want. I was simply just defending my alma mater, but it really does not need any defending. It's fighting for a lost cause. Why waste the time to beat this subject down anymore that it already has?

Go Stars

oneIdmonsta wrote:oh you're so correct I forgot to place an o and an apostrophe in my use of the word don't. I am so terribly sorry, all the extra schooling at AHA really must help the stars on the ice, seeing as it has made you such a genius. Having nothing better to do than point out grammar mistakes on a forum about a sport that has past by the glory days of when you played or maybe just sat, my what a great life you have!