HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

MGnosmirc21 wrote:Blow outs are classless if they are intentional. Sometimes when the reserve players are getting more playing time, they tend to want to impress. You can't blame them for playing hard on limited opportunities. If the big-guns on a team are still in there, and still firing away, yes.

Agreed. I also consider things like:

Who was doing all the playing/scoring in the 3rd period for the winning team? (1st Line Forwards or the 5th/6th D?)
Was the losing team asking for it by taking cheap shots, etc.?
Was it a non-conference game that didn't need to be scheduled?

Also I will agree that these games are fun for nobody. I'm not sure why people insist that the star players shouldn't have to stop trying to score when the score is 12-0. Reality is most of th star players could care less about scoring another goal at that point.

As for the question, the answer is usually, "No". And in HS sports there is no way to avoid it. IMO, the best thing to do is to swap forwards and D and roll 4 lines, giving the 3rd & 4th liners the longer shifts.

Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

So it's okay if this is a non-conference game that both coaches agreed on, but it's not okay if it's a conference game the superior team didn't want and the inferior team WANTED. Not sure I can come up with a comparable analogy without being completely insulting to both parties. They are also playing St Thomas, Mahtomedi, SSP and the rest of the conference twice. I hope Schroeder can get 8+ assists that night.

If a scrawny guy starts taunting a thug in a dark alley, do you blame the thug for the bloody nose? I don't.

Just my two cents

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

The hypothetical question I wonder to those who complain; if the better team has to put away their top 2 lines, does the other team as well?

HShockeywatcher wrote:

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

The hypothetical question I wonder to those who complain; if the better team has to put away their top 2 lines, does the other team as well?

Of course not, that wouldn't be fair!!

HShockeywatcher wrote:

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

The hypothetical question I wonder to those who complain; if the better team has to put away their top 2 lines, does the other team as well?

Did you ever play hockey? Trust me, the top line players don't care about missing a shift or mixing it up when they are up by 15. They are usually asking if they can play a couple shifts at Defense, play a shift centering 2 of their buddies from the 4th line, etc.

Again I think the answer to the original question is, no they are usually not classless, and in HS sports it is just part of the process.

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

I think Jack has spent too much time on his ship!!!

Jack Sparrow wrote:

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM? :roll:

WOW

OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

I had heard that they were offered the same one-4pt game that was offered/accepted by Richfield & Simley, but they turned it down. I wonder if they will want to only play one game next year? U-think this years thumping had anything to do with that?

High Flyer wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:

PuckU126 wrote: It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

I had heard that they were offered the same one-4pt game that was offered/accepted by Richfield & Simley, but they turned it down. I wonder if they will want to only play one game next year? U-think this years thumping had anything to do with that?

The first meeting ended 7-1. No question that was the case.


DubCHAGuy, no, never. Which is why I ask a lot of questions. My question wasn't to say the lines should stay the same, but that the players should still get to play.

If in this situation, would teams ever play a man down to work on PK scenarios without a man in the box? Or would that be too insulting? Or maybe put 6 guys on the ice so they could do that?

DubCHAGuy wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:

PuckU126 wrote: It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

The hypothetical question I wonder to those who complain; if the better team has to put away their top 2 lines, does the other team as well?

Did you ever play hockey? Trust me, the top line players don't care about missing a shift or mixing it up when they are up by 15. They are usually asking if they can play a couple shifts at Defense, play a shift centering 2 of their buddies from the 4th line, etc.

Again I think the answer to the original question is, no they are usually not classless, and in HS sports it is just part of the process.

You are right DCG. It is not classless, it is cruel and embarrassing.

HShockeywatcher wrote:

High Flyer wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote: OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

I had heard that they were offered the same one-4pt game that was offered/accepted by Richfield & Simley, but they turned it down. I wonder if they will want to only play one game next year? U-think this years thumping had anything to do with that?

The first meeting ended 7-1. No question that was the case.


DubCHAGuy, no, never. Which is why I ask a lot of questions. My question wasn't to say the lines should stay the same, but that the players should still get to play.

If in this situation, would teams ever play a man down to work on PK scenarios without a man in the box? Or would that be too insulting? Or maybe put 6 guys on the ice so they could do that?

If I wanted to make a point and had to play a team twice, I would wait till the second game and then run up the score on that one. If you do it the first time, there might be some hard feelings that can turn ugly.

Jack Sparrow wrote:

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:Hill beats Sibley 17 - 2 last week ... 3rd period at about 13 -1 LEX finaly puts in his 4th line. 5 seconds on the ice and they draw a penalty.
Out comes the 1st line power play unit... 4th line back to the bench so Lex can pad his ego.

WOW

It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

If you think it was 13 - 1 in the third period you didn't watch the game.

Me, I was at the game. And the lines were played evenly. Answer HS's question Jack: should HM sit their top two lines? Take time away from players that have earned their positions.. Wrong. And besides even if Lechner told his team to go easy; do you honestly think all of them would? Kids will be kids; they're going to take every opportunity to score and they are going to try their hardest each shift.

Easy on the bottle Jack; your smear campaign on private schools (most of the time HM) is classless. Look in the mirror.
NO CLASS

HShockeywatcher wrote:

High Flyer wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote: OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

I had heard that they were offered the same one-4pt game that was offered/accepted by Richfield & Simley, but they turned it down. I wonder if they will want to only play one game next year? U-think this years thumping had anything to do with that?

The first meeting ended 7-1. No question that was the case.


DubCHAGuy, no, never. Which is why I ask a lot of questions. My question wasn't to say the lines should stay the same, but that the players should still get to play.

If in this situation, would teams ever play a man down to work on PK scenarios without a man in the box? Or would that be too insulting? Or maybe put 6 guys on the ice so they could do that?

Then I misunderstood what you meant, and I would have to say then that I agree, just mixing things up and giving the 3rd or 4th liners more ice time is all a coach really needs to do.

In the Hill/Sibley case, I wasnt there. But what was the penalty for? If a Sibley guy takes a slash to the back of a HM player's leg or something like that, I wouldn't blame Lechner for putting a couple more on the board.

Puck126 and Pioner Pride guy--please explain your definition of 'playing equally'? I was at the game and you are so wrong. R u kidding me? at least be honest. For instance what is your definition of the #1 power play going out when it is 10-1 or 15-1 per Hockey Hub? Are you really going to even try to defend honestly? Put the glass down and back away from the koolaide.

I think you might be missing the point...Coach Lechner is a class act. Normally in these games, the first and sometimes the second lines don't see the ice after the first period. The first game of the season against Sibley was played under the "play nice" and don't embarass the other team.

When Sibley demanded they play HM twice, I suspect the point was "ok, game on. We are here to play hockey."

If the Sibley coach wanted to force HM to play them twice instead of using that game to play like competetion for both teams, then they should expect a real game, and then both teams should be able to play -- Not just HM's 3rd and 4th line.

Murphy wrote:I think you might be missing the point...Coach Lechner is a class act. Normally in these games, the first and sometimes the second lines don't see the ice after the first period. The first game of the season against Sibley was played under the "play nice" and don't embarass the other team.

When Sibley demanded they play HM twice, I suspect the point was "ok, game on. We are here to play hockey."

If the Sibley coach wanted to force HM to play them twice instead of using that game to play like competetion for both teams, then they should expect a real game, and then both teams should be able to play -- Not just HM's 3rd and 4th line.

Thank you Murphy; my observation exactly.

First two periods, HM gave them all they had. 3rd rolls along and the entire team was utilized more evenly. Thats what I saw. Proof is in the numbers, HM racked up 15 in the first two and only 2 in the third (all even strength goals in the 3rd).

And HM only runs 2 PP lines and they were used in the third. It appeared by this time not only was the mercy rule running down the clock, but it also held back the entire HM team. Ask any coach what a team does when they are blowing out their competition. Most likely they'll say the team will work on breaking out a different way or use a different type of forecheck. (that's how I remember it) Anything to work on during their ice time.

So now wingman, Jack, who ever... Answer HShockeywatcher's question: would you sit your top two lines? Would you take ice time away from your players that have EARNED their position?

More food for thought; could we change the scheduling rules so teams could retroactively cancel games that aren't competitive and replace them with teams that are more competitive?

Believe me when I say---no one on HM's team has EARNED anything. Ask the 4th liner who was a top returning scorer--what did he earn? I'll tell you -NOTHING-Your arguement is flawed signifcantly. lines 1-4 mean nothing and have earned nothing in a game won 17-2. Again are you kidding me? What have you done for me lately--that is the message and the earning equation--but not in a game won 17-2. No value - get it?

Oh and lets blame the team that plays them--yea its their fault. Again missed by a mile......

wingman wrote:Believe me when I say---no one on HM's team has EARNED anything. Ask the 4th liner who was a top returning scorer--what did he earn? I'll tell you -NOTHING-Your arguement is flawed signifcantly. lines 1-4 mean nothing and have earned nothing in a game won 17-2. Again are you kidding me? What have you done for me lately--that is the message and the earning equation--but not in a game won 17-2. No value - get it?

Oh and lets blame the team that plays them--yea its their fault. Again missed by a mile......

All of your points are hear say and you provide a total lack of explanations for them! If you have some personal vendetta (which it strongly seems) against HM, Lechner, a kid on the team, save it. Instead give us some information that means something; we all want to hear!

And nor did ANYONE say HM and its players earned credit for beating a team they were expected too. Their track record at practice, how they perform in the games they play are how the players earned their spots.

PuckU126 wrote:

Jack Sparrow wrote:

PuckU126 wrote: It was 15-2 going into the 3rd and ALL lines were played evenly.

Would you like to fabricate any other false information that besmirches HM?

WOW

OK better yet maybe it was 15 - 2 (whatever)
Hill has considerable depth and maybe the most talented 4th line in the state. (wasted talent) Youre right - pour it on - the 1st line power play needs that extra practice in a blow out game.

If you think all lines were played even you did not watch the game. 4th line had a couple shifts earlier in the game (like 20 second shifts) and actally scored. I suppose lex does not want to keep them in to long, they might score more goals then he would have to rationalize why he does not give them more ice?

This post is about class or classless blowout- Lex could have done it with class but he chose the short bench.
NO CLASS

If you think it was 13 - 1 in the third period you didn't watch the game.

Me, I was at the game. And the lines were played evenly. Answer HS's question Jack: should HM sit their top two lines? Take time away from players that have earned their positions.. Wrong. And besides even if Lechner told his team to go easy; do you honestly think all of them would? Kids will be kids; they're going to take every opportunity to score and they are going to try their hardest each shift.

Easy on the bottle Jack; your smear campaign on private schools (most of the time HM) is classless. Look in the mirror.
NO CLASS

Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid.

It's CAPTAIN Jack Sparrow to you boy...SAVVY!

wingman wrote:Believe me when I say---no one on HM's team has EARNED anything. Ask the 4th liner who was a top returning scorer--what did he earn? I'll tell you -NOTHING-Your arguement is flawed signifcantly. lines 1-4 mean nothing and have earned nothing in a game won 17-2. Again are you kidding me? What have you done for me lately--that is the message and the earning equation--but not in a game won 17-2. No value - get it?

Oh and lets blame the team that plays them--yea its their fault. Again missed by a mile......

Sorry Wingman these boys must not be members of the happy seamen club. You know .. with parents that are college hockey coaches or lunch room ladies....

HShockeywatcher wrote:More food for thought; could we change the scheduling rules so teams could retroactively cancel games that aren't competitive and replace them with teams that are more competitive?

It's a nice idea; it'd have been nice if, for example, Duluth East could've replaced their sure-to-be-ugly game with Princeton that got snowed out with Edina, who would have given up their game with St. Louis Park. SLP and Princeton could then have played, and everyone would have gained a lot more. But it might be too difficult to work logistically. Hard to say.

On an unrelated note, looks like Bill Lechner is learning what it's like to be a highly successful coach. Nothing forces a coach under the microscope like success and high praise from other people. I'm sure Mike Randolph and many others could commiserate.

And let's also make sure we don't get too heated, please.

karl(east) wrote:

HShockeywatcher wrote:More food for thought; could we change the scheduling rules so teams could retroactively cancel games that aren't competitive and replace them with teams that are more competitive?

It's a nice idea; it'd have been nice if, for example, Duluth East could've replaced their sure-to-be-ugly game with Princeton that got snowed out with Edina, who would have given up their game with St. Louis Park. SLP and Princeton could then have played, and everyone would have gained a lot more. But it might be too difficult to work logistically. Hard to say.

On an unrelated note, looks like Bill Lechner is learning what it's like to be a highly successful coach. Nothing forces a coach under the microscope like success and high praise from other people. I'm sure Mike Randolph and many others could commiserate.

And let's also make sure we don't get too heated, please.

Heated is one thing, off topic is another. The thread is about blow outs and how they reflect on a team, not a specific game played. Start a thread if you'd like to keep bambling on about this game.

As far as the game goes, 14 players on Hill's team got points. One person had 1g7a, another 2g4a, two with 0g3a and the back up goalie played the 2nd and 3rd. The score could've easily been 30-1 and the game could've easily been avoided.

This game, and many lopsided match ups cannot be avoided; what I'm hearing is mix up your lines. To those who've been on the losing end of this; is this similar to them giving up in how it makes you feel? If you see the opponent mixing up roles and still rolling all over you, is that any better?

Does it help your development more to continue to defend against good forwards or to defend against defensemen playing forward?