I always love seeing hockey analysis on this blog. Its my favorite sport and its great that michigan warrants it again. But Im curious what Brian would have had Norris do on the regroup to Cecconi in their own zown.
For starters, as brian states, the team besides Hughes was not even attempting a game of puck control, or true break outs. This more than BU being truly the better team, led to the hemming us in the zone, getting point shots on net, and being about to out shooting us by abig margin in the 3rd. The obvious counter to this is to control the puck, not play north and only north hockey, and work the puck east/west, open up passing lanes, stretch the forcheck, and even regroup when nothing is open. Norris, picked up a loose puck at the blueline, and rather than simply give it right back to BU at the red line where they can dump it or enter the zone keeping our tired players on the ice, he reversed, a roll away for non hockey lingoists. and dished the puck back to a non pressured D-man with time and space to survey they ice.
Hear is where Brian and I might disagree. He says Norris dished it back with two guys seemingly already bearing down on Cecconi. I believe they were in front of Norris and only dashed past him AFTER the regroup pass. Cecconi has to Corral the puck, survey the forcheck, and decide, but he had the time to do this effecticely. He should have realized that he had no option but to also reverse, take the puck behind net and set up another breakout. Instead he elected to take a risk. Im just a believer that he was not put in a bad situation by Norris. Norris tried to keep possesion rather than feed more puck possesion to BU for free which would allow them to continue to pound shots on Lavigne and Pound our D on the forcheck. Puck possesion is key. Cecconi has to be better there. Norris made the correct play
I always love seeing hockey analysis on this blog. Its my favorite sport and its great that michigan warrants it again. But Im curious what Brian would have had Norris do on the regroup to Cecconi in their own zown.
For starters, as brian states, the team besides Hughes was not even attempting a game of puck control, or true break outs. This more than BU being truly the better team, led to the hemming us in the zone, getting point shots on net, and being about to out shooting us by abig margin in the 3rd. The obvious counter to this is to control the puck, not play north and only north hockey, and work the puck east/west, open up passing lanes, stretch the forcheck, and even regroup when nothing is open. Norris, picked up a loose puck at the blueline, and rather than simply give it right back to BU at the red line where they can dump it or enter the zone keeping our tired players on the ice, he reversed, a roll away for non hockey lingoists. and dished the puck back to a non pressured D-man with time and space to survey they ice.
Hear is where Brian and I might disagree. He says Norris dished it back with two guys seemingly already bearing down on Cecconi. I believe they were in front of Norris and only dashed past him AFTER the regroup pass. Cecconi has to Corral the puck, survey the forcheck, and decide, but he had the time to do this effecticely. He should have realized that he had no option but to also reverse, take the puck behind net and set up another breakout. Instead he elected to take a risk. Im just a believer that he was not put in a bad situation by Norris. Norris tried to keep possesion rather than feed more puck possesion to BU for free which would allow them to continue to pound shots on Lavigne and Pound our D on the forcheck. Puck possesion is key. Cecconi has to be better there. Norris made the correct play
I wish i could upvote this vehemently. My favorite comment of the season thus far. Still the dumbest thing Rutgers could do is clearly get involed in a Land war in Asia.
Expect a 3rd to 4th place finish with upside of better. This was some of the best analysis ive seen for the hockey team on this site since ive been a reader. The team on defense looks good. Like he said they have 7 rotatable, to excellent D-men. They are all experienced save Hughes for the most part as well. Hughes talent makes up for it. I think he will be Michigans best defenseman this year.
For those that are unaware, d-men who are 5'8" to 5'10" being projected in the top 15 picks are very few and far between. That is a major nod by experts to his hockey knowledge(IQ as its called) his hands and talent, and his skating ability. Defensemen that small MUST make up for size and strength deficiencies with superior and bordering on uncanny natural talent and mental ability. They must play angles and remain one step ahead of competition. Think of Hughes like a Devin bush linebacker minus still being very strong.(bush is a freak) Linebackers like Bush make up for lack of height and body weight with speed, mental ability, and talent. If you wonder how Hughes plays or will play, look at film of Brian Rafalski. One of the best small defensemen of all time in the NHL. I link the wings downfall to Rafalski retiring.
As for forwards, Josh Norris is also a good talent. hes not a Kyle Connor or even Dylan Larkin, but he is a JT compher or Tyler Motte type talent. He may have slightly more upside. He will be around longer, not a 1 and done, so be ready to watch him. He will be a big reason that Lockwood takes off if he does. The bottom group for the forwards is a little unfortunate but its possible that the top 6 does a little better than the article suggets as well.
Hughes will be the reason if this team exceeds expectations ill say that right now. Teams with a calm, collected, steady presence with the puck on their stick on their back end tend to succeed more than not. QBs of the breakout, and of the PP are essential. The most important pass on the ice is the first pass, and that starts on the back end. Michigan has figured that out all too well these last 4 years, especially when we ran out of Merrills, Troubas, and Werenskis.
NHL teams that built around such defensemen: Kings-Doughty, Senators-Karlsson, Dallas-Klingberg, Florida-Ekblad, Washington-Carlson
were going to be asking Ulizio to go up agains Nick bosa.... or Hubbard... yeesh. As a UM fan i will support Ulizio no matter what. As a footbal fan i dont see anyway we can leave Ulizio on an island out there once on the day.
Want to see if Brohm is the next in line to just through the ball at an open space after a two step drop back in the shot gun. Folks that is not a recipe for success for any offense. You cant win games like that.
This game can still end up close but for Purdue to win it they will have to play real football at some point. When that time comes im confident in this D against them.
There is a replay that shows his back hand never grabbed jersey, and his arm never used leverage on the back side. This can be proven by how the DB falls to the ground. You can make the arguement that Crawford is behind the receiver but i think most people would agree he was to the side of the guy hence how he was able to get hands inside the DBs frame.
Technically speaking this isnt holding by the rule book. No hands outside the frame and he didnt pull the player backwards the player actually is push grabbed towards the endzone. Thats not getting hauled AWAY from the edzone which would be much more of a holding call. It looked worse than it was i think every ref calls this against any team. I dont know why people are upset but i think if you look in depth its truly a great effort and attempt to be a legal block
Youre allowed to hold inside the frame, be it one hand or two. If you watch the replay, and get the angle from the backside as shown at the stadium, it is clearly visible the arm that is behind the AF player, neither grabs nor touches the DB. This is also proven by physics, as the player would not have fallen in the direction and manner he did had Crawford grabbed the back of his jersey.
This was definitely a missed holding call, however not as egregious as Brian wants to make it or my father. Its hard as the refs in position to make that call can only assume what is going on behind the players back, and it does look bad due to the fact that crawfords arm is behind as well. No player should be able to one arm destroy block another athlete but crawford is 200 pounds almost and known for blocking, and that DB is probably at best 180. Its a legal block by the rule book. I will agree it looks bad however.
Recent Comments
I always love seeing hockey analysis on this blog. Its my favorite sport and its great that michigan warrants it again. But Im curious what Brian would have had Norris do on the regroup to Cecconi in their own zown.
For starters, as brian states, the team besides Hughes was not even attempting a game of puck control, or true break outs. This more than BU being truly the better team, led to the hemming us in the zone, getting point shots on net, and being about to out shooting us by abig margin in the 3rd. The obvious counter to this is to control the puck, not play north and only north hockey, and work the puck east/west, open up passing lanes, stretch the forcheck, and even regroup when nothing is open. Norris, picked up a loose puck at the blueline, and rather than simply give it right back to BU at the red line where they can dump it or enter the zone keeping our tired players on the ice, he reversed, a roll away for non hockey lingoists. and dished the puck back to a non pressured D-man with time and space to survey they ice.
Hear is where Brian and I might disagree. He says Norris dished it back with two guys seemingly already bearing down on Cecconi. I believe they were in front of Norris and only dashed past him AFTER the regroup pass. Cecconi has to Corral the puck, survey the forcheck, and decide, but he had the time to do this effecticely. He should have realized that he had no option but to also reverse, take the puck behind net and set up another breakout. Instead he elected to take a risk. Im just a believer that he was not put in a bad situation by Norris. Norris tried to keep possesion rather than feed more puck possesion to BU for free which would allow them to continue to pound shots on Lavigne and Pound our D on the forcheck. Puck possesion is key. Cecconi has to be better there. Norris made the correct play
I always love seeing hockey analysis on this blog. Its my favorite sport and its great that michigan warrants it again. But Im curious what Brian would have had Norris do on the regroup to Cecconi in their own zown.
For starters, as brian states, the team besides Hughes was not even attempting a game of puck control, or true break outs. This more than BU being truly the better team, led to the hemming us in the zone, getting point shots on net, and being about to out shooting us by abig margin in the 3rd. The obvious counter to this is to control the puck, not play north and only north hockey, and work the puck east/west, open up passing lanes, stretch the forcheck, and even regroup when nothing is open. Norris, picked up a loose puck at the blueline, and rather than simply give it right back to BU at the red line where they can dump it or enter the zone keeping our tired players on the ice, he reversed, a roll away for non hockey lingoists. and dished the puck back to a non pressured D-man with time and space to survey they ice.
Hear is where Brian and I might disagree. He says Norris dished it back with two guys seemingly already bearing down on Cecconi. I believe they were in front of Norris and only dashed past him AFTER the regroup pass. Cecconi has to Corral the puck, survey the forcheck, and decide, but he had the time to do this effecticely. He should have realized that he had no option but to also reverse, take the puck behind net and set up another breakout. Instead he elected to take a risk. Im just a believer that he was not put in a bad situation by Norris. Norris tried to keep possesion rather than feed more puck possesion to BU for free which would allow them to continue to pound shots on Lavigne and Pound our D on the forcheck. Puck possesion is key. Cecconi has to be better there. Norris made the correct play
I wish i could upvote this vehemently. My favorite comment of the season thus far. Still the dumbest thing Rutgers could do is clearly get involed in a Land war in Asia.
This trophy will never go away i wont let it.
Expect a 3rd to 4th place finish with upside of better. This was some of the best analysis ive seen for the hockey team on this site since ive been a reader. The team on defense looks good. Like he said they have 7 rotatable, to excellent D-men. They are all experienced save Hughes for the most part as well. Hughes talent makes up for it. I think he will be Michigans best defenseman this year.
For those that are unaware, d-men who are 5'8" to 5'10" being projected in the top 15 picks are very few and far between. That is a major nod by experts to his hockey knowledge(IQ as its called) his hands and talent, and his skating ability. Defensemen that small MUST make up for size and strength deficiencies with superior and bordering on uncanny natural talent and mental ability. They must play angles and remain one step ahead of competition. Think of Hughes like a Devin bush linebacker minus still being very strong.(bush is a freak) Linebackers like Bush make up for lack of height and body weight with speed, mental ability, and talent. If you wonder how Hughes plays or will play, look at film of Brian Rafalski. One of the best small defensemen of all time in the NHL. I link the wings downfall to Rafalski retiring.
As for forwards, Josh Norris is also a good talent. hes not a Kyle Connor or even Dylan Larkin, but he is a JT compher or Tyler Motte type talent. He may have slightly more upside. He will be around longer, not a 1 and done, so be ready to watch him. He will be a big reason that Lockwood takes off if he does. The bottom group for the forwards is a little unfortunate but its possible that the top 6 does a little better than the article suggets as well.
Hughes will be the reason if this team exceeds expectations ill say that right now. Teams with a calm, collected, steady presence with the puck on their stick on their back end tend to succeed more than not. QBs of the breakout, and of the PP are essential. The most important pass on the ice is the first pass, and that starts on the back end. Michigan has figured that out all too well these last 4 years, especially when we ran out of Merrills, Troubas, and Werenskis.
NHL teams that built around such defensemen: Kings-Doughty, Senators-Karlsson, Dallas-Klingberg, Florida-Ekblad, Washington-Carlson
were going to be asking Ulizio to go up agains Nick bosa.... or Hubbard... yeesh. As a UM fan i will support Ulizio no matter what. As a footbal fan i dont see anyway we can leave Ulizio on an island out there once on the day.
Want to see if Brohm is the next in line to just through the ball at an open space after a two step drop back in the shot gun. Folks that is not a recipe for success for any offense. You cant win games like that.
This game can still end up close but for Purdue to win it they will have to play real football at some point. When that time comes im confident in this D against them.
There is a replay that shows his back hand never grabbed jersey, and his arm never used leverage on the back side. This can be proven by how the DB falls to the ground. You can make the arguement that Crawford is behind the receiver but i think most people would agree he was to the side of the guy hence how he was able to get hands inside the DBs frame.
Technically speaking this isnt holding by the rule book. No hands outside the frame and he didnt pull the player backwards the player actually is push grabbed towards the endzone. Thats not getting hauled AWAY from the edzone which would be much more of a holding call. It looked worse than it was i think every ref calls this against any team. I dont know why people are upset but i think if you look in depth its truly a great effort and attempt to be a legal block
Youre allowed to hold inside the frame, be it one hand or two. If you watch the replay, and get the angle from the backside as shown at the stadium, it is clearly visible the arm that is behind the AF player, neither grabs nor touches the DB. This is also proven by physics, as the player would not have fallen in the direction and manner he did had Crawford grabbed the back of his jersey.
This was definitely a missed holding call, however not as egregious as Brian wants to make it or my father. Its hard as the refs in position to make that call can only assume what is going on behind the players back, and it does look bad due to the fact that crawfords arm is behind as well. No player should be able to one arm destroy block another athlete but crawford is 200 pounds almost and known for blocking, and that DB is probably at best 180. Its a legal block by the rule book. I will agree it looks bad however.