No intent to fan any flames, but I'll try to clarify some of my
views following Scott M's post...which was VERY MUCH
appreciated despite the apparent differences in our views.
 
RE: KEITH ALDRIDGE
It's a statement of fact that Scott knows more about hockey
than I do, and I'm willing to accept that part of the reason that
I was so hard on Aldridge is that I'm admittedly an Aldridge
fan, but I still think Keith stunk up Yost on Friday.  Scott's correct
in that Aldridge didn't get any help from his partner, Teddy
Laviolette.  (And Scott McCabe looked like a forward turned
defenseman...which he is...on several occasions.)  Still, it's
my opinion that Aldridge was too physical (in many cases,
chippy) on Friday.  Scott says that Keith played a solid game
given that he had to cover everyone else's mistakes.  I don't
have the benefit of watching the game tape to look for that.
I just know that when I noticed Aldridge during the game it was:
(A) because he was fighting for the puck in the corner or on
the boards; (B) he was physically engaged with a UM player
away from the puck; or (C) he was being escorted to the penalty
box.  If Aldridge was trying to light a fire under his teammates
and pull them out of their funk with his physical play that's fine,
but it didn't work.  For my money, Aldridge spent too much time
in the box given that the Lakers needed him on the ice.  And,
when on the ice, he spent too much time being in the face of
a UM player.  Maybe I should congratulate Michigan for taking
Aldridge off of his game in this respect, but I still think it was
Aldridge himself that tried to heat things up and he didn't have
a backup plan for when Michigan didn't fully retaliate.  (Don't
get me wrong, Michigan chipped right back.  But I think Aldridge
was trying to get a couple of Wolverines, particularly Botterill
and later Morrison, to take a swing at him and, somewhat
surprisingly, they didn't.  It was good strategy on Aldridge's
part in the first period, but I don't think it was later in the game.)
 
RE: MORRISON TAKING OUT CASTER (Laker goaltender)
Scott's tone seems to suggest that we disagree regarding
this incident, but I don't think we do.  I think Morrison hit Caster
low (as Scott says) AND high (as Steve Bartley says).  Again,
I don't have the luxury of watching the tape like Scott does, but
it was definitely a deliberate cheap shot.  And, I would be even
more disappointed in Aldridge's performance if he hadn't come
to the defense of his goaltender.  So, Scott and I agree.  My only
beef is that Aldridge and Morrison should have been sitting in
the penalty box before the incident even occurred.  They were
chipping at each other earlier in the shift and referee Steve
Piotrowski should have given them coincidental minors for that.
He didn't, and it escalated into Morrison hitting Caster, Aldridge
hitting Morrison, and so on.  It didn't need to reach that point.
 
RE: TRZCINSKI & TALLAIRE BROTHERS
Scott responded to some of my friend's comments, which I posted.
They weren't my comments, but I generally agree with the opinions
that he was offering.  Scott mentioned that Trzcinski was injured and
that he was "brutal."  Of course, we didn't know that he was injured,
all that we could see was the brutal part...so no disagreement, right?
As for the (disappearance of the) Tallaire brothers, Scott references
a great play.  Gerald T did set up Darcy George for what SHOULD
have been the tying (3-3) goal, but George piped it.  That may have
been the turning point in the game.  Instead, Matt Herr gets a late
goal in the period and it's a 4-2 game rather than 3-3.  But, that's
the only time I really noticed Gerald T.  Scott mentioned that Sean
Tallaire was on an experimental line and that the experiment was
over. :-)  That was basically my point.  Sean T is having an All-
America season (leading the CCHA in goals), but was fairly non-
existent in the Michigan game.  So, I don't think we disagree on
anything here.
 
RE: LARRY PEDRIE
Yeah, my friend took a cheap shot at UIC coach Larry Pedrie.  And,
I fully agree with him.  And, I see Scott's point as well.  UIC's penalty
minutes over the past couple of seasons indicate that the Flames
don't do any more cheap shotting than other CCHA teams.  However,
you'll have a hard time selling that in the Ann Arbor area.  There
has been MUCH bad blood between UM and UIC over the past
few years.  And, UIC has had Michigan's number, more so than
their overall records would indicate.  Maybe the UIC-LSSU games
are rather cordial, but every time I see UIC I can't help but feeling
that they are a bunch of punks.  They've toned down over the last
couple of seasons, because they were REALLY rough around 1992-93.
I don't know what more to say about this.  Scott came to Pedrie's
defense, but I think it's going to fall on deaf ears.  The Flames aren't
as cheap as they used to be, I'd be a liar if I denied that, but I'm
also not going to easily forget some of the "crap" that Pedrie's
gang has pulled since he's been at UIC.  (Again, this pertains to
some UIC-UM games.  If you've seen a clean UIC team otherwise,
I'll gladly acknowledge you as a character witness for Pedrie,
but you're not going to change my mind about some of the things
that have gone on in Ann Arbor.)
 
RE: CLUTCH & GRAB
I should simply apologize to Scott for this comment, because it's
going to take too long to explain.  Here's what I said, paraphrasing
the post-game comments of my friend:
 
>  -- That team plays less like Lake Superior than any team I've
>ever seen.  (Said with respect and admiration for LSSU's generally
>rugged, tight-defensed style...OK, call it clutch and grab...which
>we both thoroughly enjoy.)
 
I think the root of the disagreement here is semantics.  My "OK, call
it clutch and grab" should have had a smiley face with it.  I LOVE the
classic Laker defensive style.  From a hockey standpoint, I'd rather
see LSSU smother a team 3-1 than see an 8-6 game between two
freewheeling teams (don't have a real good example at the moment).
I realize that I'm in a vast minority on Hockey-L for saying this, but
that's what I enjoy.  I love tight defense.  I didn't mean to strike a
nerve by insinuating that LSSU bends the rules.  Personally, I see
very little defense between "tight defense" and "clutch and grab",
but the former is more PC.  The Lakers get their share of whistles
and I believe they play "on the verge of getting a penalty" more so
than any other team.  This is a COMPLIMENT.  Lake State can
smother you and take fewer penalties in doing so than any other
team can if they tried a similar strategy.  LSSU is simply good at
it.  I'm sorry if people interpret this as a backhanded compliment,
because it's not meant to be.  I think there is (and SHOULD be)
some leniency for holding, hooking, interfering, etc.  Yes, you can
actually do some of these things...to a certain degree...and not
warrant a penalty.  (I'm still hearing it from some friends out East
who want an interference penalty on the Lakers' second goal in the
1994 NCAA semifinal versus Harvard.  Meanwhile, I think it was the
prettiest play I saw all season.)  If a penalty is called, chances are
a penalty was deserved.  If a penalty isn't called, file it under tight
play.  (Yeah, yeah, yeah...positioning, etc, is also a major part,
but set that aside for the moment.)  I believe that LSSU has the
ability to play right on top of this fine line, and I haven't seen
another team that I can say that about.  That is truly a compliment,
from the heart.  It's so rare that I find someone else that appreciates
LSSU's style (and I have to believe that Scott falls into this
category :-), that the last thing I want to do is argue amongst ourselves.
 
RE: MICHIGAN AT LAKE SUPERIOR IN FEBRUARY
Scott is correct, Michigan may have just prodded a sleeping
giant in LSSU.  I'm very much looking forward to the series up
north later in the season...win or lose those games should be
great.  In my heart, I want to believe that UM and LSSU are the
two best teams in the CCHA, and I think that may prove to be
the case late in the season...which makes the late February
contests even more important/exciting.
 
Bottom line: after Scott's post, I think it appeared that there was
some big disagreements between us...but I don't believe that
to be true.  I think we have one genuine difference of opinion...
Aldridge's play versus Michigan.  The Pedrie issue is a different
matter.  Frankly, I'm going to be bull-headed on that, to the point
that I don't really care what UIC does against other teams.  I'm
going to feel like I do until the Flames and Wolverines can
actually be civil with one another for an extended period.  And,
I think Pedrie is the root of UIC's struggles.
 
On with the games!
 
 
John H ([log in to unmask]) Happy Holidays!
 
HOCKEY-L is for discussion of college ice hockey;  send information to
[log in to unmask], The College Hockey Information List.