Floppin' Crappie - Northwoods Brewpub and Grill

BeerAdvocate

Massachusetts

3.33/5  rDev +13.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3 | feel: 4 | overall: 3.5

Review from BeerAdvocate Magazine Issue #57 (October 2011):

LOOK: Dark rusty amber

SMELL: Fresh toasted grain, buckwheat honey, yeast twang, woody hops

TASTE: Malty, toasty, grainy, bready, clean, light hop bitterness, spice, yeast, peppery

A very malt-forward brew—a whole lot going on here, with a very complex layered character that reveals something new sip after sip as it warms up. sometimes subtle beers can bring more to the table, even at a lower abv. That said, it is, is, without a doubt, sessionable.

Serving type: bottle

05-01-2012 21:39:52 | More by BeerAdvocate

Zachtheporter

Wisconsin

3.5/5  rDev +19%

03-13-2013 06:15:52 | More by Zachtheporter

enelson

Illinois

3/5  rDev +2%

02-26-2013 16:17:33 | More by enelson

KTCamm

New Jersey

3.58/5  rDev +21.8%
look: 4 | smell: 4 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Picked up a single at Woodmans in Wisconsin. Poured into a pint glass.

Amber colored with active bubbles. Fluffy thick white foam, like snow banks. Light sweet malt nose. Nutty and bready. Light toffee malt taste, evolving hop that never takes hold. Touch sweet. Caramel close. Light carbonation, considering the bubbles. Not bad.

Serving type: bottle

01-01-2013 01:23:57 | More by KTCamm

pebbs

2.75/5  rDev -6.5%

05-29-2012 02:38:10 | More by pebbs

WastingFreetime

Wisconsin

3.03/5  rDev +3.1%
look: 2.5 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 3

Reviewed from session notes.

A. Clear light brown in color with another flash/fizzle head and no lacing.

S,T. Light toasted bready malts through and through. Stays mildly sweet just like eating handfuls of malt for a crunchy snack. Garnish levels of yeast spice and grassy hopping do exist but are difficult to pick out of the mix until the glass warms up some.

M. Still seems somewhat thin but that's actually appropriate for the style this time. And for once the carbonation is actually adequate on the palate, despite the disappointing head.

Serving type: bottle

05-20-2012 01:02:41 | More by WastingFreetime

NEDmiller

Wisconsin

2.75/5  rDev -6.5%

04-18-2012 00:51:48 | More by NEDmiller

twbeecher

Wisconsin

3.5/5  rDev +19%

02-01-2012 17:20:40 | More by twbeecher

chetripley

Illinois

3/5  rDev +2%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

Poured from the bottle into a shaker pint glass. Bottle was given to me by beer club member Toms on his journey to Northern Wisconsin.

Pours thick and brown with some off yellow head that takes its time to go away. Unfortunately it was in the back of the fridge and was slightly frozen. I warmed the bottle with hot water but I think I may have put off the flavor doing it this way.

The smell was unimpressive and the taste was grainy with hints of pleasant flavors that never seemed to stand out. I waited throughout the drink to be turned on but it never happened.

I like the idea of their beer-all of them are northwoodsy (like Central Waters)- but I understand the brewery is actually a brewpub with not a lot of outside distribution. Maybe if I went to the restaurant there or maybe if I tried others I could get a better appraisal.

Serving type: bottle

01-20-2012 14:29:37 | More by chetripley

Sarunas7

Texas

3/5  rDev +2%

01-16-2012 06:29:48 | More by Sarunas7

Kenai4

Minnesota

3/5  rDev +2%

01-14-2012 18:27:24 | More by Kenai4

Soneast

Wisconsin

1.5/5  rDev -49%

12-17-2011 01:31:35 | More by Soneast

bpfrush

Wisconsin

2.5/5  rDev -15%

11-15-2011 03:26:40 | More by bpfrush

hardy008

Minnesota

2.2/5  rDev -25.2%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 2.5

Light amber to brown color with a small off white head which disappears quickly. Smells of lightly toasted bread, and not much else.

Tastes of lightly toasted bread, small amount caramel which is barely detectable. No real hop character which is expected for this style, but unfortunately, not a lot of malt flavor either. Meh.

Light bodied with fizzy carbonation. Nothing to get excited about here. Time to move on to something better.

Serving type: can

11-12-2011 20:01:53 | More by hardy008

drpimento

Wisconsin

2.25/5  rDev -23.5%
look: 3 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 4 | overall: 2

hahahaha wow, this is a first: a beer whose flavor and aroma are so subtle, that I can't taste them. Now, I will admit I do have some allergy/sinus problems, but until this beer this evening, I've been able to taste and smell the others. It's extra weird because I have the feeling that the tastes and smells are almost there, but not. I did let the beer warm a bit and still.... wait- just now, I tasted some malt! Hurrah! The scores I gave for taste and smell are where they are since I tasted nothing bad or out of character. And now I did pick up a little malt. Pouring aggressively gave me some off white head that quickly died down and no lace. Body is good and so is carbonation. Color is an almost clear, nice medium dark honey amber with some tiny bubble trails. Finish is, ah, very faint and so, short.

Serving type: bottle

10-06-2011 01:59:38 | More by drpimento

emerge077

Illinois

3.43/5  rDev +16.7%
look: 4 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

Bottle from sampler pack, review from written notes.

Into a stange glass it pours a nice reddish copper color. The offwhite foam has a creamy texture to it's surface, and leaves an intricate crown of drippy lacing on the glass. The retention was ok, the finger or so of sticky foam dwindled down to a thin skim after awhile.

Aromas of multigrain bread, specialty malt, a hint of molasses and brown sugar.

Fleeting flavors of toasted malt, seemingly the dominant taste characteristic, which doesn't stick around too long. Again, a hint of molasses sweetness. Bare hint of maltiness in the mellow aftertaste. Feel is a bit flaccid and bland, which puts a damper on the overall impression, despite it's decent flavor, smell, and appearance. Better than the other Northwoods beers so far... a simple, clean, utilitarian amber ale with no flaws other than it's dull mouthfeel. Tailor-made for taking cans out on the lake fishing...

Serving type: bottle

08-05-2011 17:29:12 | More by emerge077

woodychandler

Pennsylvania

2.85/5  rDev -3.1%
look: 4 | smell: 2 | taste: 3 | feel: 3 | overall: 3

I CAN't believe that I CAN't remember who sent this to me! I think that it was Chaz, but then I took a CAN Hiatus for a while and lost track. At any rate, The CANQuest (TM) is happy to be Cracking & Glugging another CAN, regardless of who sent it to me.

Ah, the Crack & Glug! I miss the auditory nature of my beer CANsumption when it is any other serving style. Bottles = boring! My pour created a finger of rapidly falling deep-tan head. Color was a cppery-amber with NE-quality clarity. Nose had a light malty sweetness underlain with a slight metallic tang. No, not from the CAN, but more likely the water they used interacting with the hops. Better living through chemistry, kids! Mouthfeel was medium with a muted caramel sweetness in the mouth. Finish was equally ho-hum, like they were afraid to let the reins out when they brewed this beer. It needed more Ooomph! I would not seek it out, but if I were in the North Woods of Wisco, I would not pass it up, either.

Serving type: can

06-23-2011 17:30:45 | More by woodychandler

Wisconsinality

Wisconsin

2.5/5  rDev -15%
look: 3 | smell: 3 | taste: 2 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

Thanks to the one and only beerwolf77 for this one. Not only is he generous but has a good memory and it's little things like that show how good of a BA he is.

A- Pours a deep crimson with a small head that dies down quickly leaving a small cap on the beer. No lacing is left behind.

S- Sweet malts mixed with a decent caramel aroma. There are some faint hops in there as well and not much else.

T- Some bready and sweet malts greet the tongue. The hops from the nose pretty much disappear.

M- Medium to lighter bodied that has sufficient carbonation but also has a creamy feel to it as well. For as light as the beer is, the beer does a nice job coating the mouth.

O- Pretty mediocre brew but it was nice to have it again after having my fair share in college. It was a nice gift with some thought behind it from a world class BA.

Serving type: can

04-26-2011 13:10:52 | More by Wisconsinality

alexgash

Connecticut

2.7/5  rDev -8.2%
look: 4.5 | smell: 2.5 | taste: 2.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

12 oz. can. Love the name of this beer.

Mostly clear golden amber body. Two fingers of thick, whipped, light beige head. Good lacing. Very modest nose of toasted grain, subtle fruit, and very light hop zest.

Toasted malt and mildly astringent grain up front. Mineral water bitterness comes on, before bready, vaguely caramelly malt show up. There's a husky, grainy character throughout. Not even a hint of sweetness. Grainy, bready finish, with residual mineral water bitterness. Moderate body, with a slightly fizzy feel. Better than a lot of canned macro beer, but nothing to get too excited about. Needs more complexity and "freshness." Oh, and some more hop presence would help too.

Serving type: can

10-29-2010 21:28:38 | More by alexgash

cokes

Wisconsin

3.45/5  rDev +17.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Deep amber-bronze with a low collar of pale sand foam.
Generally bready aroma with a minor toffee sweetness, a vague nod at herbal hops.
Bready, again as it travels towards the throat. Here, some honey-esque sweetness and toasted nuts add depth as it continues with it largely doughy template. Fairly clean through the middle with just a hair of apple fruitiness. Hops are meager, added a late dab of dried spice and lowly, countering bitterness.
Oily, medium-light bodied. The carbonation trickles out quickly leaving it a bit flat.
This is a non-frills, basic rendition of an Amber Ale. There's nothing particularly interesting, but it has no glaring flaws, is generally tasty, and easy enough to drink.

Serving type: bottle

10-28-2010 04:59:21 | More by cokes

woosterbill

Connecticut

3/5  rDev +2%
look: 4 | smell: 3 | taste: 3 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3

12oz bottle into a Duvel tulip.

A: Clear, deep red body with an inch of fine white foam. Average retention and light lace. Pretty nice.

S: Pure, simple, understated caramel malt. Just a touch of hops, but not enough to add any real complexity. Boring, but not bad.

T: Just like the aroma, with thin malt sweetness and a hair of hops bitterness on the finish. Simple and utterly forgettable.

M: A little thin and undercarbonated. Less than great.

D: The hops aren't prominent enough to keep even the rather weak malts from getting cloying; still, not really difficult to drink.

Notes: I picked up a single of this on a whim, and found it to be every bit as unremarkable as I expected. Now that I see it's listed as an APWA, though, I'm a bit confused. It struck me as being about as straightforward an amber ale as you can get - there definitely wasn't anything "pale" about it. I didn't get any wheat flavors from it, but if it is brewed with wheat it should certainly be called an American Dark Wheat Ale. Whatever its style, though, I won't be seeking it out again.

Cheers!

Serving type: bottle

08-29-2010 23:25:41 | More by woosterbill

ridglens

Indiana

3.63/5  rDev +23.5%
look: 4 | smell: 4.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 2.5 | overall: 3.5

A- decent brown color, pours a thick light brown foam, which quickly dissipates to a thin layer. pretty beer. label is sweet too

S- a very wheaty-maly aroma. lots of it, so it smells good if you like that flavor. smells a little spicey, too. not a TON here, but pretty darn good.

T- a little of a let down, but definitely not bad. has a light classic wheat malty flavor. the spice from the smell doesn't come through much, and the bitterness is a little bland at the end. really good basic flavor though.

M- ok, the carbonation is at a good level, but the beer is a little thin (i might be biased, i love thicker beers).

D- decent, the bland bitterness doesn't leave you begging for more ounces, but definitely not hard to drink by any means.

Serving type: bottle

07-14-2010 22:13:28 | More by ridglens

jera1350

Minnesota

3.43/5  rDev +16.7%
look: 3 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 3.5 | feel: 3 | overall: 3.5

Deep copper brown color with just a trace of a head on top.

Has a buttery apple pie scent to it.

Like the nose, the taste is buttery with hints of apple pie crust, cinnamon and apples.

Pretty flat feeling although not entirely. A little beyond light bodied.

The beer drinks well enough. It's nothing outstanding, nor is it terrible which leaves it around the average mark.

Serving type: bottle

05-26-2010 00:32:18 | More by jera1350

budgood1

Minnesota

2.03/5  rDev -31%
look: 2.5 | smell: 2 | taste: 2 | feel: 2 | overall: 2

pours out a hazy, slightly muddled dark amber colour. thin wispy head and lace. sweet sugary aroma, ghostly mint and herb like notes. rather uninspired flavours of sugary maltiness with a strange hop flavour with a hint of bitterness. if there is any wheat in here it's hard to detect. this really doesn't taste all that good. flat and syrupy mouthfeel. drinkability isn't all that good. not impressed.

Serving type: bottle

05-11-2010 19:12:34 | More by budgood1

Parrotbeak

Minnesota

3.83/5  rDev +30.3%
look: 3.5 | smell: 3.5 | taste: 4 | feel: 3.5 | overall: 4

Murky, hazy light amber with a half inch white head that fades quickly, leaving some patches.
Smell is bready, crackery malts, with a decent hops presence. Faint, toasted, buttery notes as well.
Taste is more bready malts, with the "cracker" aspect being a little more subdued. Decent malt backbone on this one, and as the malts progress they become more buttery and slightly toasted. Small amount of hops come in a little over halfway through.
Mouthfeel is fairly crisp, with a smooth finish. Good level of carbonation. Medium-light body. Slightly watery.
Good drinkability. Decent beer overall.

Serving type: can

04-11-2010 05:04:01 | More by Parrotbeak