soohockey15
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by soohockey15
-
-
Simple answer to a simple question : YES!!!
To further elaborate on this thought with some hypothetical scenarios...
My favorite NHL team is the Pittsburgh Penguins. If they moved to a different city and kept the Penguins name I would still be a fan, but if they stayed in Pittsburgh and changed the name I would no longer follow them.
My favorite MLB team is the Minnesota Twins. If they moved to a different city and kept the Twins name I would still be a fan, but if they stayed in Minnesota and changed the name I would no longer follow them.
My favorite NFL team is the Green Bay Packers. If they moved to a different city and kept the Packers name I would still be a fan, but if they stayed in Green Bay and changed the name I would no longer follow them.
See a trend? Geography does not dictate who I cheer for. I don't cheer for Pittsburgh, I cheer for the Penguins. I don't cheer for Minnesota, I cheer for the Twins. I don't cheer for Green Bay, I cheer for the Packers. I don't cheer for UND, I cheer for the Sioux. That is why I am taking this so hard. My favorite team that I have followed since I was a little boy would cease to exist if this thing plays out the way people are saying it will. I don't expect everybody to feel the same way that I do, as we are all different individuals with different emotions. However, all I ask is that you respect the fact that my feelings are what they are and don't try to tell me I'm "wrong" to feel that way.
-
-
What you call earning it I call a double-standard/witchhunt, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Cooke's long-running history of cheap-shots helped him earn this suspension. If someone like David Backes did the same thing, it wouldn't have been the same suspension (and rightly so). This point isn't debatable.
And no we can't put to rest the Matt Cooke is just a hard-nosed player talk because that's exactly what he is. I don't care what the flat-earth society thinks, I know I'm right.I think everyone knows Matt Cooke plays hard. Some guys play hard and clean. Others play hard and dirty. Not difficult to figure out which category Cooke falls in.
Not that I'm always right about everythingYou don't have to remind us...
but I'm 100% certain that I'm right on this one particular specific topic.Wrong again.
Matt Cooke plays with a lot of heart, intensity, and aggression. Sometimes that aggression gets away from him and he accidentally hits a guy in way in which he did not intend to.So wait, his elbow 'accidentally' went away from the natural path of his body into McDonagh's head? The hit was 100% intentional. Cooke saying that he 'needs to change the way he plays' is all the evidence we need that the hit was intentional.
He needs to learn how to harness that intensity and reel it in just a bit from time to time. I don't think that is going to be as easy as it sounds because if he reels it in too much he will lose his effectiveness in his role as a grinder.He's 32 years old. By the time he changes something about his game, he will already be irrelevant.
Having said that, I respect your right to disagree with me.Might be the most rational thing you've ever said.
-
1
-
-
What's Faison's other option? Testify for the bill in defiance of the SBoHE and UND?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Funny, I thought this guy was just a "hard nosed" player and played "within the context of the game", whatever that means...
Penguins' Matt Cooke suspended
I do like the reply from Pittsburgh's GM, Ray Shero:
"The suspension is warranted because that's exactly the kind of hit we're trying to get out of the game," Shero said in a statement. "Head shots have no place in hockey. We've told Matt in no uncertain terms that this kind of action on the ice is unacceptable and cannot happen. Head shots must be dealt with severely, and the Pittsburgh Penguins support the NHL in sending this very strong message."
Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lmn2B0TuF8&feature=player_embedded
Cheap shot champion.
-
Thanks.......
Was that earlier tonight, or prior to the game?
Happened early in the 2nd half.
Chicago State plays incredibly terrible defense. They looked like a city league team.
-
Okay then, in the spirit of this last post...
It doesn't much bother ME who YOU like or dislike but I'm not going to just sit here and listen to people condemn Matt Cooke's playing style and refer to it as "headhunting", "going after the knees", or "delivering cheap shots" when in fact I see it as trying to make a play. I believe that Matt's reputation far exceeds the reality of what he actually is. I think the only reason why he has that reputation is because unfortunately there are some gullable people out there who will believe anything that blowhard Don Cherry tells them to believe. Matt Cooke is a fan favorite in Pittsburgh, by the way.
There were multiple examples of Cooke going out of his way in an attempt to injure after the player had played the puck. The Savard hit is sickening, as are his repeated attempts to take out players' knees. I guess trying to injure a player (and justifying it by saying he's making a play on the puck) who isn't looking is just fine, but a line somewhere is crossed when two consenting players drop the gloves. The amount of hypocrisy in your argument is incredible.
-
1
-
-
But fighting is not part of the game. It happens after the whistle when the clock is stopped. The rough stuff that happens while the clock is running and the puck is in play is in fact part of the game. You're making an apples to oranges comparison. As soon as Matt Cooke hits somebody with one of his trademark vicious hits AFTER the whistle, then and only then will you have a legitimate gripe.
So here's what DaveK constitutes as good, clean play:
Running around the ice headhunting and taking guys' knees out; intentional attempts to injure the other guy.
"Rough" stuff that has no place in the NHL:
Two guys, both of whom are agreeing to go at it, going at it. Perfectly within the rules.
It makes my brain hurt wondering how you're fine with the way Cooke plays while also being so vehemently against fighting.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I find it hilarious how some people are constantly crying like little girls about big bad Matt Cooke. Those who don't like his style of play are free to watch women's hockey if they can't handle the rough stuff.
If you don't like fighting in the NHL, you are free to watch women's hockey.
-
-
Sorry to inform you gfhockey but the people who bought it were good people and invested a lot of money into Dave's BULLSh!T and they pretty much stopped funding it until they could get Dave out. The thing many people don't know is that Dave was never the actual owner, only a manager. One of the MAJOR investers was a guy from the cities who has bailed out Denny Hecker and when he found out the way Dave was running it he pulled out of it and left the rest of the investors high and dry. Another thing was that Whiteys was going downhill for a long time, it has never been the same since the flood. What is interesting is the people who say they will miss it but how often did they go down there? I'm not blaming the people of EGF or GF but it is just in a bad location with everything moving away from the river, no one wants to travel to downtown GF/EGF just to eat anymore.
You had it up until that last part. The downtown restaurants are very popular, but Whitey's hasn't kept up with the curve.
-
Did you watch the game in the 2nd half? Steelers would completely the better team. They did get into the game and controlled it. If it wasn't for Mendenhalls fumble, Big Ben would be celebrating another title and raped a couple ladies to celebrate.
Rodgers quietly put up a solid game, there is no possible way you can tell me its even in the top ten of Super Bowl performances. He though hes a class act and would love to him have in our organization.
Young, Montana, Montana, Brady, Brady, Manning, Rice, Smith, Brown, Lewis, Elway, the list goes on and on.
Try not to be so butthurt.
-
Manning does have a quick release, but I'll have to agree to disagree on the Colts being 3-13 without him. The Colts without Manning are mediocre, but not terrible. I'd give them about 8-8. The Vikings without Favre, as we saw over the last four games of this season, are no better than the Vikings with Favre. If anything, they're worse. That team is a mess from top to bottom.
Ha, so a team with a bad defense and an awful running game would only lose 2 more games if they didn't have one of the best QBs in the league? Is that what you're saying? That team is awful without Manning. Replacing him with a random QB would make them much worse. Replacing Favre with a random QB would make the Vikings better. A team with a top-10 defense and running game should not be 6-10, plain and simple.
-
Indy does not have a bad o-line. Maybe their run blocking is weak, but they do a good job of protecting Manning and giving him time to find his open receiver. You don't see Manning running for his life and getting killed back there on a regular basis, so their o-line can't be all that bad. Not nearly as bad as Minnesota's. I believe the Vikings need much more than a QB to turn their team around and the chances of them winning now are slim and none. They need to pretty much rebuild the entire team. They have a foundation to build around in Peterson, Harvin, Rice, and maybe a small handful of defensive starters. But they have a lot of holes in their starting lineup overall. You can point to their 12-4 season and being one game away from the Super Bowl last year, but that was mostly due to Favre's amazing season. Without him they were about an 8-8 caliber team last year, maybe 9-7 at best.
I disagree. Manning had the lowest yards/attempt since his rookie year and was sacked more than he had been since 2007. He isn't very mobile, but he has a quick release and does a good job avoiding pressure. Just watching the games you'd be able to see how little time he had to throw. The Colts without Manning are 3-13 at best. The Vikings without Favre might have a better record.
-
The Vikings also had a horrible secondary, a bad pass blocking OL(both Mckinnie and Loadholt are brutal), below average receivers and of course Chilly.
Some of it was Favre but this team had a lot of issues. It all started with Rice not getting surgery, if he was back and healthy in week 1 everything changes.
A horrible secondary, yet they were 10th in pass defense. Favre was one of the worst, if not the worst, QB in the league this year. Pittsburgh has a bad offensive line. Indy has a bad offensive line. Yet those teams both found ways to make the playoffs. Right on about Chili though. He was awful.
I'm not sure how the Vikings fix this. They shouldn't draft a QB because they need to win now. But there aren't many (any?) good, experienced QBs available. They're in no-man's land.
-
So now that we've seen how the Vikings suck without Brett just as badly as they do with him, I think it is time to stop blaming him for the horrible season. Sorry to see his career end this way. Wish they had won it all last year so he could have gone out on top, but all those fumbles in the NFC Championship game were too much to overcome. I guess the way I see it, he may have sucked at age 41 but he was still very good at age 40. Most QBs are done by 37-38 or so. I can't think of another one that was still good at 40, so all things considered I don't buy into this garbge about "tarnished legacy". Five years from now he'll be giving his indiction speech at Canton.
I think QB play in general was the reason for their terrible year. Since Favre started 14 of the 16 games, you can pin a lot of it on Favre. The Vikings have a better team (without factoring in QBs) than, say, the Colts but Manning is one of the best QBs in the league. The Vikings had a top-10 defense and a top-10 running game. Not really sure how you can say how it isn't mostly Favre's fault. Webb was pretty bad today.
-
If they do win this weekend and Rice does decide he is healthy enough to play, they would still have a shot at the playoffs, but with little margin for error.
They don't have a shot at the playoffs even if they win this weekend. They've beaten three bad teams and can't win on the road. Now they're gonna go 6-1 or 7-0 to close out the season? 0% chance that happens. I mean I guess you could say they have a 'shot', but they'd have to beat both the Giants and Eagles (on the road, in late December). They just aren't good enough offensively, defensively, or on the sideline. I'm guessing they end up 8-8 or 7-9, with the Packers going 11-5 or 10-6.
-
Bamba hasn't been out of high school long enough to try out for the NFL. He isn't on the team due to a violation of team rules.
-
That just doesn't seem right. To host a FF and not get to show off the Ralph on the national stage but instead go 70 miles south to your arch rivial town. Perhaps!
Did you just the term 'national stage' when referring to the Women's Frozen Four?
-
Think about it like this: The media hypes the NBA to the point where you can't ignore it. But the on-court product is absolute garbage. I've tried watching NBA basketball when I wasn't busy watching something else and I had to turn the channel after 10 to 15 minutes because it sucked so bad. The skills of these "professionals" are so bad compared to the players of the 1980's and 90's that the only thing that keeps that league relevant is that ESPN (which should rename SportsCenter "The NBA Tonight" during the basketball season) and the rest of the sports media hypes the league as the greatest thing since sliced bread. The fact that so many francises are in financial trouble (according to numerous media reports I have heard this season) is proof that the national sports fanbase is onto the fact that the product the NBA puts out is not worth spending their hard-earned money on.
I couldn't disagree with you more about the product of the league. In the late 90s and early 2000s it was awful, too many high schoolers and not a ton of big names. But now the NBA (and NHL) has had a huge influx of young, talented, and likeable players. LeBron, Dwayne Wade, Kevin Durant, Chris Paul, Dwight Howard, Brandon Roy the list goes on and on. The NBA also has the best commissioner in sports, David Stern. And much like hockey, the NBA is far more entertaining to watch during the playoffs than any other time of the year. I would say the number of NBA franchises and NHL franchises in financial trouble is about the same, and its probably due to the same reason (economy).
I enjoy watching the NHL as well, but its much tougher to sell the product because 1.) the sport isn't as popular in some regions of the country and 2.) its much more difficult to market players. I don't mean to say the NHL doesn't have anyone they can sell, but its tougher because they play a sport where the best players are on the ice for about 20 minutes a game, their faces are obstructed by helmets, and the game is being played in a glass enclosure. I think the commissioner has tried too hard to expand the sport in non traditional places too fast (where its subsequently flopped), and he doesn't seem to have a plan for the league in the near future (he'll need to address Phoenix and Atlanta, for starters). I hope the NHL can score a TV deal with ESPN, and I hope the league becomes more popular in the near future. I think the NHL is a blast to watch, but I don't think Bettman is the guy to lead the league into prosperity. Hopefully they can bring in somebody who has a clear direction for the league.
-
Does it get less media attention because it has a smaller fanbase... or does it have a smaller fanbase because it gets less media attention?
In all seriousness, it is really a combination of both.
Uh, no. The reason the NHL doesn't have a tv deal is because it simply isn't worth it for networks, hence the reason it gets less media attention. Not difficult to understand.
-
Even if the Sioux basketball team were to someday accomplish what Butler has just done, it would not create the same kind of interest within the UND fanbase that our hockey team creates. The hockey-hating national media would give us more attention, I get that. But within our own fanbase hockey always has been and always will be #1. Why is that so hard for you to accept?
Sometimes I wonder if you're even a real person. 'Hockey-hating' national media? Hockey gets less attention in the national media because it has a much smaller fanbase than basketball.
-
It's really not the game that I hate so much as it is the mere fact that American sports media gives it 100 times more attention than it gives hockey. And, no, the Sioux getting to the NCAA basketball tournament will not create as much of a buzz among Sioux fans as our hockey team getting to the Frozen Four. We'll be happy for the basketball team, but the hockey team will still be our primary rooting interest. Of course there will be a few exceptions but I'm speaking for the vast majority of people who support UND athletics. Put it this way... if you were to ask Sioux fans would they rather have the 1st NCAA basketball championship or the 8th NCAA hockey championship, how do you think the percentage of answers would come out? Not smack, honest question. Please give me an honest answer.
I would hope every Sioux fan would hope for the basketball championship. That would do so much more for the school and state than any number of hockey titles could.
-
On side note with Nathan done for year....where do the Twins go for a closer??
A combination of guys who match up the best with hitters in the late innings. I hate it when teams place guys in set roles and refuse to ever differ. They should use their best guy in the highest-leverage situation, and go from there.
March Madness 2012
in Non-collegiate sports
Posted
I appreciate the joy and fun of college basketball tournament time, but from a basketball-watching standpoint its pretty brutal. I'll watch the tourney once it starts but the conference tourneys just don't do much for me. Give me NBA every day.