skateshattrick

Good list! My line of most hated rivals: 1. Rodents 2. Boston College 3. Denver 4. Wisconsin 5. Michigan, MSUM Landcows 7. The rest of Hockey East except Maine 8. The entire EZCHA or whatever they are called ("weanie conference") 9. Whoever is playing the Sioux that weekend. The first 3 are the easiest, and there is a big gap between 3 and 4, and even bigger between 4 and 5. I don't mind SCSU, but some of SCSU's fans can be a little annoying.

Okay. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt and a way out, but you have demonstrated over and over that you know nothing about hockey. Happy is rational compared to you. Have a good day.

You bring up the analogy, the analogy is shown to be incorrect, and now it is beside the point?? Tell me Dave, where do you draw the line? When Dave Forbes speared Henry Boucha, is that "part of the game" according to your "philosophy"? How about when a player uses his stick as a weapon and hits another player over the head? If you say yes, you have lost whatever thin amount of credibility that you had. If you acknowledge that it is a "dirty" play, how can you differentiate that from a knee to knee contact?? Anyone with any common sense would say that you cannot, because both are intended to injure and frequently end careers. You are from Fargo, and there are plenty of current and former college and NHL players in the area. I challenge you to find one of them that agrees with your "philosophy" that knee-to-knee hits are part of the game and are not dirty plays. Whether I agree with your position on fighting, I respect your opinion and agree that it is a philosophy. Your position on Ulf and knee to knee contacts, however, is incredible and not rational. You can argue that it was not intentional, but that is like arguing that Forbe's action was unintentional. Anyone who knows the game knows that Ulf deliberately stuck out his knee on many occasions. The only issue is whether that is "dirty" or not, and you are dead wrong on that issue. That is not a "philosophical" difference.

That means a lot coming from you. I have forgotten more about hockey than you will ever know. But forget about me and everyone else on this message board--it is clear Dave that you know more than all of the players that played against him. You really need to let this go before you lose whatever credibility that you once had. Come back when you are lucid.

Wow. Nice mature response. We are "crybabies" for seeing the obvious. You use emotionally charged language like "impecile" and "whiners" to describe Don Cherry or anyone who dares to disagree with you. Apparently, you don't condone violence, but resorting to name-calling and put downs is acceptable conduct. Did you even read the Wikepedia report?? Obviously not because you only see the world through your clouded vision. Anyone who is not an apologist or with any common sense knows when someone tries to hurt another by sticking out a knee, but particularly other players know. The players know that Samuelsson and Marchment are dirty players--they have said it repeatedly. The fact that you dislike and/or disagree with Don Cherry is really irrelevant to the discussion and evades the fact that hockey players (particularly his peers in the NHL) believed Ulf was a dirty player.

I agree. Anyone who has played hockey or even watched a lot of hockey can tell you that was a deliberate attempt to injure Neely. The knee on knee hits, which are a trademark of players like Bryan Marchment and Ulf Samuelsson, are often described as the dirtiest plays in all of hockeys. DaveK is entiled to his opinions, but he strains all credibility in arguing that Ulf is not a dirty player. If you do not believe me, look at Wikipedia.com and type in Ulf Samuelsson. You will find information on the careers that he ended and it notes that "in a 2002 ESPN poll, Samuelson was voted the 4th dirtiest professional sports player of all time."

You are entitled to your opinion and I respect the fact that you have strong views regarding that opinion. However, when you express that opinion on a message board in a manner that is clearly intended to be contrary to others' opinions, you open yourself up to others criticizing that opinion. That is the way the world works--you cannot have it both ways. If you do not want others to jump on your back, then don't express an opinion. Yours is not the only opinion on the subject, and is akin to taking a position on abortion or the death penalty and then asking others not to criticize that opinion.

Random posts in a hockey forum that have nothing to do with hockey.

There may be some truth to what you are saying, but if you look at what Dave Hakstol and his staff have done, it is impressive. 3 straight Frozen 4 appearances is very difficult, and although our measure of success is NCAA titles, it is hard to complain about the job he is doing. He has also done a great job of recruiting great talent and very classy young men. If you have any doubts about Dave Hakstol, you should meet him personally. He is truly a class act, and he expects that from his players as well. It would truly be a shame to lose him. We all get frustrated with the slow starts, but he always seems to have the team ready the 2nd of the season and I think he is a great ambassador for the university.

Not at all. My only point was to show that this is a very good foundation that raises a lot of money for cancer, even more than the Roger Maris tournament which is a great event. Relax--I know you're itching to pick a fight since your world is defined by the Bison and Fargo, but this is only about touting what a good person Matt Cullen is and how good The Cullen Children's Foundation is.

The Cullen Children's Foundation is a really neat deal. It raises money for children's healthcare needs with an emphasis on cancer. It raises quite a bit more money for cancer than the Roger Maris Celebrity golf outing ever has. Matt and his wife Bridget are very down to earth and very good people. Matt and his father Terry dedicate a lot of time and energy to this foundation. There are a number of celebrities that support the foundation, including many professional hockey players. Among those hockey players are a number of ex-Sioux players like Jason Blake, Mike Commodore, Zach Parise, Dave Christian, Brian Lee, Chris Vandevelde and coach Dave Hakstol. If you want to contribute to a good cause, visit www.cullyskids.com or call Terry Cullen. The golf outing is this weekend.

Also add the Johnsons (Greg, Corey and Ryan), the Murphys (Curtis is one of my all-time favorites) and another set of Johnsons (Steve and Chad).

I am reluctantly jumping to the aid of FS1 and others who are posting about the problem(s) with UND's athletic director, Tom Buning. You can choose to believe it or not, but it is absolutely true. I talked with a former UND player over a month ago about this issue (long before Dale Lennon even interviewed for the Montana State job). This former player is 50, very connected, a booster who is very well off financially, and is very good friends with Dale Lennon. What he told me is that Dale Lennon does not trust Buning and the situation was/is so bad that he would consider taking another job. Part of it had to do with telling him that assistant coaches would be taken care of and not following through on the promise before Dale Lennon negotiated/signed his last contract, and issues regarding not allowing all players and coaches to travel to a road game and being told right before they were to travel. I was also told that many coaches had similar issues with Buning, and many prominent alumni were upset with the handling of the situation with Steve Johnson and Gord Stafford and the women's hockey coaching job. I do not know firsthand if the situation is as bad with the men's hockey coaches, but I have heard rumors to that effect. You can choose to disbelieve this about the problems between Dale Lennon and the AD, but I KNOW it is true. The source is far too reliable. In fact, if someone connected to the program (PCM or others) want to know that source, I will provide that information in confidence. I have no intention of revealing that on a message board. I really did not want to get involved in this issue, but it is not fair to rip on posters who are simply stating the facts about what is a major problem in the AD office.

No disagreement. He is as bad or worse than anyone on the Ducks. Alfredsson's slap shot on Niedermeyer was also inexcusable. However, the Ducks are not very likeable because they have this penchant for running goalies and attempting to take out key players--if you saw the hit on Holmstrom, who was Detroit's most effective player to that point--you may agree with that assessment. Don't get me wrong--the Ducks are skilled and they are the champions. They also deserve the Cup and earned it. They were clearly better than Ottawa. I just get annoyed when I hear that the Ducks "physical play" is the reason they are champions. The truth is that they play on the edge and they got a bit lucky against the Wings (which you need to win championships) because they were outplayed for a majority of that series. Detroit matched them physically, and outshot, outchanced and outplayed them for most of that series. Giguere and a little bit of puck luck were the difference. Although the Ducks won and are deserving, it is my opinion (others may disagree) that the best team did not win which apparently is shared by at least one writer who ironically is always ripping the Wings. As Jason Noterman said, "hockey is a funny game."

They are not "the best", they just happen to be the two teams that survived. Check out this article by notorious Red Wings basher/hater Ted Montgomery, who says that the best team in the Wings-Ducks series did not win. www.usatoday.com/sports/hockey/columnist/montgomery/2007-06-05-pronger-finals_N.htm. Any objective person who watched Games 3, 4 and 5 of that series should agree.

I agree 100%. I would much rather watch Nick Lidstrom, who plays with incredible skill but without attempting to hurt players or resorting to cheap play, than Chris Pronger. I have absolutely no interest in the Final because of the Ducks. I would have much preferred the Wings, the Sharks, the Predators or any team that is not dirty and does not play a trap. The NHL game has gotten much better, but the Ducks are Exhibit A why the league needs to go even farther to clean up the game. Only Neanderthals like Don Cherry prefer goon hockey like the Ducks play at times.

I don't know if he was on the Sioux radar (although I know he talked with UND and UM), but Jeff Foss of Moorhead committed to RPI. I wish him the best of luck--Jeff Foss is a very good defenseman and a great kid.

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but the difference is that Andrew Kozek was brought in to score goals. He has not, so he needs to either start doing that or adjust to a new role. If that doesn't work, he probably won't play. I'm not giving up on him, but he was brought in to be a top 6 forward because of his scoring ability. The same is true of Michael Forney. The reason Forney did not play at the end of last year according to what the coaches told him is because they expected him to be a top 6 forward, i.e., a scorer. However, since he was not able to do that, he was not going to play barring injury to other players. He is not viewed as a grinder or defensive specialist, and that is not why they recruited him. Porter was brought in as a role player--not necessarily a 3rd or 4th line guy--but as a power forward who can kill penalties, play hard and physical, and score a few goals. He may play 1st or 2nd line, but he is viewd as a hard-nosed guy who will go into the corners for the scorers. THAT is the difference. Chris Porter was a very valuable player all 4 years despite not putting up huge numbers. In other words, he met his expectations. He is like Brad DeFauw or Peter Armbrust with more scoring ability than Peter Armbrust. Andrew Kozek has talent and hopefully will develop into as valuable of a player as Porter did, but he has not met his expectations to this point. He is young, so he may yet develop into a dangerous scorer. Teeder Wynne did that after a few non-productive seasons, so its certainly not too late.

You are absolutely reaching. First, Porter is 2" taller and outweighs Kozek by 30 lbs. Plus, he plays much bigger. Second, you don't consider either a fast skater?? Do you watch the games?? By all accounts, Porter was the fastest forward on the Sioux. Third, Porter had 25 points (10 goals and 15 assists) his freshman year and dropped off to 15 his sophomore year (12 goals + 3 assists). That is still 40 points compared to 24 points for Kozek in 2 years (Fr 7 +6 =13 Soph. 5 + 6=11). Fourth, Porter scored big goals. Recall a few years ago (Porter's sophomore year) when he lit up BC and BU in the Eastern Regionals. By contrast, in the playoffs this year and last, Kozek was a checking line player. Fifth, Porter was not a big scorer either at Shattuck or Lincoln and that is not why he was brought it. He was brought it because he is a big, strong power forward that skates well, is sound defensively, and can score a few goals. He was not brought in to be a 1st line player. Finally, Kozek is not at all similar to Duncan. Duncan has great hands, controls the puck, and has a quick, accurate shot. It isn't a matter of anyone setting Duncan up--he creates his own space and opportunities. My purpose is not to talk negatively about Kozek, but the comparison is just not there, either with Porter or Duncan. They are different players.

I don't see many similarities between Porter and Kozek. Chris Porter is a big, physical, strong skating forward with very good defensive skills. He did not score as much as some may have expected, but had a tendency to score big goals, particularly in the playoffs. Andrew Kozek was a 2nd round pick who was supposed to be a big time scorer. He is not as big or physical as Chris Porter, and does not have (at least yet) Porter's defensive abilities. Unlike Porter, he was expected to score goals and really has not. He's fast and has a wicked shot, but rarely gets it on net if he gets it off in time. He has a tendency to shoot over the net. He also has had some trouble catching passes and controlling the puck. I am still waiting for Kozek's breakthrough since he clearly has talent, but he has not been nearly as solid as Chris Porter thus far. A player with his speed and shot really should not be a checking line player, particularly since he's not a defensive specialist. Hopefully, it all comes together for him this year.

It was more than a winnable series--the Wings dominated games 4 and 5 (particularly 5), only to lose late. They pi**ed this series down their legs because they are a better team than the Ducks. If they had Schneider and Kronwall, it would have been different. Oh well. Go Sens!

You are correct that this is far from the first time that this has happened. Kids change their mind without jumping to the conclusion that the school or coaching staff had anything to do with it. Years ago, a pretty good hockey player by the name of Chris Chelios committed to UND. I have heard that it was an actual signed LOI (it was at least a verbal), and Gino let him out of his commitment. I have also heard that Keith Ballard originally gave a verbal to UND. This happens much more often than you think. I sincerely doubt that Hak or his coaching staff had anything to do with Jason Gregoire's decision. Besides, who cares what a few DU fans think?? Welcome Jason Gregoire.

The Wisconsin bashing is getting a little old, don't you think? They are a big time program with a very rich hockey history and was UND's main rival in the late 70's and early 80's. The current style is a bit boring because it is defense first, but they are still a great program. UNO?? Please. They are a middle-of-the-pack team in a mediocre conference. If UND maintains rivalries with any schools, UM and UW should be at the top of the list.

I think some have underestimated Vande Velde's scoring ability. I have watched him since he was a squirt, and he is a natural goal scorer. Anyone who saw him his senior year at Moorhead or in the state tourney would recognize that. He has great hands, is a very good stickhandler and has a great wrist shot, particularly in tight spaces. He may not be a Bochenski, but there are similarities. He is not super fast, but he is fast enough for this level. I think he is going to surprise a lot of people. His struggles to score goals this year were a combination of playing on a checking line early and the transition from juniors to college. He's going to be fine. I will be suprised if he isn't more of a goal scoring threat than Watkins and Kozek, who both have talent.

I agree. Lidstrom and Schneider are only 36, so they have a few more years. Chelios is 45, but he is not really that much of a factor anymore. Hasek is old and may be the one weakness.