Slap Shot

I'm not sure it's logical to compare Blarney's/IDGate to rape. If the Gophers try to protect a hockey player accused of raping someone then perhaps such a shot will make sense. Until then...

red - don't twist my words because it's disengenuous. I didn't say the o-line sucks I said they're not playing at their optimal best. Note that neither Birk, Hicks nor Hutchinson even played last season for the Vikings and the team has a brand new playbook. To insist they should be at their best 3 games into the season is illogical. I also didn't say Taylor and the running game are horrible. He rushed for over 100 yards against Carolina and he had 74 yards against Chicago, including a handful of very big runs. The supposedly overrated Willaimson already has 14 receptions this season, only 10 fewer than all of last season, and Travis Taylor had 6 receptions against the Bears for 82 yards. The Vikings also imho underutilized Wiggins which hurt the passing game and Johnson made two bad decisions throwing balls before the 1st down marker, but these things happen over the course of a season. I didn't say the WRs suck I said they played that game without the only player that's scored an offensive TD so far this eason. I said that despite the Taylor fumble, the dropped INT/TD by Sharper and the horrible penalty against Willaimson, they almost beat the Chicago Bears - you know the supposed elite team in the NFC? I'll repeat that those are not excuses given to argue they should have won that game but rather to balance out all the negatives you focus upon. The Vikings have played against 3 of the best defenses in the league and against 3 teams most predicted would make the NFC playoffs, and despite not playing their best on offense they've gone 2-1. What's interesting about this discussion is that while I acknowledge the Vikings' shortcomings in putting together my analysis of the team and its prospects, you've focused only on the negatives, ignored the positives and insisted the Vikings are overrated despite the team doing exactly what most people predicted they would do. If despite everything I've said you still insist this team is overrated and destined for only 8 wins, so be it.

They or may not be playoff material, but your opinion is irrelevent if they win enough games to get into the playoffs. Right now they are on track for doing that, but of course it's very early. Chester runs the ball, he doesn't block. He's produced good runs when room was there and he's shown he can break tackles. That he doesn't have a TD isn't relevent given the team hasn't been inside the 20 very often. I didn't blame the Bears loss on the refs or on a fumble - I said if you think the Vikings should only be 1-2 because they got lucky on the Gamble deal, then you have to recognize the Bears were equally lucky on the Williamson penalty and the Taylor fumble, not to mention Sharper dropping an INT that would surely have been returned for 7. My point was not to make excuses but rather to balance your, "What if...." staement. All Brad Johnson has ever done is win and he's got a SB ring to prove it. He didn't have to do much for that team, similar to what Dilfer did in Baltimore. And let me remind you, I'm not picking the team to get to the SB I'm simply saying they are on track to make the playoffs. This despite the fact the O-line isn't quite at 100%. I also mentioned they are weak at WR, but did you know the only WR with a TD this season for the Vikings (Marcus Robinson) didn't even play against Chicago? I think you're pulling a Scooby imitation with your assessment of the Vikings - not very consistent nor realistic. They're a good team and not great, could legitimitely make the playoffs but probably shouldn't be expected to do anything more than that.

Ok, you are not allowed to respond to me.

If someone here agrees with me, does that mean hell is about to get really, really chilly?

I said I don't think the Vikings are as good as the Bears overall, nor do I think they're a great team. But, if they can get the offense clicking a bit more they have a chance to at least make the playoffs. Beyond that they're too weak at WR to compete deep into the playoffs. As to whether or not Chester has a TD, who cares? You expect him to score from outside the 20? As for your believing the Vikings are overrated - overrated how? I think most people expected them to be anywhere form 0-3 to at best 2-1 after 3 games - I think they're right on target. And if you want to claim the Vikings should have lost the Carolina game if not for Gamble, on that same token the Vikings should have beat the Bears if not for the bogus Williamson penalty and the Taylor fumble. Nuts and bolts doncha know? Either way the fact is they're 2-1 - at best a decent to good team but far from great/elite.

I should probably just leave this one alone. I'm not bothered by UW being pre-season #1. Until someone knocks them off their block I think out of respect it's pretty cool that they get the #1. As for the Gophers? Until we know how much scoring depth they have and how consistent Briggs/Frazee are I'm not ready to accept they should be #1 on paper. btw - is it really that time of year already? NCAA hockey on the horizon, the Twins in the playoffs, the Vikings actually not sucking, lots of potential for the Wild - this is getting good.

I realize that. I was being facetious as well as expressing wishful thinking that he could go out like Dahmer.

The Bears are a force? If the NFC had a solid team the Bears would not be favored to get to the SB this year, but as of now the only team that might legitimately be able to challenge them is Seattle. The Bears last year skated playing a mediocre schedule so far his year they've played another mediocre schedule. If the Vikings had anything resembling an offense they win that game by 10. Before anyone gets me wrong, I think the Vikings aren't as good as Chicago as of right now. The offensive line needs work and they don't have enough depth at WR. They Vikings D looks great but I want to see them perform like this for an entire season before I'd be willing to place them on that pedestal. The good news is Minnesota should be able to go 4-0 against GB and DET which gets them that much closer to a WC spot. The odd thing is I don't see a single dominant team in the NFL, even those with 3-0 records. btw - I like listening to fans meltdown on KFAN about the Vikings loss, as if they expected this team to go to the SB. If someone had told me in July that against this schedule, the Vikings would score 1 offensive touchdown and still win 2 of 3 I'd have said, "I'll take it". They've got several new starters on O and a brand new offensive playbook. While I can't see this team doing much damage in the playoffs, Childress has them playing hard-nosed, competitive football and it's good to see.

In a way I think the longer it takes to kill him the better. Let me explain. The guy is obviously mentally deranged. He's got issues. Every minute he's awake he's going to be thinking, "Is today the day I die?". The longer this drags on the more it will eat at his inner being, whatever is left of it. The guy is either remorseful and has to live with the guilt or he thinks he's above it all and is a caged animal that won't ever again have power over another human being. I have to imagine that over time that starts to mentally eat at him the bastard. Maybe I'm grasping at straws but I'm looking at a silver lining in the fact the guy will live longer than he should. Or maybe he it gives more opportunity for someone to get him alone and treat him like he treated Dru.

The pre-season polls will have Doesn't Matter U at #1, Who Cares State at #2 and Wait Until April Tech at #3.

Does anyone think this could bode well for UND despite the differences in these cases? What I

I was thinking "too low" with respect to what players were rated ahead of them that perhaps should have been behind him? It's all subjective of course and nothing to be ashamed of at all. I think most of us agree his future is extremely bright.

I never grasp, I fondle! You have it right though - I was just batting around a reason why he might have been rated that low. Not because I think he should be that low, but rather that I think he should be higher. Oh well, as a Gophers fan I suppose I should hope that they're correct?

I wonder how much age factored into the equation for those putting together the list? Otherwise you'd think he'd be rated a bit higher. However, this is nothing to be ashamed of - he's in elite company and it's obvious he garners a lot of respect from across the entire hockey community.

I don't want to tell anyone how they should "run their tribe", but it's a bit ridiculous to in essence hold the school hosstage in exchange for their support of the nickname. It's either, "hostile and abusive" or it's not. I'm not saying a school should not show loyalty toward a tribe, but at the same time agreeing to not protest a school's usage of a nickname shouldn't change when the wind blows.

For the sake of the argument (I know I risk getting slammed for this) is it really a stretch that the Gophers incoming class was rated #1 by any publication? I would think their class would be considered about as good as it gets by anyone. HOWEVER ----- Who cares about these rankings? Even if the Gophers legitimately have a higher rated class, rankings don't win championships - Sioux fans that saw the UM-HC debacle should know that as much as anyone. While I won't complain that the Gophers are rated highly in this category, will anyone really care about this statistic in April? Heck, will anyone really care about this in October?

1. I agree. Not only that, I don

I assume the suggestion was posed with the idea, "If UND had no choice and had to change...."? Even in that were the case, I don't know that 'Saints' fits the the state of ND in any way, although someone could correct me if I'm wrong. Of course even as a Gophers fan I don't think any name change should even be contemplated. It would only imply the NCAA has a legitimate case or lend credence to their demands on UND when the school should simply be left to decide themselves if a change is necessary.

Dagies - I couldn't care less if people call Gopher fans arrogant, here or at GPL. If they do it means either one of two things - they're having fun with the rivalry or they're serious and should simply be ignored. Parise, this is college hockey not WWW III with human lives at stake. As for my supposed latest transgression, I already said mea culpa and apologized for assuming my humor would be interpreted correctly. Next time I'll be sure to bring egg shells.

The funny thing is I thought of that exact same reply as I posted. Sioux-cia - I think the concept is funny in theory and even if it went that far it wouldn't be truly upsetting, but I honestly got the impression someone seriously contemplated doing it. If no one honestly did, please hand me a towel to wipe off the egg.

dagies - it's the pre-season and I'm posting in a thread where Sioux fans have delighted in their newfound second favorite team. In this particular case I'm responding to posts by Sioux fans talking about defacing a public piece of property on the Gophers campus and trying to justify such behavior. If that doesn't fit in with what I consider to be a non-sensical label, and I can't give you guys a little grief about that than mea culpa, but there was no harm meant and perhaps I erred in not including a wink to make it more obvious. I honestly like this rivalry and all it's cracked up to be because first and foremost the hockey is supreme. The stuff from fans that can even remotely be considered seriously really means very little to me and I try to have as much fun with it as possible. If anyone is being honest with themselves they would admit that it's a bit immature to relish the possibility of defacing a Gophers statue. I sure has heck would rip any Gopher fan that the same in Grand Forks. Anything beyond that was my having fun with the nickname. If that's been misconstued then I'll be the first to apologize but I would hope by now there's enough history to make it clear I think the rivalry is fun and should be treated as such.

I agree, but don't expect a Halo to have the integrity to recognize or admit to the difference. If that comment doesn't apply to you feel free to not toss a nutter in reply.

You shouldn't end a sentence with a preposition. At least my error was a typo. /cue obligatory "we don't want you skippy here" retort PCM - I think you are one of the few that get 'it'. Internet smack talk is about as meaningful as Roger Clinton.

Bzzzz. Saying, "I know you are but..." is as bad as refrencing Hitler.