redwing77

*exhales* THanks for the notice, PCM.

I agree. I don't think ALL fans of any fan base can be labelled in a negative or positive manner. There are some of both in every fan base.

Regarding the Western College Blog, don't read too much into that. Eidsness is a 2008 recruit and I think Chris erred in confusing Jordan Parise with Phil Lamoreux in terms of year in school. JPar would have been a senior this year, not Phil. So, in any case, both Grieco and Eidsness are listed as "B" list prospects on the preliminary CSS list. I don't know what worth that has, being on the list and all, but it is worthy of note. I hope Eidsness is a better choice than Rawlings (BCHL) and Christianson (USHL). Eidsness DOES fit the size category for Sioux goaltenders though.

I agree. Though it is "interesting" (but not surprising) to see certain Sioux "fans" taking potshots at their own team like that. Oh well. Anyways, whether it is classy or not (the HC thing) it is certainly getting the reaction that many who have started the whole thing wished to get: a rise out of the Gopher fans/posters. I'm not sure of this, but if UMN posters/fans made nothing of the whole thing the Sioux fans that continue to bring up the Holy Cross thing (which, if you look at it, aren't all that many until Gopher fans interject) would look foolish. My two cents, anyways.

There's no doubt that the new rules have helped Blake, but to say that he was insignificant before that means that that fan must have been a fan of the LA Kings. I mean, I don't remember what LA got for the Blake trade, but it's obvious that they gave up on Blake long before he matured.

Woog-factor has been added in, FYI.

I seem to recall a SSM goaltender being one of the top goaltending prospects out there, but I believe it is for 2008 or 2009...

The thought of that scares me. There have been lots of vicious rumors floating about DISCLAIMER: Not saying any of these are remotely true. I wouldn't say they were rumors if they had truth to them). EDIT: The rumor regarding Phil Lamoureux has been removed per a thoughtful request. It was a rumor and the justification given to me was just. I apologize if this was out of line. The most likely to leave would be Anthony Grieco. He's 18 now. He has 3 years of junior eligibility left and 3 years of NCAA eligibility left (if he chose to continue that route). What he DOES have is Major Junior interest. St. Mike's of the OHL (IIRC) owns his rights. I don't know how active they are with Tony, but MJ defections during the season is a statistic on the rise. Jason Bailey (Michigan) and Nigel Williams (UW) and I think one other already left school for MJ. It would be a shame to see Tony leave as well.

I think it is much different than that. I think Vikings players should be excited to hear that at least the crowd isn't apathetic enough to not even notice! Booing Brad Johnson is simply gratifying to realize that those fans aren't just filling up space. I guess that's the only rationale I can think up because the Vikings stinking isn't exactly unusual.

Better that than Adam's problem.

I like Kaip. I thought he'd be a Prpich type player. He has a TON of hustle on the ice (though it's overlooked thanks to the hustle put up by Porter and Oshie). As for Kaip's pro aspirations, I think it was pretty clear that, even before donning a Sioux uniform, his chances at making the NHL were that of a long shot. Most 9th round draft picks are long shots (seen as such so strongly now that the NHL draft no longer even has an 8th or 9th round). Every team would like to draft a Henrik Zetterberg, Luc Robitaille, or Brett Hull (all were drafted in the 7th round or later) but the chances of that happening aren't all that high. Nevertheless, some impress at the right time (Kaip) and others impress after they've become too old to be eligible and other, younger players have eclipsed their talent (Rory McMahon). Draft position, to me, really only matters if you are drafted in the first 10 picks of the first round. After that, it generally goes by tiers. Top 10 are potential sure fire NHL players (top 5 potential NHL stars) and the rest graded according to where they are at developmentally, what potential upside they may have in the style of the game the team that drafts them plays, and likelihood to pan out.

How do you agree with me and then, in the second sentence, disagree with me? I agree we should be doing a better job of keeping the front of the net clear, but that "problem" only accounted for one of the three MTU goals on Saturday (their first goal). The others were because of whiffed swats at the puck (the second goal. Genoway and Jones were both able to get decent position on the passes, but just flat out missed) and the third was a lucky deflection off of a player (not a skate nor a stick IIRC). We have been allowing players to crash our net and we don't return the favor. I really think our physicality is down because of the team's lack of confidence in the special teams. Smaby, Greene, Jones, Hale, Schneider, Commodore, and so on hit with wild abandon because they knew that, if they got called for a penalty, the PK team would be able to keep it reasonably close without them on the ice. Our PK may not be statistically the worst, but I really do believe we are the worst in the WCHA at least in terms of confidence. I guess that's my armchair coach perspective on that.

I thought that's what you need after agreeing with Dirty/Diggler?

Can I be the one that photographs the whole thing and then posts the pics on this site? SIOUXELEVEN: I like your post. I'd comment regarding the coaching that coaching works in cycles it seems. For example, many consider Scotty Bowman to be the best NHL hockey coach in history. However, how do you qualify "best?" Every year, in college hockey and in the NHL, a coach is named "Coach of the Year." This assumes that he did the "best" job at coaching that year. If Scott Bowman was the "best" coach ever, he should have won that award in consecutive years starting the year he won his first Stanley Cup with the Canadians and ending when he retired, right? No, I'm not going to say you are wrong in your assessment. I am not going to call Hakstol the next hall of fame collegiate coach. Likewise, I'm not going to call Hakstol a bust. It's FAR too early for that. However, no coach, regardless of how good he is, can get production out of his team year in and year out. THat's part of what is called "adversity." Sometimes, if such failure is prolonged (meaning more than one season worth), his job may become open. Other times, he may have a blind AD (see Minnesota Gopher football). I don't know how this season will progress. So far, he's been frustrating as hell! But I agree on all of your points. We're not eliminated yet. Hopefully we can recover enough to make it.

Exactly. Could it be called in a cliche like fashion that most of the team is in a sophomore slump? Or is that something different?

True enough, though I never said anything about PP time. Kaip on the powerplay is perplexing to me too.

I agree. Great points and a great post.

Precisely. I don't think our D or our goaltender is playing especially poorly right now. We are usually getting beaten on deflections. We lack offense and we especially lack confidence. We aren't playing like we know we can overcome our opponents. We're continually pressing and holding our sticks too tight.

WHEW! Finally. All this suspense has been killing me! Still, no BDB, which cannot be good.

7>4- Normally I agree with you. However look at, I hate bringing this up repeatedly, his age. He's a young lad playing in a league full of people 2 years or older than he is. Pulling him at the first sign of adversity is like saying he can't "hang with the big boys." When it's been shown that goaltenders are a "special breed unto themselves" one has to wonder what kind of effects this has on his confidence. Pulling a goaltneder at the pro levels or even at the junior levels is different because they are mostly your peers in age group or at similar developmental levels. I don't know if I agree with Hak on his decision. I just think we need to put a goaltender in the net that the players feel motivated to skate around. So far, it isn't Phil and who knows if it is Tony either.

Hey_Go_Sioux- SOrry, I read Hey idiot and then couldn't get past the verbal insult. Maybe I'll unignore you later. Perhaps then you'll learn that verbal insults aren't the best way to disagree with someone. Eskimos- Are you serious? I apologize if that appears to be so, but I think it's kinda interesting that you are standing up for people saying "Finley should be signed by Washington right now" and "he should be cut" or "who would want this guy" I think that is only SLIGHTLY different than the posters that said "He has made some mistakes. I really don't like him turning the puck over every once in a while. His footwork needs work. He needs to hit more people." The latter is criticism. I don't mind that because they're right. He has a long way to go. But saying anything more harsh than that isn't called for and that's where I take exception. I do enjoy how people say "I'm not blaming Finley for the loss but they wouldn't have scored the winning goal if Finley had done his job." Uh.... yeah. THat's not blaming Finley for the loss at all. That's like saying "We would have won the game if Nolan hadn't gotten in the way of the puck."

I hope you're right. I believe that the players are having trouble adjusting to Dane's system, as no doubt it is different than Berry's, but I trust Hakstol and company. I just don't like the bleakness.

Actually, one thing I've noticed is that there are a disproportionate amount of goals (against either goaltender) that are being deflected in rather than just outright beating them. Lammy's only goal allowed tonight was one of those. MTU's 2nd and 3rd goals were impossible saves.

Ira- I'm trying to cheer as hard as I can, but everyone says the players can't hear you (especially through the TV screen or the radio speakers). I'm trying to do my part, though! But anyways, good points.