redwing77

Now you know why I don't like predicting scores. At least I predicted the correct outcome. Honestly, I thought both teams were defensively sound which led me to believe that this would be a low scoring game. I was wrong. Meh.

Did the US being defending Gold Medal winners as well as an American venue add up to factors in that coverage?

Depends on a lot of factors: 1. Graduation. If there are 2 seniors on the team, that means that there will be at least 2 recruits for the following season. 2. Early departures: If someone bolts for the pros or leaves the team for some other reason, then this opens up a roster slot. 3. Unforseen unfortunate events: Bina is an example of this but usually this doesn't fill a scholarship slot IIRC. Please note that schools are not limited to recruiting just for the following season. Many schools have recruits already lined up for 2007-8 school year and some even go beyond that up to the 2009-2010 school year.

Double post.... What year in school is the Christian kid who is a goaltender?

[sarcasm] Do you think any channel would preempt any program for hockey if it isn't a medal round or a championship game? It pains ESPN to no end to interrupt their nonstop hoops coverage during sportscenter to say that there even was a hockey game the other day! [/sarcasm] No, FSN won't cover the game and if they do... I'll be shocked.

Since you've been laying into the team since the season began, you are the reason they are losing.

The funny thing is, we're favorites. HA! The curse is working so far. In any case, that Team USA team from a few years ago looks a whole lot better now than it even did then.

If that's what you took from my post then... well, you missed the point. As for my prediction, either way, there will be 5 goals or less scored in this game... both sides added together. And no, neither side will score all 5 goals. In fact, I can also predict that neither side will score 4 goals. We're looking at 3-2, 3-1, 2-1, 2-2 tie, 1-0. I would be VERY VERY surprised if there was a 3 goal lead for either team and equally surprised if there was a shutout, even if it is 1-0.

In the lines listed earlier, I like Oshie on the grinder line. He has a lot of grit, defensive posture, and the ability to take the grinder line and score with it. The only thing I'd change is perhaps try putting Wheeler on the top line instead of Bourque. Maybe with Porter and Kessel being teammates (IIRC) on the U18 team as well as last year's U20 team and Wheeler and Kessel currently being teammates something could happen? I'd also feel much more comfortable with Schneider in net. I like everything else though.

Who knows. From everything I've heard (not seen, as I've never seen them play), they are REALLY REALLY good. UND would be lucky to get them. I'm sure every DI women's hockey program will try to get them. I heard they got invites to some Team USA hockey function (I believe they are too young to play in the Olympics so maybe some other competition?) but I don't know what it is.

My question is why would any opposing team want to accuse the other of diving publically? If they did, wouldn't they be looked upon as whiners? Wouldn't they be looked upon as poor sportsmen? Maybe they didn't accuse Downie of diving because they'd rather not say it than say it? I don't know. If Downie did dive, then that makes him a loser and a diver, but even so, he doesn't deserve to be cheap shot. He just deserves to be razzed by the fans.

That was my impression. BCHL is a scoring league whereas USHL is a defensive league. That allows me to hold the opinion that the best goaltender in the BCHL is a good find and the best scorer in the USHL is a good find. Might be a load of hogwash but whatever.

First off, thinking that, should South win, will "shut up the Minnesota crowd" is just flat out wrong. They have years of dominance between the two states to fall back on where we are relatively newer and only really strong hockey-wise in a certain geographic portion of the state. To me, this whole argument sounds like the DI boards on USCHO where Harvard and other ECACHL fans keep saying that their split at UND will finally give them and the ECACHL the respect it deserves compared to the WCHA or even the HEA. Even if South beats Moorhead 27-0 what you all want won't happen. Minnesota hockey fans are far too arrogant to admit that any other state's program can be on par (or better) than theirs. Secondly, as a South alum, I hope to see South win. However, it is only because it is my alum and not because I have a vendetta against Moorhead or Minnesota hockey. South should shoot for the win and South's fans should root for South. Expecting any change in attitudes on the Minnesota side will only make you very disappointed. Flame away.

Hey, sooner or later I'd have to be right! Yes, eliminating capitalism is obviously the fix. When doing what's right for you and you alone is "selling out" then it is obvious that capitalism needs to end.

Adding or restating Sioux-cia If the name is changed, apparently all the racism that exists between the US, North Dakota's state government, and the general population towards the Sioux nation will be eliminated.

This is what I was talking about months ago. From an outsiders' perspective (yeah, mako, GK, and KTF will jump all over this), it seems like the reservations are basically steeped in a socialistic mentality. Meaning, what's good for some should be good for all. Individual windfalls are strongly discouraged because the individual should be thinking about the whole and not about him/herself. The problem, as I see it, with this system, is no individual can really make an impact on the whole in such a manner that is expected. Certainly no individual can change the lifestyle or monetary income (in the least bit substantially anyways) of the masses. What it then comes down it os culture shock and the subsequent clash therein. American culture really is individualistic in nature. "All more me and little for all" if you will. Whereas the reservation's culture seems to be "All for all and little for me." Socialistic societies work very well on paper, but not in reality. Forms of socialism exist all over the world still and many countries are in trouble economically and socially in part because of it. The one thing that is certain is that socialistic and capitalistic societies are not compatible. Therein lies the problem we see here. Socialists see capitalists as selfish. And when capitalists come into contact with people who are in some way unable to compete with them (whether it is society that holds them down or other physical, mental, or educational deficiencies) they get accused of being arrogant, biased, or (if the people who can't compete with them are of a different race) racist. It ends up in this case being that the majority cannot do anything for the minority without the minnority crying racism. Sure, if UND said, we're going to donate $100 from every student enrolled every semester to the tribes, they'd surely agree to take the money. However, while they take the money from UND, they'd find a way (even if the nickname was the UND Slithering Eels) to call UND racist. Keeping the nickname, changing the nickname. This is a lose/lose situation. The NAs lose regardless because even if the nickname is changed their plight on the reservations nor the racism they decry will go away. If the name is kept, they decry racism for keeping the name (as deciding to keep the name is far more racist than actually holding it, it appears) and continue the "woe is us" mentality anyways. For us it is lose/lose because if the change the name, no one will be happy and we have to jump through all the hoops. Not to mention that the people who are pro change will inevitably try to use their victory in the matter as a form of power gain to leverage what they'd want the name to be without taking steps to help the University make the change. The costs incurred will surely be passed on to the students in the various ways. If we keep the name we have to hear about the incessant whining from now until we actually do change the name. With the citations of mistreatment going from 20+ years ago, to 30+ years ago, etc and still be considered "current." I hate whiners. My solution is simple: Offer to change the name if the Sioux nation offers to pay for the change.

Several comments on this: Need to crash the net more: Well, yeah, we do. Especially since two players that routinely crash the net (Oshie and Toews) were not there this past series. SIoux-cia- Replace Walski with Martens. I don't think our third string goaltender touched the ice all weekend. Believing the hype... I'm going to tenatively agrere with this. I think they do believe that they are one of the most talented teams on the ice. I also think they believe in the biggest detractor when they step on the ice as well (too young/inexperienced). I hope I am wrong. I really think we are lacking two very important aspects: 1. Physicality on D. This is improving and already well talked about. 2. A shooter on Offense. I'm talking about a guy who is going to shoot more than pass. Someone like Nick Fuher on D was. It's almost like they are going "You shoot it." "No, you shoot it." etc etc. I'll say this, right now we are looking exactly like what the preseason write ups have told us. A well talented team with very little for experience. Will be dangerous once they turn the corner. I'm just hoping that the corner is soon to be turned.

Didn't watch the game and I'm not going to comment on it. However, I will comment on this talk about cheap shots. I don't care who it is or what he did leading up to it, but no one deserves to be cheap shot. If Downie had cheap shot Johnson and Johnson retaliated in kind, I'd still be upset and both of them should have gone. Cheap shots take away from the game and can be very dangerous. We all know that. We've beaten one cheap shot to death over and over again. If Johnson did cheap shot Downie then I wish he was suspended even if it is at the detriment to my team.

My prediction is a modification of yours. Zach will not succeed in the NHL in the current role he is playing. I do not see him as a grinder line type player. Sure, he's responsible on both ends of the ice but he is a goal scorer. He needs to be out there with players who can set him up for goals. NJ's playing style right now just doesn't seem to fit Zach.

AF1- Good points, but it doesn't matter. When people lose an argument, or feel they are losing an argument their last ditch effort is to try to discredit the poster. Ranger should take mako's post as a compliment because it should be obvious that, by mako's attack of Ranger, that Ranger is winning the argument. This isn't just common to this argument, it happens all the time in Washington DC. The Liberals are always calling the Conservatives names. Whether you believe one side or the other doesn't matter, really. Once name calling starts the argument is over and the one(s) who stuck to the issue at hand "wins." Name calling is always a nice way to end an argument. It's basically a "white flag" technique. Since I like using the children development model, here's a further example: Boy 1: "That wasn't fair! You took 5 steps instead of 4!" Boy 2: "No I didn't!" B1: "Yes you did!" B2: "No I didn't!" B1: "Yes you did! Look!" B1 counts out the steps and shows B2 he is wrong. B2: "Nuh uh you poopyhead!" Argument over. B1 wins. Sure, Boy 1's steps could have been smaller than boy 2's steps. A wide range of variables could exist where B2 could have been less incorrect. But... he called Boy 1 a poopyhead. It was the admission of defeat.

Maybe only to rattle Goon's cage a little bit, I'll play counter to his argument. First off, Zach isn't lighting up the NHL right now, you are right. Every time I read an article about him (I don't get to watch him play ) and watch the stat sheet (so take this as you will), it seems to me that Zach's role on the team isn't within the area we who've watched him regularly as a collegiate player or even at the AHL think as his strength. Whether or not he's being used correctly in the role he's in is something to consider. I have faith that Zach will improve. Secondly, Zajac. Zajac is a different kind of player than Zach is. Travis has similarities (faceoff ability for one), but generally plays an entirely different game than Zach. In fact, IMO, if Travis were playing in Zach's role I think Travis would do well. He seems to be a mucker and a grinder moreso than Zach. Zach is a dynamic playmaker, whereas Travis is a superb setup man. As unflattering as this may sound, I think Zach's best bet is to be put on wing in the NHL and allowed to play a perimeter game (I think he's being allowed to do that now) while Zajac's role on NJ would probably be similar to his role currently with the Sioux. The Devils need a guy with size, stick handling ability, and good eyes for the ice right now. A guy who isn't afraid to mix it up, get in to the net, deflect shots, and set up teammates. All of these traits are possessed by Travis. For this reason I think he's a flight risk.

Some random thoughts. Some with Sioux glasses on, some maybe not so much: 1. Defense- Our D played much better than I anticipated. Alexander didn't look as lost as I thought he would. Maybe it is the age factor he holds coming in to UND. In any case, with Marvin's play being as it is (hate to say this about a guy whose character is solid), maybe Hak should play more Alexander and less Marvin (if that's possible). No, Alexander isn't the next Robbie Bina in terms of surprise dmen, but so far he's been fairly solid (as solid as 2 games can tell me). We saw a little more body from Finley (I loved how he took out two Harvard players by himself in the defensive zone), but I still think he could be more physical. Smaby stepped up tonight as did Jones and even Radke looked pretty good defensively. Radke's offense has tailed off a bit tho... I'll lump this in here too: Our goaltenders BOTH of them, played lights out hockey this weekend. I can't speak about Phils performance other than the stat sheet, but only giving up 1 goal in 29 shots is pretty good. Parise performed about the same statistically. I'm really happy with our tandem. 2. Forwards on defense: Zajac and Stafford played very well. I also thought Fabian, Kaip, and Prpich was solid in this aspect as well. I really wish Kaip would get in on the offense. I don't know why, but I really like Kaip. Martens was flying around the ice tonight and made a few plays, though, for the most part he was quiet. Foyt did pretty good tonight too. 3. Forwards on offense: We were hit and miss all night long. Harvard seemed to allow us to cycle as much as we wanted and, the more we cycled, the less I thought we'd score. At one point we were cycling so much that it basically took off 30 seconds of our own power play... in other words, we were PKing our own PP. Smaby did eventually shoot the puck and Daigneau made the save. I watched the ESPNU feed and they didn't show a good camera angle on Smaby's goal but the direction change made me think Porter got the goal. Who cares though, it actually went in, which is all that matters. Stafford's goal was beautiful. It reminded me of Toews' goal vs. Denver. Spirko's goal reaked of Stafford's goal vs. UNH done on the other side of the net. For the last half of the second period we really looked good. 4. Harvard: Now that I've watched them play I can say that they are pretty good defensively. They really only made one major mistake (Spirko's goal) when it came to leaving the goaltender out to dry. The Sioux were guilty of doing that far more than Harvard was. I think their goaltender is pretty good. Daigneau can hold his own. Reese isn't that bad and Frasier could turn out to be good as well defensively. I'm not big on whomever it was that was number 5 for Harvard. As to the trap coming back to bite them in the playoffs... well... DU's system didn't come back to bite them the past two years. Yeah, I know the WCHA officials don't care about the obstruction crackdown enough to call it, but the trap works unfortunately. Other notes: Even though it was a goal, I think Mason should have reviewed Harvard's second goal just to be fair. The officiating wasn't that bad tonight, though I saw a lot of interference, some slashing, and at least one high sticking call missed. There were also a few instances where I thought UND was going to get called for checking from behind as well. One of the dunderheads (whomever does play by play.. Sweeney?) demoted Spirko to a freshman at one point. Bredahl is still an idiot. And I hope Hak works them hard this week going into UAA. If I were UAA, even with a bad record, I have to think that I have a good shot against UND at least one night. And, with their new coach being someone who potentially will improve the program more than Hill ever could, UAA as a patsy could end so we'd best live it up while we can. Our dominance on Friday continues. We just can't win on Thursdays at all. We're not much better on Saturdays. We're now 5-4-0 in 1 goal games. We're 5-5-0 at home.

JFR, you make a point but I agree with dagies and it is a related premise (dagies' is) that has the all star game in the NHL cancelled this year so that the NHL players who are named to the Olympic teams can play for their countries. HOWEVER, it may cause a little stress to the team if the team must play in the absence of any of its players whether it be injury or international competition. But nothing like what has happened to University of Alaska Fairbanks. They lost their leading scorer to the pros a few days ago. He isn't coming back. At least Lee, Chorney, Oshie, and Toews will be back.

Wow. Tough loss. The home record is disturbing. Losing to a team at home that we haven't lost to since 1951 is also disturbing. Being outshot is becoming alarming. I'm not one that's going to say that "if we don't outshoot our opponents every game we won't win every game" because we've been outshot and won many times. HOWEVER, the trend seems to be continuing where we just can't seem to get shots on goal. Here's a trivia question for you all (but you won't have time to answer it because I'll post the answer in this post): How many passes does it take to score a goal? The answer? Trick question. You can't score if you don't shoot the puck. 29-21 was the shot score off the stat sheet. Not good totals on our part but not terrible defensively. I guess the positive on this note is that we played pretty good defensively. However, coming online to see that the part of the team that didn't struggle was the part of the team I (and probably most here) expected to struggle and vice versa isn't exactly a good thing. Tommorrow is now a must win. I hope Coach Hak skates them tommorrow morning.