redwing77

You didn't read it very well DAR. He and his friend stole some stuff, then stole a car, and proceeded to lead the police on a high speed chase through Moorhead. He was caught and sentenced to something like 6-8 months in jail. The jail time was what he attributed to recovery, not the crime itself.

Hextall will wear a letter... just not this season. It's very rare for a sophomore to wear a letter, though it isn't unprecedented.

Maybe... Maybe not. My best friend's younger brother got several drug violations and ended up a passenger in a stolen vehicle/theft combination turned high speed chase in Moorhead a few years back. He got caught (obviously). He was sent to jail. What happened? EVERYTHING. His entire life turned around. In jail, he cleaned up. In jail, he somehow started making the changes down to his very basic personality that made it possible to stay clean. 3 months after his release and one drug conviction of his girlfriend later: He got full custody of his then 2 year old daughter. Since then he's held steady employment, his girl has a steady parent that is drug free, and he now drives a 1992 Corvette when he's not toting the girl around in his 2002 Yukon. He also has a steady girlfriend that seems pretty good for him. In patient treatment may be immensely beneficial, but sometimes, simply being locked away can do the trick. My friend's brother swears it is the jail time that got his head put on straight.

I also expect to see a 30% jump in High School graduation rates, college enrollment (not just at UND) will skyrocket, and alcoholism will be stamped out forever. I also expect that I'll win the lottery 5 times straight without buying any lottery tickets, I'll be named Humanitarian of the Year for 25 of the 48 continental United States, and George W. Bush will be granted a Nobel Prize for his efforts in Iraq. Seriously, though, I wonder what they'll blame next when the nickname is gone? I'm kinda interested in finding out what the activists will turn on next?

Yeah, found that it has been turned into a rallying cry for every cause imaginable. Kinda lessens the power of the original imo.

Actually, it was a quote by a lutheran minister in Germany during World War II. Actually, it wasn't published officially until 1955. Here.'s the wikipedia article on it.

I also beg to differ with using Marquette as an example because it actually plays well into dagies' hand. I believe that now they are the Golden Eagles (which they are). That is NOT the first nickname they changed to when they dropped the Warriors moniker. Their first? They just changed the name to "Gold." That went well until nearly every alumni wrote letters to Marquette stating that the nickname is a great reason to cease sending in money. Change it or kiss the money goodbye. They changed it very quickly. Here is the story. Yeah, it is wikipedia. Deal with it.

True enough, but don't they get paid a little better overseas compared to the ECHL or even the AHL? Why not play a game that you love and get paid better for it?

I dunno. I think LaPoint did pretty darn well at clearing the crease before he got injured. He just clears the crease of the puck rather than throwing bodies around.

I don't remember what I thought of it at the time, so what I'm about to say could be hypocritical of me: But yeah, I thought it was cheap. Then again, I thought Don Adam helped facilitate the injury to Bina. This whole process, cheap as it certainly is, demonstrates why it is so important to have competent officials on the ice in every game. If justice isn't served, which it clearly wasn't, then the players start to police themselves. So, yeah, Prpich speared Paukovich and should have been assessed a 5 and a match, if not a dq. But Paukovich's season should have been over after the hit on Bina. So... it's in the past now. Don Adam wasn't punished for his incompetence. And safety is still a growing concern in the WCHA.

I think there is a lot of credence to the possibility that no one will be happy with the change whatever it is. If opinion were different, this thread wouldn't exist and the name would already have been changed.

Gleason was an offensive defenseman much like Marto in High School (at least that's my take). I think Gleason would be put in the "puckmover" category if you wish to use those categories.

Corruption.... in CALIFORNIA? NO BLEEPING WAY! On a seperate debate: Which state is more corrupt: California or Louisiana? HARD to say, isn't it?

GET OUT OF MY F'ING HEAD!

Precisely. It's why I can't stand this "code" crap. Yes, there is a "code" to a degree, but not to the degree that it is done in today's hockey. Right now the code is of two parts: Part 1: Don't blindside a player. Make some sort of attempt to ask if they wished to drop the gloves or warn them of your intention to fight if at all possible. If they do not wish to fight, or at any time wishes the fight to cease before the officials intervene, or falls to the ice, you are to assume the fight has ended and skate immediately to the penalty box to serve the appropriate time as dictated by the rules and by the officials (this would include an instigator penalty should that be assessed...though really, it's hard to get an instigator penalty if both fighters agree to drop the gloves). Part 2: In the event that a disservice has been done to a teammember not normally considered to drop the gloves, thou shalt attempt to complete Part 1 as soon as opportunity allows. Part 2 is what is currently wrong with Cherry's so called "code." Unfortunately, the officials have to have more of a role in all of this. Fighting has gone down over the years the "New" NHL has been out (IIRC) and that has actually been GOOD for the game. However, the officials have to catch up. With less fighting and less allowable clutch and grab, more official presence will have to be felt to dictate the proper discipline and decorum of the game. Also, I applaud your use of Jerome Iginla. He's the epitomy of what an enforcer should be. If next season Iginla decided that he would no longer, for any circumstances, drop the gloves, he'd still be a valuable asset to his team because he can score goals. Scott Stevens, despite his reputation at times during his career, was another example. He dropped the gloves, too. However, if he didn't do it, he would still be a hall of fame caliber defenseman because he was a stellar defenseman in the role he played. Fighting was part of the game for Iginla and Stevens. It isn't the ONLY part of the game for them (unlike Scott Parker and Derek Boogaard). I think all cheap acts are worth noting, though. Why? Not because of what other fans think (gives us a chance to whine, whatever) but rather because of two things: 1. Cheap acts affect the safety of the game, if not disrupts it entirely by causing injury. 2. If cheap acts are allowed to happen without officials stepping in, it could reoccur or even, worse, escalate. This is one of the reasons why I'm so appalled at the lack of quality officiating in the NHL Finals. If McCreary and crew set the tone in Game 1, there is NO WAY that Datsyuk gets slashed in Game 5. NO WAY. Both of these teams are quite skilled and smart (for the most part). If the tone was set in Game 1, that slash would certainly have been called (I'm assuming it wasn't as I missed that part of the game). The Cooke elbow in Game 1 would have been called. Bylsma would have been livid with his players for taking such stupid penalties. Babcock would be pissed at Holmstrom and so on as well. I still say that even the worst NHL official is better than 80% of what the WCHA has on staff. Heck, the argument could be made that USHL officials are better than WCHA officials (case in point: Last season two USHL officials made their NHL officiating debuts. When was the last time a WCHA official called an NHL game?) Anyways, I'm ranting.

I'd change a few things. VV centering Trupp and Hextall Toews centering Gregoire and Frattin Malone centering Lamoreaux and Cichy Zajac centering Kristo and Bruneteau/Forney Bench: Rowney, Davidson, and? I'd rather have Malone, Zajac, and Lammy on the same line as they'd make an EXCELLENT checking line, but that would leave us short one center, I think. Also, I mean no disrespect with putting Kristo on the fourth line. I think the Sioux do better with 4 lines rolling rather than a short bench. Though there isn't a lot of Oshie-like players on this team, I LOVE the balance this roster has. Defensive pairings: I agree with you with the exception of the last pairing. I know Hakstol likes to go O-Dman with D-Dman, but I think this year will be a change. I think there will be a platoon between MacWilliam and Gleason. I think Fienhage will be a regular player. I'm usually wrong with predictions of this sorts, but Fienhage had the coaches praising him the second half of last season. I find it hard to believe that he'd start on the bench. Gleason may very well get regular time, but the freshmen would be the ones to platoon. I don't see Fienhage sitting too much.

Holy $$$$ one of the Hanson Brothers posts here! To be fair, I can somewhat see what DaveK's saying. Physical play is an integral part of the game. To limit it would be to turn it into women's hockey, which would effectively put the last name in the coffin for the sport. For you women's hockey enthusiasts, I've long been a proponent of interpretting Title IX to mean "equality" in sports. That means, that checking should be allowed in women's hockey. In any case, in order to have effective physical play in the NHL, two things must be a given: 1. "Goonish" acts can be policed by the teams*. 2. The officials must recognize goonish acts and act accordingly. There are no gray areas when stickwork or goonish acts are involved. It either is a penalty, or is not a penalty. Continuously neglecting to call what they'd opine as "borderline" calls would result in escalation (as ANYONE who watched this series would undeniably notice). I agree with the analysts that a series where everything is called would kill the game. However, I would say that it isn't how many penalties you call that makes the difference. It is how you call the game in the first period and how consistent you are thereafter that dictates how the game is going. You can still control the game and prevent escalations without calling everything. These officials aren't doing their jobs. Period. * - Let it be known that I understand fighting as a part of the NHL, but I am vehemently opposed to Boogaard type players whose only real contribution to the team is said act. BTW- Boogaard was recently interviewed and expressed concerns about his future in the NHL. I think he should be proud to be in the NHL for as long as he has. But hopefully he planned from day one to accommodate for the fact that his days are numbered. As years progress, the true enforcer has become more and more of a rarity.

Oh. My bad.

You are ever the optimist, Sicatoka. Seriously.

Did he face 70+ shots? He could be another Walski! Sign him Hak!

Ahm, no they wouldn't. NHL Network is the #1 place for Crosby led PR propaganda. No way would they show that. The only time Crosby is shown in NHL on the Fly in on-ice action is one of the following: 1. Involved in a play that results in a goal (such as what would warrant an assist) 2. Scores a goal (any setting, regulation, ot or shootout) 3. Has a penalty (called or otherwise) committed on him. For example, the Maltby slash. I've never seen Crosby put in anything other than what even the most daft idiot would consider a positive light. Hell, I'm almost to the point where Crosby could pull a McSorely or a Bertuzzi and it still wouldn't get much airtime. And as for the stickwork argument: If a penalty is warranted? Have you watched these games? The officials are just bystanders (Game 5 was an f-ing anomaly). So, when the stickwork warrants a penalty and it isn't called, it's still good? I don't see the stickwork as being "ok." Nor do I see elbows (Cooke), tackles (Holmstrom), or dives (Osgood). Judging how good something is by whether or not the officials find fault in it is purely subjective as it assumes the officials are going to go by the rulebook. Even NHL on the Fly acknowledges that the officials aren't calling even 10% of the overt penalties on the ice for either side.

One thing that was brought up is that, of the AJHL commits we have, Rowney is the oldest. He might even be the second oldest commit we have next to Fink and perhaps Bruneteau. I also think that Rowney can be brought in without expectations being placed on him. He can learn the game at Rowney and the coaches' pace rather than, I feel, with Knight and Mattson, expected to contribute right away. Rowney is no slouch. He's not a wild card like Rodwell, McDonnell, White, or Fink. He did pretty darn well for himself. And as for Chris getting pwned, yeah, he did. However, Gary Joyce's comments are, at times, vague, and contradictory in themselves. He doesn't seem to attack many of the issues. He just seems to defend his position and attack Chris as being wrong.

Couple of things: 1. In response to my own question stated earlier, I think Abdelkader's goal was weaker. Cleary, to this point, mostly missed the net with all his shots. So it would go without saying that Fleury would see Cleary had the puck and naturally assume it would be going wide or harmlessly bounce off a pad or his chest if it did go on goal. I can see that being confusing for the guy. Abdelkader's goal was a defensive meltdown, sure, but he was screen for 1% of the shot, that would be the 1% where the puck was on Abdelkader's stick moving to shoot the puck. The entire shot from stick to net was unscreened. Fleury should have had that one easy. 2. I don't think Boogaard is a cheap player. I think he's a worthless fighter. There's a difference. Boogaard doesn't skate around trying to injure players like Pronger did the other year or like Downie does. Boogaard can fight. Most fights are started verbally with something like "do you want to go?" Boogaard is no exception to the rule. He still is a waste of roster space, especially when grit is all that the Wild have and lack scoring behind Koivu. Kunitz is a gritty player. And, truth be told, I saw a lot more cheap hits made by Malkin than I did from Kunitz. And there is indeed something to the fact that it was the Ducks influence on Kunitz because, if memory serves, he started playing a much cleaner game when he got to Pittsburgh. 3. This series will not be over in 6. Detroit won't win in Pittsburgh. I just don't see it happening. 4. It is interesting to see what was different between when Detroit was down a goal or two in Game 4 and when Pittsburgh was down a goal or 2 in game 5. When Detroit went down 4-2, Detroit folded. They started skating lackadaisically, stopped really exerting themselves, and looked rather tired. Sure, they had a few chances and put some pressure on at times, but overall, a very sad effort. Pittsburgh resorted to bad behavior. And I say this knowing that they weren't especially cheap in Game 1 and 2 (excluding of course the Cooke elbow in Game 1 and the entire scrum at the end of Game 2... I don't think either team acted very well in that scrum). 5. The telling thing in the after game analysis was sated by the NHL On The Fly program analysts. "The special teams advantage for Pittsburgh ended in Game 5." So, yeah.... 6. Add another tidbit to my Crosby distaste: His behavior in Game 5 was absolutely embarrassing. I gave him the benefit of the doubt on the Maltby slash in Game 4 because I couldn't see where Maltby's stick ends up due to the camera being screened. Many people are calling it a dive. If it were Zetterberg and not Maltby, I'd believe them. However, history of Maltby's actions produces doubt. 7. I now am convinced that it will be Detroit in 7. Fleury is a bleeding sieve at the Joe (Heh, .857 Save% at the Joe). Also, this is the game of the final change. It seems like that rule has really helped Detroit and Pittsburgh so far. 8. I like Babcock and Bylsma as coaches. Bylsma is straight forward and comes across to me as a likeable guy. Babcock I admire because he both likes and dislikes the media at the same time. I respect that.

Did we need it with JPL his senior year? I think it is to be expected that a freshman goaltender give up occasional softies. It's called getting used to the game at this level. I'm not at all worried about Eidsness. I am worried that Dell will go through the same thing Eids did last year and people won't give him a break (They'll Grieco him). But alas... it matters not. How about this Phillippi guy who plays for Fairbanks of the NAHL for our third goaltender? He had a stellar year in the NAHL and he's from Minnesota.

A few random thoughts: 1. Coming into this series, when I thought of the one player who would be the achilles heel for the Penguins, what did I say? I'll give you a hint. He wears #29. This was Game 1 all over again. Except, the only goals that were going in were the ones like Abdelkader was scoring on. 2. Cleary's goal. if you listen to the replay, in the final 2 seconds of the replay, you can almost hear me yelling "TUUURCOOOOOOO'DDDDD" from my living room! Seriously, not sure which goal was weaker. This one or Abdelkader's. 3. Did anyone listen to the commentators after the Cleary goal? They immediately started giving excuses for Fleury. They said "It was a knuckleball. It must have dipped at the last moment." If Osgood gave up the same goal, I wonder if they'd be so nice? I don't know. I hope I don't find out. Apparently Malkin's elbowing, Talbot's slashing, and Kunitz's running the goaltender isn't a problem, but Holmstrom in front of the net before the Rafalski goal is "a problem." Then again, Eddie Olcyk was explaining how this series isn't getting so many penalties because of the skill. 4. I guarantee you that Detroit will spend more time on the penalty kill in Pittsburgh. 5. Pittsburgh takes Game 6. Maybe in blowout fashion.