Goon

Apparently you do, because you had to put your two cents in...

So, let me get this right.... We play a heated conference game, smack is talked all game long. Blood and Finley just happen to drag a random Gopher out of the handshake line. Yeah... You have to be kidding me? You can believe what you're shoveling?

I was thinking more like don't let the door hit you where you sit.

He who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Or maybe you need to take a deeper look at yourself before you come in here and throw a bunch of accusations around. This is a UND hockey forum. Not Gopher Puck Live. Seriously, can't handle the truth? I know some of you Gopher fans always try to paint your team as the golden boys that can do no wrong. Nothing I said there is untrue. Do you have to always be an uber, condescending, pompous d-bag? Like I said before, there were words exchange on the ice. I got this from two very reliable people.

That was very funny.

No genius, we know for a fact that something was said in both instances, because we have talked to people that were either there or have a family member that have told us this. Stop trying to give us your the above the fray, pompous garbage. You're a bigger idiot than anyone on this site if you think nothing was said on the ice. People don't just attack someone in a handshake line. Smack talk is part of sports, I agree, I played football in college and heard it first hand. Is it cool to drag someone out of the handshake line after a game? Nope! Not at all. It's unacceptable. However, it's classless as well to talk smack after the game is over. There was almost a fight after the Blackhawks and Coyotes playoff series a few years ago. It was about someone running his mouth. Go through the line shake hand and shut the EF up.

Talking trash happens all of the time, the Handshake line is not a place to talk smack. I know for a fact that Rau mouth off to Blood, but Blood never actually revealed what was said to set him off. You act like your golden squirrels are without blame all of the time.

The team has moved on without him. Hakstol, Dillon and Zane were very clear with that.

Anything less than six-points this weekend is "unacceptable"...

I am not used to the three points for a win.

Both handshake line brawls were a result of the Gopher hockey player running his mouth both times after the game was over. Gee, I wonder if there is a direct correlation?

The article that Brad put in yesterday's paper said that Rocco is day-to-day.

I don't know what to make of C.C., they always seem to have offensive players that give our defense fits. But I don't think they're very good this season. So, three points this weekend.

Why are we firing me? I feel like I have been a victim of Donald Trump.

I have to send you another payment.

It was in the context of the game.

No, it's a knee injury... Tweaked it last game. Should be okay this week, if I remember right.

Johnson Friday Cagguila on Saturday.

No doubt, I suppose the Packers being given a home game over the 49ers was in the context of the game as well.

You can facepalm yourself genius. You remind me of a 13-year old girl that has a burr in her ass because she didn't get invited to the cool kid's birthday party. I said you lick the boots of Adam Proteau, I know who's blog that is and who it's written for. Try to keep up please. Just because you cite an article that promotes your agenda doesn't make it facts, this is nothing more than spin from the Anti-Fighting Cabal, these people have an agenda they want fighting gone from the NHL. Of course they're going to post facts or something that they push as fact that supports their argument. Again, they have an agenda that is anti-fighting. I could care less about Paul Busch's blog. I know that the players have said through their union, they don't want the anti-Fighting stance. Even Zach Parise has said he's not anti-fighting, players police the game. I am going to take his word over Paul Busch's. If he doesn't like fighting he should go watch figure skating. It's part of the game... You cherry pick points as if they were fact that promote your argument.

I like how you said you proved me wrong. You've proved nothing. But you still haven't answered the premise of my argument. You excuse plays from dirty players that you say are in the context of the game. So ramming someone's head first into the boards is in the context of the game. Two guys dropping the gloves is not. Someone kneeing the opposition is in the context of the game, fighting after said dirty play is not.

I could care less what the anti-fighting cabal has to say. I don't lick the boots of Adam Proteau like you do.

I like to know when boarding someone through the boards with the intent to hurt them is considered a hockey play. That's silly, or purposely targeting the head of an opponent to knock them out of the game is considered within the context of the game and a hockey play. That's also silliness.

I don't get the logic. Maybe I need to use enhanced methods to get the logic. Dave is offended when two willing combatants beat the tar out of each other on the ice. However, isn't offended when someone conducts a bush-league and dangerous hit, or leg checks... Or smokes his opponent from behind, head first into the boards. You see, it's all in the context of the game. So, let the rats run wild, it's all in the context of the game. Each day it seems like we get another player that chopped into the boards. CONTEXT OF THE GAME!!! Right? I think that someone will be killed and or maimed on the ice by a dirty hit, that was in the "context of the game", before someone is killed by a hockey fight.

No shootout for you...