Trunk Monkey Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 I still don't understand what some people's fascination with giving Forney a shot over someone is. Yes, he's a good player, but he was injured and had surgery this summer. And the games I saw him play in, (@ MTU, vs. CC) he showed to me that his strength/conditioning wasn't at the same level of his teammates. When he shows in practice that he's got his legs under him to be able to play a full game, then put him in the line-up on a regular basis. If he earns it. Forney needs some game time experience before we will know what he has or does not have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poopski Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 Forney needs some game time experience before we will know what he has or does not have. +2 hes definitely got some potential, but if it translates to productivity we'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeftyZL Posted November 16, 2007 Share Posted November 16, 2007 +2 hes definitely got some potential, but if it translates to productivity we'll see. I never said he didn't need game experience. All I said was his strength and conditioning weren't up to par in the 2 games I've seen of him this year. He seemed to wear down as the game went on. Obviously game time experience will eventually show what he can or cannot contribute to the team. But until his strength and conditioning improve, I would have a hard time playing him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soohockey15 Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 Are you at practice on a daily basis? Do you sit in the locker room? You see, you really have no clue as to what value Kyle brings to this hockey team. The best thing would be for you to shut your mouth or else keep proving your stupidity to everyone on this board. Give all the free passes to the players you choose, but the fact fact remains that stupid penalties by Porter cost us a shot at the last two NC's. They were momentum killers, and nothing he or anyone else did made up for them or cancelled them out. And by the way, at that point in his Sioux career, Porter should have damn well known better. Your right, god-awful defense and goaltending had nothing to do with the losses. Of course Porter's momentum killers just crushed the hopes of Sioux fans across the nation. Dumb. Don't say i'm speaking in pure stupidity because thats just not true. Your wrong, you know it, and you clearly know little about everything in general. I'm not at practice, but if he was REALLY contributing to anything positive for this squad, odds are he'd be in the line-up. So use common sense and get off your high horse.......dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted November 17, 2007 Share Posted November 17, 2007 OK then, how about Chris Porter, the king of stupid penalties in the last two Frozen Fours. I suppose he gets a pass from all of the "experts" because he was a good hard working guy and brought more to the game than Radke does. It's funny now that Prpich is no longer here that people hold him in such high regard. Rewind a couple years and look at what some of you guys were saying about him and his stupid penalties. I don't care what else a player brings to the game, a stupid or untimely(and stupid) penalty, does not get offset by something else you may or may not do. The fact remains that it is a stupid penalty and could be costly. But hey, justify it to youselves however you want. You need to learn the difference between someone arguing your points with you, and someone taking a shot at Radke. I just don't think you can compare Radke to some of these other players. You are right that Radke is his own player, and has his own value to the team. When Hak puts him in the lineup I don't criticize Hak for doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 You need to learn the difference between someone arguing your points with you, and someone taking a shot at Radke. I just don't think you can compare Radke to some of these other players. You are right that Radke is his own player, and has his own value to the team. When Hak puts him in the lineup I don't criticize Hak for doing so. Oh, I get it now, Radke's stupid penalties are a valid topic to discuss because he really, really sucks bad. Meanwhile other players' stupid penalties are A-OK because they are stand up guys and bring so much more to this team. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the"source" Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Oh, I get it now, Radke's stupid penalties are a valid topic to discuss because he really, really sucks bad. Meanwhile other players' stupid penalties are A-OK because they are stand up guys and bring so much more to this team. Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Oh, I get it now, Radke's stupid penalties are a valid topic to discuss because he really, really sucks bad. Meanwhile other players' stupid penalties are A-OK because they are stand up guys and bring so much more to this team. Unbelievable. I took an issue with your comparison. You expanded my point yourself. I hate to sound like Hammy but don't put words in my mouth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I took an issue with your comparison. You expanded my point yourself. I hate to sound like Hammy but don't put words in my mouth. Which one? First everyone said Radke blows. Then some said they didn't care for him because of stupid penalties, so I tried to point out other players who also took stupid, and in some cases very costly penalties. So just for clarification, are you in the "Radke just sucks ass" camp, or in the"Radke takes stupid penaltieas and i hate him for that reason even though other players that I happen to like also take stupid penalties but thats ok cause they bring more to the team than Radke does" camp? Cause now you got me all f'd up here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 Which one? First everyone said Radke blows. Then some said they didn't care for him because of stupid penalties, so I tried to point out other players who also took stupid, and in some cases very costly penalties. So just for clarification, are you in the "Radke just sucks ass" camp, or in the"Radke takes stupid penaltieas and i hate him for that reason even though other players that I happen to like also take stupid penalties but thats ok cause they bring more to the team than Radke does" camp? Cause now you got me all f'd up here. bolded Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 I heard a rumor that PCM said that Radke's not popular because he has this secret medical condition! HIPPY, HIPPO, er, HIPPA violation!! Do you think he'll be fired from the team's sudo-medical staff? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THETRIOUXPER Posted November 19, 2007 Share Posted November 19, 2007 bolded So, according to what you bolded, because Prpich was a good penalty killer and scored from time to time that his stupid penalties are automatically less stupid than Radkes, even though Radke is his own kind of player and brings his own value to the team. Cause what I really want to know here is this: is one stupid penalty better or worse than another just because someone feels the offending player brings "more" to the game than another "less contributing" player might? Cause if that's the case I'm sure as hell not the dumb one here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soohockey15 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Triouxper...shut up...just shut up. You keep prying and prying for an argument and its one you cant win. The only way to describe this is that YOU are Kyle Radke or a very very very dumb hockey mind. I'll take my chances on the latter because you could take the "untimely" penalties (no penalties are timely so thats the most overused phrase on this board) away from Mr. Radke and it still wouldn't matter because he still isn't any good. He doesn't score, he doesn't create plays, he's awful in the defensive end and MOST of all HE'S NOT AN ENFORCER. So tell me why he should EVER play because i'll give you an argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SportsDoc Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Radke is not an "awful" player. He would dress for many teams in the WCHA tomorrow. He has been caught in the position of odd man out. He lost his defensive spot during the year last year, and his move to forward has just not panned out, depth wise, for him. He is still a Fighting Sioux player and obviously stood up for Coach Hakstol at Tech (though not advisable), so he still bleeds green. I'm sure he would love to dress, but he has lost out in the numbers game. He'll get another shot, and I'm sure he'll do his best to contribute however he can in the mean time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sioux-cia Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Radke is not an "awful" player. He would dress for many teams in the WCHA tomorrow. He has been caught in the position of odd man out. He lost his defensive spot during the year last year, and his move to forward has just not panned out, depth wise, for him. He is still a Fighting Sioux player and obviously stood up for Coach Hakstol at Tech (though not advisable), so he still bleeds green. I'm sure he would love to dress, but he has lost out in the numbers game. He'll get another shot, and I'm sure he'll do his best to contribute however he can in the mean time. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Radke is not an "awful" player. He would dress for many teams in the WCHA tomorrow. He has been caught in the position of odd man out. He lost his defensive spot during the year last year, and his move to forward has just not panned out, depth wise, for him. He is still a Fighting Sioux player and obviously stood up for Coach Hakstol at Tech (though not advisable), so he still bleeds green. I'm sure he would love to dress, but he has lost out in the numbers game. He'll get another shot, and I'm sure he'll do his best to contribute however he can in the mean time. I don't think he is a awful player either. Wasn't Radke hurt as well earlier this season? I thought I saw that some where. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soohockey15 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I just find it difficult to understand why Triouxper keeps trying to defend Radke. Yes, all players take dumb penalties, but these players (at least ones who play for the Sioux) also bring things called "offensive talent" or "defensive skill" or just "talent/skill". Can anyone convince me that Kyle Radke falls in to one of these categories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 I just find it difficult to understand why Triouxper keeps trying to defend Radke. Yes, all players take dumb penalties, but these players (at least ones who play for the Sioux) also bring things called "offensive talent" or "defensive skill" or just "talent/skill". Can anyone convince me that Kyle Radke falls in to one of these categories? You forgot one talent that Hak likes: grit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mygarske Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, must be an off week. I haven't read this much piss and fire on here since the Sioux/Goofer series. Sad thing is, it's a circular firing ring. Soohockey15, I can empathize, I made the same mistake of calling Radke a hack during the Mich Tech game. So I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleah Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Wow, must be an off week. I haven't read this much piss and fire on here since the Sioux/Goofer series. Sad thing is, it's a circular firing ring. Soohockey15, I can empathize, I made the same mistake of calling Radke a hack during the Mich Tech game. So I don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soohockey15 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 You forgot one talent that Hak likes: grit. How do we define this "grit"? Is it defined by taking yourself out of the play trying to fight someone? I guess I'm a little in the dark here but this is the very "talent" we've been debating; the very talent that Radke doesn't have. He will continue to take dumb penalties, despite how much anyone will attempt to beat it into his head. As I have said before, I would LOVE to see him succeed, but when a player starts not going on trips and dressing only one of two home games his senior year, I think the coaches have realized this as well. Can't we just quit using the word grit because no one seems to know what the hell it is and I'd love to see you define, my good sir. PCM, for a guy who is supposed to be a hockey mind you are really burying your credibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mygarske Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 One more thing. I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mygarske Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 How do we define this "grit"? I don't have to define it. I've heard Hak use the word enough times to know that he values gritty players. I believe that I've heard him apply to Radke's style of play. If I'm wrong, I'm sure someone will correct me. And you really do need to get a grip. I wasn't defending Radke or THETRIOUXPER, only pointing out that there are other reasons than skill and talent to have a player on the ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted November 20, 2007 Share Posted November 20, 2007 And here I was worried we wouldn't have a scapegoat now that Lee has left the Sioux. Whew. Glad(?) I was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts