mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Good discussions here.
Good discussions here.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
I wasn't really arguing on that point. Sorry if it came across that way. I was simply pointing out that I believe that it comes down to player attitude and that isn't always easy to predict (as you pointed out with Leddy and Vanek examples). If BC has a number of the same situations like we had, I have little doubt they will suffer similarly.
I think most of the comments I have seen (from myself included) haven't been advocating to completely avoid recruiting those high pick types. It was more about finding a balance between high pick types and guys that are likely to be productive offensive players over the course of 4 years (which usually means grabbing very skilled guys that don't have the prototypical NHL frame). If you go too heavy with the high end NHL prospect types and they leave after a season or two... well, we see how it wrecks the continuity of building a consistent title threat. Best to find a mix of guys (which is clearly what they have decided to do when you look at recent incoming classes and what is in the pipeline).
I will say that I might be more willing to accept recruiting more NHL prospect types on defense. Mainly because I think how well you recruit defensively is what separates the elite programs from the rest. At least "elite" from a consistency standpoint.
I wasn't really arguing on that point. Sorry if it came across that way. I was simply pointing out that I believe that it comes down to player attitude and that isn't always easy to predict (as you pointed out with Leddy and Vanek examples). If BC has a number of the same situations like we had, I have little doubt they will suffer similarly.
I think most of the comments I have seen (from myself included) haven't been advocating to completely avoid recruiting those high pick types. It was more about finding a balance between high pick types and guys that are likely to be productive offensive players over the course of 4 years (which usually means grabbing very skilled guys that don't have the prototypical NHL frame). If you go too heavy with the high end NHL prospect types and they leave after a season or two... well, we see how it wrecks the continuity of building a consistent title threat. Best to find a mix of guys (which is clearly what they have decided to do when you look at recent incoming classes and what is in the pipeline).
I will say that I might be more willing to accept recruiting more NHL prospect types on defense. Mainly because I think how well you recruit defensively is what separates the elite programs from the rest. At least "elite" from a consistency standpoint.
Last edited:
Like when every defenseman on your roster is a draft pick? Has that ever happened before?
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
You are correct. Lucia and staff were very high on these players and expected a lot more out of them. So they are perfect examples of why the UM staff is always better at picking college players than NHLers. (er, wait...)
Patrick White looked phenomenal in 3 games his Junior year at State. But watching him more after that made me question if he had the speed and ability to be successful in college, much less make the NHL. I had the luxury of seeing him play often. But college coaches can only watch so many games so have to base their decision on an often less than optimal number of games. This is especially true for Europeans.
No one is immune to mistakes in drafting and recruiting. But to say that an undrafted player should have no less expectation placed on them than one picked in a lower round seems strange to me. NHL draft status isn't the answer. But it is one more data point on which to judge a player you know little about. That is all I am saying! If someone looks at the stats and sees no better performance out of first and second-rounders compared to undrafted players in college, I'll drop it. But I don't think you'll see that relationship. And that stat matters more than a list of outliers. I wouldn't turn down Milano or Eichel if they said they wanted to come to the U.
You are correct. Lucia and staff were very high on these players and expected a lot more out of them. So they are perfect examples of why the UM staff is always better at picking college players than NHLers. (er, wait...)
Patrick White looked phenomenal in 3 games his Junior year at State. But watching him more after that made me question if he had the speed and ability to be successful in college, much less make the NHL. I had the luxury of seeing him play often. But college coaches can only watch so many games so have to base their decision on an often less than optimal number of games. This is especially true for Europeans.
No one is immune to mistakes in drafting and recruiting. But to say that an undrafted player should have no less expectation placed on them than one picked in a lower round seems strange to me. NHL draft status isn't the answer. But it is one more data point on which to judge a player you know little about. That is all I am saying! If someone looks at the stats and sees no better performance out of first and second-rounders compared to undrafted players in college, I'll drop it. But I don't think you'll see that relationship. And that stat matters more than a list of outliers. I wouldn't turn down Milano or Eichel if they said they wanted to come to the U.
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Sorry to appear to pile on...but I think people are troubled by this for a different reason.
Most fans believe that the goal of our program is to win and win within scholastic/NCAA guidelines. The staff clearly believes that. The minute you insert an additional and periodically conflicting second goal (to always place Minnesotans on the team in front of other kids), it will automatically hinder our ability to stay focused on the first goal...winning. That's the problem.
Sorry to appear to pile on...but I think people are troubled by this for a different reason.
Most fans believe that the goal of our program is to win and win within scholastic/NCAA guidelines. The staff clearly believes that. The minute you insert an additional and periodically conflicting second goal (to always place Minnesotans on the team in front of other kids), it will automatically hinder our ability to stay focused on the first goal...winning. That's the problem.
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Wha? You're talking about two guys that were first round picks by the NHLers. First rounders... in other words, the most important choices when building a pro franchise. If anything, the scouting staffs of those NHL teams have more egg on their face.
No doubt every coach misses at times too but the point is your view on the NHL draft being another "data point" to validate a player's worthiness as a college prospect is riddled with flawed thinking.
I guarantee you they see these prospects play a lot more than you seem to be aware of. Over the course on an entire year. Not just the winter.
I'm not sure who is saying that? You are far more caught up on the draft angle. I think the reality is you are overlooking the fact that the NHL looks at different traits when judging players. It is a different game. Far more emphasis on size and physicality. Which often means the undersized guy has his value lessened. Even the small guys who get drafted often get drafted later because of this.
Guess what LeBlanc, Jack Connolly, Miele, Gilroy, Ryan Duncan, Marty Sertich, Lessard, and Sejna all have in common? They all won the Hobey Baker in the last 12 years... and none of them were drafted by an NHL team. 8 of the last 12 winners of the top college player award... undrafted.
I have little doubt there are numerous other examples of undrafted guys outperforming their high pick counterparts (in college) if you bother to research it.
I have no issues with landing some high picks guys. But I also know that in the 3+ decades I have watched college hockey, there have been a lot of guys that didn't fall into that category but were very good college players. Including many undrafted players.
Wha? You're talking about two guys that were first round picks by the NHLers. First rounders... in other words, the most important choices when building a pro franchise. If anything, the scouting staffs of those NHL teams have more egg on their face.
No doubt every coach misses at times too but the point is your view on the NHL draft being another "data point" to validate a player's worthiness as a college prospect is riddled with flawed thinking.
I guarantee you they see these prospects play a lot more than you seem to be aware of. Over the course on an entire year. Not just the winter.
I'm not sure who is saying that? You are far more caught up on the draft angle. I think the reality is you are overlooking the fact that the NHL looks at different traits when judging players. It is a different game. Far more emphasis on size and physicality. Which often means the undersized guy has his value lessened. Even the small guys who get drafted often get drafted later because of this.
Guess what LeBlanc, Jack Connolly, Miele, Gilroy, Ryan Duncan, Marty Sertich, Lessard, and Sejna all have in common? They all won the Hobey Baker in the last 12 years... and none of them were drafted by an NHL team. 8 of the last 12 winners of the top college player award... undrafted.
I have little doubt there are numerous other examples of undrafted guys outperforming their high pick counterparts (in college) if you bother to research it.
I have no issues with landing some high picks guys. But I also know that in the 3+ decades I have watched college hockey, there have been a lot of guys that didn't fall into that category but were very good college players. Including many undrafted players.
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
So are you saying there is no correlation between draft status and success in college? That is the point YOU seem to be making with what you have been writing. Because I have not said it is the end-all determination of success. I have said it is one data point. That is all. The way to analyze this (which isn't worth my time, or probably anyones) is to look at the last 10-15 years and do a statistical analysis of results versus draft status. Listing examples of undrafted guys who did well or vice-versa doesn't prove there is no correlation. (Harley would be happy to discuss the appropriate statistical analysis to follow, need for unbiased sampling, sample size.....)
I understands coaches see more than a few games. I see them at games other than just State and know they see a lot in summer too. NHL scouts typically also see first-rounders more than that too. I didn't imply that. But I wasn't the only one who saw him play on a weekly basis his Senior year and had lower expectations than NHL and college coaches. We don't pretend to know more about player potential, just saw him play a lot.
I didn't say Lucia et al made a bigger mistake with White and Fischer (who I also thought wasn't as bad as many made him out to be) than the NHL'ers did (NHL mistake was more costly). Just that a point people are implying is that the coaches should be trusted completely and any other data (draft results) should be ignored. But then you offer two examples where the coaches missed on choices which don't support the idea the coaches always know best. (And I am not saying I don't trust the coaches or that I think Bredstedt was a bad choice - no one is 100% and Bredstedt sounds very promising from other information.)
I understand the difference in skill sets in the leagues. That is why, with his size, I wouldn't have expected Bredstedt to be taken in an early round even if he is a very special player. I just stated it would give fans more confidence if he were drafted somewhere.
But you also lost another point I made early. If Bredstedt had been drafted, I think his smaller size would likely have meant 3 yrs of seeing him. However, as we have seen with guys like Bickel who are undrafted, if they have a great season, they are probably more likely to grab an NHL offer and jump early then a guy who is drafted and has an opportunity waiting for him when he decides to leave college.
In my nearly 4 decades of watching hockey, I have also seen that NHL draft being a major part of college hockey has only really been a big factor in the last 10-15 years, so you can't really use stats from a longer ago time than that to compare to current relationships between draft status and success.
And finally, you keep arguing with me like I said Bredstedt is a bust because he wasn't drafted (which wasn't my point). You seem to argue to the extreme there is no correlation between draft status and success (which you didn't state explicitly, but is the implication of all your examples), yet above you state you are fine with taking high draft defensemen because they are such a key component to the success of a team. But if there were no correlation between success and high draft picks, why would you even mention draft status? One should be able to find 8 phenomenal college defensemen who weren't drafted if no correlation exists between ability at the college level and draft status.
So are you saying there is no correlation between draft status and success in college? That is the point YOU seem to be making with what you have been writing. Because I have not said it is the end-all determination of success. I have said it is one data point. That is all. The way to analyze this (which isn't worth my time, or probably anyones) is to look at the last 10-15 years and do a statistical analysis of results versus draft status. Listing examples of undrafted guys who did well or vice-versa doesn't prove there is no correlation. (Harley would be happy to discuss the appropriate statistical analysis to follow, need for unbiased sampling, sample size.....)
I understands coaches see more than a few games. I see them at games other than just State and know they see a lot in summer too. NHL scouts typically also see first-rounders more than that too. I didn't imply that. But I wasn't the only one who saw him play on a weekly basis his Senior year and had lower expectations than NHL and college coaches. We don't pretend to know more about player potential, just saw him play a lot.
I didn't say Lucia et al made a bigger mistake with White and Fischer (who I also thought wasn't as bad as many made him out to be) than the NHL'ers did (NHL mistake was more costly). Just that a point people are implying is that the coaches should be trusted completely and any other data (draft results) should be ignored. But then you offer two examples where the coaches missed on choices which don't support the idea the coaches always know best. (And I am not saying I don't trust the coaches or that I think Bredstedt was a bad choice - no one is 100% and Bredstedt sounds very promising from other information.)
I understand the difference in skill sets in the leagues. That is why, with his size, I wouldn't have expected Bredstedt to be taken in an early round even if he is a very special player. I just stated it would give fans more confidence if he were drafted somewhere.
But you also lost another point I made early. If Bredstedt had been drafted, I think his smaller size would likely have meant 3 yrs of seeing him. However, as we have seen with guys like Bickel who are undrafted, if they have a great season, they are probably more likely to grab an NHL offer and jump early then a guy who is drafted and has an opportunity waiting for him when he decides to leave college.
In my nearly 4 decades of watching hockey, I have also seen that NHL draft being a major part of college hockey has only really been a big factor in the last 10-15 years, so you can't really use stats from a longer ago time than that to compare to current relationships between draft status and success.
And finally, you keep arguing with me like I said Bredstedt is a bust because he wasn't drafted (which wasn't my point). You seem to argue to the extreme there is no correlation between draft status and success (which you didn't state explicitly, but is the implication of all your examples), yet above you state you are fine with taking high draft defensemen because they are such a key component to the success of a team. But if there were no correlation between success and high draft picks, why would you even mention draft status? One should be able to find 8 phenomenal college defensemen who weren't drafted if no correlation exists between ability at the college level and draft status.
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
I'm saying there have been a lot of examples available that prove draft status is meaningless from a college perspective. Not outliers either. But rather commonplace examples. One example is the various Hobey winners I mentioned over the last 12 years who were not even drafted at all. It wasn't one or two examples. But 8 guys out of 12 winners.
Nobody is infallible but I trust coaches whose livelihood revolve around these decisions and they are judging based on what the college game requires. Not what the pro game does.
If you understand the different skillsets, you wouldn't be as caught up on it as much as you are.
As for more confidence, Justin Kloos went undrafted. I never had a doubt he would be an impact college player. Tyler Sheehy went undrafted this year. I have little doubt he'll be a pretty darn good college player too when he finally hits campus.
Every situation is different but I'd challenge you to find me many 5'9" and smaller guys that sign free agent deals like that after a year or two of college.
Bickel was an older kid when he entered college. He was approaching 22 years old when he got his free agent deal. His window was smaller to cash in. But the biggest factor, as we have both acknowledged, is Stu Bickel was exactly the kind of physical specimen that the NHL loves (and kids like Bristedt aren't). Bickel was 6'4" and 200+ lbs. Unless Bristedt has a major growth spurt, I don't suspect we'll have to worry too much about it. You picked an apple and oranges example there.
I stated I was willing to accept that situation (meaning taking the risk on departures) because elite defensemen are smaller in number than what you see at forward. I didn't say it because I don't think there are undrafted guys that can't be very successful (i.e. Nate Schmidt)
Hobey winners, 1st team all-Americans, etc. Lots of examples of guys at the top of the college game that were overlooked from an NHL perspective. Other than PR, the draft status of a kid is really rather moot on the college level.
Union had one guy drafted by an NHL team (and he was a 3rd rounder) and they won it all last year.
I'm saying there have been a lot of examples available that prove draft status is meaningless from a college perspective. Not outliers either. But rather commonplace examples. One example is the various Hobey winners I mentioned over the last 12 years who were not even drafted at all. It wasn't one or two examples. But 8 guys out of 12 winners.
Nobody is infallible but I trust coaches whose livelihood revolve around these decisions and they are judging based on what the college game requires. Not what the pro game does.
If you understand the different skillsets, you wouldn't be as caught up on it as much as you are.
As for more confidence, Justin Kloos went undrafted. I never had a doubt he would be an impact college player. Tyler Sheehy went undrafted this year. I have little doubt he'll be a pretty darn good college player too when he finally hits campus.
Every situation is different but I'd challenge you to find me many 5'9" and smaller guys that sign free agent deals like that after a year or two of college.
Bickel was an older kid when he entered college. He was approaching 22 years old when he got his free agent deal. His window was smaller to cash in. But the biggest factor, as we have both acknowledged, is Stu Bickel was exactly the kind of physical specimen that the NHL loves (and kids like Bristedt aren't). Bickel was 6'4" and 200+ lbs. Unless Bristedt has a major growth spurt, I don't suspect we'll have to worry too much about it. You picked an apple and oranges example there.
I stated I was willing to accept that situation (meaning taking the risk on departures) because elite defensemen are smaller in number than what you see at forward. I didn't say it because I don't think there are undrafted guys that can't be very successful (i.e. Nate Schmidt)
Hobey winners, 1st team all-Americans, etc. Lots of examples of guys at the top of the college game that were overlooked from an NHL perspective. Other than PR, the draft status of a kid is really rather moot on the college level.
Union had one guy drafted by an NHL team (and he was a 3rd rounder) and they won it all last year.
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Kloos is a good comparison for Bristedt. Both are shorter, high flying, goal scoring forwards. Kloos was a bit more of a known commodity and will be more adjusted to the NA college game than Bristedt. Yet Bristedt probably had even higher accolades coming in and had league leading points without a Cammarata at his side. So again, pretty similar expectations.
Kloos is a good comparison for Bristedt. Both are shorter, high flying, goal scoring forwards. Kloos was a bit more of a known commodity and will be more adjusted to the NA college game than Bristedt. Yet Bristedt probably had even higher accolades coming in and had league leading points without a Cammarata at his side. So again, pretty similar expectations.
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Many are based on staying longer (which of course a small guy is likely to do) whereas first and second rounders often leave before they reach the level/age to be hobey contenders.
My contention is that as a freshman who are coming in around 18-19 yrs old, if you looked at stats, I would be willing to bet 1st and second rounders outperform undrafted players on average. I think if you did a regression of draft positition to success, there would be a trend. There just aren't many first rounders who don't do well. I would also bet that among players under a certain size, you would see a relationship between drafted and undrafted players. In a regression analysis like this, outliers are individual data points that fall outside the significant trend. That is what I meant. Yes, over the career, this might break down since high draft picks won't stay as long so you don't see them playing after 4 years. But despite the difference in pros and college games, a first rounder is typically a pretty good college player from the start too. And I am not saying I expect a great relationship, just that there is one. That is why I don't have a huge emphasis on draft position. But that relationship is also why TV announcers etc, talk about how many draft pics a given team has.
Once again, and again... never said I don't trust coaches nor Pros know better, just that if both college coaches and pro scouts see something special it adds up to better hype than just one.
You are the one attributing huge emphasis to the draft on my behalf. I have always said it is just one other data point, an observation. You are the one caught up on saying draft status has essentially no bearing on college success. I watch both levels and I still play myself, so have some concept of the differences in the game and how it has changed over the years.
Once again, local kids I knew more about beforehand. All I've ever said is with an unknown a draft pick adds confidence. Are you saying that if you knew little about a guy and he got picked as a first-rounder, you wouldn't think "wow, this guy must be something special to get picked that high in the most-talented league in the word?" I think I am not alone in thinking that if they are a first rounder for the NHL there is good probability they have a hell of a lot of talent to play at any level.
Was waiting for this one. Look at the average age of those players to most incoming UM players and Bredstedt in particular. Who is the one comparing tomatoes to cucumbers?
Many are based on staying longer (which of course a small guy is likely to do) whereas first and second rounders often leave before they reach the level/age to be hobey contenders.
My contention is that as a freshman who are coming in around 18-19 yrs old, if you looked at stats, I would be willing to bet 1st and second rounders outperform undrafted players on average. I think if you did a regression of draft positition to success, there would be a trend. There just aren't many first rounders who don't do well. I would also bet that among players under a certain size, you would see a relationship between drafted and undrafted players. In a regression analysis like this, outliers are individual data points that fall outside the significant trend. That is what I meant. Yes, over the career, this might break down since high draft picks won't stay as long so you don't see them playing after 4 years. But despite the difference in pros and college games, a first rounder is typically a pretty good college player from the start too. And I am not saying I expect a great relationship, just that there is one. That is why I don't have a huge emphasis on draft position. But that relationship is also why TV announcers etc, talk about how many draft pics a given team has.
Once again, and again... never said I don't trust coaches nor Pros know better, just that if both college coaches and pro scouts see something special it adds up to better hype than just one.
You are the one attributing huge emphasis to the draft on my behalf. I have always said it is just one other data point, an observation. You are the one caught up on saying draft status has essentially no bearing on college success. I watch both levels and I still play myself, so have some concept of the differences in the game and how it has changed over the years.
Once again, local kids I knew more about beforehand. All I've ever said is with an unknown a draft pick adds confidence. Are you saying that if you knew little about a guy and he got picked as a first-rounder, you wouldn't think "wow, this guy must be something special to get picked that high in the most-talented league in the word?" I think I am not alone in thinking that if they are a first rounder for the NHL there is good probability they have a hell of a lot of talent to play at any level.
I agree it is much less likely with a small guy. But I wasn't talking about the odds of him being picked up early. Just that an undrafted player has more incentive to take an offer when presented than a drafted guy. In that way, I AM comparing pears to pears. Not likely to be an issue, but once again, I AM NOT MAKING THE HUGE deal about the draft you seem to think I am. Just another point to make to help pass the summer.
Was waiting for this one. Look at the average age of those players to most incoming UM players and Bredstedt in particular. Who is the one comparing tomatoes to cucumbers?
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Coaches want to build a program. As we saw here, if you have a revolving door, it doesn't do much good.
There is tremendous value in having players that can produce on the college level over the long haul but don't necessarily have the wonderful NHL future. I don't have an issue with having some high picks. I'm not here to say they don't add any value. That would be foolish. What I am here to say is there are tons of examples of guys that don't fall into that category and go undrafted that end up being tremendous college players. If you need validation from the draft to feel OK, then I guess that's your deal. Fortunately we have history that has shown us oodles of examples of guys going undrafted but still ending up very good players on this level. Therefore many people don't need the same validation.
This is where I feel you are completely blind to reality. I mentioned undrafted Hobey winners, 1st team all-Americans, etc... and you state the above. Those numerous examples fly in the face of your sentence above.
The point is you don't need NHL draft validation to win big. Which the last I checked is what we care about. But I have accepted the reality that you wear blinders to anything that undermines your thinking.
Coaches want to build a program. As we saw here, if you have a revolving door, it doesn't do much good.
There is tremendous value in having players that can produce on the college level over the long haul but don't necessarily have the wonderful NHL future. I don't have an issue with having some high picks. I'm not here to say they don't add any value. That would be foolish. What I am here to say is there are tons of examples of guys that don't fall into that category and go undrafted that end up being tremendous college players. If you need validation from the draft to feel OK, then I guess that's your deal. Fortunately we have history that has shown us oodles of examples of guys going undrafted but still ending up very good players on this level. Therefore many people don't need the same validation.
This is where I feel you are completely blind to reality. I mentioned undrafted Hobey winners, 1st team all-Americans, etc... and you state the above. Those numerous examples fly in the face of your sentence above.
The point is you don't need NHL draft validation to win big. Which the last I checked is what we care about. But I have accepted the reality that you wear blinders to anything that undermines your thinking.
mnstate0fhockey
New member
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
Here is the link.
<a href="http://video.panthers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=628248&startTime=60">http://video.panthers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=628248&startTime=60</a>
Here is the link.
<a href="http://video.panthers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=628248&startTime=60">http://video.panthers.nhl.com/videocenter/console?id=628248&startTime=60</a>
ShotFromThePoint
New member
Yep good to have it finally confirmed. I had spoken with someone really close to the matter about a week and a half ago and had heard he was already planning on coming back before the camp even started.
state of hockey
He fixes the cable?
Nonsense. Clearly it was based off of one other small dude's play.
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
One last time...you stated "IF Grimaldi was any kind of key factor" (read below), Rau would have announced his return. Plain and simple...not true from the horses mouth.
Maybe this will help...
Rau returns
One last time...you stated "IF Grimaldi was any kind of key factor" (read below), Rau would have announced his return. Plain and simple...not true from the horses mouth.
Maybe this will help...
Rau returns
Last edited:
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
You can use all the internet website speculation you want as "evidence". I know that's all you've got. It is the classic definition of the blind leading the blind.
Seriously... something written by a guy named DarkKnight5 is your evidence? I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel embarrassed for you.
I'll stick with talking to the people who are actually involved in these situations. It seems to work out well. lol
You can use all the internet website speculation you want as "evidence". I know that's all you've got. It is the classic definition of the blind leading the blind.
Seriously... something written by a guy named DarkKnight5 is your evidence? I'm not sure if I should laugh or feel embarrassed for you.
I'll stick with talking to the people who are actually involved in these situations. It seems to work out well. lol
Last edited:
HarleyMC
Registered User
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offseason Thread 2014 - Quick, Reload!
I'm very comfortable with my sources...because they're right. Can your sources prove otherwise? But hey...keep padding your EGO here Hamster...maybe your head will finally blow up.
You can use all the internet website speculation you want as "evidence". I know that's all you've got. It is the classic definition of the blind leading the blind.
I'll stick with talking to the people who are actually involved in these situations. It seems to work out well. lol
I'm very comfortable with my sources...because they're right. Can your sources prove otherwise? But hey...keep padding your EGO here Hamster...maybe your head will finally blow up.