Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
Quote: @suncoastvike said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ suncoastvike said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
I have to agree here. The Wild have been consistently average to above at least. The Wolves haven't even aspired to be average other then the brief KG era.
Neither team was in existence when I lived in Minnesota so I've never been a real fan of either. Makes me glad really. I've had enough disappointment with the teams I've carried with me since childhood. The Twins and the Vikings. Don't think I need to add a couple more.
again...not comparing how the seasons go... just the fact that both franchises ultimately are under performers and IMO it went back to not having the clutch performers that can lift a team and be a leader when the chips are down... there are always the rah rah guys when they are kicking ass, but when the team needs a lift they dont seem to have that player/players that can be counted on to rally the team. yes the wild have made the playoffs, but typically make very little noise after that even when they are expected to be serious contenders.... and its the hoceky playoffs, over half the teams make the post season so its not like they are consistently a top contender.
I may end up eating my feelings on the 2 trades as they are netting some quick returns, but I still think the reason that the Twins, Wild, and Twolves have failed to really make much noise is the lack of player leadership in the past.
I'm hoping Rocco will be able to change the locker room chemistry with the Twins. I don't know about his managerial skills but I followed him down here and know his a good looker room presence and a very decent community guy. The other two teams I really have no feeling for. You're right leadership is important regardless. Especially in MLB where the salary structure is so uneven team to team. Rocco has played in a small market that has had success. He was managed a few years by a pure genius, in my book, Joe Maddon. Hope some of that rubbed off on him.
count me as one with the fingers crossed. I really liked Mauer, but I think he was grossly over paid for what the team got out of him after they left the dome.... especially after he quit being an every day catcher... and with his salary he really needed to be the Tori Hunter type of club house guy/player.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Hawks bumped the Wild out a couple times, and went on to win the cup. That Blues team was red hot at the time, and just physically beat up the smaller, faster Wild team. Yeah, it sucked, but the better teams won. It's not the Wild were favored to beat either of them.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Hawks bumped the Wild out a couple times, and went on to win the cup. That Blues team was red hot at the time, and just physically beat up the smaller, faster Wild team. Yeah, it sucked, but the better teams won. It's not the Wild were favored to beat either of them.
that blues team didnt beat the wild... the wild never came to play that series. you can think they are what you want, but I wont agree, they are a team that needs some real leadership and passion and Suter and Parise dont provide that on a consistent enough basis for the money they make. until the teams find some real leadership they will flounder when they need to rise to the occasion. successful teams always seem to have that spark plug and the minnesota teams discussed dont have those guys.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Wild lack a true goal scorer, a sniper. The last time they had one was Gaborik, at least 10 years ago. They don't have a Kane, they don't have a Terasenko.
Quote: @Purplewhizz said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Wild lack a true goal scorer, a sniper. The last time they had one was Gaborik, at least 10 years ago. They don't have a Kane, they don't have a Terasenko.
well scoring goals is one way to motivate the team thats for sure...
i have to say they looked last night in the 3rd to have more pep in their strides than what I have seen lately, they were getting to some loose pucks and moving into passing lanes on O and taking them away much better on D. They looked inspired, but lets see if its just uneasy feelings from the recent roster changes or if they are truely finding inspiration and hope with the new additions.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Hawks bumped the Wild out a couple times, and went on to win the cup. That Blues team was red hot at the time, and just physically beat up the smaller, faster Wild team. Yeah, it sucked, but the better teams won. It's not the Wild were favored to beat either of them.
that blues team didnt beat the wild... the wild never came to play that series. you can think they are what you want, but I wont agree, they are a team that needs some real leadership and passion and Suter and Parise dont provide that on a consistent enough basis for the money they make. until the teams find some real leadership they will flounder when they need to rise to the occasion. successful teams always seem to have that spark plug and the minnesota teams discussed dont have those guys.
I think it's a talent problem more than a lack of leadership. You remove Kane from the Hawks, or Crosby from the Pens, and they probably have the same fate as the North Stars and the Wild. The Dallas Stars added Brett Hull in the mix with Madono and they finally win. Madono alone wasn't going to win it.
Jimmy, like I said, we'll just agree to disagree, and I'm good with that. It's not like either of us is right or wrong; it's just how we view things.
Quote: @HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ Purplewhizz said:
@ HappyViking said:
@ SFVikingFan said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
I think the Wild have a on ice leadership problem... like the Twins had with Mauer.... they have locker room alphas that dont inspire those around them to bring it up a notch when needed. To calm of demeanors that only really show fire when its easy to be fired up. I see some of the same in the wolves with Kat and Wiggins... no real fire day in and day out... once in a while they show something, but not really the types to get their team mates fired up... thats what the big money should be paying, those that can elevate those around them and still bring it at a high level.
Not that I follow either team that closely, but reading through this thread I was just thinking about how similar the T-Wolves and Wild seem to be. You always hear a lot at the beginning of the season regarding their youth, talent, potential, etc. but yet every year seems to be full of the same disappointment.
And I completely get your Mauer analogy BTW. You need guys like Torii Hunter and Brett Favre in leadership positions on your team, not the guys that have the talent but little to no fire to inspire those around them.
The Wolves are nothing like the Wild. The Wild have
had really good teams, and have as many or more playoff appearances than the
Wolves. The Wolves have been around 10 years longer than the Wild, and
also have been consistently crappy most of their existence. In their 30
year history, 20 of those seasons have been sub .500.
The Wild have been around 19 seasons and have had only three seasons below
.500. Two of those losing seasons where their first two NHL seasons.
While the Wild haven't had the success of a top contender, they haven't been anywhere near a
league doormat like the Wolves have been.
Some of the reason the Wild haven’t been able to become championship caliber is that they have been moderately successful their whole existance. They have never been bad enough to be able to draft truly top talent. If you look at most of the teams that have been successful, its because they were bad enough to be in position to draft a Crosby, Kane, Olvechkin, etc. The Wild are always drafting in the middle of the first round, when prefious GM, Fletcher didn’t trade away the pick for a rental player at the trade deadline which is a whole another reason why they haven’t been successful enough to win a championship.
Well said. I've never thought the Wild "choked" or weren't getting the most out of their talent. I pretty much felt the better team just knocked them out of the playoffs. Even with the addition of of Parise and Sutter, I never thought the Wild were the most talented team. It just made them competive with the teams like the Pens, Hawks, Red Wings, and other top tier teams.
the wild do have a talented roster, one that should be able to play with any team if they are up for it, weve seen them do it, but when the lights get bright they seem to wilt. IIRC a couple years ago the swept the season games with the hawks and then lost to them in the playoffs, the blues were kind of a mess the year Yo went there, but knocked the Wild out that year. They arent as big of a mess as the Wolves by no means, but they tend to disappoint just as quickly when it matters.... maybe it will be different now.
The Hawks bumped the Wild out a couple times, and went on to win the cup. That Blues team was red hot at the time, and just physically beat up the smaller, faster Wild team. Yeah, it sucked, but the better teams won. It's not the Wild were favored to beat either of them.
that blues team didnt beat the wild... the wild never came to play that series. you can think they are what you want, but I wont agree, they are a team that needs some real leadership and passion and Suter and Parise dont provide that on a consistent enough basis for the money they make. until the teams find some real leadership they will flounder when they need to rise to the occasion. successful teams always seem to have that spark plug and the minnesota teams discussed dont have those guys.
I think it's a talent problem more than a lack of leadership. You remove Kane from the Hawks, or Crosby from the Pens, and they probably have the same fate as the North Stars and the Wild. The Dallas Stars added Brett Hull in the mix with Madono and they finally win. Madono alone wasn't going to win it.
Jimmy, like I said, we'll just agree to disagree, and I'm good with that. It's not like either of us is right or wrong; it's just how we view things.
Modano was Minnesotas hockey version of Mauer... plenty of talent, but no real fire...well except for porn stars... apparently that got him fired up!
That's 4 in a row. Great comeback. They fought hard all game against a very speedy Jets team and didn't quit despite Dubnyk letting in another soft goal.
|
