IlliniKrush

QUOTE (Sox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 02:56 AM) In 1994 the 8th seeded San Jose Sharks beat the 1st seeded Detroit Red Wings 4-3 in the first round. I base it solely on this. A low seed has never beaten the highest seed in any other sport.

QUOTE (Sox72 @ Dec 17, 2009 -> 12:08 AM) It sucks that success in the regular season doesnt translate to postseason success in hockey as much as it does in the other sports. Do you have any statistical evidence to support this?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 08:57 AM) In an article I just read about Jake Locker (talking about the possibility of him suffering an injury, like Sam Bradford): "Yet history indicates that the Oklahoma QB's injury is both rare and surmountable. Of the 252 senior quarterbacks drafted in the last 20 years, CBSSportsline.com draft expert Rob Rang cites just 13 who suffered injuries as seniors. In all instances, the impact on draft status was minimal." He also goes on to mention a guy like McGahee who completely ruins his knee, but still gets drafted in the first round and makes his millions. Couple this with the insurance policies these guys already have, and I don't think the injury thing is as big of a deal as it's made out to be. After all, there's nothing stopping a guy getting a career ending injury in summer workouts for the team that drafted him, ruining his career forever (in both cases the few millions he gets from insurance or a signing bonus is going to have to support him for his life - how rough). Maybe Locker wants a 2nd Heisman run? To be more of a national name and therefore increase his draft stock? I dunno, maybe he just enjoys being THE man in Washington and bangin lots of coeds? As for Benn, looks like he's got a 2:00 press conference today to announce his plans. Why take the risk? Some people think he could be the first QB taken. He also doesn't have s*** going at Washington. I don't think he can really increase his draft stock. it usually doesn't happen. But history doesn't really prove anything, as the chance is always still there, especially in a game like football. Look at what happened to Bradford. He may cost himself a lot of money, but at least he had a team to come back to that could play football. Furthermore, when was his first Heisman run exactly? QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 16, 2009 -> 05:10 PM) Ah. My bad. I dunno about Locker's situation, was he supposed to be the #1 QB? Regardless of the millions, a guy like that, whose got a Heisman and a multi-multi-multi-million dollar insurance policy, I think I'd return to school too. Are you combining Locker and Bradford into one super QB here?

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) Agree to disagree. Say what you will, but Toews goal was not "much more skilled". Hossa actually hitting that puck out of the air while moving alone probably takes more skill than deking some defenders, something Toews and any other extremely talented forward has been doing since peewee. I stand by my statement. Toews goal was more skilled than it was luck. I wouldn't throw peewee hockey in there, doesn't really prove much. You don't see guys being able to deke like they are in peewees like that in the NHL. Hell, Hossa even said it was lucky.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 15, 2009 -> 07:34 AM) Jake Locker's coming back for his senior season. Probably not too many other juniors in a position like he is in are gonna be making that decision this year. I have no idea what he's doing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 10:30 AM) Anyone want to wager on Benn's chances to come back? Unless he's somehow not a 1st round guarantee, I'd say he's gone. Would you stick around and play in this s***? I wouldn't. He is a first rounder. Only 2 things going Illinois' way: 1) Mom wants him to stay 2) He could play a year with his brother

QUOTE (chimpy2121 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 07:50 PM) The wings Jonathan Ericsson is going to be out a little while with a knee injury. It didn't look good. The Wings are having tons of injury problems

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 07:12 PM) Guys without his skill couldn't even attempt a maneuver like that, just like Toews had to have a bit of luck to pull off his moves against COL. If anyone of the defenders or goalies does something a bit differently, his goal doesn't happen and we aren't talking about it two years later. They both take luck, but can't happen without the skill both of these guys have. I'm not saying there's no skill involved, I just have Toews better because of the skill/luck ratio. You'd be surprised how many hockey players could catch and hit a puck out of mid air, and conversely how often he couldn't repeat the "shot" portion again. What luck was there on the Toews goal exactly? He torched every last one of them.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Dec 14, 2009 -> 08:56 AM) That game last night sure was fun to watch. Hossa's goal might have been the best one I've seen scored by the Hawks in the last 20 years. I think that took greater ability than Toews' goal against the 'Lanche a few years ago... Zhamnov had some sweet dekes when he was here, he'd come in from the side and with one hand put the puck around the goaltender, but I think Hossa catching the puck, dropping it in front of him and slapping it out of midair past a well-positioned goaltender (while moving) was the most difficult move I have yet to see. Sick goal yes, but there was indeed a ton of luck involved. He would catch and make contact with that puck a bunch, but it wouldn't find the net or a corner nearly as often as he'd like. Now if he could do that routinely and put it wherever he wanted, sure. But Toews goal was much more skilled.

A snuggie

QUOTE (danman31 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) Yes, it's part of the college football coaching ladder. However, the odds are pretty decent that Notre Dame never has a year as good as the one Cincinnati is having now. Kelly could be leaving the best year of his career before it's finished. The Cincinnati players are thinking that he took a step back because they're undefeated and Notre Dame is 6-6 and is losing their best 2 players. Well, they'd be wrong. Cincy isn't a football school nor have they had a traditionally good program. ND is down but the head coaching job at ND is still one of THE jobs in the country. If they can't understand that, I don't know what to tell them. Are they really that surprised? ND may not have any undefeated seasons playing an actual schedule, but they can easily make a BCS bowl, which is what Cincy did. QUOTE (whitesoxfan99 @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 04:32 PM) RG has done a good job with his basketball hires and has done well with the non revenue sports. Kruger, Self and Weber were all good hires and Weber could be the guy that actually gives Illinois stability and makes us into a 2nd tier elite program (not traditional elites, so not on the same level as UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, etc. but possibly on the same level as MSU, UConn, etc. at the national level). But the job he has done with the football program has been really poor. And the biggest issue has been holding on to coaches too long when they are on the decline. If you fire Zook now, the guy basically did his job to a certain extent. He dramatically upgraded the athleticism and talent and even gave the program one great season. Instead you hold on to him too long and now there is the possibility the next coach has to start from scratch again. QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Dec 11, 2009 -> 09:18 PM) Illinois has bigger fish to fry right now with the scandal they just went through. They need to figure out their administration troubles first. Hard to find a new head coach before you find a new President. Also, RG has done a great job with the non-revenue sports as someone said above. Gymnastics, wrestling, volleyball, golf, softball, soccer have all gotten better under RG's watch. Just saying. That's great...but no one really gives a s***. Plus like you said, they don't generate revenue anyways. Basketball and football are the sports, and one is a giant failure.

Wear it, ACC

AH f*** YEAH WEAR IT

QUOTE (SnB @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 08:38 AM) I've got a question and I bet a ton of other people do about certain things to get for the holidays. I want to get a nice tea sampler / nice teas for the wife. Anyone have any chicago reccomendations? Argo? Buy her a case of mountain dew, so she can stay up past 8:00.

QUOTE (The Critic @ Dec 2, 2009 -> 09:57 AM) I agree that the guy latched onto his stick and went down. I do get a chuckle out of the dive rule. To me, if the refs rule that the "victim" took a dive, the "offender" shouldn't get penalized at all. To have both guys sit is the ultimate in non-officiating. "Uhhhmmm.....you kind of hooked him....but he faked it......you both sit down!" No, there are times where they are certainly correct to call both. Enough of a trip or hook where you are going to call it. Then the guy decides to embellish even more to make sure he gets the call. You take both. It makes perfect sense. What doesn't make sense is that they never call a dive without a trip or hook. If you called that one alone sometimes, you'd stop diving altogether. As of now, diving is a no-lose proposition. That's the problem with the whole diving/hooking/tripping call.

QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 07:36 PM) Without Franzen, CBJ are the second best team in the Central. I like their team and I think they will be able to make themselves better at the deadline. They were very...unimpressive tonight. They are a different team with Nash on the ice, but when he's not out there, they aren't very skilled. They didn't generate a whole lot of good scoring chances. QUOTE (MurcieOne @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 09:12 PM) bad time to take a penalty... that was f***ing dive. That was the definition of a hook. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 1, 2009 -> 09:48 PM) God Damn was Huet amazing in that shootout. Too bad it took 11 rounds for a defenseman to end it. Nothing better than seeing Mason lose it afterwards after he kept taunting the Hawks bench when he would make a save. He wasn't taunting the Hawks bench the whole shootout. Afterwards he was mad that after all he stopped, he let that weak one in. That and his team not finishing off anything - minus Voracek's wrister, which was disgusting.

New Years DAY is the best holiday, screw the night before.

QUOTE (Jenksy Cat @ Nov 23, 2009 -> 11:51 PM) What defense is biting on a play action with a RB who gets Cutler is the absolute last (or 2nd to last next to Briggs) problem on this team. But far too many "fans" are too stupid/ignorant to realize that there is slightly more to the game than the QB. But by all means, lets keep blaming JC, boo him, run him out of town, etc etc and not worry about the high school level secondary and o-line we have, or the GM that makes the "deal" for JC and then doesn't spend another cent upgrading anything else on offense, or the coaches who insist on running the same 4 plays on shuffle to the point that every team knows whats coming. Love me some stupid bear fans. Also, we should just start taking 2 knees or kicking the FG on first down in the redzone since we insist on wasting the first 2 plays of every series and then get pissed when JC has to force something. Good stuff There's a lot of problems with this team, but I'm not sure Cutler is 2nd to last problem on this team this particular season. I'm a huge fan of the Cutler acquisition, hate the Orton dopes, and think it will work out, but it's about time to just face that fact that he is having a poor season. I think he'll be better next year, regardless of what's going on around him. He'll make better decisions and have some better throws. A lot of guys have seasons like this thrown into their career, especially early. But he's sucked this year, and you can't blame all of it on other factors or players. His performance in a vacuum is not what it could be. He is by no means the reason the Bears are 4-6. The team is not good all around him. No one should be saying that he's the sole reason. All of the Cutler supporters are feeling the pressure to defend this guy to the ignorant masses, but it's hard to defend this particular season. Logic defends future seasons, however.

Problem with trading Huet is you need a goalie. Problem with trading Sopel is...he's bad. Barker...now that's a piece teams want.

QUOTE (whitesoxbrian @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 07:37 PM) I wouldn't trade Huet. I wouldn't be comfortable with Niemi going forward. Despite having a super deep farm, the Hawks do not have a stud goalie down there. I'd trade Campbell for a guy making half of his salary then a 2nd or 3rd round pick. The guy is one of the Hawks worst players yet he's the highest paid. After the year, I'm guessing they'll be looking at dealing Versteeg, Barker, Sharp, and MAYBE Seabrook. Hjalmarsson has been a pleasant surprise and so that might put Seabs on the market. People won't be lining up for that. QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 07:50 PM) Trading Versteeg would be a huge mistake IMO. If they rid themselves of Soup and Huet's contracts we could keep some of the role guys around for a little longer, but there will have to be some turnover of guys like Bolland, Buff etc. They may not have a choice. Some of those guys must go, possibly Versteeg. He's just not one of the elite guys on the team, which means he's a possibility to go. I don't know how they can realistically rid themselves of Soup AND Huet's contract, let alone one of them. This is going to be very difficult and there are going to be a handful of good players gone. I'm looking at the group of Versteeg, Sharp, Barker, Byfuglien, Bolland. You could see a few of those gone with relative ease. This is going to be interesting, that's for sure.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 08:08 PM) Dammit, for some reason I thought UNC v OSU was on tonight. Why the f*** did I buy all these beers then? To get them acclimated with your fridge temperature.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 18, 2009 -> 07:33 AM) Its all about putting the big name teams on the resume, and beating illinois at any time is big for the SIU program given the recent history. Yeah, Illinois had a down year that year and SIU was really tough, but at the same time if Illinois won that game it would have been ho-hum for Illinois, if SIU wins that game its a big deal(coach losing to the team that gave him a shot, interstate competition, etc). Like I said before, you guys get the pub without asking for it, so i can understand why you think its annoying and petty that the mid majors ask for it. Its just the way it is, and it wont go away Given the difference in talent level and seeding, I completely disagree with this. Had we beat SIU it would have been far from ho-hum IMO. I would have been shocked. Justin would have been swimming in alcohol and depression. He wouldn't have talked to me for years. Had SIU won, business as usual as that's what was supposed to happen. That SIU team was legit and didn't need some in-state game to prove anything. Actually, they would have had almost nothing to gain in the game, really. The Kansas game was where they had something to gain. And I feel that even in a loss, they gained a ton.

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 11:27 PM) Since when the f*** does physicality of big men directly equate to quality of team? Damn, don't you know anything about basketball?

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Nov 17, 2009 -> 04:30 PM) yes no. I went to SIU, I care. Rowand, Sonik, Brian, they care. Kev, shoe, they care. Just because the team is classified mid major doesnt mean nobody cares. We are the team struggling for notoriety, for exposure, and wanting it doesnt make it wrong. You guys get it without asking for it, so it doesnt make sense to you, I get that. But we do care, we want to the same thing you have. The way kev presented it, I was giving him a hard time about it because SIUE isnt the team I would be quoting(and because he is an ISU fan ), but I totally understand what he was saying. I was saying the same thing a few years ago when SIU went to the sweet 16 and had a chance to play Illinois in round 2(but Illinois lost to Va Tech, which SIU manhandled), just saying "we can beat this team". We just want a chance to go out and play the big teams without that throwaway 2nd game in the contract(which the major schools always buy out). Um, this isn't similar to the current argument. At all. SIU likely would have beat us in that game. That's not an upset. You were a 4 and we were a 12. Had you lost that game it'd be an embarrasment to be honest. If your thought was "we can win this game" then I don't know what to tell you. "We can beat this team?" I mean I'm flattered and all, but c'mon. That's not the same situation as...how do I put this..."Not-SIU-caliber-circa-2007 current ISU team" beating this current Illini squad. Back to your normally scheduled thread. Wait, one more thing. f*** Iowa. Glad they suck. Eat it Gage and whoever else I'm missing. OK, back to the normally scheduled thread.

They just read like half of the whole thing on B and B. I hadn't visited here first, so when I heard them say soxnet.net I was like wait, wtf?