Connect with us

Utah

Blake Anderson vs. Utah State: Key differences between each side’s account of what happened

Published

on

Blake Anderson vs. Utah State: Key differences between each side’s account of what happened


Utah State University’s termination — with cause — of former head football coach Blake Anderson is a saga that has only just begun.

If it were a football game, each side would have had a pair of possessions at this point, but FBS teams averaged 12 possessions per game last season. Which is to say there’s a long way to go before any sort of real conclusion to Utah State vs. Blake Anderson.

Figuring out what each side — Utah State and investigators from the Kansas City-based law firm of Husch Blackwell are on one side and Blake Anderson and his attorney Tom Mars are on the other — contends happened can be daunting, since more than 65 pages of pertinent documents have been released, whether it be through GRAMA requests or through Mars’ redacted releases on X.

It is a lot for anyone to parse through, so here is an abbreviated accounting of what each side has to say.

Advertisement

Why Utah State says it fired Blake Anderson

In its official press release announcing the termination of Anderson, Utah State said the following: “This action is based on significant violations of his contractual obligations related to USU’s employee reporting requirements. These reporting requirements include a prohibition on employees outside the USU Office of Equity from investigating issues of sexual misconduct, including domestic violence. Additionally, Anderson failed to manage the team in a manner that reflects USU’s academic values.”

The university was more specific about its allegations in the four-page termination letter it sent to Anderson.

In it, USU states four reasons it elected to fire Anderson.

  1. Failure to submit a required report regarding an alleged crime and violation of USU policy.
  2. Significant violation of university rules by an employee under your supervision.
  3. Failing to perform the duties of coach in good faith.
  4. Failure to manage the team in a manner that reflects the academic values of USU.

Anderson and his representation dispute all four points, but more on that later.

Setting the stage for USU vs. Blake Anderson

Understanding the investigation that led to Anderson’s firing means understanding what started it all.

According to court records obtained by the Deseret News, many of which have since been released to the public by Mars, Anderson’s termination as USU’s football coach goes back to an incident in April 2023.

Advertisement

On April 5, 2023, a former Utah State football player was arrested by the North Park Police Department for two misdemeanor offenses:

  • Domestic violence in the presence of a child
  • Assault

According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, the arresting officer “arrived on scene and found the victim with marks on her neck. When asked how she received the marks, (the officer) was told that (the former USU player) was pulling on her hoodie which caused her to be choked. One of the bruises on her neck matched that of the draw string from her hoodie. A witness stated that she heard a female screaming, ‘get off of me’ and ‘you are choking me.’ When the witness ran outside to see what was happening she found (the former USU player) standing over the female victim, holding her down. (The former USU player) did have a baby with him at the time of the incident.”

What Blake Anderson contends happened next

Anderson says that the following series of events occurred around the time of the April 2023 arrest, as detailed in his response to USU.

He notes that he met with the player on April 4 in response to hearing rumors that the player was thinking about transferring from Utah State.

On April 6, the day after the arrest, the former Aggie football player missed a breakfast check and Anderson called him and left a voicemail. Later that morning, upon hearing a rumor that the player had an emergency that involved taking his child to the hospital, Anderson sent a follow-up text. The former player then called Anderson back and told him that he had taken his child to the hospital, according to Anderson’s account.

Advertisement

Anderson then didn’t talk to the player again until April 11, with Easter weekend sandwiched in between the communications between coach and player.

Anderson said he heard rumors on April 11 that the former USU player had been arrested earlier in the month, and asked Austin Albrecht, the now former director of player development, to look into it. Anderson then met with the player later that afternoon, and during that meeting, the player admitted that he had been arrested.

At this point, Anderson said that neither he nor Albrecht nor the player had been able to determine what the charges were, and Anderson was “left with the impression the player was arrested for disorderly conduct.”

The following day — April 12 — Anderson said he called interim athletic director Jerry Bovee three times, updating him in the morning and again in the evening. In the final conversation between the two that day, Anderson said Bovee told him he “would make a ‘group report’ to the Equity Office to be on the safe side even though they weren’t sure what they were dealing with.”

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

Advertisement

The investigators hired by Utah State were largely in agreement with Anderson’s recollection of events up to this point in the timeline.

Their report reads, in part, “Coach Anderson’s description of the sequence in which he learned of Student Athlete’s arrest, took steps in response, and communicated with others thereafter was generally consistent and direct. Also, after reviewing documents relating to the arrest information in Spring 2023, Coach Anderson provided a reasonably specific chronology of relevant events during a two-week period following the arrest. Coach Anderson reported that he learned from the football team’s Director of Player Development that Student Athlete had been arrested for domestic abuse without further details. That same day, Coach Anderson met with Student Athlete, who told him of the arrest but said he had not done anything wrong and that his girlfriend would support him.”

From this point on, there is very little that Anderson/Mars and that Utah State/Husch Blackwell investigators agree on. Or at the very least, there is little that both sides agree was done properly.

What Blake Anderson contends happened next

Anderson said that on April 13 he met with the former USU football player again, and that the player provided him with a pair of witness statements — one from the mother of the player’s child, the victim of the alleged assault, and one from the player’s roommate, another USU football player. Both statements claimed that the USU football player in question did nothing wrong.

Advertisement

There is no mention in Anderson’s account that he asked for witness statements. Only that he received them.

Anderson said that he then forwarded the witness statements to Bovee (though he is fuzzy on the exact date, noting that it was either on April 13, April 14 or April 15).

On April 17, the former Utah State football player entered the NCAA transfer portal and was removed from Utah State’s roster, prior to his transfer.

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

The report from investigators accepts Anderson’s timeline of events, but investigators find fault in the actions that Anderson took.

Advertisement

Failure to submit a required report regarding an alleged crime and violation of USU policy

The first reason Utah State listed as to why Anderson was terminated involved the failure to submit a report about the arrest of the USU football player.

As a reporting employee, Anderson had an obligation — per USU policy 340 — to “report all information (he received) concerning incidents of sexual misconduct to the Title IX coordinator.”

The policy says that reports have to be submitted within 24 hours of learning about the incident and that “reporting employees must submit incident reports using the online form at equity.usu.edu and must include all known information disclosed to the reporting employee.”

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

While the Husch Blackwell investigators accepted that Anderson notified Bovee — his superior — about the domestic violence incident, it found that he did not directly alert the Office of Equity, which he was required to do via an online submission, per university policy.

Advertisement

Anderson was upfront in interviews with the investigators that he didn’t do that.

The Husch Blackwell report said, “Coach Anderson confirmed that he learned about Student Athlete’s arrest for domestic violence and acknowledged that he never reported that arrest to the Office of Equity, stating that he was not aware he needed to do so given that the altercation occurred off campus and was ‘dealt with by the authorities.’ The evidence gathered during the investigation, including Coach Anderson’s own statements, demonstrates that Coach Anderson failed to fulfill his reporting obligations under Policy 340.”

What Blake Anderson contends happened

Anderson and Mars argue, though, that while Anderson didn’t report directly to the Office of Equity, his reporting to Bovee was sufficient under his own employment agreement. That agreement, according to Mars, said that Anderson must “confer with, report to and follow the AD’s directions with respect to all matters related to the football program.” Mars added, “There is no carve-out in Coach Anderson’s contract that allows him to bypass the chain of command for Title IX matters.”

Anderson and Mars also contend that due to the nature of the domestic violence incident — more specifically, where it happened — Anderson had no responsibility to report it to the Office of Equity in the first place.

Advertisement

Citing new Title IX regulations adopted by the the Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, Anderson’s response notes that the incident didn’t occur “either on university property, by using a school’s computers, in a situation where the university exercised ‘substantial control’ over the accused in the context in which the incident occurred, or in an off-campus fraternity or sorority house.”

Anderson’s response says that means that “under both federal and state law, the jurisdictional definition in each of those policies makes them inapplicable to the off-campus incident involved here. As explained in the following discussion, the jurisdictional limitations in USU’s ‘Non-Title IX’ policies are not even debatable. None of the USU policies Coach Anderson supposedly violated required him or anyone else to report anything to the Equity Office.”

‘You took it upon yourself to investigate the matter’

The school’s most significant accusation against Anderson is likely that he conducted an investigation into the domestic violence incident himself by interviewing the former USU football player, his child’s mother (the alleged victim), as well as his roommate (another player on the football team).

In the termination letter, USU athletic director Diana Sabau argues that this offense was grievous.

“I find that your actions were not only significant violations and material failures to comply with USU’s policies but wholly unprofessional, inappropriate, and counter to the expectations for USU leaders,” she wrote. “In carrying out this action, you interfered with the role and responsibilities of the Title IX coordinator and did so while a criminal action was pending. Undertaking this investigation undermined the goals of Policy 340 and USU’s commitment to addressing sexual misconduct. This is unacceptable and amplifies USU’s bases for terminating your employment.”

Advertisement

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

The Husch Blackwell investigators argue that, during their interview with him, Anderson confirmed that he undertook “investigation efforts.”

They wrote that, “Coach Anderson acknowledged that, after he learned about Student Athlete’s arrest, he engaged in investigation efforts by meeting individually with Student Athlete, his girlfriend, and his roommate to discuss the arrest and underlying incident. Based on those meetings, Coach Anderson solicited written statements from each witness describing their recollection of events, which he subsequently forwarded to Mr. Bovee. Coach Anderson told the Investigators that he did not know what to do about Student Athlete’s arrest because he did not want to suspend him if he had not done anything wrong. He explained that he and Mr. Bovee decided to investigate and obtain more facts (which Coach Anderson described as a ‘fact-finding mission’) before taking further action. Consistent with University policy, the Office of Equity should have been engaged for any investigation, not Athletics Department personnel.”

What Blake Anderson contends happened

For his part, Anderson argues that he did not conduct an investigation. He calls what he did a “fact-finding” mission to determine if the incident needed to be reported at all.

Advertisement

Anderson said that he talked to the former USU football player to try and find out what he was in trouble for. When it comes to interviewing the player’s child’s mother and the player’s roommate, though, all Anderson says happened is that he was provided with a pair of witness statements from the two, not that he solicited them.

Anderson and Mars shared text communication between Anderson and the victim in the alleged domestic violence incident. The communication appeared to be about the drop off of the letter she had written.

“Coach Anderson did not conduct his own ‘Title IX investigation’ before a report was made to the Equity Office,” Anderson’s response reads. “Instead, Coach Anderson had no knowledge that an arrest had occurred for several days, then spent just over a day attempting to find out what his player was arrested for and why to determine whether any report was required.”

Significant violation of university rules by an employee under your supervision

The second main reason offered by USU as to why Anderson was terminated centers on his management of his employees.

Specifically, Utah State contends that Anderson did not advise staff members under his supervision to report on the domestic violence incident, despite them being aware.

Advertisement

“At least two football staff members disclosed the student athlete’s arrest to you, and did not file a timely report as required by USU Policy 340.4,” the termination letter reads. “These staff members were under your direct supervision, and there was no evidence that you made any effort to advise them to file the required reports or otherwise prevent their noncompliance with USU Policy 340. See Investigation Findings and Conclusions. Under the Agreement, you are responsible for promoting an atmosphere of compliance within the football program, and you are required to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches or other administrators involved with the program.”

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

The report from the investigators that is now available to the public is light on detail regarding this point. But, as a reminder, it is a summary of the full report — the complete unabridged report remains unreleased.

The report mentions other witnesses with varying accounts and knowledge of the events, though it focuses on Anderson and Bovee as the individuals with the most knowledge.

“Witnesses reported varying accounts of their knowledge of the basic information contained in the incident report to the Office of Equity, including: when and how people initially learned Student Athlete had been arrested; initial reactions taken in response to learning of the arrest; and why Student Athlete was not suspended or otherwise disengaged from the team until he notified Athletics Department personnel of his decision to enter the transfer portal,” the report reads. “The most significant information regarding these issues came from Coach Anderson and Mr. Bovee.”

Advertisement

What Blake Anderson contends happened

Anderson contends that, upon hearing rumors of an arrest, he tasked Albrecht to look into the matter. Albrecht did not have much success, though, reporting back to Anderson that he was “unable to obtain any more information about the charges, if any, as none had been filed.”

Anderson and Mars focus more on the phrase “you are responsible for promoting an atmosphere of compliance within the football program” than anything else in their defense against USU’s claims regarding this point.

They argue that, “None of the precedents or NCAA guidance support the proposition that conclusory allegations based on a single incident could sustain a charge of failing to ‘create an atmosphere of compliance and monitor compliance.’”

Failing to perform the duties of coach in good faith

The third reason given by Utah State to explain why it fired Anderson centers largely on the lack of a suspension for the former USU football player prior to his decision to transfer — and on what that lack of discipline taught the rest of the football team.

Advertisement

“The report raised concerns about inconsistent treatment of student-athletes and a demonstrated resistance to making disclosures of negative information about student-athletes outside the Athletic Department,” the termination letter reads. “Further, the Investigation Findings and Conclusions found that the failure to take action against the student-athlete could have indirectly communicated to other football team members that such issues were not always taken seriously.”

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

The report from the investigators did not hold back about the suspension — or, more specifically, about the lack of one.

It was one of four major issues with how Anderson handled everything, according to the investigators. The report says that “many people described a practice of automatically suspending student athletes arrested for sexual misconduct or domestic violence,” but Anderson did not, instead describing the need for a “collaborative conversation” between he and the athletic department to determine the next step regarding a student-athlete.

All those who were interviewed agreed that Anderson did not suspend the former player, even after it was determined that he was arrested for domestic violence.

Advertisement

“Instead of following the Department’s typical practice, Coach Anderson chose to initiate his own investigative efforts that focused on gathering Student Athlete’s explanation about what happened and then seeking witness statements supporting his defense,” the Husch Blackwell report reads. “And, allowing Student Athlete to continue being part of the team despite being arrested for domestic violence, could have indirectly communicated to other members of the team that such issues were not always taken seriously.”

The report noted that the player was a star for the team and that during a meeting with university administrators only a couple of weeks after the arrest — a meeting focused on engaging athletic department personnel in helping USU monitor “climate issues within the football program (relating to sexual misconduct issues)” — Anderson failed to disclose any and all information about the player’s arrest.

The investigators noted that Anderson’s actions reflect “what appears to be an effort to address such issues ‘in house,’ within the Athletic Department. That is squarely contrary to applicable policies and the mission of the University.”

What Blake Anderson contends happened

Anderson has two main arguments against this part of the report.

Advertisement

First, he said no one asked him a question in the aforementioned meeting that would have required he talk about the former USU player, who had, by that point, transferred from the university.

Additionally, Anderson argues that he didn’t volunteer information about the incident in the meeting because he “knew that the matter had been turned over to the Equity Office for handling.” Anderson contends that disclosing information about the incident did not feel like the “right thing to do,” given he knew few people in the meeting.

As to why Anderson didn’t suspend the player, Anderson claimed that he could not suspend the player without the stated approval of the athletic director, per USU athletic department guidelines. Also, he argues that there was no requirement to suspend the player for the incident, per the 2022-23 USU Student-Athlete handbook, which says: “If an individual is found responsible for violating USU policy, that individual may receive a sanction ranging from a warning to expulsion from the University.”

Anderson and Mars focus on the “may receive a sanction” part, noting “Therefore, to the point we were making, a student-athlete who is accused of ‘Sexual Misconduct’ will not face automatic or immediate suspension.”

Failure to manage the team in a manner that reflects the academic values of USU

The fourth and final reason given to Anderson to explain his termination as football coach at Utah State centers on academics.

Advertisement

Specifically, academic progress rate, or APR.

Per the termination letter, the football team’s low APR “does not meet USU’s expectations and academic values,” and invites a “risk of both ineligibility and public embarrassment and disrepute.”

What the Husch Blackwell report contends happened

The summary of the investigators’ report does not touch on this issue.

In the termination letter sent to Anderson by Utah State, though, Sabau notes that she had previously addressed the issue with Anderson, and that he had failed to “directly engage and actively collaborate with academic support services and to track and enforce academic performance standards of your student athletes.”

Advertisement

That failure and “the poor academic performance of the USU football program is unacceptable and provides a separate basis for termination,” the termination letter reads.

What Blake Anderson contends happened

Anderson and Mars argue that Utah State had no basis to fire Anderson with cause in regards to APR, and that there is no precedent for it in college sports.

Per their response, there is no mention of APR in Anderson’s contract. If it had been important to the university, APR-related requirements could have been added as an amendment, they argue.

Furthermore, they contend that APR “is not an accurate description of the information it reflects,” and that APR is determined by “both academic eligibility and retention of student athletes. Retention scores are now effectively fluid, and have been over the last several years, given Covid-19 accommodations and the ever-changing NCAA transfer and waiver policies. Thus, APR scores include information not only outside the scope of USU’s ‘academic policies,’ but are subject to immediate modification.”

Advertisement

Anderson and Mars do not dispute that USU’s APR scores are low, but contend that, by traditional academic metrics, Anderson’s football teams have been satisfactory.

“As reported by USU in press releases and on its website, Coach Anderson’s football teams have exceeded USU’s minimum grade point average and have consistently been in good standing by always satisfying the NCAA’s “grade point average rule,” Anderson’s response reads. “USU has also reported that the football team’s collective average GPA has consistently been well-above the minimum during Coach Anderson’s tenure, ranging from 2.8 to 2.92. After boasting about the academic performance of the Aggie’s football team for the past several years, it’s difficult to understand why USU now wants to fire its head football coach on grounds that he didn’t perform some magic to make his players smarter.”

What each side ultimately contends

Anderson and Mars believe that Utah State is trying to get out of paying him the $4.6 million owed in his buyout. They argue that “the many grounds on which USU claims to have reason to have fired Anderson with cause, is a clear signal that the university doesn’t have confidence in any of its grounds for termination.”

In the end, Anderson and Mars believe that Utah State owes Anderson “not only the full amount of his ‘buyout’ but also a retraction of its defamatory press release and a public apology.”

Utah State, meanwhile, contends that Anderson “failed to acknowledge his responsibilities as a USU employee and as a head coach and instead sought to make excuses and unsuccessfully recast the clear language of USU’s policies.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Utah

Voices: We’ve seen the impact of Utah’s groundbreaking genetic research. Federal funding cuts will be devastating for years to come.

Published

on

Voices: We’ve seen the impact of Utah’s groundbreaking genetic research. Federal funding cuts will be devastating for years to come.


These cuts will cause immense and largely irreversible damage to the successful American scientific enterprise.

(Francisco Kjolseth | The Salt Lake Tribune) A mass spectrometer at the University of Utah processes coral materials on Thursday, June 9, 2022, to be analyzed in the first step towards determining its usefulness in treating cancer. A team of researchers have found a potential anticancer compound found in coral.

As biomedical researchers, now retired, we are horrified by the deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) proposed in the Trump administration’s budget for 2026. These cuts would cause immense and largely irreversible damage to the successful American scientific enterprise.

A 40% decrease for NIH and a 57% cut for NSF would lead to the cancellation of thousands of grants and the termination of thousands of research programs in areas ranging from basic cancer research to drug development to climate change remediation. It would also end the training of the next generations of investigators.

This is particularly sad for Utah, which has had a leading role in genetic research. The first NIH external research grant ever given came to the University of Utah in 1946 for investigation of muscular dystrophy and other genetic diseases. Funding for this grant was specifically promoted by Utah Senator Elbert Thomas.

Advertisement

Our state has been eminent in genetics research partly due to early efforts like this one and partly to the willing cooperation of large Utah families and the genealogical records generously made available to medical research by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

In the mid-1980’s, the Department of Human Genetics was established at the U. with Drs. Ray White and Ray Gesteland as co-chairs. White was the first in the world to apply a new technique of genetic mapping that sparked an era of rapid disease gene discovery. Among a long list of successes here in Utah were genes associated with colon cancer, retinoblastoma, neurofibromatosis, hypertension and cardiac disorders, just to name a few.

Expertise in disease gene identification attracted a steady stream of young clinicians to Utah, many of whom went on to eminent careers; for example, Richard Lifton is now President of Rockefeller University, and Mark Keating who was a Director at Novartis and Chief Scientific Officer at Yarrow Biotechnology.

With the advent of new modalities of disease gene identification, such as whole genome sequencing (WGS), Utah remained in the forefront of using genetics for personalized medicine. Lynn Jorde, of the Department of Human Genetics and his former student and colleague Michael Bamshad, now at the University of Washington — were the first to use WGS to identify disease genes in families. Their efforts were expanded by Joshua Bonkovsky and colleagues in a pilot program between the U. and Primary Children’s Hospital to use WGS on infants brought to the neonatal Intensive care unit, so that earlier diagnosis could lead to earlier treatment.

Beyond gene discovery, Utah has been a leader in other areas of basic science that have had significant impacts. Nobel Prize winner, Mario Capecchi, developed a method to make specific, targeted changes in the DNA of mice. His discoveries led to the generation of many thousands of novel strains of mice, some of them carrying mouse versions of human disease genes. Studies of these mice in labs around the world have led to insights into the resulting physiological deficits and to the development of treatment protocols for people.

Advertisement

Current genetic treatments offered at the U. include molecular therapies for spinal muscular atrophy and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Researchers at the Moran Eye Center have been at the forefront in studying age-related macular degeneration (AMD), the leading cause of blindness in adults. After identifying genes responsible for AMD, doctors at Moran initiated a clinical study using gene therapy to treat and hopefully cure this disease.

We have cited a tiny percentage of the amazing achievements that have emerged from research in Utah, almost all of which were supported by long-term funding from NIH. While there are undoubtedly places in the NIH budget where sensible savings might be achieved, no justification has been given for the severe cuts that are now proposed.

Loss of the federal funding base for work such as we describe would devastate the people and institutions that generate these advancements in Utah and across the country for years, if not decades. Our hope is that by contacting our congressional legislators, we might effect changes that would prevent the devastating consequences of the proposed legislation.

(Jerry Kaplan) Jerry Kaplan, Ph.D., joined the University of Utah faculty in 1980 and retired as an Emeritus Professor in 2017.

Jerry Kaplan, Ph.D., joined the University of Utah faculty in 1980 and retired as an Emeritus Professor in 2017. He was a member of the Department of Pathology and an assistant dean for basic science at the University of Utah School of Medicine. Inspired by the climate of genetics in Utah he used research in the one-celled yeast organism to discover the basis for the human neurological/cardiac disorder called Friedreich’s Ataxia.

Advertisement

(Dana Carroll) Dana Carroll, Ph.D., joined the University of Utah faculty in 1975 and retired in 2023 as former Chair and Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry.

Dana Carroll, Ph.D., joined the University of Utah faculty in 1975 and retired in 2023 as former chair and distinguished professor emeritus of biochemistry. He is considered a pioneer in the field of genome editing – a method of making targeted changes in DNA that is now dominated by the CRISPR technology, which has been extremely effective as a research tool and is currently being deployed in novel therapies for genetic diseases.

The views expressed in this op-ed belong to the authors and don’t necessarily reflect those of their former employers.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Utah

JJ Peterka is excited to play in Utah

Published

on

JJ Peterka is excited to play in Utah


JJ Peterka was on a golf trip in Spain with Utah Mammoth prospect Julian Lutz when he found out he’d been traded to Utah.

“We were pretty happy,” Peterka, who hails from Germany, told reporters of the exchange on Friday morning via a Zoom call.

Lutz and Maksymilian Szuber, another German prospect in Utah’s system, are the only Mammoth players Peterka is familiar with. The 23-year-old has spent his entire NHL career in Buffalo, and he’s only played one game at the Delta Center — but the new challenge excites him.

“Playing there once, just the atmosphere was great,” he said. “The fans felt, like, so tight and close to the ice. It’s going to be really exciting.”

Advertisement

“I think he was excited to know that he was going to our team,” said general manager Bill Armstrong the day after the trade. “I think he had done some studying on our club and he was excited about coming here.”

Back-to-back seasons in the 30-goal range with an 18-point increase year over year earned Peterka a five-year contract worth $7.7 million annually immediately upon being traded. He’s drawn significant criticism for his lack of defensive presence, but a deal like that indicates that the organization has faith that it can shape him into a two-way player.

How will Peterka fit in with the Utah Mammoth?

Peterka is best described as a dynamic threat with speed and an elite shot. He’s a new-school NHLer through and through. But he doesn’t feel that he’s hit his peak yet.

“I think there’s still a lot left, and that’s why I have to work hard every day,” he said.

Armstrong agreed.

Advertisement

“If you look at his points last year, he’s roughly around what (Logan) Cooley was last year, so he’s got an opportunity to come in and have an impact on our top two lines,” he said. “I think it’s something that he can grow into. It’s something that he’ll take baby steps in getting here and learning to play our system.”

Off the ice, Peterka described himself as a “super happy person” and a “funny guy” — which is exactly what the team lost when it sent Michael Kesselring and Josh Doan the other way in the trade.

He grew up in Munich — just north of the Alps, the biggest mountain range in Europe. Moving to Utah excites him because it will “feel like home.”

Another thing about Utah that appeals to Peterka is the commitment the organization has shown to building a top-tier team, both on and off the ice. On the ice, he was impressed by the atmosphere at the Delta Center when he played there in March. Off it, he’s excited for the new practice facility in Sandy, which is set to open Sept. 1.

Advertisement

He also mentioned the fit in terms of roster construction. Of the 15 U24 players who scored 60 points or more last season, three of them now play for Utah. And with five first-round picks looking to crack the roster in the next few years, they’re only poised to get better.

Where in the rebuild are the Utah Mammoth now?

Utah missed the playoffs by seven points last season. That’s equivalent to three and a half wins. With the amount of one-goal and overtime losses it suffered, the team was realistically one good scorer away from the postseason.

If Peterka can be that guy, while Cooley and Dylan Guenther take additional steps forward, there’s no reason the team shouldn’t make it next year.

That said, Armstrong is not letting himself get sucked into the belief that Utah is only a piece or two away from the Stanley Cup. That’s why he didn’t pursue any of the big names in free agency, despite the constant reports from national outlets to the contrary.

“A lot of times, you see teams on the front of The Hockey News: They win the summer, but they don’t win in the winter,” he said. “We don’t want to be that team. We want to be built properly for the long run.”

Advertisement

Gathering a core of similar-aged, elite, young players is the name of the game. Peterka fits that perfectly. When those guys (along with a few prospects who project to be NHL-ready in the next few years) achieve their full potential, that’s when Armstrong will take big swings in free agency.

Buffalo Sabres right wing JJ Peterka (77) skates during the first period of an NHL hockey game against the Minnesota Wild Wednesday, Nov. 27, 2024, in Buffalo, N.Y. | AP



Source link

Continue Reading

Utah

Kaysville Fire Department monitoring wetlands fire

Published

on

Kaysville Fire Department monitoring wetlands fire


SALT LAKE CITY — Fire officials said a fire burning in Davis County was started by lightning.

By Friday night, the Duck Club Fire had burned between three and five acres.

On its Facebook page, Utah Fire Info said this fire was not posing a threat to residents or to structures.

Advertisement

The agency also said that fire crews were working to gain access to the fire.

Earlier in the day, the Kaysville Fire Department said the fire was burning in the wetlands near the Great Salt Lake.

“The fire is burning one mile from the nearest road, and there is currently no vehicle access to the area,” said Kaysville fire officials on Facebook.

“The state of Utah has been notified,” the post continued, “and an area supervisor is en route to assess the situation and determine if state resources are needed.

Advertisement

By early evening on Friday, fire officials said no structures were threatened by the fire.

Other reading:  F-35 flyover thrills crowds across Utah on July Fourth


This story is developing and may be updated.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending