burd

Blaiser has built failure by your terms. Worse than failure.

I think the reason some of us characterize this team's forwards as being working class rather than elite stems from two years ago when Hak put together a very good year with players nobody thought would even get a lot of ice time once some people healed and more talent came in. Well, those guys have proven to be very good hockey players. Much as I love this team's forwards, they would not be as successful as they are without an unusually offensively talented bunch of Dmen. This defensive crew is something.

It's real interesting to watch JS when he's challenged to either skate hard or muscle the puck along boards. We know how good his is with the puck at the blue line or in open ice, but I have been skeptical about his ability to perform at the next level when he has to beat people with speed or muscle. He seems too thin to win the muscle games in the NHL, but lately he has really shown his ability to battle on the wall and get the puck out, and not just with his stick work. It might be my imagination, but he is stepping up in that area. It would be nice if he decided he needs another year to develop (and build some body mass), but he's definitely developing now. I don't think I've ever seen a Sioux defensive corps with as much skill across the board as they have this year.

Do they dress the same number on the road as at home? Expecting Stecher to log a lot of minutes if he plays seems like a reach.

Michigan's young squad is hitting stride. They will be dangerous if they get in.

Boy there are is a lot of dropsy going on tonight.

Seriously?? Gothintyre? I feel better then.

Probably be called out as an idiot for this, but I think Hammer has come quite a ways since early last year. Big falloff on the oddball non sequiturs, which I miss.

I think it's great that the Mavs and Tech are having so much success this year.

Those thoughts are understandable, but I think we sometimes overlook the fact that this team has to succeed because of hard work and players accepting their roles. All kids playing D! hockey are talented, but this Sioux roster is not so full of elite talent that can just turn it on and beat teams with skill. The forwards are, by and large, good skaters with experience and work ethic. That's part of why I like this team so much.

Sandelin can't beat Bemidji in a big game, Blais has been a big bust at UNO since going there, and York might not even make the tourney. What ya gotta do to find a decent coach these days.

Guys like Nick need to figure out when they can dangle and when they just need to play basic hockey. Even Greg Johnson had to learn those lessons as a freshman. He could dangle and weave with the best of them, but he often came out of it without the puck. But he was a very smart guy and figured it out pretty quickly.

It also takes fewer Gopher fans than Sioux fans to fill a space, though, due to the size of their heads.

I can't believe teams would get full points for wins in that conference. Do they even wear helmets?

Virgin alert. Never been Hammered.

The penalty bug hit last night. I noticed Pattyn has 42 PM so far this year, far more than any of his teammates. I get it that the captain has to show he has his teammates' back and he's a physical player, but that is way too much time in the box on a team that needs to roll 4 lines and get points from all of them. I really like Pattyn, by the way. Just thinking of nut cutting time against teams that will make you pay.

Overall, though, he's played well tonight. Moved the puck well.

Niagra looks dispirited, in addition to not a lot of skill. A little hard to watch, actually.

I'm sure you're a good guy to have a few pops and watch a game with, Cratter, but I've never read all that information below your sig line. Sure explains the need you have to win another banner and the boasting value it would give you.

Hanglseben was pure stud in a day when the game was very physical.

You sure hit the nail for me, yzer.

You know the phrase "A man of ideas?" Well, gfhockey is a man of an idea. Don't try to take it away from him--it's all he's got. He's fun to have around, though, so it's all good.

Of all the discussion about firing Hakstol, very rarely are there informed and knowledgeable observations what, exactly, it is about his coaching that falls below the standard. If would have no problem firing Hakstol or any other coach if I were convinced his actual coaching was below par and there was an other candidate who would probably coach better and who would come to UND. A fourth-grader who can count to one but who has never seen a hockey game can make a loud argument that Hakstol should be fired because he hasn't won a single title. People can make the argument that the proof is in the pudding, and it is. But I'd like to see a reasoned discussion about what he is doing on and off the ice with his teams that makes him a liability. I know we all tend to start with a result then build reasons to compliment or criticize the performance, but at least then there is some reasoning--not simply a reaction to frustration. I've wondered aloud whether Hak's game-coaching skills were up to his obvious program coaching skills, and I'd still like to see some proof that he has reached a top level in that area. But I'm not really knowledgeable about college hockey coaching, and I'd like to see others address it., But the conversation usually doesn't go that far. It gets hung up at the banner count level, which is kind of mindless, IMO. Being a Sioux hockey fan has given me a lot of watching pleasure over the last 10 years. We've been consistently in the hunt like few other programs. Very few. Something very good is being done by both players and coaches. I'd like to see number 8 too, but winning one is not going to be the sole and only reason I support keeping or firing the head coach.

Makes sense to me.

Many of us were questioning why OD should be on the ice late last year and early this year. It looks like what the coaches saw in practice is bearing fruit. Now, if Murphy would start coming around like that . . . .