skateshattrick

I agree with U2Bad1. When the U of M fired Woog, they did not simply hire Mike Guentzel, even though he was considered a very good candidate by many people. Instead, they opened it up nationally. They targeted Blais, and when they were unable to land him, landed Lucia. UND should not settle for anything less. Even the UND football program did the same thing. When Roger Thomas stepped aside, they did not hire the "internal" candidate, who ended up as coach at St. Cloud. Instead, they went out and got Dale Lennon, the best man for the job. With all due respect to the UND football program, the UND hockey program is much larger scale and depends upon winning, prominence and filling the arena. Dave Hakstol may end up being a good coach. However, there will always be that lingering doubt when you have potential candidates who are also former players with better track records like Sandelin, Steve Johnson and Marks. This "move" frankly makes me very angry.

Very well put and expresses my sentiments exactly. I would add that I prefer Steve Johnson or Scott Sandelin, assuming Sandelin is interested. The intent is not to be negative toward Dave Hakstol, who is a viable candidate, but to compare him with the other candidates. Here are some reasons: 1. Dave Hakstol was a head coach only a few years in the USHL and did not have very great success. His track record in the USHL was no better than Tarek Howard or Scott Koberinski. 2. Hakstol is reputed to be a good recruiter, but turned off a few local recruits, including Danny Irmen. I believe that the Shattuck connection was more of a function of Dean Blais than Hakstol. He seems to be a good guy, but I have heard that some former players did not care for him as much as Sandelin. 3. Steve Johnson has been very successul in the USHL, having won the Clark Cup and Lincoln is generally one of the top teams. He also has more head coaching experience. 4. Steve Johnson is not only a former All-American for the Sioux, but is a local guy. That may not be a huge factor, but it is certainly worthy of consideration. 5. Steve Johnson has been important in recruiting as well, as Lincoln was/is a Sioux connection with Bochenski, Fournier and others. 6. Steve Johnson is very popular with his players and former players. In fact, I heard from a very reliable source that Ryan Potulny would have gone to UND had Steve Johnson been the coach. 7. Scott Sandelin's track record speaks for itself--great recruiter, assistant coach, and turned around a poor program in Duluth. Also, a very good guy that is very popular with his players. UND cannot afford to screw this up. UND needs to be very successful (e.g. win) and REA needs to be filled to capacity to remain a viable program. Yes, Dean Blais endorsed Hakstol, but Dean is no longer directly involved with UND's program. It also is not surprising that he endorsed Hakstol because Blais is very loyal and what else is he going to say? If Steve Johnson or Scott Sandelin were the coach, I have virtually no doubt that the Sioux program will continue to be one of the best in the country for years. I do not have that same level of comfort with Dave Hakstol at the helm. Personally, I think it is too risky.

I agree that Moorhead should be even better than last year. The best players on last year's team were juniors, and they will have Jeremy Smith, Jake Krause, Andy Stone and others move up, as well as Jordy Christian and possibly Pat Deitz and Michael Weiss from Bantams.

Jordy is not a goalie, he is a forward. He will be a sophomore this year and has a good chance to make varsity. Beau is a goalie, will be a junior, and may make varsity, but there are 2 returning goalies that will be seniors.

I am curious why you would say Steve Johnson would not be a front runner? He is very well liked by his former players (Jay Potulny said that Ryan would have gone to UND if he was the coach), has had tremendous success coaching in the USHL, is a former UND player, and is from Grand Forks. Personally, I think he is or will be the front runner.

I would expect that he would be on the short list along with Steve Johnson (former All American with the Sioux from Grand Forks; current coach of Lincoln Stars who publicly expressed interest in the job within the past 2 years), Scott Sandelin (would he leave UMD??), and Dave Hakstol. I would like to see Steve Johnson or Scott Sandelin, with a slight preference for Steve Johnson.

I don't pretend to know the situation with Vanek and his teammates, but why do we really care? Vanek is a great player when he wants to play. He is a natural goal scorer that scores big goals. We also know that he is sometimes lazy, particularly on defense. Brett Hull survived many years doing the same thing until Ken Hitchcock made him play defense. Whether Vanek gets along with his teammates is really irrelevant. We have all heard the rumors (including Gopher fans) but they are rumors. The same type of rumors were made about Jason Blake, and ironically, many Gopher fans liked to spread those rumors. Thus, Hammy does have a point that it is the rivalry that makes these rumors even worth talking about. My point is that I don't like rumormongoring and, even if the rumors are true, no one can really say with a straight face that the Gophers are a better team without Vanek even if it is true that he's a "cancer." Despite Vanek's weaknesses, I would like to see him gone because I'm a Sioux fan and he makes the Gophers a much better team even with any baggage.

Jason, I'm not sure about Kyle Graalum. I will find out and let you know. With the qualification based upon potential, I agree with your assessment.

I agree that Mario is talented, and probably a D1 prospect with huge upside, but top 5 in the State? I beg to differ. Moreland, McIntyre and Marto from GF Central were better, Jeckort from Bismarck Century was better, Graalum from Fargo Shanley was better, and Brehmer and Mauch from Fargo South were better. Mario did not even make the all-state team. Interestingly, Paul Weisgarber (who is the same age but will be a junior at South) did. I may be biased, but I like Paul Weisgarber's game better than Mario. Mario is stronger and has a better shot, but Paul has a better overall game IMHO.

There are 6--Phillip, Jacque, PJ, Mario, Monique and Jocelyn. Mario would be a sophomore, but is an 88 so he is the same age as many of the juniors around the state, like Paul Weisgarber. I suspect he was either held back or started school late. The girls will be 2nd year bantams.

I heard that Mario made Tri-City and that he will be playing junior hockey somewhere next year, whether it be Tri-City or Bismarck.

Yes. The projected top 2 are Russians.

The new ESPN the magazine also projects him as a top 5 pick in the NHL draft.

I happen to agree that the 98 and 99 teams were more talented, but they had to go to Michigan in 98 and lost a heartbreaker. I think UM and Denver can relate. However, I used to think that NDSU fans were lame in arguing that the club hockey titles were legitimate until I started hearing Gopher fans contending that the Gophers actually have more "championships" based upon AAU titles. Very lame. Did they wear rubber boots when they beat powerhouses like Crookston High School?

I agree with you that Ballard is a good player, but the fact that he was drafted in the 1st round is really irrelevant. Teams draft based upon potential and size. That is like arguing that Phil Sykes and Jason Blake, who were free agents, were not as good as draftees such as Scott Kirton or James Massen, or that James Massen (6th) is better than Brandon Bochenski (7th). Martin St. Louis was undrafted. I happen to agree with Frozen Tundra that Roche was better defensively than Ballard. Ballard was drafted based upon offensive skills. He has gotten bigger and stronger, so he has a chance of making it to the pros. The fact that he was a No. 1 guarantees him nothing. No. 1 draft choices in hockey and baseball often do not make it because they are drafted so young as opposed to the NFL. Jason Herter was a 1st rounder (8th overall) that never made it and Landon Wilson (First round) did not exactly set the NHL on fire.

Ammerman. He is big, fast and can shoot. Hardwick continues to get looks from UM, UND and UMD according to my Warroad sources, but there are concerns about his foot speed. He is reportedly considering passing up his senior year of high school to play in the USHL.

Ballard did not win the Hobey. The Hobey was won by Junior Lessard of UMD. Perhaps you should sober up before posting.

Not officially, but I do not think he will go to UND because he does not want to be in Brian Lee's shadow. Minnesota apparently has a lot of defensemen coming in, and may be done recruiting that position, but has talked with him. UMD appears to be very interested.

This was just officially announced, but it has been known since before the state tournament. Chris VandeVelde was absolutely dominant as a squirt and pee wee. He was the best player on very loaded Moorhead teams that included Jon Ammerman, Brian Lee, Matt Becker and others. He was always much bigger than average when he was young, so when the other kids started catching up in size at Bantams, he was not as dominant. He has now grown again, and has very good speed to go along with a very hard shot. As a result, he has again moved to near the top of the pack at Moorhead and in the state of Minnesota. His upside is huge. He can shoot, has great hands, good speed and is big.

True, it is not an excessively violent sport when the game is played and officiated the way it was meant to be played. However, I suspect that Mario Lemieux would take issue with your statement---he walked away from the game because he was tired of the constant obstruction and cheap play. Fighting is not part of the game any more than it is in football. It is a violation of the rules that has been tolerated for too long. It is not tolerated in football and usually results in an immediate ejection and ultimately a fine and suspension.

I agree with everything you state, but you are overlooking one of the most important reasons for the decline of hockey as a major sport---the fighting and cheap play. If you ask any casual hockey fan or fan of other sports, the reason they say they cannot watch the NHL is because of the constant fighting and cheap play. It may be overstated, but if you watch ESPN highlights, they constantly glorify the fighting and show highlight clips of fights. Even the announcers, particularly former players and coaches like Barry Melrose, Don Cherry, Bill Clement, etc., glorify this aspect by talking about how much they respect a player because of their "toughness", penalty minutes, etc. This type of behavior is not tolerated in any other contact sport other than boxing. The game needs to eliminate that from the game like college hockey (college hockey fights are now very rare). Regardless of how you feel about fighting (many feel it is necessary to protect the stars), the game will never be taken seriously by other than us true hockey fans until the fighting and goon play is eliminated.

I'm not sure that cheap teams necessarily gain an advantage, but I agree that less skilled teams gain an advantage, particularly in the playoffs when the refs let a lot more go than they do during the regular season. Lou Nanne talked about this the other day during an interview with Dan Barreiro on the Fan. I get frustrated watching the more skilled teams lose the advantage that they have in skill and speed because the refs will not call the interference, hooking, clutching and grabbing. Wayne Gretzky would not score nearly as much in today's NHL because he would not be able to fight through the constant mugging and interference. Unfortunately, it has trickled down to college hockey. I think it hurts hockey. Yes, there is more parity, but who wants to watch 1-0 or 2-1 hockey games with 18 shots on net?? I would rather see the stars and the skilled teams like Detroit, Ottawa and Colorado, not the Sutter style of play.

Did someone pee in your cheerios?

I could not have said it better myself, so I won't try to. Another argument against visors and face shields is that it has caused the sticks to come up. Phil Sykes used to make that argument. That may be true, but wouldn't you rather have protection when it does happen? It is similar to the argument that the hands to the face increased when football required face masks. So what? It least now you have protection. I have seen inadvertent and non-intentional plays in hockey that have resulted in Steve Yzerman losing teeth and nearly losing an eye; Brendan Shanahan losing teeth; Jeremy Roenick breaking his jaw, etc. These would have been avoided with a face shield. I agree that the players will never agree to a face shield, but it preferable to a visor. If a stick gets caught underneath the visor, it may actually cause more damage.