About David Hale: Any discussion of the effect of his absence on the team should start with this: First, I hope he gets healthy and is able to lead a healthy life. Second, I hope he's able to have that crunching pro career he has seemed destined for. Third, I hope he's able to come back and help the Sioux. In that order.
Now, what effect has his absence had on the team during this stretch? He couldn't have solved the average-at-best goaltending, nor would he have been likely to score much. But surely replacing your best defenseman with your seventh-best has an effect somewhere. Consider the ten games he's missed:
at CC: 3-5. ENG
at CC: 1-4. one-goal game in the third that then got away
MTU: 8-0. Sioux win
MTU: 2-5. Sioux lay an egg, lose.
at Denver: 3-3.
at Denver: 1-2. GWG at 19:58 of third
at MSUM: 1-2.
at MSUM: 4-5.
UMD: 3-3.
UMD: 2-3.
Especially consider the last six. Two ties and four one-goal losses. I think Hale would have been worth at least a few points in those six close games.
Am I making excuses for the losses? No, just explaining one of the reasons for them. It means that the rest of the team hasn't been good enough to compensate for his absence. Other teams have had severe injury problems as well and done better. MN lost a lot of forwards earlier this year, but were fortunate that they were incredibly deep at the position. SCSU lost Malone, their best player, for a stretch at the start of the year, and again near the end, and struggled badly in his absence. Losing Hale has been similar to losing Malone in that he is probably UND's best player.
The biggest reason Hale's loss has impacted UND so badly is that it came at a position where UND was already thin. The D-corps looked like this to start the season: Hale-Schneider, Jones-Greene, Fuher-Leinweber, with Marvin getting some forward time. That's three sophomores at the core, led by a rock-solid junior, with a surprising freshman helping, and a senior and freshman bouncing in the six/seven slots. Without Hale, you're left with three sophomores and a freshman as your top four, with two guys who were scrapping for ice time as your third pair.
---------------------------------------
With the recent scoring woes, I can't help but think of Ryan Bayda. He seems to have made the right choice, as he is, so far, sticking in the NHL, which I think is just awesome. But offensively, I guess we are seeing that this team wasn't ready to be without a senior star. Spiewak and Notermann have stepped up and are having fine senior seasons, but they aren't stars. I still think Bayda would have won the Hobey Baker award this year had he returned. I know that Michigan would have Cammalleri and others, and MN would have Taffe, so I'm not claiming UND is unique here, just noting that some teams were prepared to be without their senior star, and others weren't. You can't rely on freshmen and sophomores to be your stars on offense and expect to be great (copyright C. Dahl).
----------------------------------------
Goaltending: Unlike some others, I am not in favor of cutting a player and pulling his scholarship. If a guy is not good enough to be on the team, then cutting him from the team should be an option, but I think he should be able to stay in school with whatever assistance he was expecting. This is all assuming that he works and tries as expected. In Josh's case, for instance, I haven't heard any talk of his not working his butt off and really caring. If he does those things, I think he earns his scholarship. Even if he's not a good goaltender. The thing is, this is a kid's future we're talking about here. A player getting hockey scholarship money but not playing on the team because he was cut would just mean that the program would have to do the job with less money. An example would be Ziggy walking on next year and taking Josh's spot.
Again, I have no problem cutting a player from the team if he's not good enough to be on it.
------------------------------------
On a related note, I wasn't a fan of the discussions last year of giving up on young forwards, and I'm still not. Here are the young guys:
Bochenski - not a complete player, but obviously a star in the making
Massen - inconsistent, but took a big step up this year
McMahon - production has been disappointing, but he has played a lot and has been steady
Canady - how could anyone expect him to do much this year? He has either been injured or rehabbing the entire year. From what I understand, he has busted his butt to get back in the lineup after each injury. I disagree strongly with anyone who would want to cut someone after the kind of year Canady had; the idea is that you stick with someone when they're down, then later, when they're back up, they care that much more and perform that much better.
Connelly - I understand complaints about his lack of production, and can't argue against them. All I can say is that I see flashes of talent, outstanding moves and good speed, and I think he could contribute in the future. And I'm not his uncle, or anythign like that.
Genoway - Based on some of the whispers, I had high expectations that obviously haven't been met. I'd like to see if he can make the first-year to second-year jump that many players do.
Fylling - Has been up and down, but has been much better than he was his first year.
Prpich - His outperformance has softened the blow of Genoway's disappointment. A very pleasant surprise who could be an important player in the future.
Parise - I assume no one wants him to be cut.
Bring young guys in, develop them, build a team. If the numbers were different, some people would have wanted to cut Skarperud somewhere along the way, but he played, got better, then eventually blew up.
------------------------------------
Even with the adversity the team has faced, this year is not done yet. They just need to win a game this weekend, get home ice, and win a few home games. That would send them on to St. Paul on a bit of a roll, and maybe keep them in contention for an NCAA bid.
