[Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....]

How long should Hak have left the lines intact to develop chemistry?

It seemed to me that he would leave most line combos together for a few games...some lines for longer. And then when Parks and MiMac got back after Xmas it started all over again.

Take the top line...even after most on here (myself included) wanted to see that line with Grimaldi on it, they still weren't effective for a few of the games that they were together. Throughout the season, he was probably on that line for 8-10 games at least...

I think the "chemistry" angle is overblown a bit IMO. True, if you pair certain players that have complementary skills together on a line, they will have a higher chance at success...but it's not that black and white. What works one game may not work the next...and not for an entire season. We've had success in the past with the Money Line, Line of Fire, DOT line, etc where essentially the coach just stacked our three best forwards on the ice together. And I do think when Grimaldi was on the KK line that they certainly generated chances, but for whatever reason they just couldn't click together consistently (even though they were given a chance to develop that elusive "chemistry"). Lack of secondary scoring certainly played a part being that teams could focus their best defensive line against that stacked line...but even so that line should have been successful regardless with that amount of talent on it.

One thing to make a few changes game by game, but it seemed like it all 4 lines were consistently changing. I mean come one, not even one line stayed consistent in the second half of the year. You need a team to win any kind of championship and correct me if I'm wrong, but we went 0-3 this season. Any good coach will reflect on why they didn't do the job this season. So hopefully Hak has it in him to learn from it then, but my opinion is he isn't going to be the guy behind the bench when we win number 8.

[Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....]

I disagree with this entire post. The D was the strength of this team all year long, hell even Macwilliam had more then 10 points. Furthermore, the team was very aggressive at jumping into the play all game long. They actually got a bit over-agressive for my taste at times which led to a couple odd man rushes. The problem this team has had all year has been a lack of scoring depth. We relied way to much on the top line for scoring and the other 3 lines were far to inconsisten in helping out. Dillon Simpson upped his game big-time this year too and was IMHO the best defender on the ice most games.

Yale was very strong with their neutral zone defense, and their transition offense was pretty impressive as well. The forwards outside of Grimaldi did a pretty poor job on the defensive side as well and were chasing Yale around most of the game because they were so frustrated. All this considered though, we hit at least 3-4 posts and still had a chance to win.

My lost thought on this horrible thread, If you have the guts to come in here and call for a coaches head that is clearly one of the best in the country, then you better back that up by saying who a respectable replacement is. It's all fine to say he should be fired, but there is no one right now that is even close to a qualified replacement.

P.S. this team missed Brock Nelson in an absolutely huge way!

Cary Eades would be a great replacement. Where was the second half surge this season? oh it was in Sioux Falls.

[Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....]

With the way our defense played all year why would you sit on any lead. Berry is in charge of the defense and power play hmmmm. Good addition I think. The two areas we struggled this year, maybe fire Berry and keep Hakstol.

Agree Berry is no Cary Eades.

[Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....]

I wasn't using points to point out how good they were defensively, my point was from an offensive perspective this year was far more effective than in previous years. +/- is a horrible stat to judge a defense off though, give me a break.

Also when you are stating holding the line vs. falling back, you don't ever have the defense hold the line on a 1-0 lead and stay that aggressive all game long. You drop back to protect the neutral zone and slow down the attack into the offensive zone. Why the heck would you ever commit both d-men like that and sacrifice a goal, they started to do that at the end of the game when down to get more offense because they had to.

The team looked like they were tired IMHO and that can happen when you go from a late game on friday to afternoon on Saturday. It seems like this team is far more effective and confident with Gothberg in net than Saunders for some reason.

Overall it was a good year and this team did overachieve a bit for what they had on forward. Outside of our top line, there wasn't a ton of depth at all.

What top line would you be referring to??? I agree Brock would have been the answer, but since he left it was the coaches job to find someone to fill his shoes. Too much line shuffling, ZERO Chemistry. Hak didn't give the lines any time. When you don't have consistent lines you don't develop any depth. Coaches fault their was no depth, they had a healthy team for the majority of the year and very few injuries.

You have got to be kidding about the defense playing well. How many times did they flub the puck or failed to go tape to tape on break out passes. When BOTH D men are skating back towards the red line, while WE are in puck possession in the offensive zone it's hard to sustain offensive zone pressure. I'm not talking pinching with a lead, clearly talking about maintaing the offensive zone, ya kinda need 5 players to do that, not 3. With 6 NHL draft pics they should have been better!!!! it's hard though when every line is changing game by game. As the season progresses that chemistry with the forward lines that needs to develop also helps the d men. The outlet passes and breakout passes and lanes are filled, which makes it easier to connect from D to F. It was pretty easy for Yale to break thru the neutral zone as well because of the disconnect with the D and Fs.

Watch the OT winner in the final 5 game. Two of our guys went to the same point man and no one took the guy with the puck who scored the goal. Clearly another example of not having that chemistry.

With the amount of draft pics we have and hobey finalists we should have faired better. Sorry fingers pointed at Hak and his staff. Hard to watch that much talent all season being shuffled around with ZERO results. Yeah they made plays and scored on great individual efforts with the talent they have, but I remember few goals that resulted from crisp tape to tape passing. Individual talent but NO team chemistry = fail.

[Time to Fire Dave Hakstol....]

UND played with zero chemistry all season.. In the regional you could see the boys working hard, yet unable to string 3 passes together, even on the pp. That comes down to not finding the right line chemistry. The lines were being fiddled with all season. Not being able to utilize the talents on his team, including two Hobey finalists is strictly on Hak and the coaching staff. Personally, I liked Parks on that top line, but that combo only lasted 2 games. If UND can develop a DOT line they do better.

Also The D missed Eades all season. There were 6 NHL draft picks on the blue line and that was the team's achilles heal all season, along with shaky goaltending. It was a matter of time before Yale broke it open. After the first goal you could clearly see both D men holding the red line, while we were in the offensive zone. 3 v 5 in the offensive zone doesn't generate too many quality scoring opportunities. I didn't really see UND's D men in the offensive zone much at all, except on their 2 pps and even that was sketchy.

Bottom line it all comes down to coaching. You have the best rink in college hockey you should be able to bring in the top players in the country. Now find someone to coach them.