snova4

I thought something looked off with that White jersey. That's supposed to be a Geo logo, correct?

Gotcha.

I think what you're referring to was the segment regarding the scoring title, not the Hobey vote.

Weird. Because I take the Yale and Providence examples as to why it's more difficult for the normal strongholds to win it. Different perspectives I guess.

In: Boeser Gersich Wilkie Gardner Janatuinen Wolanin Chartrand Shaw Out: J. Schmaltz

Thanks. I didn't know. The more I think about this the sillier it becomes too me. Granted, there have been some teams that we felt should have performed better when they got to the final rounds, but there are also teams that maybe shouldn't have been there either. As much hope as I had for this years team based on senior leadership, I look at the offensive production of the forwards, and I really kind of question it. Nothing against any of them at all, but I can't really point to a guy and say, he should have more goals, or he's going to be a stud. I guess there is so much more that goes into this than a record in the frozen four. How many teams over performed according to their talent level, how many under. I look at the pony express and what they are doing now, and I guess I thought Frattin would be a bigger star in the NHL. Sorry, kind of just babbling at this point, because I really have no real point, besides there are so many unknowns that we as fans take for granted, or things we think we know as facts about teams that are completely untrue.

Out of curiosity, did either of those three teams of Hakstol's make the Frozen Four?

This is the most likely scenario.

Maybe I read to much into it, but after watching the last Through These Doors, I don't think Stecher is going anywhere.

I'm like a damn bug to the light. I keep coming back. I guess I can't claim to be a fan of this team all the way back to Hakstol's beginning, maybe he did make some blunders his first couple, heck, maybe even first few years coaching. But, from the time I've been paying close attention to this team, I can't say, or point to, anything I would say was Hakstol's fault. Frattin frozen four was ridiculous, the number of shots on goal and pipes hit, with the way that team was scoring all year doesn't even seem feasible. We had a two year drought, which I thought he did a stellar job with what he had, and last year, Simpson year, I thought was his finest coaching I had ever seen from him. I can't say I felt we belonged on the ice, but we pushed the number one team in the country to the final .6. Now this season, Boston thoroughly outplayed for probably fifty of the sixty minutes, but we don't come away with a win. Two pipes hit, couple soft goals, by Zane's standards, and a near miraculous comeback in the third, still don't understand how Pattyn goes to the box there. Powerplay looked better than it has all season. Zone entries looked better than they had all season. So at the end, I can't put these last three on him, so in closing, if these last three are not on Hak, why on God's green earth would you fire him for the first four? If anything, he should have been fired in the first six years, not these last five years. I can understand if you're frustrated from the original losses, but I think the fire crowd needs to look at the last three appearances objectively. Look at each game without the built in frustration. I think you might find a very different opinion regarding the games, and Hakstol's evolution as a coach.

Haha. Yep, the Hak is a good coach crowd draw the attention of the national media. I actually laughed out loud at this one. You're getting to obvious in your troll posts man.

That's great, good for the General.

Could you leave this in the other train wreck of a topic, and leave this one to people leaving early. Thanks.

I'll go out on a limb and say one was Kristo. Would Pattyn qualify as former Captain at this point? I would venture a guess you'd get the same statement from him.

I hope you're right. Losing those two would hurt.

Not cool.

True that. Is it October yet? I'm excited for next season, already planning a trip for the Wisconsin series, and hopefully the boys can strong together some wins and make Tampa so the wife and I can go. I feel it's going to be a slow start, but if this team gets the offense clicking early, it could be a really fun ride.

I can't speak for him, but when I think of the parity argument, o think about the last three teams to win the national championship. Even going back to Duluth. The champs haven't exactly been teams you would expect.

Maybe they should stop recruiting them before they hit puberty.

This very well could be the issue I have, being part of the latter group. I came to hockey late, it wasn't until I started dating my now wife seven years ago that I had even been to a Sioux game. I understand the history and tradition, and know the players from the past era, but have only witnessed the game through this era of parity. I look at what this program has done year after year and am extremely impressed because of them annually being one of the best teams in the country. I guess I can see where, if I grew up watching them win championships regularly, this may not cut it for me. Someone up above have Indiana, North Carolina, and Kentucky basketball as examples. That actually is the sport I've come from, and honestly, that person dated themselves. Because if those are the programs you base your idea of what is expected of Hak off of, you're going to see he's doing exactly that. Indiana hasn't been relevant in years, and really, North Carolina either, outside 2009 and 2005. Kentucky is seemingly the top team every year, but don't have the championships to back it up either. If this were a Kentucky forum, we'd be calling for Calipari's head.

Never called for Hak's head? Your posts really do make it seem otherwise. I don't recall ever calling you a moron, but if I did I'm sorry, I'm not going to spend the time to look it up. Again, maybe we have different ideas of giving examples of what could have been done differently, you've seen constructive ideas, I honestly have not. Besides the 1-7 statistic and him not getting it done, I haven't, in my mind, seen anything that resembles a solid plan to get rid of one of the winningest coaches in college hockey, and arguably the best coach in college hockey. To be fair, again, in my opinion, I think part of the issue is Hak has gotten teams to the frozen four that really had no business being their in the first place. Last year's team is an example. I love the team, and the players, but in my opinion last season was probably the finest coaching job Hak has ever done. But in the end, we can agree to disagree, because quite frankly, I'm tired of our back and forth. For what it's worth, you may have taken the brunt of my frustration based off siouxvikes comments towards me in the beginning of this thread. That individual did get under my skin, and I may have had a condescending tone throughout based off him alone.

Why thank you for the condescending tone, sure gets my respect rolling for you. Also, thank you for the definition of a fan forum. With the understanding of how a fan forum works, I would also understand that many of the posters have no idea what they are really talking about, so I'm going to place you in that category. Constructive criticism of players and coaches would be one thing, but what you and several of your fire Hak buddies don't grasp is that it's not actually constructive. You rant about their coach, wanting him gone because he hasn't won the big one, but you can't actually point to what he did or didn't do to cause the losses. The frozen four in 2011 our team outplayed Michigan. 2014, we outplayed the Gophers, 2015, we outplayed Boston. None of which is on the coach. It's terrible, terrible luck. But a very vocal few don't seem to grasp that, and I'm sorry but you're in that. If you'd like to continue, we can make condescending messages back and forth in private, I don't want to dumb down the group anymore than it already is.

I guess I was never in the foregone conclusion group. So coming from that viewpoint, it didn't give me any information. There were always two options after this season, either Zane comes back, or he signs with Boston, and that's what Brad's tweet says to me, not trying to read between his collective lines. Guess it's in the eye of the beholder.

I don't think many of us care at all which professional team he signs with. I took that as, he's either coming back, or he's signing with Boston, which really took me nowhere.

Thank you Brad for zero information.