snova4
-
Posts
896 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Posts posted by snova4
-
-
The article said that Eichel won the Hobey Baker in a landslide. I hadn't seen or heard anything that reflected that. Very possible that its true, just curious where the information came from.
Gotcha.
-
Where did you see the final vote tally for the Hobey Baker award? I haven't seen it released anywhere.
I think what you're referring to was the segment regarding the scoring title, not the Hobey vote.
-
This is very interesting! To me, it suggests that it was more difficult to make the NCAA tournament back then, at least mathematically. If we consider the early years of Gino's tenure, only 5 to 8 teams out of 40 made the NCAA tournament. That's between 12.5-20% of teams that made the NCAA tournament. Today, 16 out of 59 teams make the NCAA tournament, or 27% of teams. The fact that it's much easier to make the NCAA tournament today should, in my opinion, be weighed against the fact that there is a bigger field to defeat today than back in the late 1970s and early 1980s.
But in my opinion, I think it's easier for a team to the win an NCAA championship under today's format than it was in the early 1980s. For examples, see Yale and Providence.
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
-
Yup, the 2004-05 team, 25-15-5, was the team he lead to the national championship game. I wasn't attempting to diminish the accomplishments of Hakstol's teams, but rather point out that the limited opportunities to make the NCAA tournament back in the day meant that some fairly solid teams were shut out from the opportunity altogether. Like the 1983 Sioux team.
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?
-
Of course not.
They came for the Red Pepper
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.
-
Okay, so over the past 11 years, it was all on the players and/or bad "puck luck"? Think of all the different players that have come through this program in 11 years, it has to be a large number. And you are saying that during these 7 trips to the Frozen Four, we have a 1-6 record solely because of the players not performing and/or some bad "puck luck"? What are the odds of all those different teams with all those different guys being that delinquent for all 7 Frozen Fours in an 11 year time frame? Especially with all the world-class talent we have had during this time: Toews, Oshie, Parise, Stafford, etc. And if the team is good enough and competent enough to get to 7 Frozen Fours, why are they suddenly unable to win once they get there? And this is after beating good teams on a regular basis during the regular season, the conference tournament (in most cases, anyway) and the regional, which was often held a long way from Grand Forks. These are the questions that are vexing people on here. And my main point is that the common thread through all of these teams is Hakstol. Now that doesn't mean he won't get us over the hump; it may even happen next year. But it does raise questions from our fan base and it is frustrating to watch over and over again. So for some people on here to get all angry that everyone isn't chanting "In Hak We Trust" in unison all the time no matter what is a sign that they are blinded by their loyalty to the team and are not able to ask critical questions. I hope I am proven wrong next year and I hope I will have to eat my words (and I will). But if the past is a predictor of the future, I am not betting much money on that outcome.
I think Shawn-O had it right earlier: Retain him through the rest of his current contract, but don't extend him yet. And I am fine with agreeing to disagree, that is what America is all about, right?
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Want to know what's funny
Is all of you guys who blow this way out of proportion
So bad that national media guys like starwoman and other people pick up on the fire Hak? Question that I ask
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.
-
Pattyn signed an ATO with the Charlotte Checkers (AHL)
http://www.undsports.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=13500&ATCLID=210023193
That's great, good for the General.
-
95% of posters on here are fine with getting to the frozen four
Could you leave this in the other train wreck of a topic, and leave this one to people leaving early. Thanks.
-
1
-
-
I'll go out on a limb and say one was Kristo.On the live chat today Schlossman said he talked to 2 former captains in Boston who both said fans critical of Hakstol have no clue just how good this coaching staff is.
Would Pattyn qualify as former Captain at this point? I would venture a guess you'd get the same statement from him.
-
One would have to assume they would get offers, they were UDFAs. Hopefully they know what's best for them and stay. Caggs needs a dominate year offensively before he leaves...he needs a season where he averages a point per game.
As far as stetcher, I would guess the AHL would be easier for him than Caggs (given his super motor and complete level), however Stetch has never really played a lot of PP in the past two years. I would think he would come back next year to round out better as an all around dman.
I hope you're right. Losing those two would hurt.
-
According to Brad- Stech and Cags have offers on the table.
Not cool.
-
I agree there. There definitely is more parity, but again the final 4 teams are always good. Even Providence was #2 in the pre-season polls. They started off terribly and than had to deal with some key injuries. Those pre-season polls were pretty close this year.
Nice chat guys. I'm going to stay away from this topic for the offseason...it really goes no where
I'll stick to 15-16 and our recruits...much more positve vibe.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 agree with you on the parity...but that would explain earlier losses in the NCAAs or a tougher regular season. No matter what year we are talking about, the last four teams will be good in the F4. Going back to those natty years, all four teams were solid.
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.
-
I think part of the problem is a lot of people on here live in the past and how we used to dominate college hockey (as some say) and the other side has grown accustom to the transformation of college hockey over the years and understand that the landscape is much different now-a-days.
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.
-
First of all, someone that likes to call other people "morons" shouldn't complain about my "condescending tone".
Second of all, I have never called for Hakstol's head, but I do have serious doubts that we will win a "natty" under his watch.
And lastly, a lot of people on this forum have put forth many statistics and analysis of what might not be working for us in April. I would call that "constructive" (not including gfhockey's irreverant viewpoints). Our fans are a little smarter than you give them credit for. If you don't agree with it, that is fine, but don't scold and preach from your perch about how right you are and how wrong we are. This whole issue is complicated and has many different angles to it.
End rant.
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.
-
1
-
-
Okay, let me explain this to you because you don't get it.
A fan forum like this is where people vent their frustrations over whatever. Maybe you think it shouldn't be that, but that is what it is. So the last thing the players and coaches should do is read this forum after a tough loss because they won't like what they read. I know if I was a coach or player on the team I wouldn't read this forum.
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.
-
2
-
2
-
-
Wow, I don't take it that way at all. Many people thought it was a foregone conclusion he would sign. This says he's thick in the middle of making a decision. maybe 50-50. Schlossman can only pass on what McIntyre tells him, and this is a reasonable update.
I also think it's interesting that it's down to just 2 options. I don't know Zane, but it seems consistent with him that he would be loyal to the Bruins, and give them extra consideration in his decision making.
And as stated above, the other angle is that this is just hard negotiating.
We shall see
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 would say that is some information. I thought there was a chance he would use the loophole as Boston already has Rask and Subban (although I believe many have Zane ahead of Subban).
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.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Brad E. Schlossman @SchlossmanGF 29m29 minutes ago
Zane McIntyre says his decision boils down to UND and Boston Bruins. Doesn't intend to go free agent route http://bit.ly/1OtHVTe
Thank you Brad for zero information.
-
1
-
1
-
Jerseys
in Men's Hockey
Posted
I thought something looked off with that White jersey. That's supposed to be a Geo logo, correct?