larsensa Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Well if Hak doesn't win by the end of his contract he will be able to add another accomplishment to his list, the longest dry spell without a national championship is 17 years from 1963-1980, and it will be 18 years at the end of his contract so he has that going for him! All I can say is I am glad I didn't buy tickets and drive to Grand Rapids from the Chicago area for that game. Not as painful as the back-to-back losses to BC in Milwaukee and St. Louis since I had a bad feeling about this years team all year but it still would've been a long drive back home.
82SiouxGuy Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 the key point about duluth in your post is one frozen four=one national title...sandelin got it done when he was there He got it done one time. He also failed to make the tournament 5 out of the last 9 years. That isn't exactly a rousing success. I don't use national titles won as my only factor when looking at success. It is the ultimate goal for the team. But it is only one of several things I look at when determining whether a college hockey team is successful. Hakstol has done just about everything else needed to be considered successful.
scpa0305 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I'm not going back to find it, but this topic came up in a thread a few weeks ago. I went back and looked. There were more Boston College players in the NHL each of the last several years than UND. There were several other schools that had more players, or about the same number of players, in the NHL. I believe that Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin were on that list that often had more players in the NHL than UND. Denver, Boston University, Michigan State and Colorado College also ranked right up there. UND has a great reputation that is well deserved. But UND is not the only school that sends a lot of players to the pros. This image that some UND fans have, that UND has a huge talent advantage over all the other schools, is false. Some years it might be true. But overall, UND is in a group with several other schools that all send a lot of players to the NHL. During the first game they listed the teams with the most draft picks from this season....goofs were one, we were two and BC was three I believe. But BC did have 3-4 less draft picks than us. As far as top end talent in the league, I know we produce more....can't think of a good BC player that has come out in the last ten years....Orpik and ?? Probably another defenseman. There are BC players but they are very much role players. Parise, toews, oshie....those guys are not role players. 1
Big A HG Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 This is the first year under Hakstol that the team hasn't: A) Won the MacNaughton B) Won the Broadmoor C) Made the Frozen Four For 8 straight years, at least one of those things has happened...I think that's pretty darn awesome. (Techinically 9 straight, if you count the MacNaughton Blais won in his final year at the helm)
moneyorder Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 excuses, excuses, excuses.....i dont care if we make the playoffs, its the way we lose...seriously, sioux lost to yale today with a trip to pitt on the line...and they didnt lose in some holy cross upset where the underdog played out of their minds, they lost to an inferior team who really didnt play all that well. This one stings because of the path laid in front of the sioux....beat niagra, yale, umass, then one of union, quinny, st. cloud or miami. if you can come up with a better path to a title run let me know. #hakjob 4
shortbusguy Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 During the first game they listed the teams with the most draft picks from this season....goofs were one, we were two and BC was three I believe. But BC did have 3-4 less draft picks than us. As far as top end talent in the league, I know we produce more....can't think of a good BC player that has come out in the last ten years....Orpik and ?? Probably another defenseman. There are BC players but they are very much role players. Parise, toews, oshie....those guys are not role players. Cory Schneider is probably the biggest name BC alum in the league right now, at least the highest profile.
Telly33 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Who's making excuses? I know I wasn't. In my mind it's simply a lack of preparation and fire. Some of these Cinderella teams in the tournament clearly have had it. You wouldn't have to say a word to get the troops ready to play Minnesota or BC. It's getting them ready to play the Niagaras and Yales of the world that seems to be the challenge. At the end of the day the players play the game, but the only common denominator over the last nine years is Hakstol.
brianvf Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Hak zero. Sandelin one...NUFF SAID!!!! I think Sandy just got lucky with that one title (well, he did really because we all know UMD would have gotten blown out by a Frattin-led UND team had they gotten past UM... )...UMD has looked pretty darn average other than a season or two. 1
homer Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Do you put any of this on the players? They got out hustled on the ice in 5 of their last 6 games?
Rink Rat Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. 3
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. Good first post. You are right about the lack of chemistry and weak play by the D. Passes were off, rarely did we hit a guy on the tape, in full stride, with space. We always seem to be terrible when we try and protect a lead...defensive shell does not work. Most great opportunities were generated by individual efforts from Kristo and Rocco.
Oxbow6 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I think Hak has greatly underachieved multiple years w his talent but this thread is a waste even in jest. Very good coach but not great. 2
7>4 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 If Hakstol was a pro-hockey coach he would've been canned years ago even with the record you posted. Yeah, and if Rogaine worked as advertised I'd have a full head of hair.
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 As I've been saying all over these boards, I do not support the firing of Hak. I do think we get an excellent executive of the program with him. What we don't get is a big game coach. Someone put it well- he would be an awesome GM. It didn't look like the boys were having fun in this tourney...you need to have fun too...its a game...when you're having fun, you get bounces and make things click. 1
Sioux,CO Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Really, you would take that 1 national championship over the Sioux success? Spoken like a true casual fan who never watches the Sioux consistently. So if Hakstol can somehow manage to get that one national championship next year, he can be mediocre for 9 years and you won't be calling for his head? I've been a fan for over 30 years and a season ticket holder. Haven't missed a Final Five or NCAA game in over 7 years, but I guess that is a casual fan for tnt. Idiot.
gfhockey Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 yeah unlinke most of u i was born and raised and still live in GF
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. 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! 1
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Do you put any of this on the players? They got out hustled on the ice in 5 of their last 6 games? This! Grimaldi was the only forward on the ice that you could see working his tail off. Not sure what Knight and Kristo were doing yesterday but they were not themselves. Outside of the first 10 minutes of the game, the third line also wasn't nearly as effective.
MafiaMan Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 This one stings because of the path laid in front of the sioux....beat niagra, yale, umass, then one of union, quinny, st. cloud or miami. if you can come up with a better path to a title run let me know. Really? you obviously haven't paid any attention at all to college hockey this season and have no idea how talented the UMass-Lowell or Miami teams really are. And Union, Quinnipiac, and St Cloud proved yesterday that they are no slouches either...
bigskyvikes Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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! Nice reply++++1 All of the "top teams" lost this weekend.. Maybe people have to realize that winning this thing isn't as easy as YOU FIRE HAK PEOPLE think? Don't come back and say Quinni won, they are ranked #1... Because everyone thought that WASN'T accurate... 1
scpa0305 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Cory Schneider is probably the biggest name BC alum in the league right now, at least the highest profile. Agreed. I'm sure am missing one more but honestly I can't think if a high end BC NHL player. I follow a lot if NHL hockey too.
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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! D as the strength of this team??? Wow...I could not disagree more. Its not about stats, you could make an argument for plus/minus, but certainly not 10 points as a barometer. How often did we see great outlet passes? How well did we hold the lines vs falling back...how many footraces did we lose? I kept saying that when the NCAA crew kept talking about us...they were talking about our reputation, not how we played this year. I watched 99% of the games this year, and I was NEVER impressed with our defense. Too many breakdowns, too little flow out of the zone. Only Simpson and Mac were decent. Offense starts with an outlet pass...not a chip off the glass or a ring around the boards. 2
bakka Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Not investing any emotion in the Hak coaching job. Will continue enjoying watching the Sioux--a group of young men who have provide years of entertainment/enjoyment. With the current Alumni Director/Coach relationship--the only coaching change would be if Hak decided to retire. In the meantime resigned to the fate that, for whatever reason, a Hak coached team will most likely never win a national championship. 1
Recommended Posts