617Wings Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 As can be seen, this is my first post on this forum. I found this forum to see if others shared my opinion that a change needs to be made and was pleasantly surprised to see an open and intelligent debate on Hakstol. First, coaches in general are in a unique position. Most of us don't have to worry about forums being started if we don't meet expectations in our jobs. That being said, coaches, especially coaches in high profile positions such as Hakstol, choose to accept living in the fish bowl and he isn't getting it done. First, I don't think comparing a college coach and a NHL coach is accurate. NHL coaches are at the mercy of owners, general managers and a salary cap. College coaches have more control over their own destiny. And that it is what has been so frustrating under Hakstol. The UND hockey program is a turn key operation for any coach that comes here. The arena, the history and the other intangibles give any coach who comes here so many more advantages over other college programs. Second, call me selfish, but to me all that matters is winning national titles. If I was a fan of St. Cloud St. or another similar team, I would be content with making the national tournament or winning a conference championship or producing future NHL players. But to go this long without a national title being a UND hockey fan is unacceptable. 10 years from now will any of us remember what year we won a conference championship or the years we started out the regular season at the bottom of the standings then finished at the top of the conference? Lastly, like others, the excuses for not winning have grown old. We ran into a hot goalie, we were unlucky, we hit the post, etc. I thought it was hilarious to see in the Pulitizer Prize winning Grand Forks Herald that losing in the Frozen Five last week would actually help UND in the national tourney because they would be fresher. 2
SIOUXELEVENS Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 If the team shows up and gets beat that is fine but to not compete for 2/3 of the game something is wrong. Yale carried the play the last two periods we didn't look like we we even close to them. We hit four posts and had one waved off and we still looked over matched most of the game. All the people who wanted Rocco on the first line can't be very happy either that line had no flow and couldn't get out of the D zone, that is why their weren't together, defensive liability, all o little d. But we gave Hakstol a pass sit behind he bench stern faced unwilling or unable to change. Hakstol's offseason change after last season how did that work out, the defense looked lost most of the time especially after we scored. The defense took a step back in my opinion, Matson was being compared to genoway and Forbort had made some Hugh strides, they both regressed under the new d savior. I know Hakstol isn't going anywhere but be smart enough to know this isn't working like it should.
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 The reason that head coaches (like corporate execs) make large incomes with guaranteed buy-outs on contracts is because it is a risk-premium. Failure is pinned on you, and you will be fired. The money offsets the high probability of not having a job at some point in the very near future.
gfhockey Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Hak will never be fired from und.. Look what happend to bunning when he questioned hak.... adios kudos to the mcdonalds mafia
Godsmack Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 I haven't bothered to troll but is anyone aware if DU and Minnesota fans are expressing the same frustrations about their respective coaches? I know that prior to the start of the tournament, DU fans were grumbling about Gwoz's lack of post season success since their back-to-back titles (1 NCAA tournament win).
siouxweet Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 the lack of consistency or any consistency is what killed this team this year, too many all or nothing games. some of that was losing nelson early but that is what it is. it was a good season but not a great one. as goon said the great one will come.
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 the lack of consistency or any consistency is what killed this team this year, too many all or nothing games. some of that was losing nelson early but that is what it is. it was a good season but not a great one. as goon said the great one will come. We've had two great seasons in the last 9...both fell flat in the Frozen Four...
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 We've had two great seasons in the last 9...both fell flat in the Frozen Four... And yet we have been to 5 frozen fours in the Hakstol era....give me a break. Some fans just refuse to give Hakstol any credit. This year was the 2nd lowest winning percentage a team under Hakstol has ever had, at a terrible .607(yes the was sarcasm). His lowest was .605
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 What do we say about 0-20 on the pp in our final five games and 2-25 in the playoffs...with the two coming against MTU in the opener. A 20% effectiveness, and that is 4 goals...our three losses in those 5 playoff games (excluding the ENG) were by a total of 4 goals...not to mention the momentum boost... You have to have special teams in the playoffs... I've been beating the horse to death, but how do we fail that badly on something we know will be that important...Also, when we go into the defensive shell, we fall apart. For some reason, Hak tries to do this to protect a lead- NHL style- but we always fail miserably at it...feels like the prevent defense.
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 And yet we have been to 5 frozen fours in the Hakstol era....give me a break. Some fans just refuse to give Hakstol any credit. This year was the 2nd lowest winning percentage a team under Hakstol has ever had, at a terrible .607(yes the was sarcasm). His lowest was .605 We had two that I thought were world beaters is what I am getting at. Read my posts- I am not calling for Hak's head like others are.
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. 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.
SIOUXELEVENS Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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.
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 We had two that I thought were world beaters is what I am getting at. Read my posts- I am not calling for Hak's head like others are. Sorry, misunderstood. When you outshoot Denver 45-12 or whatever it was a lose 1-0 what can you do. That was the only year i was really upset and that is because that is one of the best college hockey teams I have seen in the last 10-15 years.
Csonked Out Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. It's not sitting on the lead, it's playing a bit more conservative to eliminate as many potential odd man rushes as possible. Look how many we gave up in the last 10 minutes when we started trying to hold the line.
Oxbow6 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. Overachieve...wow! All I can say is wow!!
bakka Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Been watching Sioux hockey since 1954. Season ticket holder beginning when the old Ralph was built. It seems that letting Eades go changed the dynamics of Sioux Hockey. He like Gasperini (for most of his tenure) and Blaise had the respect of the players. Never was good at spelling.
hrkac Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 You can say last years team overachieved. This year not so much.
90siouxfan Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Does Mike Commodore want to coach? Did Brad Berry coach Mike? Can we have another coach on the bench? in practice? I would rather see a solution working forward instead of the throwing under the bus plan. maybe the D corp needs more time to adjust to Brads system, isn't this the first year he coached any of them? Maybe the problem is we are recruit top players that "play with an edge" and that is not what college hockey is evolving into? If I was a big bruising D man and was looking to make it to the NHL, I would be looking to the CHL as a hard hit is frowned upon in college hockey. 1
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. You always hold the zone when you can. I'm not talking about pinching. Your d have to be able to hold each line...I was always coached to use your points when you're in deep. I think our falling back was more often than not due to being slower foot than the opponent, not due to playing "smart"- which is what I think you are getting at....attempting to play smart that is. Holding the line is not aggressive, not even on the offensive blue line, unless you are referring to trying to hold it against an oncoming rush. In that case I'd agree with you. I am talking about loose pucks and not well controlled pucks or weak passes from the forwards. You don't like plus minus as a barometer of two-way play? What do you prefer?
yzerman19 Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 Does Mike Commodore want to coach? Did Brad Berry coach Mike? Can we have another coach on the bench? in practice? I would rather see a solution working forward instead of the throwing under the bus plan. maybe the D corp needs more time to adjust to Brads system, isn't this the first year he coached any of them? Maybe the problem is we are recruit top players that "play with an edge" and that is not what college hockey is evolving into? If I was a big bruising D man and was looking to make it to the NHL, I would be looking to the CHL as a hard hit is frowned upon in college hockey. Agree...I bet Andy Mac would've been a legend and in the NHl now had he gone CHL...his game was way too physical for the new NCAA
Rink Rat Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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.
Rink Rat Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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.
Rink Rat 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! Cary Eades would be a great replacement. Where was the second half surge this season? oh it was in Sioux Falls.
brianvf Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 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. 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.
CMSioux Posted March 31, 2013 Posted March 31, 2013 So would you fire these coaches after eight years? Coach one: made NCAA five times in first 8 years, then did not make the playoffs for the next 4 years. Coach two: did not make the NCAAs in his first six years, then made it to quarterfinals and semifinals in his seventh and eighth year. Yes or No.
Recommended Posts