fightingsioux4life Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 With all due respect, it's not Hakstol's fault that his goalie couldn't stop a beach ball in three straight Frozen Four games against BC. The 2006 and 2007 squads played hard in those two respective games but were constantly being deflated by shoddy goaltending. 2006: 6-5 2007: 6-4 2008: 6-1 The 2008 game was a debacle, nothing less. I think it was obvious that the ghosts of 2006 and 2007 got into the heads of the rest of team (as opposed to just the guy in net) at that point. My memory is fuzzy, although I watched all three games live. Who was/were the Sioux goalie(s) and BC goalie(s) for that three-year stretch? With all due respect (and I do mean that), the whole team lost those games. Our goaltenders are good enough to get us there.....but not good enough for us to finish the job? Our whole roster was totally unprepared for the team speed and skill that Boston College puts on the ice every single year. Some of our pylon D-men (Joe Finley anyone?) looked like they were standing in dried cement. That is how we used to make teams look; that has changed since Hakstol took over this program. Hakstol's precious systems and "baselines" might work in the regular season, but they have not worked in the NCAA tournament. And if that changes this season or next or whenever, I will come on this forum and give him all the props he deserves.
Oxbow6 Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 With all due respect, it's not Hakstol's fault that his goalie couldn't stop a beach ball in three straight Frozen Four games against BC. The 2006 and 2007 squads played hard in those two respective games but were constantly being deflated by shoddy goaltending. 2006: 6-5 2007: 6-4 2008: 6-1 The 2008 game was a debacle, nothing less. I think it was obvious that the ghosts of 2006 and 2007 got into the heads of the rest of team (as opposed to just the guy in net) at that point. My memory is fuzzy, although I watched all three games live. Who was/were the Sioux goalie(s) and BC goalie(s) for that three-year stretch? Made the trip to Denver in '08. That outcome was determined within the 1st 10 minutes. Debacle is an understatement. Finley was brutal and JP Lammy was worse and everyone else wearing a UND sweater that day underperformed. And that morning my daughter and I ran into Hak, Eades and Jackson at a cafe during breakfast. They came over to our table and we chatted alittle. Can't remember which coach said it but he "like(d) our chances" that day. I do remember that part. 1
MafiaMan Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Seem to me we always hit a hot goalie Never said 'hot' goalie - I was criticizing North Dakota's own goaltending. Give up FIVE in an NCAA semi-final and you're on the WINNING team? Shouldn't happen.
fightingsioux4life Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Made the trip to Denver in '08. That outcome was determined within the 1st 10 minutes. Debacle is an understatement. Finley was brutal and JP Lammy was worse and everyone else wearing a UND swater that day underperformed. The 2008 debacle is what helped make my avatar possible. I knew I was going to be on the front page of the Heraldo when I saw the camera flash out of the corner of my eye!
stoneySIOUX Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 With all due respect, it's not Hakstol's fault that his goalie couldn't stop a beach ball in three straight Frozen Four games against BC. The 2006 and 2007 squads played hard in those two respective games but were constantly being deflated by shoddy goaltending. 2006: 6-5 2007: 6-4 2008: 6-1 The 2008 game was a debacle, nothing less. I think it was obvious that the ghosts of 2006 and 2007 got into the heads of the rest of team (as opposed to just the guy in net) at that point. My memory is fuzzy, although I watched all three games live. Who was/were the Sioux goalie(s) and BC goalie(s) for that three-year stretch? Parise vs. Cory Schnieder JP Lamoureux vs. Schnieder Lamoureux vs. Jon Muse
scpa0305 Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 My point is that Hakstol doesn't always get the most out of the talent he has had to work with. His teams have laid more than one egg on the national stage (I am talking Frozen Four, not anything else). We also seem to play down to the level of our competition on a regular basis. Those things stick out like a sore thumb in a program that has had a lot of talent come through it over the past 10 years. I do somewhat agree with you here....there seems to be a motivational factor missing with his teams the last few years. Also, our team plays down to the competition 100% of the time. It's gotten frustrating. 2
SiouxScore Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 The problem is, when things started going badly Sat. night, one of a couple of things should have been done. 1.) For the first time in years, someone should have gotten into a fight to fire up the team and turn the momentum back our way. #11 was being a pain in the a** for example. Or Archibald for that matter, should you really get away "clean" w/ a hat trick? In the early 90s we may have lost, but we at least roughed some people up before they left the building! And yes, I know that this is a team where, unlike previous years, we don't really have any fighters, but if that's the case, the coach should come up w/ a different plan. . .like pull Saunders for the freshman after the 5th goal; could he really been worse on breakaways than Saunders?. (Although stopping the cherry picking, B.C. breakaways might have been another solution!) Or hell, OUR coach could have started throwing things and gotten kicked out of the game. Maybe that would have gotten through to these guys. Some one needed to wake them up during this game and no one stepped up, player or coach. At the very least, there should have been some serious skating going on afterwards. It was a pathetic effort, all around. Ok. That's my one "once every three years" rant. So to get back in the game we should have took stupid penalties and put Omaha on the powerplay and our coach should have got kicked out when there wasn't really anything to argue about because that would fire the team up? I really can't agree with these statements that you think should have been done. I agree it was a very poor effort but sometimes there isn't much a coach can do to get through to the players in that situation. I'm sure the message has been sent in practices this week that the effort was unacceptable and I'm sure the players knew that but having experienced college athletics both as an athlete and a coach, and I'm sure most who have been athletics really at any level would agree, it is very hard and rare to see a team just suddenly increase the effort during the game, usually it is either there right from the start of the game or its not and there isn't much that anyone is able to change that during the game. 1
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 I have seen comments to the effect of "I would like to have a "natty", but.....". Which tells me it just isn't all that important to them. They are satisfied with winning seasons and a few league titles here and there. That is their opinion. I do not share that opinion. With all the tools we have at UND, NCAA titles should not be this impossible to win. I think a lot of times saying that is that fan finding the silver lining in some of the ncaa disappointment we have had. Almost every one of our fans wants a natty. There are just some slight disagreements on how to get there.
HockeyisGr8 Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Mafia - the problem with your pointing out that the best team doesn't always win (which is of course correct), is that not only has Hakstol not won in the years he "should have won" - he has also not won in those years when he did not have the best team in the national tourney. It's hard to say with a straight face that you can't expect the best team to win all the time and that you can't expect the team to win at least once when they weren't the best team. The point some of the critics (who are willing to brave the backlash on this sight) are trying to make, I think - is that you only get so many kicks at the can regardless of whether you have the "best" team or not. To his credit Hakstol has helped give his teams a kick every year he has been head coach. However, they have kicked and missed the can every time! When is it time to let someone else try to see if they can lead to the team to hitting the can?
SiouxForever Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 I'll give it three years. This year just make the tournament and see what happens. If the team doesn't fans will be disappointed, but it could happen. Hope it doesn't. Making the tourney and losing right away stinks, but having your team not make the tournament is worse. I like the fact of our d-core in the coming years. They should be solid. Also, some decent forwards are on their way and the team has another goalie coming in next year if Gothberg can't solidly the number one spot by next year, he's had his chances. With the loss of Tambelini who had the brightest ceiling for our freshman forwards, I'd say our forward recruiting class, again was a rather weak one. Plenty of great college hockey players out there. Hak is missing the boat on some. One more thing... Asumus, Stetcher, and Murphy weren't initially committed to UND. Question is, how well is the coaching staff doing in their job as far as recruiting goes? Question has to be asked.
gfhockey Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 How long do we acceppt mediocrity is the real question?
MafiaMan Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Almost every one of our fans wants a natty. Where is this fifth column of Sioux fans who do NOT want a national championship? Those of us who do need to root them out immediately.
Mariucci Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 How long do we acceppt mediocrity is the real question? Making the tourney every year, winning Broadmoors, and going to numerous Frozen Fours is not "mediocre." 2
gfhockey Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 I bet we have the lowest ROI (return on investment) then half of college hockey teams
NoiseInsideMyHead Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 How long do we acceppt mediocrity is the real question? Princess Fiona accepted a meaty ogre, and look how she ended up…living happily ever after in fairy tale land.
MafiaMan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 Making the tourney every year, winning Broadmoors, and going to numerous Frozen Fours is not "mediocre." What would gfhockey think if the records of UND and MN since 2004 were swapped? My guess is he'd pop a blood vessel!
gfhockey Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 id rather have the 2 nattys since 2000 that MN had then our record. no one remembers runners up final 8 al we remember is nattys last I checked UND doesn't hang participation banners
808287 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 How long do we acceppt mediocrity is the real question? Yes, how long will your presence be tolerated? I put my cash down on an odd day.
MafiaMan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 id rather have the 2 nattys since 2000 that MN had then our record. I said 2004. Start from that fall to the present and tell me who is more "mediocre."
scpa0305 Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 What would gfhockey think if the records of UND and MN since 2004 were swapped? My guess is he'd pop a blood vessel! Interested what that would be....total wins and losses.
MafiaMan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 you said 2004 and I said 2000. Ok, I'll play along. 2 NCAA titles to 1* North Dakota = "mediocre" Minnesota = who I wish we were Really? Edit: That would actually be 1999-2000 season, not the start of the 2000-2001 season.
gfhockey Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 whose currently running in the black and who currently is running in the red?
MafiaMan Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 whose currently running in the black and who currently is running in the red? Which effing way do you want it, gfhockey? You said 2000, now you want 2013-2014? I'm giving you your results in a second...now just sit in your poopy pants and suck on your pacifier until I'm done.
gfhockey Posted February 12, 2014 Posted February 12, 2014 iwas just wondering who is smaking money and who is losing money. I think its a fair question. ahh crap I just brought up who makes the most money again. stupid me.
Recommended Posts