siouxweet Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 That's because there are teams that are teaching their players to do that crap. This weekend, UND plays UMD and they have a few players that will flail all over the ice. the amazing part is Sandelin alllows that crap, all the UND blood must have been flushed out of him. and some people on here want him to replace Hakstol. Quote
Oxbow6 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 It helped that Miami was standing around in their own zone like their skates were stuck in quicksand. Thanks for shooting down all my duckies and bunnies that were covered in glitter............ 1 Quote
siouxforeverbaby Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 one word...eades Just to point out, when Berry left after 2006...there were quite a few people who said that we would never win a championship with Eades and that we needed Berry back. So, my question...which is it? Do we need Berry or Eades? Or are we never going to be happy no matter who we have? That one is my bet. 4 Quote
siouxweet Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just to point out, when Berry left after 2006...there were quite a few people who said that we would never win a championship with Eades and that we needed Berry back. So, my question...which is it? Do we need Berry or Eades? Or are we never going to be happy no matter who we have? That one is my bet. some people will never be satisfied unless UND ever finds a way to win a national title every year. Quote
gfhockey Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 what is the one common demoninator on the staff? Quote
Irish Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 In my opinion the first thing we need is for a goalie to cowboy up and have a shut-down tournament. We have entered the tourney with some good goalies with great stats, but none has been "the guy" in the tournament. The ratio of a goalie stealing one from us in the tournament vs UND's goalie stealing one from someone else is pathetic. Next, I beleive we have to have a flexible game plan. It's well and good to have the "we'll only play our tradtional way" philosophly when we play Mankato, but when it's BC, a little flexibility would be nice. A couple of our losses appeared to be because the other team anticipated what we would do and frustrated us. Finally, a little luck, although we would still need to capitolize on it. I thought we had all the luck we needed last year when Yale beat Minnesota, but it was Yale and not us that took advantage of it. Quote
jdub27 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Score 3, give up 2 or less. Clear eyes, full heart, can't lose. Quote
NewUNDAlum Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I think this team, more than any other team in recent history, needs to play fast. When this team plays really fast they are tough to beat because we have a lot of skill. When they play hesitant they are very very beatable. Quote
hrkac Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Thanks for shooting down all my duckies and bunnies that were covered in glitter............ just reminding you that it's not cool to be positive on this board. serve this as your final warning, pal. 1 Quote
bigskyvikes Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 what is the one common demoninator on the staff? You being annoying? Did I win? 1 Quote
brianvf Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 what is the one common demoninator on the staff? I blame Poolman. FIRE POOLMAN!! Quote
Irish Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I think this team, more than any other team in recent history, needs to play fast. When this team plays really fast they are tough to beat because we have a lot of skill. When they play hesitant they are very very beatable. Agreed - If we added in a respectible power play we might be hard to beat. Quote
siouxkid12 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 what is the one common demoninator on the staff? They all played at UND? In all seriousness, you are going to say none of them have a championship ring on their finger. Why should that matter? If you fired Hak and staff, who do you get? What happens if they don't win one in 5 years after being hired? Do we repeat the same process? The game has change big time since the heyday of the sioux teams that won national titles. Today's teams need more than 4 players to stay longer than 2/3 years, good freshman talent and A LOT of puck luck come March/April. To me that's what we need to hang title #8. Quote
Goon Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I blame Poolman. FIRE POOLMAN!! I was going to say fire the equipment manager Andy... Quote
gfhockey Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 so how many years will all of you mediocrity lovers give hak as long as he has a winning record but no nattys? Quote
bigskyvikes Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 so how many years will all of you mediocrity lovers give hak as long as he has a winning record but no nattys? How many times to we have to ..........never mind! Quote
Redneksioux Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 so how many years will all of you mediocrity lovers give hak as long as he has a winning record but no nattys? So you consider und's accomplishments the past ten years mediocre? Does the alcohol make you depressed or something? Almost every NCAA hockey team in the country and most chl teams wish they had what und has. Und has lost 2 out of their last 15. They expect to get in the NCAA tournament every year. So no recent NCAA titles for und. But the program is still a success. Quote
Big A HG Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 If we make the playoffs, I think this could be arguably one of Hak's best seasons as a coach. If we win anything in the tourney, it'd just be a bonus. Look at the "talent" on this team. There isn't a ton of skill or size compared to previous teams. Yeah, a lot of them are drafted, but that means little unless you're talking top two rounds of the draft usually. You might decide to mention how it's Hak's fault for a lack of star power on the team. Well, this is true, but it's not Hakstol's fault that guys like JT Miller and Stefan Matteau decided not to come...both of whom have already played in the NHL. Adding just those two guys would make a WORLD of difference. Jerry York should have been fired decades ago, and numerous times in between, by some people's standards. Face the facts. This isn't old-school NCAA hockey anymore where there were maybe 3-4 legitimate title contenders in a given year. In today's game, the top schools have to recruit young players to try and gain the blue chip recruits. Sometimes they pan out, sometimes they don't. The smaller schools get the older, late-bloomers who were passed over, but who may have developed into great players themselves. It adds A TON of parity to the game now, so to have maintained a level of teams even capable of winning a title year in and year out is impressive in my book. 2 Quote
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Great goaltending at the right time is this team's key and call me crazy but I think Zane could be the guy to do it. If Yale did it last year, why not us this year? Quote
siouxkid12 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 so how many years will all of you mediocrity lovers give hak as long as he has a winning record but no nattys? If we were bottom dwellers for 2-3 straight years then I would say fire Hak and company but not now! Quote
NewUNDAlum Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I disagree with Big A regarding the skill level of this team. This team does lack a true blue chip player that many team in the past had but at the same time this team is arguably more skilled than many we have had. We play a different style of hockey than years past. When we are passing well and skating fast we are a heck of a team. Another example is how we carry the puck into the zone. This team is much more suited to carrying the puck into the offensive zone than playing the dump and chase game of the past imo. I think that actually helps us in the NCAAs. I think we might be one year early this year. Next year we are going to return 3 highly skilled scoring lines and we will have a 4th line with some true grit. Couple that with an experienced Gothberg and next year looks to be a good one. 1 Quote
hrkac Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 I disagree with Big A regarding the skill level of this team. This team does lack a true blue chip player that many team in the past had but at the same time this team is arguably more skilled than many we have had. We play a different style of hockey than years past. When we are passing well and skating fast we are a heck of a team. Another example is how we carry the puck into the zone. This team is much more suited to carrying the puck into the offensive zone than playing the dump and chase game of the past imo. I think that actually helps us in the NCAAs. I think we might be one year early this year. Next year we are going to return 3 highly skilled scoring lines and we will have a 4th line with some true grit. Couple that with an experienced Gothberg and next year looks to be a good one. ahhh....you might want to rethink that one. Quote
scpa0305 Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 Just to point out, when Berry left after 2006...there were quite a few people who said that we would never win a championship with Eades and that we needed Berry back. So, my question...which is it? Do we need Berry or Eades? Or are we never going to be happy no matter who we have? That one is my bet. We'll be happy when we get #8. I have never really looked at it as a berry vs eades thing as they are both very good coaches. Quote
82SiouxGuy Posted February 20, 2014 Posted February 20, 2014 me·di·o·cre [mee-dee-oh-ker] adjective 1. of only ordinary or moderate quality; neither good nor bad; barely adequate: The car gets only mediocre mileage, but it's fun to drive. Synonyms: undistinguished, commonplace, pedestrian, everyday; run-of-the-mill. All time UND hockey record is 1393-920-132 for a winning percentage of about .600. That is from 1946 through the present, so it includes Hakstol's years. UND record before Hakstol is 1152-800-96 for a winning percentage just under .590. Hakstol's record is 251-128-40 for a winning percentage of more than .640. A mediocre record would be around .500. The UND overall winning percentage is above average. Hakstol's winning percentage is above the UND overall winning percentage. Haters might want to come up with a better word than mediocrity for the Hakstol coaching era. Either that or you're saying that all UND hockey before Hakstol was worse than mediocre. 3 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.