InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Was it just me, or did we see a lot less dump, chase, and cycle tonight - with great results. Maybe Hak is evolving It didn't matter what we chose to do tonight, we won every aspect of the game so let's not pretend carrying the puck into the zone is the magic potion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Other than that, how did you like the play, Mrs. LincolnI think you miss my point, Irish. If the coach, whoever it is, does everything you expect of him but fails to win the NC, some people demand he be replaced for that reason alone. Another coach could do virtually the same thing as a coach, get a few bounces, and win two NCs in the same period of time and folks would call for his induction into the hockey hall of fame. It is stupifyingly obvious that results count: most of us live with that in our work. But those who cling to that one factor without identifying what it is about Hak's (or anyone else's) actual coaching and without identifying someone who would come and who would do those things better, it's all just white noise.The difference between a great coach and a failed coach is not a bad bounce or a pipe. That may be the difference between a great season ending and heartache, for sure. For some fans, it's more about the bragging rights of a NC than it is about watching good, well coached hockey year after year. And I've never understood that, since we fans do nothing but sit and watch and bloviate here and other places but have nothing to brag about ourselves. (Giving Gopher fans shat about the Banner count has a value, though, no question)Now, criticizing Hak for his actual on-ice coaching and saying he should be replaced because of it is another matter, and some do focus on the coaching itself and not simply on the Banner count. I've been critical of his game coaching in the past, thinking he could even be the best program coach UND has ever had but he's not quite there as a game coach. But I don't really know enough about the college game at this point to say much more than that, so it's pretty empty criticism too. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 I felt like we carried the puck more tonight but we still spent a lot of time "cycling" the puck. The big thing is we dominated controlling the puck along the boards. We repeatedly has battles for pucks behind the net but we were winning nearly all of them. There were multiple times where it was Chyzyk versus there whole team and Chyzyk came away with the puck. And then passes were made to high scoring chances. This right here^^^ Nothing changed except execution! Great Sioux win! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigskyvikes Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 It didn't matter what we chose to do tonight, we won every aspect of the game so let's not pretend carrying the puck into the zone is the magic potion. Exactly my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shep Posted October 26, 2014 Share Posted October 26, 2014 I think you miss my point, Irish. If the coach, whoever it is, does everything you expect of him but fails to win the NC, some people demand he be replaced for that reason alone. Another coach could do virtually the same thing as a coach, get a few bounces, and win two NCs in the same period of time and folks would call for his induction into the hockey hall of fame. It is stupifyingly obvious that results count: most of us live with that in our work. But those who cling to that one factor without identifying what it is about Hak's (or anyone else's) actual coaching and without identifying someone who would come and who would do those things better, it's all just white noise.The difference between a great coach and a failed coach is not a bad bounce or a pipe. That may be the difference between a great season ending and heartache, for sure. For some fans, it's more about the bragging rights of a NC than it is about watching good, well coached hockey year after year. And I've never understood that, since we fans do nothing but sit and watch and bloviate here and other places but have nothing to brag about ourselves. (Giving Gopher fans shat about the Banner count has a value, though, no question)Now, criticizing Hak for his actual on-ice coaching and saying he should be replaced because of it is another matter, and some do focus on the coaching itself and not simply on the Banner count. I've been critical of his game coaching in the past, thinking he could even be the best program coach UND has ever had but he's not quite there as a game coach. But I don't really know enough about the college game at this point to say much more than that, so it's pretty empty criticism too. I'll be honest, I believe I should be able to watch good well coached hockey every year AND win a title every 10 or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southpaw Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Was it just me, or did we see a lot less dump, chase, and cycle tonight - with great results. Maybe Hak is evolving Yes Blais' teams had speed but they were some of the best cycling teams in the country. Opponents were so tired in the third from the relentless cycle his teams used. So why so much hate on Hak's teams that cycle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Yes Blais' teams had speed but they were some of the best cycling teams in the country. Opponents were so tired in the third from the relentless cycle his teams used.So why so much hate on Hak's teams that cycle?One thing Blais did better than any other: Pick successors. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Yes Blais' teams had speed but they were some of the best cycling teams in the country. Opponents were so tired in the third from the relentless cycle his teams used. So why so much hate on Hak's teams that cycle? Because Blais's teams looked more like Friday night - no, not every game, but we attacked with speed, carried the puck in a lot more, and got the puck into scoring position often, and worked the opponents when we cycled. When Haks cycle gets dull it looks more like this: skate up to the blue line - dump the puck into the corner - everyone follow it down there until it gets kicked out and goes the other way or skate up to the blue line and ring it around the boards and have it promptly kicked out of the zone - repeat endlessly. Ok - I admit to exaggerating, but that's the way it feels sometimes. You can't tell me you haven't seen games that felt like this. I'm quite sure my memory is idealizing Blais's team's play, but it sure seemed like a faster game without the endless grinding that sometimes seems to go on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I think you miss my point, Irish. If the coach, whoever it is, does everything you expect of him but fails to win the NC, some people demand he be replaced for that reason alone. Another coach could do virtually the same thing as a coach, get a few bounces, and win two NCs in the same period of time and folks would call for his induction into the hockey hall of fame. It is stupifyingly obvious that results count: most of us live with that in our work. But those who cling to that one factor without identifying what it is about Hak's (or anyone else's) actual coaching and without identifying someone who would come and who would do those things better, it's all just white noise. The difference between a great coach and a failed coach is not a bad bounce or a pipe. That may be the difference between a great season ending and heartache, for sure. For some fans, it's more about the bragging rights of a NC than it is about watching good, well coached hockey year after year. And I've never understood that, since we fans do nothing but sit and watch and bloviate here and other places but have nothing to brag about ourselves. (Giving Gopher fans shat about the Banner count has a value, though, no question) Now, criticizing Hak for his actual on-ice coaching and saying he should be replaced because of it is another matter, and some do focus on the coaching itself and not simply on the Banner count. I've been critical of his game coaching in the past, thinking he could even be the best program coach UND has ever had but he's not quite there as a game coach. But I don't really know enough about the college game at this point to say much more than that, so it's pretty empty criticism too. No, I got your point - my point is that for the 20 years before Hak, we were winning titles about once every 5 years and were overall the top team in the country during that span - although we weren't tops every year, no one else came close to matching our play overall. We were the BC of the 80's and 90's. You can't tell me that winning championships isn't part of the expectations (not 1-6 in frozen fours). Now we are a top team, but not THE top team - I am not saying Fire Hak, but I am saying that I am disappointed we haven't won one yet. I just don't buy the idea that we hit bad luck in the last 6 frozen fours and that our luck is due to change just because we lost the last 6. We need to get it done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cberkas Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No, I got your point - my point is that for the 20 years before Hak, we were winning titles about once every 5 years and were overall the top team in the country during that span - although we weren't tops every year, no one else came close to matching our play overall. We were the BC of the 80's and 90's. You can't tell me that winning championships isn't part of the expectations (not 1-6 in frozen fours). Now we are a top team, but not THE top team - I am not saying Fire Hak, but I am saying that I am disappointed we haven't won one yet. I just don't buy the idea that we hit bad luck in the last 6 frozen fours and that our luck is due to change just because we lost the last 6. We need to get it done. That's not true at all, 2003-04 to 1984-85 UND played in 9 NCAA tournaments made 4 Frozen Fours played in the National title game 4 times and won 3 national titles. In the 20 years before Hakstol's first season Gino made 2 NCAA tournaments and won one National Title, Blais in his 10 years made the NCAA tournament 7 times and won 2 National Titles (every time he made the Frozen Four UND played for the title). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No, I got your point - my point is that for the 20 years before Hak, we were winning titles about once every 5 years and were overall the top team in the country during that span - although we weren't tops every year, no one else came close to matching our play overall. We were the BC of the 80's and 90's. You can't tell me that winning championships isn't part of the expectations (not 1-6 in frozen fours). Now we are a top team, but not THE top team - I am not saying Fire Hak, but I am saying that I am disappointed we haven't won one yet. I just don't buy the idea that we hit bad luck in the last 6 frozen fours and that our luck is due to change just because we lost the last 6. We need to get it done.I didn't explain myself very well. I also am impatient for a banner. But we say a lot about lack of titles but very little about actual coaching. If the lack of titles is the result of coaching mistakes, figure out what those mistakes are and assess whether there is a likely candidate out there who you have reason to believe won't make them. Much tougher task than knowing the difference between 0 and 1 (and I don't mean that as an insult--most of us are in that boat). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iluvdebbies Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The question is do we give him till the end of the season to win his first title? Or should we only give him till Christmas break to win number 8. I'm in the camp that says, one more loss Hak and you're done..... or two ties whichever comes first. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The question is do we give him till the end of the season to win his first title? Or should we only give him till Christmas break to win number 8. I'm in the camp that says, one more loss Hak and you're done..... or two ties whichever comes first.Finally, a plan with some clarity. Two ties is more than fair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Irish Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 That's not true at all, 2003-04 to 1984-85 UND played in 9 NCAA tournaments made 4 Frozen Fours played in the National title game 4 times and won 3 national titles. In the 20 years before Hakstol's first season Gino made 2 NCAA tournaments and won one National Title, Blais in his 10 years made the NCAA tournament 7 times and won 2 National Titles (every time he made the Frozen Four UND played for the title). Ok, I may have been a little off in my years, but from 1979 (Gino) through 2003 (Blais) UND won 5 championships - more than anyone else by 2 - you can do the math. I think it is a reasonable expectation that we keep on winning them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InHeavenThereIsNoBeer Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The question is do we give him till the end of the season to win his first title? Or should we only give him till Christmas break to win number 8. I'm in the camp that says, one more loss Hak and you're done..... or two ties whichever comes first. Yes! This seems flexible, yet still shows we mean business. Those shootouts in NCHC play could be even more exciting if we know that Hak's gone after losing 2 of them. The real question is, do we rename REA to 'Dean Blais Arena' before or after he accepts the job as replacement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The real question is, do we rename REA to 'Dean Blais Arena' before or after he accepts the job as replacement? Put the order for the sign in now. We'll worry about installation later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post UNDBIZ Posted October 27, 2014 Popular Post Share Posted October 27, 2014 Put the order for the sign in now. We'll worry about installation later. I'm told the ndsu homecoming court has volunteered to help remove the old lettering. 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 I'm told the ndsu homecoming court has volunteered to help remove the old lettering. Sweet. Free labor (and even then they're overpaid). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJHovey Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 No, I got your point - my point is that for the 20 years before Hak, we were winning titles about once every 5 years and were overall the top team in the country during that span - although we weren't tops every year, no one else came close to matching our play overall. We were the BC of the 80's and 90's. You can't tell me that winning championships isn't part of the expectations (not 1-6 in frozen fours). Now we are a top team, but not THE top team - I am not saying Fire Hak, but I am saying that I am disappointed we haven't won one yet. I just don't buy the idea that we hit bad luck in the last 6 frozen fours and that our luck is due to change just because we lost the last 6. We need to get it done. I don't make the claim that UND or Hak has had bad luck in the Frozen Fours, certainly not any more or less than anyone else. My take on those Frozen Fours is this. In 2005 (Denver) and 2014 (Minnesota) I thought Hak did a masterful job of preparing his team to play a superior opponent. In both instances I thought UND outplayed the opponent, but they didn't win. That happens. In 2011 I thought we were the best team, and were clearly better than Michigan. But again, I have no complaint about how the team performed or how the staff prepared them. I thought in 2007 and in 2008 we were probably pretty evenly matched against our opponents, but I don't think the UND staff did as good a job getting the team ready to play. We had a great team in 2006, but they simply made too many mistakes in that game. No question it's been disappointing UND hasn't won a title since 2000. There are a lot of people, myself included, who think UND's best team during that timeframe was the 2003-04 team coached by Blais that also failed to win a title. But the reasons I cut Hak some slack are these. First, his teams have always been "in the hunt." That is, there has not been a time where we didn't make the tournament, and furthermore weren't considered one of the few dangerous teams left in that tournament, while he has been coach. Second, I think he is as good as anyone in developing a team over the course of a season. To take a group of individuals and make them perform at a higher level as a team, not just a collection of individuals. Third, I think he gets a lot out of each player. UND has always had very talented players come through the program, but let's be candid. The talent level that we see now as compared with the years of Parise, Toews, Oshie, etc..., is not the same. But he is able to take late additions like Gaarder, Pattyn, etc..., and turn them into useful team players. Fourth, Hak has had some obstacles that have come up during his tenure that were more substantial than what either Blais or Gasparini dealt with, most not of his doing. Some late season defections of very talented commits, the top rated freshman bolting last year mid-season, some key injuries to guys like Toews, Genoway, Grimaldi, Kristo, O'Donnell, Gregoire. Every coach has to deal with those things. But they certainly make it less likely all the pieces come together for a title. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MafiaMan Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Put the order for the sign in now. We'll worry about installation later. Shouldn't we wait until the 35 foot high statue of Blais is completed first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Shouldn't we wait until the 35 foot high statue of Blais is completed first? When did we decide on the smaller version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burd Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 The real question is, do we rename REA to 'Dean Blais Arena' before or after he accepts the job as replacement? I like the sound of "Deano's." Sounds more like a good bar--like Judy's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oxbow6 Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Since we are in a "Fire ____" thread...did our own inside GOBC connection on this site get "fired" for awhile? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 Since we are in a "Fire ____" thread...did our own inside GOBC connection on this site get "fired" for awhile? gfhockey informed me that he received a two-week suspension. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoneySIOUX Posted October 27, 2014 Share Posted October 27, 2014 he informed me that he got a two-week suspension. Shhhhhh..... now that he's gone.... Maybe if we don't talk about him for two weeks, he'll go away? Kind of like a dinosaur, or a disinterested dog. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts