Hakstol v. Blais

[Chewey]

While I think Hak is a good coach, it is evident to me that the players do not rev up the intensity to play like they did with Blais. I think, by and large, we have the same level of talent as Blais had and I would venture to say that we've had some better d-men than what he had (a lot were recruited by Blais). With Blais, the team was at the top or near the top of the league year in and year out with 94-95, 95-96 and 2001-2002 being the exceptions. On a few occasions, his teams choked. With Hak, a very talented team hovers around the middle and somehow gets up to play come second half of the season and playoff time, which is good obviously. Hak's teams have choked, in my opinion, at the frozen four. What's going on with the regular season? Is Hak just not as intense or demanding as Blais? Does he not put the fear of God or not playing into them like Blais did? With Blais, the kids were 150% effort most times but with Hak it seems the opposite. Any thoughts?

[southpaw]

hakstol is coaching players who are, on average, younger than the players blais coached. you're seeing a lot of turnover in talent each year lately, it has almost become an exception when a player stays four years. with youth, you have inconsistency. it's being able to bring those players together over the course of a season that determines how well you do. it's december, the season isn't over yet.

i do not consider last year or the year before a choke. all four teams at the ff could have won the nat'l championship. they had a blip on the radar, sure it ended the season, but that doesn't mean choke. it just means they weren't perfect. they didn't pull a gophers and lose to an underdog, they lost to a team that was very similar to UND.

go ahead and blame hakstol. but to be more in line with the board, you should have called out finley, lee, radke, lammy, toews, oshie, grieco... and for good measure throw porter in there too for his huge lack of leadership.

[Chewey]

I don't mean to blame Hakstol, per se, but I wonder what consequences he has for players, even the starts, who do not perform or who are simply going through the motions. I know Blais was not afraid to sit players, even the better ones, when they were playing with low intensity or just playing badly in order to jack them up. Landon Wilson and JAson Blake are two players who come to mind, although I know there are others. I don't know what Hak does in that situation. I agree entirely with the youth point; that's big factor.

[82SiouxGuy]

There are as many styles of coaching as there are people in coaching. No style is necessarily better than others. In other sports you can look at total opposites like John Wooden and Bobby Knight, or Bud Grant and Bill Parcells. All were had or have great winning records, but had totally different styles. Hak's style is to be calm and in control on the bench. We don't know what his style is in the locker room or on the bus. His style has worked the past 2 years. Southpaw's right, Hak has different challenges than Blais had so he will handle them in his own way.

[siouxnami]

Both good coaches, but at this point Haktstol 0, Blais 2

[SiouxTupa]

At this point in Blais' head coaching career, he hadn't even made the tourney. Granted, the talent was different, but basically Hak's been to two FFs in two years...that's good for any coach.

As was said, we have no idea what he's like in the locker room. He could be an animal, but remaining calm and in control on the bench is something to admire. Players draw strength from a coach who's not blowing his top every five seconds. Though, Hak can be and has been vocal on the bench when times call for it.

Ultimately it falls on the players, the chemistry should eventually develop, but you can't coach chemistry. Hak can only stimulate team building.

I think Toews and Oshie miss having guys like Stafford and Zajac to take the pressure off. Ideally those guys would hang out longer and harness the skills we all know they possess, thus opening doors for more guys like them. Without proven upper-class leaders who are legitimate scoring threats, these two guys have to shoulder the load. I'm sure Duncan likes having the freedom of a 5'6" frame and little attention paid to him... and we can see what he's doing with it.

[Sioux]

it is sort of like comparing apples to oranges. hakstol came in to the program being strong, blais did not have that as much. hak has his 'patented' frozen four runs now, as did blais. i know that hak is a very good coach, but give it a couple years, then we will see how good he really is. many coaches have a down year(s). also, im not playing the youth card, but hak has had to go through more deflections than anybody in the country, if im not mistaken(on average).

[cujo2]

Blais vs Hakstol --- now here is a debate. I think the game of college hockey has changed so much over the past 10 years. During the Blais era it was almost set in stone that the players would stay all 4 years. The rare exception was the teams playing in the national championship game. Maybe 1 or 2 players would leave early, but, for the most part the boys would be there to use the full eligibility. IMO, it is easier to put a winning product on the ice with consistent 4 year players. To me it is a sense of security for the coaches and players.

Now-a-days (if that is even a word) a "blue-chip" recruit will stay maybe 1 or 2 years. The struggle coaches have is really not knowing if a kid will stay or go to the NHL. That makes things all the more challenging for the coaches & players. Also back in the day, if a kid was not ready for college hockey he would spend 1 or 2 playing juniors. That kid would come into a program a little more experienced and a little more physically mature.

Anyway, back to the original topic. I think the landscape of college hockey has changed so much that a comparison between the 2 is nearly impossible. It is like comparing Woody Hayes to Jim Tressel.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

Blais vs Hakstol --- now here is a debate. I think the game of college hockey has changed so much over the past 10 years. During the Blais era it was almost set in stone that the players would stay all 4 years. The rare exception was the teams playing in the national championship game. Maybe 1 or 2 players would leave early, but, for the most part the boys would be there to use the full eligibility. IMO, it is easier to put a winning product on the ice with consistent 4 year players. To me it is a sense of security for the coaches and players.

Now-a-days (if that is even a word) a "blue-chip" recruit will stay maybe 1 or 2 years. The struggle coaches have is really not knowing if a kid will stay or go to the NHL. That makes things all the more challenging for the coaches & players. Also back in the day, if a kid was not ready for college hockey he would spend 1 or 2 playing juniors. That kid would come into a program a little more experienced and a little more physically mature.

Anyway, back to the original topic. I think the landscape of college hockey has changed so much that a comparison between the 2 is nearly impossible. It is like comparing Woody Hayes to Jim Tressel.

Thats it, I am going to have to go and tell my boss I am booking off sick for the rest of the day. I must be, given that I agree with something that was posted by a Gopher fan.

[cujo2]

Thats it, I am going to have to go and tell my boss I am booking off sick for the rest of the day. I must be, given that I agree with something that was posted by a Gopher fan.

HAHAHA.. Not all of us Gopher fans poison the elderly, eat new-born babies. Some of actually are honest upstanding individuals that use "common-sense"

[BleedGrn]

HAHAHA.. Not all of us Gopher fans poison the elderly, eat new-born babies. Some of actually are honest upstanding individuals that use "common-sense"

I have a hard time believing that. If it weren't for your Mn avatar, I'd think you were doing a reverse skippy on us!!!

[cujo2]

I have a hard time believing that. If it weren't for your Mn avatar, I'd think you were doing a reverse skippy on us!!!

WTF is a "reverse-skippy"?

[BleedGrn]

WTF is a "reverse-skippy"?

I guess my interpretation of a "skippy" is someone who comes in here and either talks overly negatively about the Sioux or talks about how their favorite team is the best in the world. Anyway, all of this is done to work up a storm of useless debate.

You seem to have enough sense on your shoulders that it's hard to believe you are really a Gopher fan!

All in all, I'm just kidding, and should probably go back to work...

[burd]

After Blais won in 1997 and then had very disappointing tournament disappearances in '98 and '99, I remember Hennessey and O'Kiefe comparing Blais with Gasparini. Tim H. said he thought Gasparini was more likely to win a championship with a favored team, while Blais did better with an underrated one. I don't know where that fits in this discussion, but I think it is interesting to see how coaches are always held up to their predecessors. I do agree that Hakstol's challenges and those Blais faced with older, more experienced players were different enough to make a fair comparison difficult. I think Hak has proven in the last two years that he is a top-notch coach. I will say that Blais seemed to bring a more wide-open style of play to the ice that might have benefitted from recent rules changes more than Hak's style does. But in Blais' last years, it seemed like the tournament spoils were going to tight-checking, defense-oriented teams who could win low-scoring games.

Maybe the facts don't support those comments about controlled vs. wide-open styles, but it seemed that way. Somehow, Blais could lose a shootout and the fans would still go away halfway happy about all the offense they saw. Scoring two goals and losing is rarely entertaining.

I like Hak. I think he will get there.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

WTF is a "reverse-skippy"?

[Sioux-per Villain]

After Blais won in 1997 and then had very disappointing tournament disappearances in '98 and '99, I remember Hennessey and O'Kiefe comparing Blais with Gasparini. Tim H. said he thought Gasparini was more likely to win a championship with a favored team, while Blais did better with an underrated one. I don't know where that fits in this discussion, but I think it is interesting to see how coaches are always held up to their predecessors. I do agree that Hakstol's challenges and those Blais faced with older, more experienced players were different enough to make a fair comparison difficult. I think Hak has proven in the last two years that he is a top-notch coach. I will say that Blais seemed to bring a more wide-open style of play to the ice that might have benefitted from recent rules changes more than Hak's style does. But in Blais' last years, it seemed like the tournament spoils were going to tight-checking, defense-oriented teams who could win low-scoring games.

Maybe the facts don't support those comments about controlled vs. wide-open styles, but it seemed that way. Somehow, Blais could lose a shootout and the fans would still go away halfway happy about all the offense they saw. Scoring two goals and losing is rarely entertaining.

I like Hak. I think he will get there.

I think hack is more of a combination of the two, he's more unlikely to win a championship with both favored and underrated teams.