Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

[EasternBadger]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

So, I know last nights effort was pretty poor, and I also know that Eaves and the training staff are obviously much more informed than me, some random guy on the internet, but boy am I not sure it's worth it to rush Kerdiles back.

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

So, I know last nights effort was pretty poor, and I also know that Eaves and the training staff are obviously much more informed than me, some random guy on the internet, but boy am I not sure it's worth it to rush Kerdiles back.

I agree. I know UW is like 4-8 or something like that without him, but these guys have to be able to beat UAA w/o him. At that rate UW won't win 10 games next year w/o him and the rest of the srs who are leaving.

I too dislike the booing during the pk. I will only do it if the call is horribly bad.

It was disclosed on the TV broadcast that PB and Howie will be doing the radio for the UM game next week as a one time special. That will be awesome. There's no hockey color guy who is any better than Howie. There's a lot of great memories associated with those two and UW hockey for me.

Andringa even commented about the poor attendance and said that UW has to do something bout it to get them back to the glory years.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

This team is running out of time to come together.

Should have leadership in place by now so an effort like last night's doesn't happen. Not saying that they shouldn't ever lose a game, but they should at least show up each time.

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Waking up today still at a loss for an explanation of last night's game. In hockey, just pointing to 'effort' is often an equivocal explanation as it is not simply a matter of players not trying, or not wanting to win. Everyone wants to win, but it's much more complicated than that. Easy for me to say in retrospect that I didn't like the line shuffling going into the game, especially taking apart the top line (I'm just as guilty in thinking it wouldn't matter as anyone.) but the question has to be asked, would we have moved LaBate and started Petey if we were playing Michigan last night? I wonder... And I wonder what message that sent to the boys going in, if any. It's surprising to me, especially considering coming off a somewhat lackluster game last Saturday. Like I said, easy now, but it seemed infinitely more sensible going in to simply move Dahl up between Besse and Mersch, put Keegan in the middle of Navin and Soleway and cobble together a 4th for very limited shifts. Good ol' hindsight.

I thought Zengerle played pretty well as did Besse. McCabe played alright, although he really seemed to be pressing and mishandled some pucks in the offensive zone. Beyond that, not much to write home about.

Of course tonight we'll have Kerdiles back, and while random internet guy Eastern Badger questions it (sensibly) this team appears to be in desperate need of Kerdiles in the line up.

While our upcoming games against Michigan, OSU, and Minnesota are going to tell the tale of this season, a sweep this weekend would have put us pounding on the door of the top 7 in RPI and PWR, but now we are needing a win tonight to stay around 12. Without a dramatic turnaround tonight, I shudder to think what Michigan's pace of play will bring next week. I had hoped our big lessons in Character were learned, apparently not, but here's a great opportunity to get it right.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Oh yeah, and the student section is in the hands of the current students.

I think they're doing great and if they want to change things up, it's their right. Some things will work, some won't. Either way, it's theirs to do as they see fit.

And to be honest, back in the "glory days" when the KC was full, I barely ever noticed or paid attention to the students - other than between periods. They were just a part of the overall experience and were somewhat marginalized (compared to now) by the rest of the crowd who were engaged with a quality product on the ice.

The students are far more noticeable now as there is no one else in the building.


Being in the student section was probably a blast and undoubtedly is the source of many great memories, but don't oversell the importance.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Waking up today still at a loss for an explanation of last night's game. In hockey, just pointing to 'effort' is often an equivocal explanation as it is not simply a matter of players not trying, or not wanting to win. Everyone wants to win, but it's much more complicated than that.

However you want to describe it, the team wasn't ready to play. At this point in the season, that's an indictment on the leadership, whether it be the captains, upper classmen or coaching.

For whatever reason, these guys are struggling to reach the potential that many (including myself) thought they had.

And time is running out. Runs like lasts year's just don't happen all that often and eventually, you simply are what you are.


If nothing changes from here on out, we are a decent team. Nothing more and will struggle to qualify for the NCAAs.

And Eaves needs to be fired if we miss with this group of talent.

[Gurtholfin]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Am I the only one who hates the booing on the PK? That started what, 3-4 years ago? I just don't like it.

Yeah, this is about the very least of my concerns surrounding this program.

And fwiw, it doesn't bother me at all.

[Timothy A]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

but the question has to be asked, would we have moved LaBate and started Petey if we were playing Michigan last night? I wonder...

I think it's likely Petey would have started, but it would have been less likely to move LaBate. I think in making the moves Eaves did, he essentially told the players to take UAA lightly. "We can juggle the line-up and start our #2 goalie and still win." It was painfully obvious in the first period there was virtually no chemistry in the lines.

Let's not overlook the goal Barnes scored was another dandy.

[Chuck Schwartz]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

I don't buy into the LaBate move having a mental effect on last night's performance. And if it did, this team is (insert bad f word here).

[solovsfett]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

However you want to describe it, the team wasn't ready to play. At this point in the season, that's an indictment on the leadership, whether it be the captains, upper classmen or coaching.

For whatever reason, these guys are struggling to reach the potential that many (including myself) thought they had.

And time is running out. Runs like lasts year's just don't happen all that often and eventually, you simply are what you are.


If nothing changes from here on out, we are a decent team. Nothing more and will struggle to qualify for the NCAAs.

And Eaves needs to be fired if we miss with this group of talent.

...I've said before I don't think this team overall is that talented (sure there are some talented players but as a whole?) but was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt after being shouted down by a few posters...I don't want to overreact to one game, UW lost to what is allegedly an inferior team and they lost at home. If moving Labate and starting Peterson, playing w/out Kerdiles are all reasons why they lost Chuck is right and this team is ****ed. It would also bear out my initial thoughts 1-2 years ago about this group if one guy means that much to them.

When you get a chance watch the 2006, 1992 or 1990 NCAA Title games in their entirety. Now watch this current team. Fellas, UW is several players short THIS SEASON of making a deep playoff run. I can't imagine how screwed they'll be next year. And I'm going to cut no slack, absolutely no slack; to Eaves and Company for losing games with freshman next year. It was their job to turn the ship around and maintain it at a high level. This is the final year of "benefit of the doubt" that I give them.

also...where are the forward recruits for next season?

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

...I've said before I don't think this team overall is that talented (sure there are some talented players but as a whole?) but was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt after being shouted down by a few posters...I don't want to overreact to one game, UW lost to what is allegedly an inferior team and they lost at home. If moving Labate and starting Peterson, playing w/out Kerdiles are all reasons why they lost Chuck is right and this team is ****ed. It would also bear out my initial thoughts 1-2 years ago about this group if one guy means that much to them.

When you get a chance watch the 2006, 1992 or 1990 NCAA Title games in their entirety. Now watch this current team. Fellas, UW is several players short THIS SEASON of making a deep playoff run. I can't imagine how screwed they'll be next year. And I'm going to cut no slack, absolutely no slack; to Eaves and Company for losing games with freshman next year. It was their job to turn the ship around and maintain it at a high level. This is the final year of "benefit of the doubt" that I give them.

also...where are the forward recruits for next season?

Setting next year aside for the moment, I don't think there's a problem with the level of raw talent on this team. I say that because if raw talent is all it took, MN would have a lot more titles. My personal belief is that the talent pool is much wider today and the top 15 or so teams are good enough (talent wise) to beat anyone in a one and done tournament. This team is good enough in that regard IMO. But, what wins championships is ...well... 'character' is perhaps the closest to the word I'm looking for. Belief, desire, determination, CONFIDENCE, and WILL TO WIN. Of course you need talent, no substitute for it, but those are the intangibles that championship teams possess that truly separate them from the crowd.

Last night's game is frustrating because it puts huge question marks behind all those words. One of the more telling stats is that Dahl and Meuer, who are both very good in the faceoff circle (and who didn't suddenly become terrible in one week) went a combined 6 for 21 on faceoffs. What that tells me is that it's unlikely that we won even a single 50/50 draw.

Granted, sometimes events conspire against teams on a given night, and it just happens that they can't make anything work. Bouncy ball top fives get knocked off by Joe Average State College fairly often. It happens. To be fair, Alaska is now 5-1 against ranked opponents.

Plenty of time left for the play to be a crazy anomaly. Time will tell, but we certainly looked miles from being a contender. As has been pointed out, last night falls on the leadership, as does the responsibility to right the ship.

[solovsfett]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

Setting next year aside for the moment, I don't think there's a problem with the level of raw talent on this team. I say that because if raw talent is all it took, MN would have a lot more titles. My personal belief is that the talent pool is much wider today and the top 15 or so teams are good enough (talent wise) to beat anyone in a one and done tournament. This team is good enough in that regard IMO. But, what wins championships is ...well... 'character' is perhaps the closest to the word I'm looking for. Belief, desire, determination, CONFIDENCE, and WILL TO WIN. Of course you need talent, no substitute for it, but those are the intangibles that championship teams possess that truly separate them from the crowd.

Last night's game is frustrating because it puts huge question marks behind all those words. One of the more telling stats is that Dahl and Meuer, who are both very good in the faceoff circle (and who didn't suddenly become terrible in one week) went a combined 6 for 21 on faceoffs. What that tells me is that it's unlikely that we won even a single 50/50 draw.

Granted, sometimes events conspire against teams on a given night, and it just happens that they can't make anything work. Bouncy ball top fives get knocked off by Joe Average State College fairly often. It happens. To be fair, Alaska is now 5-1 against ranked opponents.

Plenty of time left for the play to be a crazy anomaly. Time will tell, but we certainly looked miles from being a contender. As has been pointed out, last night falls on the leadership, as does the responsibility to right the ship.

talent isn't 100% of the equation of course, coaching has to play into it obviously along with team leadership. 1990 had Steve Rohlik as captain and leader and the team had a meeting after a blow-out loss to NMU and set forth rules (not to go out and party etc) for themselves for the remainder of the season and their goal was a championship or bust really. 1992 they had 0 leadership as evidenced by their meltdown, however they still made the title game almost exclusively based on talent.

2006 = Burish and his classmates as leaders. Enough said.

we're 1/2 way through the season and I watch this team play and still don't see signs of them coming together for a run and I DEFINITELY don't see a Burish type out there to lead them. That leaves it on the coaches to find appropriate lines and a system that will get them there or give them the best chance to win and I think we've seen superior UW teams under Eaves also fall short so I'm a bit of a pessimist on this front.

Lots of games to be played but I'd be less than honest if I didn't say next year factors into my attitude about the coaching staff and where this program stands.

To answer re: Minnesota. There's no question to me they've had superior talent in many years under Woog and Lucia, and the only thing keeping them from having 10 titles by now or more is the coaches haven't found a way to get those all-stars to play together better. Basically Minnesota appears to me to have the 1992 badger talent almost annually, but the coaches need to bring them together to get the rings.

[WiscDC]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

talent isn't 100% of the equation of course, coaching has to play into it obviously along with team leadership. 1990 had Steve Rohlik as captain and leader and the team had a meeting after a blow-out loss to NMU and set forth rules (not to go out and party etc) for themselves for the remainder of the season and their goal was a championship or bust really. 1992 they had 0 leadership as evidenced by their meltdown, however they still made the title game almost exclusively based on talent.

That's very interesting. 1989-90 was the team's most successful season ever, correct?

[solovsfett]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

That's very interesting. 1989-90 was the team's most successful season ever, correct?

in terms of wins and losses? I think that belongs to the 77' team but I'm not 100% on that. Both the 1977 and 1990 teams won the WCHA conference and conference tourney, then the NCAA Championships of course

[Wisko McBadgerton]

Re: Wisconsin Hockey Vol. XXVIII: This could be a banner year, but how would we know?

in terms of wins and losses? I think that belongs to the 77' team but I'm not 100% on that. Both the 1977 and 1990 teams won the WCHA conference and conference tourney, then the NCAA Championships of course

Just for the record, solo is correct: '77 team finished 37-7-1 and the '90 team finished 36-9-1. They were both Monster teams.


Speaking of stats, I gotta believe that barring injury or some other weird circumstance, Petey has started his last game for quite awhile.

Landon Peterson- 3-5-1 (.879 save %)

Joel Rumpel- 7-1-0 (.932 save %)

I don't even think those stats are entirely Petey's fault. For whatever reason the boys just won't play well in front of him. I don't know why. Maybe Petey lost them at the Boston Massacre and just hasn't ever been able to get them back.