Joe Rehkamp

Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)

MrBoDangles
Posts: 4090
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:32 pm

Post by MrBoDangles » Wed Jan 04, 2012 2:57 pm

Tigers33 wrote:Blame the coach in bad times!! Than praise the coach for success!!

He has had an up and down career, but all in all its pretty impressive.
I'll agree with that.

Why two exclamation marks?? :wink:

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Wed Jan 04, 2012 3:11 pm

MrBoDangles wrote:What's been Lucia's problem then in recent times?
NHL departures, an illness that really hampered him for a few seasons, and the bad decision of getting rid of Guentzel and keeping that anchor John Hill (his friendship with Hill got in the way of the bigger picture there). All of those things are either gone or greatly reduced. He is healthy, Hill/Guentzel has been rectified, and they've managed to hold on to players more effectively. Their recruiting has been much smarter with regard to targeting more blue chip talent that doesn't have the optimum NHL frame (which keeps them around longer). Fasching is really the only one in their recruiting pipeline that has a pretty good chance of leaving in less than two seasons of college hockey.

Do you really think it was all Lucia at CC?
Do I think it was all Lucia? Well, it is never all one individual. But it is pretty telling that they go from last place in the WCHA with a pitiful record and then he has them winning the league the next season (and gets the same league title the next two seasons after that). Obviously there are going to be more factors but I think it is pretty difficult to argue that changing coaches didn't play the major role in it.

It's not like that 6-26 season before he got there was a fluke result for CC. Their best finish the prior ten years to his arrival was 4th place and they had finished dead last a number of times in that time frame. His arrival wasn't the only factor in their turnaround but it was the biggest one. Like I said, they were in far worse shape than SCSU was when Motzko got there.

mulefarm
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Wed Jan 04, 2012 7:46 pm

Who do you think are the blue chippers that don't have an nhl frame that will stay all four years? I think blue shippers would be 1st or 2nd team all conference players.

Gopher Blog
Posts: 1548
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am
Contact:

Post by Gopher Blog » Thu Jan 05, 2012 1:08 pm

mulefarm wrote:Who do you think are the blue chippers that don't have an nhl frame that will stay all four years? I think blue shippers would be 1st or 2nd team all conference players.
If you are talking future, certainly Guertler (under 5'9), Lettieri (under 5'9"), Kloos (5'9"), and Cammarata (5'7") are not your typical NHL size guys and they are all extremely skilled players. When you are that size, you are far more likely to play 3 or 4 years of college than if you have the same skill set and 6'+.

I think your definition of blue chip is very narrow. Only 6 forwards and 4 defensemen in the entire league can manage to be 1st or 2nd team players in any given year... and those spots tend to go to older veteran college players in many cases. Are you saying that there are only 10 guys every year in the WCHA that are blue chip types? C'mon... :roll:

mulefarm
Posts: 1675
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:01 pm

Post by mulefarm » Thu Jan 05, 2012 6:49 pm

Might be a little narrow. What do you consider a blue chipper?

Post Reply