I'll agree with that.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.
Why two exclamation marks??
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
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.MrBoDangles wrote:What's been Lucia's problem then in recent times?
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.Do you really think it was all Lucia at CC?
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'+.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.