SCSU vs UofM's future

61ache · Post by **61ache** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:28 pm

Question: Does Saint Cloud have a brighter immediate future then the University of Minnesota?

I'm impressed with the kids the Huskies have been able to recruit. With the U's problems lately I'm wondering if its not a stretch to think the Huskies could make a run for the National Championship in the next couple years.

Bash Brother · Post by **Bash Brother** » Sun Feb 10, 2008 9:43 pm

I think both programs are going to be among the elite for the next few years. They have done a solid job of recruiting and are both well coached.

nikebauer_07 · Post by **nikebauer_07** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:33 am

Agreed Bash Brother, both teams are going to have solid futures with the recuits they have coming in. The problem will be getting them to stick around for four years.

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 8:18 am

They are both in the bottom half in the WCHA this year so we aren't exactly talking the creme de la creme at the moment.

Minnesota is simply having depth issues this year because of issues like injury and early departure. You can't take that many hits in an 18 month span and expect to be a contender. It has cost them scoring depth and now they are playing guys in spots they normally wouldn't be in. The offense has been brutal because of it. The defense and goaltending (Kangas has been a bright spot in an otherwise ugly season) have actually done well. Just need to build that depth back up at forward and get a couple more puck moving defensemen in there (which Ness and Lofquist are). Next year's recruiting class will help a lot in getting their depth back to what it usually is (Red Line Report thinks it is the nation's top class). To piggyback on that, most of the guys they are bringing in are likely to stick around three years or so which should help smooth things out. I don't see any "one and done" types of guys (a la Kessel or Erik Johnson) among their current recruits right now. That should hopefully keep them from suffering another year like this one for a while.

SCSU is an odd situation. They really haven't had to deal with the same kinds of issues that Minnesota, UND, or some other school do in regard to numerous early departures (other than Gordon) so their excuses for being where they are lie elsewhere. Team defense and iffy goaltending (their goaltending has gotten worse as the year has progressed) appear to be the issues. They do have a few talented forwards (Nodl, Lasch, Roe) that do well (particularly on the power play). I am sure a few more forwards will help out in time.

Seems to me Motzko's Achilles Heel is defense. Especially recruiting good defensive players. He has missed a lot on top defensemen and I think it is showing on the ice. Schmidt and Carle were two players he whiffed on in the last month alone. Even many people in their own fan base have been lamenting these problems (particularly defensive recruiting).

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:05 pm

I can't disagree much with Gopher Blog.

What I will disagree on (again) is their (SCSU) goalie situation. For the first year without Goepfert I think they've done pretty well. Obviously, Goepfert isn't between the pipes and who is between them isn't close to his skill. But they are playing OK.

The defensive situation at SCSU is mind-boggling. I know Motzko likes puck moving 'D', but these guys aren't good. We'll see how guys like Hepp and Zabkowicz do. I think Nodl will be gone after this season. Many people around the Huskies think he's playing like a player that knows he's leaving after the season.

They can't keep putting Lasch out there late in close games. His D-zone play leaves a bit to be desired (a lot having to do with size).

In the future, I don't think the Huskies will be lacking any offense. But there will still be a huge question mark at defense.

As for the Gophers...definitely some top-end talent coming in. But their situation is very hard to judge as no one knows who stays and who goes.

61ache · Post by **61ache** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:43 pm

George Blanda wrote:I can't disagree much with Gopher Blog.

What I will disagree on (again) is their (SCSU) goalie situation. For the first year without Goepfert I think they've done pretty well. Obviously, Goepfert isn't between the pipes and who is between them isn't close to his skill. But they are playing OK.

The defensive situation at SCSU is mind-boggling. I know Motzko likes puck moving 'D', but these guys aren't good. We'll see how guys like Hepp and Zabkowicz do. I think Nodl will be gone after this season. Many people around the Huskies think he's playing like a player that knows he's leaving after the season.

They can't keep putting Lasch out there late in close games. His D-zone play leaves a bit to be desired (a lot having to do with size).

In the future, I don't think the Huskies will be lacking any offense. But there will still be a huge question mark at defense.

As for the Gophers...definitely some top-end talent coming in. But their situation is very hard to judge as no one knows who stays and who goes.

Can't forget either that Mike Lee has a verbal commitment to play for the Huskies in 2009-2010. This could solve a lot of the goaltending issues.

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:47 pm

61ache wrote:Can't forget either that Mike Lee has a verbal commitment to play for the Huskies in 2009-2010. This could solve a lot of the goaltending issues.

It is pretty rare for a goalie to go from right from the HS hockey level to a league like the WCHA. Even the very best of HS goalies from recent times generally played junior hockey so it may be 2010 before he ends up in college. Unless he leaves Roseau a year early to play in the USHL (which is pretty uncommon for Roseau kids to do). We'll have to see.

Gopher Blog · Post by **Gopher Blog** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:01 pm

George Blanda wrote:What I will disagree on (again) is their (SCSU) goalie situation. For the first year without Goepfert I think they've done pretty well. Obviously, Goepfert isn't between the pipes and who is between them isn't close to his skill. But they are playing OK.

Well, I guess the issue is sort of hand in hand. If the defense is going to be subpar, then the goaltending has got to be better than "OK" if they are going to do anything major. At the same time, if the goalie play is only "OK", then the defense had better be better and limit the opposing team's opportunities. So it is sort of a situation where you don't want to put too much blame on either one but you can't let either one get a free pass either.

One other issue that I didn't mention is that SCSU seems to have issues with physical play. It really seems to take them off of their game when teams start banging them around. Motzko might be better off recruiting a few less of those finesse guys and bring in a few big bangers to even things out.

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:42 pm

Gopher Blog wrote:
George Blanda wrote:What I will disagree on (again) is their (SCSU) goalie situation. For the first year without Goepfert I think they've done pretty well. Obviously, Goepfert isn't between the pipes and who is between them isn't close to his skill. But they are playing OK.
Well, I guess the issue is sort of hand in hand. If the defense is going to be subpar, then the goaltending has got to be better than "OK" if they are going to do anything major. At the same time, if the goalie play is only "OK", then the defense had better be better and limit the opposing team's opportunities. So it is sort of a situation where you don't want to put too much blame on either one but you can't let either one get a free pass either.

One other issue that I didn't mention is that SCSU seems to have issues with physical play. It really seems to take them off of their game when teams start banging them around. Motzko might be better off recruiting a few less of those finesse guys and bring in a few big bangers to even things out.

I think that's supposed to be the thing with Oslund and Marvin...but...yet to see anything. Roe and Lasch are good in the o-zone, but are pretty weak along the boards.

RLStars · Post by **RLStars** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:48 pm

George Blanda wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote:
George Blanda wrote:What I will disagree on (again) is their (SCSU) goalie situation. For the first year without Goepfert I think they've done pretty well. Obviously, Goepfert isn't between the pipes and who is between them isn't close to his skill. But they are playing OK.
Well, I guess the issue is sort of hand in hand. If the defense is going to be subpar, then the goaltending has got to be better than "OK" if they are going to do anything major. At the same time, if the goalie play is only "OK", then the defense had better be better and limit the opposing team's opportunities. So it is sort of a situation where you don't want to put too much blame on either one but you can't let either one get a free pass either.

One other issue that I didn't mention is that SCSU seems to have issues with physical play. It really seems to take them off of their game when teams start banging them around. Motzko might be better off recruiting a few less of those finesse guys and bring in a few big bangers to even things out.
I think that's supposed to be the thing with Oslund and Marvin...but...yet to see anything. Roe and Lasch are good in the o-zone, but are pretty weak along the boards.

Marvin a big banger? He's laying on the ice more often then he's up on skates. I've never seen a guy fall down on his own more then him. I swear, if the oppenent breathes on him he falls over.

George Blanda · Post by **George Blanda** » Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:05 pm

Like I said, I haven't seen anything out of them...

ap4mvp · Post by **ap4mvp** » Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:37 pm

RLStars wrote:
George Blanda wrote:
Gopher Blog wrote: Well, I guess the issue is sort of hand in hand. If the defense is going to be subpar, then the goaltending has got to be better than "OK" if they are going to do anything major. At the same time, if the goalie play is only "OK", then the defense had better be better and limit the opposing team's opportunities. So it is sort of a situation where you don't want to put too much blame on either one but you can't let either one get a free pass either.

One other issue that I didn't mention is that SCSU seems to have issues with physical play. It really seems to take them off of their game when teams start banging them around. Motzko might be better off recruiting a few less of those finesse guys and bring in a few big bangers to even things out.
I think that's supposed to be the thing with Oslund and Marvin...but...yet to see anything. Roe and Lasch are good in the o-zone, but are pretty weak along the boards.
Marvin a big banger? He's laying on the ice more often then he's up on skates. I've never seen a guy fall down on his own more then him. I swear, if the oppenent breathes on him he falls over.

I'd like to see RLStars try to put Marvin on the ice

GO HUSKIES

Jbone · Post by **Jbone** » Sun Feb 24, 2008 5:02 pm

SCSU's goaltending situation is starting to shape up in the nick of time. This weekend's matchup against Michigan Huskies brought a sweep for SCSU. Looked like they actually got physical which was a refreshing surprise.

When will Nick Oslund show that he's a D1 hockey player that was somehow drafted to Detroit? He falls down way more than Marvin does. They brought him in for his size, but size doesn't matter if your falling into everything!

Huskies look good as of late, and finally something good happens at home.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Mon Feb 25, 2008 7:40 am

The Gophs better hope Kangas stays, he's the only thing keeping them form 10th place. The Thrashers have 34 year old Hedberg who's dead last in GAA and Lehtonen who's not that much further ahead. The Thrashers have Kangas and a Czech in their sytem and that's about it. For a team that plays in the weaker of the two conferences and is only a game below .500 with below average goaltending they might be looking for someone to come in and replace the aging Hedberg.