TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
BC loses 6-3. We are hurting.
BC loses 6-3. We are hurting.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
- Thread starter vellnueve
- Start date
Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
Flame on haterz.
Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
King needs to go. You can load this team up with as many superstars as you want, but unless the coach can pull it together, it doesn't matter.
Flame on haterz.
IceIsNice
Huh? Whoopie Pies? WHERE???
Re: Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
Re: Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
Planning, Strategizing, and yes even playing a bit of Psychologist are parts of successful coaching that are not necessarily the strengths of the typical successful player!
PS, speaking of strategizing, see my new thread on PK strategies, spurred in part by my observations of BC earlier today.
Re: Peace out Katie - great player, terrible college level coach
I may be inclined to agree with this with a huge caveat.... kudos to her for her success as a player, and she should not be disrespected for those particular accomplishments. That said, I am of the school of thought where being a highly successful player is in NO WAY an automatic pathway to being a successful coach.King needs to go. You can load this team up with as many superstars as you want, but unless the coach can pull it together, it doesn't matter.
Flame on haterz.
Planning, Strategizing, and yes even playing a bit of Psychologist are parts of successful coaching that are not necessarily the strengths of the typical successful player!
PS, speaking of strategizing, see my new thread on PK strategies, spurred in part by my observations of BC earlier today.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
This should not be shocking to you. Probably 25% of their games are wrong. Don't even look at their schedule anymore.
ARM
Fan of chipmunk-like mascots.
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
When you said this during her first season, I thought the circumstances leading to her hire made it tough to judge whether or not the problems BC experienced could be blamed on her. Now I can't comment beyond saying that a) I've only watched her team play three games; b) the problems that existed were there each time; c) the trend is not positive. I'm sure that BC will be better next year. The big question for them is what will they be like in 2011-2012 after they've had their one season of returning Olympians.
So much of any college sport is recruiting, and that alone can go a long way to making or breaking a coach. A great player and a great recruiter may not be overlapping skill sets.
joegrav
New member
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I think King's recruiting has been quite good - although I do think the last two classes are missing a 'gamebreaker' type, a Stack or a Thunstrom who will be on the Olympic radar and can single-handedly win games (Boyles, maybe... but I'm thinking of forwards mostly). However, those are hard to find.
I think King's recruiting has been quite good - although I do think the last two classes are missing a 'gamebreaker' type, a Stack or a Thunstrom who will be on the Olympic radar and can single-handedly win games (Boyles, maybe... but I'm thinking of forwards mostly). However, those are hard to find.
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
Its not an individual thing IMO, its a team thing...there is no chemistry. Like I said earlier, she can recruit all the superstars she wants, but unless she can figure out how to bring it all together, it wont really matter who she brings in. She's got enough talent that the games shouldn't always come down to the goalies performance (tho I'm not arguing that goalies aren't one of the most important backbones of a team). And I agree, I think she has done a fantastic job recruiting. I wouldn't mind her staying on as an assistant and continuing this role...but I still believe its time for someone else to take the top spot.
hockeyfan111
Registered User
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I think RStarr is accurate in that it is a team sport and there is no chemistry; yet I also think this exists given the high level of senior turnover to graduation and the loss of two of the best players and leaders to the Olympics. Saturday's starting line up had 4 freshman and 2 sophmores introduced. Sunday had a bit more experience, but still young. Chemistry takes time; they are still messing with the right combinations for linemates, special teams and other things. Injuries, player development and overall skill play into getting these things aligned.
At the end of the day for BC this year, it's about being in the top 6 in the conference and hoping the chemistry comes together at that point. Based upon my observations, don't see it happening although I do think the team is playing more aggressively and less cautious than earlier in the year. Perhaps an indication that the younger players are becoming more comfortable.
I think RStarr is accurate in that it is a team sport and there is no chemistry; yet I also think this exists given the high level of senior turnover to graduation and the loss of two of the best players and leaders to the Olympics. Saturday's starting line up had 4 freshman and 2 sophmores introduced. Sunday had a bit more experience, but still young. Chemistry takes time; they are still messing with the right combinations for linemates, special teams and other things. Injuries, player development and overall skill play into getting these things aligned.
At the end of the day for BC this year, it's about being in the top 6 in the conference and hoping the chemistry comes together at that point. Based upon my observations, don't see it happening although I do think the team is playing more aggressively and less cautious than earlier in the year. Perhaps an indication that the younger players are becoming more comfortable.
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I am soooo glad I clicked on this thread as I was planning on going. @#$%&. I decided against BU at NU because I'm behind on some stuff and "knew" I was going to the BC game. If only I had checked, I would have gone to Matthews. Oh well.
I am soooo glad I clicked on this thread as I was planning on going. @#$%&. I decided against BU at NU because I'm behind on some stuff and "knew" I was going to the BC game. If only I had checked, I would have gone to Matthews. Oh well.
hockeyfan111
Registered User
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
yikes, what happened again last night. up 2-0 and end up with a 6-3 loss. i've indicated the team is young, but seem to be going the wrong direction. if they are planning to peak for the hockey east tournament (assuming they get there), then they better start heading in the other direction, NOW. is it time to take a page from some other teams and run just 2 o and d lines?
Grant, Joe, Vell - anyone please help!!!
yikes, what happened again last night. up 2-0 and end up with a 6-3 loss. i've indicated the team is young, but seem to be going the wrong direction. if they are planning to peak for the hockey east tournament (assuming they get there), then they better start heading in the other direction, NOW. is it time to take a page from some other teams and run just 2 o and d lines?
Grant, Joe, Vell - anyone please help!!!
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
Is it true that I only have one more home women's hockey game to go to as a BC student?
That's really sad.
Don't look at me...
Is it true that I only have one more home women's hockey game to go to as a BC student?
That's really sad.
Hux
Alfond to Ridder & rinks in between
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
Well, that assumes that you will graduate on time.
Don't look at me...
Is it true that I only have one more home women's hockey game to go to as a BC student?
That's really sad.
Well, that assumes that you will graduate on time.
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
Well I look at the roster and I don't see any Ontario players --kids who have played PWHL. I think the younger players from the prep system will take longer to develop.
Well I look at the roster and I don't see any Ontario players --kids who have played PWHL. I think the younger players from the prep system will take longer to develop.
TonyTheTiger20
#SOAR
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I don't think it is fair that some want to throw the coaches under the bus this season. These are the same coaches who last year took BC to 2nd in Hockey East, 5th in the country and a berth in the NCAA Tournament. They accomplished all of this without anyone from the PWHL.
People underestimate the value of the veteran leadership of last years Seniors, (Zavisa, Fardelman, Harris, Olchowski,Taverna, etc.) as well as Stack and Schaus.
This year they are very young. They only have 3 Seniors and 2 Juniors. The rest are all Freshmen and Sophomores including both goalies.
You will hear from this team in the near future !
I don't think it is fair that some want to throw the coaches under the bus this season. These are the same coaches who last year took BC to 2nd in Hockey East, 5th in the country and a berth in the NCAA Tournament. They accomplished all of this without anyone from the PWHL.
People underestimate the value of the veteran leadership of last years Seniors, (Zavisa, Fardelman, Harris, Olchowski,Taverna, etc.) as well as Stack and Schaus.
This year they are very young. They only have 3 Seniors and 2 Juniors. The rest are all Freshmen and Sophomores including both goalies.
You will hear from this team in the near future !
joegrav
New member
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I'm not throwing the coaches under the bus... However, this year *does* make me concerned about what's going to happen in 2011-12 when Stack and Schaus have graduated. There won't be a "Stack's in the Olympics" free pass that year.
I think the talent level on this team is very good. Not quite UNH but very good. However, it's not translating into results. I'm not blaming that on the players or the coaches - it's just a fact. People can develop their own theories about why.
I'm not throwing the coaches under the bus... However, this year *does* make me concerned about what's going to happen in 2011-12 when Stack and Schaus have graduated. There won't be a "Stack's in the Olympics" free pass that year.
I think the talent level on this team is very good. Not quite UNH but very good. However, it's not translating into results. I'm not blaming that on the players or the coaches - it's just a fact. People can develop their own theories about why.
rinkrat890890
New member
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
Okay since you use UNH as an example of a higher level team, if McCloskey was the coach, would there be a different outcome?
Okay since you use UNH as an example of a higher level team, if McCloskey was the coach, would there be a different outcome?
joegrav
New member
Re: Boston College Women's Hockey '10: Thunstromian Dominance
I don't know. I'm not really a fan of these types of thought experiments. I don't think anyone can answer these hypothetical questions with certainty.
What I can do, is watch the games that actually do happen and react to them. And what I see: a continued lack of success w/ passing out of the defensive zone, a lack of a strong, consistent strategy to get it into the offensive zone (outside of "wait for Thunstrom to streak past the red line and look for a home run pass"), no-look passes into a general direction instead of on to a teammate's stick, defensive breakdowns leaving opposing players open, bad penalties at bad times... the list goes on.
I don't think anyone could fairly watch this team and say "this is the best they are capable of." It would be doing an incredible disservice to the talented players on this team to say they're only good enough to win 5 out of 26 games played in the season.
I'm not necessarily saying it's coaching - I'm not at practice or in the locker room, who knows what might be going on.
I *do* know that I see troubling signs of a chronically underachieving team.
I don't know. I'm not really a fan of these types of thought experiments. I don't think anyone can answer these hypothetical questions with certainty.
What I can do, is watch the games that actually do happen and react to them. And what I see: a continued lack of success w/ passing out of the defensive zone, a lack of a strong, consistent strategy to get it into the offensive zone (outside of "wait for Thunstrom to streak past the red line and look for a home run pass"), no-look passes into a general direction instead of on to a teammate's stick, defensive breakdowns leaving opposing players open, bad penalties at bad times... the list goes on.
I don't think anyone could fairly watch this team and say "this is the best they are capable of." It would be doing an incredible disservice to the talented players on this team to say they're only good enough to win 5 out of 26 games played in the season.
I'm not necessarily saying it's coaching - I'm not at practice or in the locker room, who knows what might be going on.
I *do* know that I see troubling signs of a chronically underachieving team.