Re: Boston University - 2017-2018 season - thread numero uno
I also think the difference (besides the coaching) is that BC had better balance during their run. MANY (I didn't say "all") of their top players stayed more than one year. This brought continuity and stability to the program. We don't seem to have that here. Honestly I don't know why for sure (but I have a good idea). It could just be a sign of the times and it's more evident at BU recently because they are always being picked to finish high due to their "top" recruiting classes. So does this mean that BU has brought in more "selfish" players that are only looking to get to the NHL and that BC brought in more "team" players? I don't know. If the roles were reversed TODAY (not eight years ago) and BC had the top recruiting class, would THOSE players stay longer than one year? My guess is no, only because I don't know how you assess that about someone when you are recruiting them, and times have changed, even since a few years ago.
I think we live in an immediate gratification society and people don't feel the need to "wait" to earn what they feel they "deserve." And why should they? We have not taught them that "hard work pays off." We have taught them that if you are a "star" you WILL get the money. So why should they stick around to "prove themselves" when they get drafted at two years old and are essentially guaranteed big money anyway? Why should they risk a career-ending injury when their payday is right around the corner? Seriously.
The problem at BU (as I have stated ad nauseum for about three years now) is that they don't recruit enough of the grinders to balance out their program; players that will stay longer and provide some leadership and continuity over time. I just shake my head at the continuous comments about how people "Can't understand why they are lazy" or "There is no chemistry" when the REASON for this has been repeated over and over. Everyone continues to cite the '09 team but doesn't seem to make the connection that these recent teams are everything that team was NOT. I don't have the answer to "Is DQ a good coach?" Because I think you need the "right" combination of leadership, experience and talent before you can accurately make that assessment. And regarding the comments that he is a "great recruiter," is he? Shouldn't a great recruiter RECOGNIZE that you need BALANCE and not just go after every top player who he KNOWS is going to leave after one year?
I DO fear for the future of the program (as was previously stated) if these issues go unaddressed. As for the person who said (and I paraphrase) "Well, these things go in cycles and the program will come back," well, NO. Things don't happen "by themselves." The law of averages doesn't apply to EVERYTHING. There'a a REASON the Cleveland Browns stink every year...
Ya "no talent" is hyperbole. But one coach is getting the most out of their talent right now. The other coach, as is usually the case, is not.
I also think the difference (besides the coaching) is that BC had better balance during their run. MANY (I didn't say "all") of their top players stayed more than one year. This brought continuity and stability to the program. We don't seem to have that here. Honestly I don't know why for sure (but I have a good idea). It could just be a sign of the times and it's more evident at BU recently because they are always being picked to finish high due to their "top" recruiting classes. So does this mean that BU has brought in more "selfish" players that are only looking to get to the NHL and that BC brought in more "team" players? I don't know. If the roles were reversed TODAY (not eight years ago) and BC had the top recruiting class, would THOSE players stay longer than one year? My guess is no, only because I don't know how you assess that about someone when you are recruiting them, and times have changed, even since a few years ago.
I think we live in an immediate gratification society and people don't feel the need to "wait" to earn what they feel they "deserve." And why should they? We have not taught them that "hard work pays off." We have taught them that if you are a "star" you WILL get the money. So why should they stick around to "prove themselves" when they get drafted at two years old and are essentially guaranteed big money anyway? Why should they risk a career-ending injury when their payday is right around the corner? Seriously.
The problem at BU (as I have stated ad nauseum for about three years now) is that they don't recruit enough of the grinders to balance out their program; players that will stay longer and provide some leadership and continuity over time. I just shake my head at the continuous comments about how people "Can't understand why they are lazy" or "There is no chemistry" when the REASON for this has been repeated over and over. Everyone continues to cite the '09 team but doesn't seem to make the connection that these recent teams are everything that team was NOT. I don't have the answer to "Is DQ a good coach?" Because I think you need the "right" combination of leadership, experience and talent before you can accurately make that assessment. And regarding the comments that he is a "great recruiter," is he? Shouldn't a great recruiter RECOGNIZE that you need BALANCE and not just go after every top player who he KNOWS is going to leave after one year?
I DO fear for the future of the program (as was previously stated) if these issues go unaddressed. As for the person who said (and I paraphrase) "Well, these things go in cycles and the program will come back," well, NO. Things don't happen "by themselves." The law of averages doesn't apply to EVERYTHING. There'a a REASON the Cleveland Browns stink every year...