16's / 17's "cross-over games"

johnnyquest · Post by **johnnyquest** » Sun Apr 19, 2009 9:53 pm

I heard it was an "interesting" day. Any comments?

Doglover · Post by **Doglover** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:01 am

Heard one of the 17 teams got "spanked" by a 16 team. Would love to hear what others have heard.

High Flyer · Post by **High Flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:22 pm

Doglover wrote:Heard one of the 17 teams got "spanked" by a 16 team. Would love to hear what others have heard.

No, the white 17 team was not "spanked", they were "dominated" by the red 16 team. At least the 17's got on the score board with 4 shoot out goals, as the score should have been 11-0

Doglover · Post by **Doglover** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 12:46 pm

Thanks for the update Highflyer. Didn't the White team have Meyers and Ford in the nets and the Gopher recruit from Mtka Max Gardiner? How could they play so badly?

mpls10 · Post by **mpls10** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:45 pm

High Flyer wrote:
Doglover wrote:Heard one of the 17 teams got "spanked" by a 16 team. Would love to hear what others have heard.
No, the white 17 team was not "spanked", they were "dominated" by the red 16 team. At least the 17's got on the score board with 4 shoot out goals, as the score should have been 11-0

17 Blue won 14 - 4 against 16 White. How did the 3rd game turn out?

High Flyer · Post by **High Flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 1:59 pm

Doglover wrote:Thanks for the update Highflyer. Didn't the White team have Meyers and Ford in the nets and the Gopher recruit from Mtka Max Gardiner? How could they play so badly?

yes, Meyers and Ford where in net, but it didn't matter as the white 17 team defensemen looked more like orange cones and could not handle the preasure and speed of the red 16 forwards. Red 16 team transitioned extremely well, as red defensemen consistently broke the puck out of the defensive zone with ease. Red 16 forwards where not selfish and did a good job of moving the puck, while white 17 forwards would not move the puck, turning it over. Most of the time the puck was in the defensive zone of the white 17 team.

Gardiner was layed out by red 16 goalie as he thought he could stand his crease and get a way with it. Might of be the best hit of the game!

mpls10 · Post by **mpls10** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:19 pm

It sounds like a bunch of 16 Red kids should be moving on and 17 White kids should be staying home.

johnnyquest · Post by **johnnyquest** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 2:50 pm

14 - 4 !

The white 16 year old team had to be missing players. I think there are 3 ann arbor commits and a sophomore who played in the Elite League last fall on the 16 white team.

How did the 16 blue 17 white game turn out ?

Husky88 · Post by **Husky88** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:09 pm

The red 17's beat the blue 16's - I think the score was 5 to 3. Midway through the 2nd half the score was tied at 3 when the 17's got a couple of penalty shots to pull away for the win.

High Flyer · Post by **High Flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:42 pm

johnnyquest wrote:14 - 4 !

The white 16 year old team had to be missing players. I think there are 3 ann arbor commits and a sophomore who played in the Elite League last fall on the 16 white team.

No, they where all there and they all played. Van Vororhis, Boyd, Horn, McNelly and Labate. 16 white team defensemen really struggled, with the exception of Van Vororhis and Schurhamer. Did'nt get much help from white back checking forwards as there were numerous 3 on 2's.

High Flyer · Post by **High Flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:55 pm

mpls10 wrote:It sounds like a bunch of 16 Red kids should be moving on and 17 White kids should be staying home.

Red 16 players that stood out in that game included Everson, Fleming, Schulze, Greco, Sit, Carlson, Becker and both goalies Burgau and Engum.

Reed was the only White 17 player that stood out inthat game.

Factsmatter1 · Post by **Factsmatter1** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 5:55 pm

High Flyer wrote:
mpls10 wrote:It sounds like a bunch of 16 Red kids should be moving on and 17 White kids should be staying home.
Red 16 players that stood out in that game included Everson, Fleming, Schulze, Greco, Sit, Carlson, Becker and both goalies Burgau and Engum.

Reed was the only White 17 player that stood out inthat game.

Stop using the forum to pump someone's stock on the red 16 team and knock everyone else. I did see a lot of the games this WE as I love the Final 54 weekend. Some of the best hockey in the country at this level.

A couple of points:
* Overall I thought the 16's were a bit deeper than the 17's
* Blue 17 was the best 17 team (Marshall really dominated, Holl did well). Very very strong.
* Red and White 17 were even (shootout)
* White 17 forwards looked tired on Sunday
* Blue 16 was the worst of the 16's and was mauled by both Red 16 and White 16 by 3+ goals. D was ok, forwards were weak and Goalies average
* Red 16 and White 16 were even (Tied with less than a minute to go in game when I left: I think red scored with a few seconds to go but not sure)
* red 16 had by far the best defense among the 16 teams (bet minimum of 3 maybe 4 go on); this is why they beat the 17's in my opinion.
* white 16 had the best forwards and best goalies and the worst D (bet they are best represented by forwards and least represented by D and will have at least one goalie move on and one off the red will probably go.
* Blue team was pretty stunning disappointment across the board - on paper looked good but not on ice. Maybe 1 D and 1 forward move on.

Really had fun watching all the kids. They all did a great job and provided a lot of entertainment for those of us watching. Congrats to all for making it this far. The rest is anyone's guess. I saw very stickouts at the 16 and 17 level. Boyd on 16, Marshall at 17.

High Flyer · Post by **High Flyer** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 6:39 pm

Factsmatter1 wrote:
High Flyer wrote:
mpls10 wrote:It sounds like a bunch of 16 Red kids should be moving on and 17 White kids should be staying home.
Red 16 players that stood out in that game included Everson, Fleming, Schulze, Greco, Sit, Carlson, Becker and both goalies Burgau and Engum.

Reed was the only White 17 player that stood out inthat game.
Stop using the forum to pump someone's stock on the red 16 team and knock everyone else. I did see a lot of the games this WE as I love the Final 54 weekend. Some of the best hockey in the country at this level.

A couple of points:
* Overall I thought the 16's were a bit deeper than the 17's
* Blue 17 was the best 17 team (Marshall really dominated, Holl did well). Very very strong.
* Red and White 17 were even (shootout)
* White 17 forwards looked tired on Sunday
* Blue 16 was the worst of the 16's and was mauled by both Red 16 and White 16 by 3+ goals. D was ok, forwards were weak and Goalies average
* Red 16 and White 16 were even (Tied with less than a minute to go in game when I left: I think red scored with a few seconds to go but not sure)
* red 16 had by far the best defense among the 16 teams (bet minimum of 3 maybe 4 go on); this is why they beat the 17's in my opinion.
* white 16 had the best forwards and best goalies and the worst D (bet they are best represented by forwards and least represented by D and will have at least one goalie move on and one off the red will probably go.
* Blue team was pretty stunning disappointment across the board - on paper looked good but not on ice. Maybe 1 D and 1 forward move on.

Really had fun watching all the kids. They all did a great job and provided a lot of entertainment for those of us watching. Congrats to all for making it this far. The rest is anyone's guess. I saw very stickouts at the 16 and 17 level. Boyd on 16, Marshall at 17.

factsmatter1-

Not pumping anyone’s stock on the red 16 team. Thread was about cross over games, followed by a question about the 17 loss to a 16 team. I gave credit where credit was due in this game and I was accurate in describing the events. Considering your screen name, you of all people should appreicate my post. Besides, I seriously doubt my post has any influence on decision makers.

You are correct in stating that the talent pool at the 16’s is deeper at the 93 level than the 92 level. But I can’t buy your excuse of the white 17 forwards being tired. All the players at the 16 and 17 level played 3 games and both teams had to show up at the rink at 7:00 am Sunday. 16 red forwards where just too much for 17 white defensemen to handle and 17 white forwards where not able to pressure 16 red defensemen. I also watched the white 17’s first game on Saturday, I thought then (and so did others) the red 16’s would have a good chance of knocking them off on Sunday. White 17 defensemen struggled in this game also.

Boyd did stand out, but Greco was the top forward at the 16’s this weekend. Like Marshall, Greco can get up to his top end speed quicker than anyone else at the 93 level. Kroska has similer speed, but not the same hand skills and play making ability as Greco.

Red 16 team did have the best defensive core, white 16 and red 17 forwards where pretty even. Blue 16 was disappointing and you are correct in saying “on paper” looked good, but many of these players did not live up to their hype. Hard to say about 93 goalies, as each had their moments, good and bad. Hard to evaluate goalies when they are seeing numours 3 on 2's, 2 on 1's and defensive core stuggling to get the puck out of thier own zone. Saw alot of this on the white 16's and blue 16's and the white 17's.

Factsmatter1 · Post by **Factsmatter1** » Mon Apr 20, 2009 9:01 pm

HF,

Sounds like we agree more than we disagree. My only point about the pump comment is that I am not a fan of talking individual kids up or down on the board as there are lots of agendas other than good hockey conversations about teams strengths and weaknesses. If I mention a kid it is only when I think 10 out of 10 hockey guys would notice the same things. For example, I don't think anyone would argue that Marshall on 17's and Boyd on 16's really stood out this weekend.

With that said I would add a couple of things to your comments which I think were pretty spot on.

* I agree that white 17 had the same rest as everyone else but I have a bias that 4 events in 36 hours (brutal schedule) with two events on Olympic ice favors the little guys in the end which I think was the case here. Big 16 and 17 year old bodies just can't hold up the pace. I think in general this was true across the board but I admit this is a personal bias. I spoke to a USA hockey guy and he said the tight scheduling was not a planned test but rather an outcome of the new format with girls/boys together, etc... I saw some of the big White 17 forwards after the game on Sunday and they were red faced whereas some of the smaller guys looked like they were on the way to their first game...

* I did notice Greco (#30 I think) who is very small but is quick out of the gate. However, I don't think he was the quickest accelerator or top end speed of the 16's. I saw a big kid on the white 16 team who flew at Warp factor. In one blast of acceleration and speed I saw the white 16 forward go end to end and score by blowing by 3 forwards and splitting D vs Blue 16. Doubt Greco would beat that kid in a race. One of the other forwards on the red 16 team had decent speed to (sorry but can remember the number but he was from a metro area team). Didn't see anyone at 16 or 17 level go end to end all weekend and score but in fairness I didn't see very minute of every game. Saw #3 Marshall on Blue 17 come close though. He flew at Warp 2x all weekend and was fun to watch. It will be interesting to see how he does at UM as he is a size similar to Ness. He clearly made the case this weekend that speed kills...

* The rest of the kids on 16's and 17's looked similar some with better hands, size, edges, etc. Clearly a top half and bottom half IMHO in both age groups. USA hockey should take half the group or take 5. Doing other than that will involve splitting hairs that don't want to be split. Rumor has it that they are taking fewer kids due to cost which would seem like a bogus argument to me as what parent wouldn't pick up the expense slack...

* The story of the 16 red team in my opinion was the D (the forwards were good but not the story) who made their forwards jobs very easy. I'll bet 3 or more of that D squad moves on. They moved the puck out of their end and made it look easy. The fact that white 16 was tied in their head to head game points to the fact that this was a tennis match between the strong white 16 forwards and the strong red 16 D. I thought goalies on both sides were even in total with differences between the individuals. The red 16 forwards were good as stated and the white 16 D was the weakest in the tournament overall.

* Agree on the goalie situation. No one aced it in any team in my opinion. They were all pretty good with a few mistakes here and there. I am glad I don't have to make that decision.

RushnCircles · Post by **RushnCircles** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 7:10 am

best player on the ice 16's / 17's, red, white or blue was Adam Knockenmuss - Roseau. This is one player you want to play with - not against.

The Exiled One · Post by **The Exiled One** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:31 am

RushnCircles wrote:best player on the ice 16's / 17's, red, white or blue was Adam Knockenmuss - Roseau. This is one player you want to play with - not against.

I like Adam as a college prospect. Any idea who's contacted him? I would assume he's on the radar for the Sioux and Gophers, and could have already been approached (standard practice is through current/former coaching staff) by SCSU and/or UMD.

flatontheice · Post by **flatontheice** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 9:19 pm

The Exiled One wrote:
RushnCircles wrote:best player on the ice 16's / 17's, red, white or blue was Adam Knockenmuss - Roseau. This is one player you want to play with - not against.
I like Adam as a college prospect. Any idea who's contacted him? I would assume he's on the radar for the Sioux and Gophers, and could have already been approached (standard practice is through current/former coaching staff) by SCSU and/or UMD.

The gophers have been talking to him for over a year.

RushnCircles · Post by **RushnCircles** » Wed Apr 22, 2009 11:15 pm

what does that mean - "the gophers have been talking to him for over a year?"

Did they offer him a scholarship and if so, is he taking a year to think about it ? or did they tell him they will monitor his progress over the next year and, if that's the case, should he just cross his fingers and wait ? or is there some other scenario working here flatontheice?

CKanklesbend · Post by **CKanklesbend** » Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:59 am

Husky88 wrote:The red 17's beat the blue 16's - I think the score was 5 to 3. Midway through the 2nd half the score was tied at 3 when the 17's got a couple of penalty shots to pull away for the win.

Thats some bs the red 1's are the bestt teamm in nation