Any disappointments this year?

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 5:28 am

BlueLineSpecial wrote:
stpaul wrote:
BlueLineSpecial wrote:HM? I was worried about their scoring going into this year, and they're having a hard time putting up goals. Defense is stellar and Begley seems to be coming around. Can't seem to find that signature win or two yet this year, but have plenty of opportunities especially this week.
Pretty good 10 days for HM. Tied Edina and beat Tartan, STA & Blaine. The D and Begley are really good. This is a rare HM team. No flash or stars but really physical and hard working. They likely get Casey Staum back in a week or 2 which will make that D even better. Looking forward to that Stillwater game on Saturday.
Well there's that signature win, over Blaine. The Stillwater game should be a lot of fun. Their schedule to this point has been pretty tepid. Their only big games have been the LN and HF, so it's been difficult for me to give them a lot of credit or validation for their high rankings. IMO they're the one team in the rankings that still have a lot to prove. With that said they're clearly a good team and it should be a fun matchup. I'll reserve predictions for another thread

Yeah, stillwater and Hill should be a great game. Think they are both solid squads. Looks like Lechner is starting to get Pios to trend up here....

Section 8 guy · Post by **Section 8 guy** » Wed Jan 20, 2016 6:11 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:Wayzata and Maple Grove.

Maple Grove should/could receive this award in perpetuity. Huge youth hockey feeder program going on 10+ years, with all of the attributes you'd expect. And here they are again: mediocre.

Wayzata--see above.

What is the story behind Maple Grove never showing up as a top end high school team after all of the success at the youth level?

BTW.......Duluth East gets my vote as the biggest disappointment.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:31 am

Section 8 guy wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:Wayzata and Maple Grove.

Maple Grove should/could receive this award in perpetuity. Huge youth hockey feeder program going on 10+ years, with all of the attributes you'd expect. And here they are again: mediocre.

Wayzata--see above.
What is the story behind Maple Grove never showing up as a top end high school team after all of the success at the youth level?

BTW.......Duluth East gets my vote as the biggest disappointment.

Because at the youth level they are combined with osseo...

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:56 am

Sats81 wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:Wayzata and Maple Grove.

Maple Grove should/could receive this award in perpetuity. Huge youth hockey feeder program going on 10+ years, with all of the attributes you'd expect. And here they are again: mediocre.

Wayzata--see above.
What is the story behind Maple Grove never showing up as a top end high school team after all of the success at the youth level?

BTW.......Duluth East gets my vote as the biggest disappointment.
Because at the youth level they are combined with osseo...

Could that be the underlying reason there were folks in Maple Grove wanting to split the youth association and have Maple Grove go solo and Osseo go on their own or find another co-op (North Metro)? So that they can develop the kids for their high school program from the ground up?

DrGaf · Post by **DrGaf** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:33 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:
Sats81 wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote: What is the story behind Maple Grove never showing up as a top end high school team after all of the success at the youth level?

BTW.......Duluth East gets my vote as the biggest disappointment.
Because at the youth level they are combined with osseo...
Could that be the underlying reason there were folks in Maple Grove wanting to split the youth association and have Maple Grove go solo and Osseo go on their own or find another co-op (North Metro)? So that they can develop the kids for their high school program from the ground up?

no dog in the fight ... BUT, i do have a couple friends out in that association.

from what i was told it was sour grapes from some MG families from losing AA spots to Osseo kids.

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:39 am

No dog in fight either, just an outsider looking in.

From what you said that makes sense. If I wanted Maple Grove High School to be the pinnacle I would want youth players from that school to play the highest level of hockey and receive the (perceived) best coaching available while coming up through the youth ranks. That means promoting those kids to the highest teams. If Osseo players are displacing MG kids, well, that doesn't fit my development model for what is best for MGHS. I'd want a linear relationship with MGYH being a feeder solely to MGHS.

I know, we've had these discussions before about how youth hockey should be separate from high school hockey. Not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that there are people who think this way and I can understand their reasoning. The question was posed as to why MGHS falls off at the high school level when they have a strong youth program. The answer is that the youth program feeds more than just MGHS. If my goal was a strong MGHS I would want my youth feeder system focused solely on developing players that end up at my school. Makes sense to me why there would be MG parents who would advocate for the change at the youth level then.

nahc · Post by **nahc** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:42 am

Still think Wyazata tops the list............ year after year and not just in hockey......

BodyShots · Post by **BodyShots** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:06 am

SCBlueLiner wrote:No dog in fight either, just an outsider looking in.

From what you said that makes sense. If I wanted Maple Grove High School to be the pinnacle I would want youth players from that school to play the highest level of hockey and receive the (perceived) best coaching available while coming up through the youth ranks. That means promoting those kids to the highest teams. If Osseo players are displacing MG kids, well, that doesn't fit my development model for what is best for MGHS. I'd want a linear relationship with MGYH being a feeder solely to MGHS.

I know, we've had these discussions before about how youth hockey should be separate from high school hockey. Not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that there are people who think this way and I can understand their reasoning. The question was posed as to why MGHS falls off at the high school level when they have a strong youth program. The answer is that the youth program feeds more than just MGHS. If my goal was a strong MGHS I would want my youth feeder system focused solely on developing players that end up at my school. Makes sense to me why there would be MG parents who would advocate for the change at the youth level then.

Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out why HMYA, BSMYA, and STAYA are so strong year after year!

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 10:35 am

BodyShots wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:No dog in fight either, just an outsider looking in.

From what you said that makes sense. If I wanted Maple Grove High School to be the pinnacle I would want youth players from that school to play the highest level of hockey and receive the (perceived) best coaching available while coming up through the youth ranks. That means promoting those kids to the highest teams. If Osseo players are displacing MG kids, well, that doesn't fit my development model for what is best for MGHS. I'd want a linear relationship with MGYH being a feeder solely to MGHS.

I know, we've had these discussions before about how youth hockey should be separate from high school hockey. Not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that there are people who think this way and I can understand their reasoning. The question was posed as to why MGHS falls off at the high school level when they have a strong youth program. The answer is that the youth program feeds more than just MGHS. If my goal was a strong MGHS I would want my youth feeder system focused solely on developing players that end up at my school. Makes sense to me why there would be MG parents who would advocate for the change at the youth level then.
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out why HMYA, BSMYA, and STAYA are so strong year after year!

Excellent feeder programs!

alcloseshaver · Post by **alcloseshaver** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:05 am

Sats81 wrote:
BodyShots wrote:
SCBlueLiner wrote:No dog in fight either, just an outsider looking in.

From what you said that makes sense. If I wanted Maple Grove High School to be the pinnacle I would want youth players from that school to play the highest level of hockey and receive the (perceived) best coaching available while coming up through the youth ranks. That means promoting those kids to the highest teams. If Osseo players are displacing MG kids, well, that doesn't fit my development model for what is best for MGHS. I'd want a linear relationship with MGYH being a feeder solely to MGHS.

I know, we've had these discussions before about how youth hockey should be separate from high school hockey. Not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that there are people who think this way and I can understand their reasoning. The question was posed as to why MGHS falls off at the high school level when they have a strong youth program. The answer is that the youth program feeds more than just MGHS. If my goal was a strong MGHS I would want my youth feeder system focused solely on developing players that end up at my school. Makes sense to me why there would be MG parents who would advocate for the change at the youth level then.
Yeah, I'm still trying to figure out why HMYA, BSMYA, and STAYA are so strong year after year!
Excellent feeder programs!

maybe they should be made to Coop with Osseo.

Section 8 guy · Post by **Section 8 guy** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:53 pm

The losing Osseo kids at the high school totally makes sense. The version I keep hearing is that there aren't any Osseo kids on the AA teams of the current youth teams. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

zooomx · Post by **zooomx** » Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:52 pm

SCBlueLiner wrote:No dog in fight either, just an outsider looking in.

From what you said that makes sense. If I wanted Maple Grove High School to be the pinnacle I would want youth players from that school to play the highest level of hockey and receive the (perceived) best coaching available while coming up through the youth ranks. That means promoting those kids to the highest teams. If Osseo players are displacing MG kids, well, that doesn't fit my development model for what is best for MGHS. I'd want a linear relationship with MGYH being a feeder solely to MGHS.

I know, we've had these discussions before about how youth hockey should be separate from high school hockey. Not trying to start an argument. Just pointing out that there are people who think this way and I can understand their reasoning. The question was posed as to why MGHS falls off at the high school level when they have a strong youth program. The answer is that the youth program feeds more than just MGHS. If my goal was a strong MGHS I would want my youth feeder system focused solely on developing players that end up at my school. Makes sense to me why there would be MG parents who would advocate for the change at the youth level then.

Funny to read these comments from someone in an association that feeds 3 high schools. I always wondered why St. Cloud only had one youth association. Now you are going to merge the two public school teams. Sad to see that happen in a town your size... a town I used to call home.

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:53 am

SC are initials but not for St. Cloud.

St. Cloud, Rochester, Mankato, Duluth, there are others, are all in the same boat, one youth organization feeding multiple high schools. It makes a difference when the split happens for high school. Compare that to having one program feeding one school and the linear relationship they have. Competitive advantage to the one school.

Agree, I wish there were more kids playing hockey in St. Cloud and that the programs from youth to high school were stronger and had adequate numbers.

OTB987 · Post by **OTB987** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 4:10 am

Section 8 guy wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:Wayzata and Maple Grove.

Maple Grove should/could receive this award in perpetuity. Huge youth hockey feeder program going on 10+ years, with all of the attributes you'd expect. And here they are again: mediocre.

Wayzata--see above.
What is the story behind Maple Grove never showing up as a top end high school team after all of the success at the youth level?

BTW.......Duluth East gets my vote as the biggest disappointment.

Maple Grove has had a tough go with coaches - by my count they have had 3 coaches in the last 4 years.

They have had kids participate in youth association but leave for privates but I don't think they have had departure numbers that are that different than other public school programs.

@hockeytweet · Post by **@hockeytweet** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 5:23 am

Maybe I'm getting soft, but Edina is disappointing. I know I already mentioned Maple Grove and Wayzata.

But Edina is not like those 2. They have huge youth numbers, lose players to the privates, and are also generally despised.
Maybe they'll run the table, but I doubt it with EP and Tonka on the schedule.

I just thought that the young talent would have blossomed more quickly.

green4 · Post by **green4** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 12:06 pm

@hockeytweet wrote:Maybe I'm getting soft, but Edina is disappointing. I know I already mentioned Maple Grove and Wayzata.

But Edina is not like those 2. They have huge youth numbers, lose players to the privates, and are also generally despised.
Maybe they'll run the table, but I doubt it with EP and Tonka on the schedule.

I just thought that the young talent would have blossomed more quickly.

That will happen when practically the whole senior class for the school leaves early. They still have a chance to make state, though I woudn't bet on them. People had high expectations, but really, they have one impact senior, only four that really play, so expectations were probably too high. Even then, they still aren't that bad. They have some solid wins on the record.
In the end, they are still a top 15 team, which is not bad considering their best players are 10th graders. You can't expect to win every year

MNHockeyFan · Post by **MNHockeyFan** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 1:55 pm

green4 wrote:You can't expect to win every year

So true, except for most fans of Gopher men's hockey!

grindiangrad-80 · Post by **grindiangrad-80** » Fri Jan 22, 2016 2:03 pm

green4 wrote:
@hockeytweet wrote:Maybe I'm getting soft, but Edina is disappointing. I know I already mentioned Maple Grove and Wayzata.

But Edina is not like those 2. They have huge youth numbers, lose players to the privates, and are also generally despised.
Maybe they'll run the table, but I doubt it with EP and Tonka on the schedule.

I just thought that the young talent would have blossomed more quickly.
That will happen when practically the whole senior class for the school leaves early. They still have a chance to make state, though I woudn't bet on them. People had high expectations, but really, they have one impact senior, only four that really play, so expectations were probably too high. Even then, they still aren't that bad. They have some solid wins on the record.
In the end, they are still a top 15 team, which is not bad considering their best players are 10th graders. You can't expect to win every year

Agreed green. When the bar is set high...And you know what? I bet they are going to be there late in the year as usual.

hermantown2000 · Post by **hermantown2000** » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:01 am

East Grand Forks:I will stop short of saying disappointment but they are just not as strong as the last two years. Have some of the players that would have returned transferred or gone to junior league?

howardst · Post by **howardst** » Sun Jan 24, 2016 9:53 am

I don't believe egf is a disappointment. They are just a product of over rated. Trf lost to them in ot of section finals and lost a lot less to grad. Trf in my mind was the better team to start the year. Even with the horse that's out Trf is simply better. That is the issue with doing any rankings before Christmas. Wait till then and start every team at 0-0 Christmas Eve and then you would have a great ranking this time of year. Pretty simple. Just over rated.

Doc Holliday · Post by **Doc Holliday** » Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:49 am

green4 wrote:That will happen when practically the whole senior class for the school leaves early. They still have a chance to make state, though I woudn't bet on them. People had high expectations, but really, they have one impact senior, only four that really play, so expectations were probably too high. Even then, they still aren't that bad. They have some solid wins on the record.
In the end, they are still a top 15 team, which is not bad considering their best players are 10th graders. You can't expect to win every year

I saw the first 2 periods of the Edina-Tonka game on Saturday night. Sounds like a few late goals for Tonka made the game look more lopsided. I thought Tonka controlled the play the 1st period, but Edina still had a few god looks. Almost like Tonka was ticked off from their Wayzata loss & came out hot. I thought 2nd had good scoring chances for both teams; perhaps a few more for Tonka, but Edina had plenty as well. The late goal in the 2nd was a total breakdown. You just can't let something like that happen late in a period like that.

As for Edina & a disappointment, I think it's probably due to expectations for the program every single year. Forget their long history, their recent run has been remarkable of 9 straight trips to St. Paul with a reasonable expectation to win it all in all of them, except perhaps '12, but they suddenly were put in that position after all the upsets before their game with Benilde. They lose guys, they just plug in new guys. They really have been the definition of "they don't rebuild, they reload." I think the yearly expectations from most people has caused this.

This year's team: I don't think they're bad, but they'll definitely be in a new underdog role come section time. They're pretty much locked into the #3, so preparation for that should begin. I don't expect to see them in St. Paul this year, but I won't be shocked either. Walker really impressed me. Scheerer also plays a very nice game. I was also impressed with Brinkman. He wasn't listed in the program, so it's not like I was out seeking him. You watch the first period & a few very nice defensive plays, you tend to look "who's #17?" Then you don't see a #17 in the program, so you kind of figure out. Impressive size for a freshman. Phillips can bring it as well. I didn't notice Dornbach too much. I agree; the talent is definitely not the senior class.

I'm impressed with Tonka....good size & can skate. EP does not have an easy path to state with Tonka & HF (I have not seen HF play).

East Side Pioneer Guy · Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:15 am

inthetwine wrote:I'm dissapointed WBL still hangs on to Sager.

I'm not at all disappointed by that.

Zoochu · Post by **Zoochu** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 4:48 pm

By the way, I would usually say Wayzata Trojans are a big disappointment year in and year out but this year they're doing ok so far.

They beat Edina, they beat Tonka at home and beat EP at home tonight, I don't know if it's a sign of improvement or if it's mostly due to Edina having an off year but they're not looking too shabby.

TooManyEagles · Post by **TooManyEagles** » Sat Jan 30, 2016 7:46 pm

Nuts&Bolts wrote:No offense to Karl but hands down has to be between Duluth East and Wayzata. East had most everybody back and no early departures. Several expected to have big years have fizzled.

12 days later...

thespellchecker · Post by **thespellchecker** » Sun Jan 31, 2016 3:55 pm

1. Grand Rapids
2. Luverne
3. My 2015 bonus