HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

surehockey wrote:Anything from section 7?

0 and 3 Didn't see much of their games but that was their record in the tourney.

Having seen just a little of the 16s:

Greco/Shattuck/Sec. 1 is very skinny and seems very slight, but he is incredibly quick and fast with very good hands; he has improved noticeably from last year when he was good and made it to 15s national camp.

Cameranesi/Wayzata/Sec. 6 looked very good; relentless hustle and a nose for the puck and very good hands; it would be surprising if he does not go far in the process this year.

I think if history and last year 92's was any indication you will see a shift to the bigger stronger players in the 16's and not as many little guys that get bumped off the puck as easily as those that usually end up in 15's. There are always exceptions but the shift to size begins in 16's as the big guys start growing into to their bodies.

Heinonen/Delano forward. Big kid that can score from any where on the ice.
Hurley/Holy Angles looked good the game I watched
Cogelow-Ruter/river Lakes. Big kid that you can't take off the puck. heavy shot from the point.
Hanson/Tech good hands, quick and big.
Schow/Willmar Power forward with a nose for the net
Some of the guys you never hear about but you should!

GR3343 the report I got on the 16 team was the following:
6-5 OT loss in game 1.
7-5 win in second game.
1-7 loss in the consolation final. Is that correct? If so what happened to them in the final (kind of a blowout)?
Thanks.

section 3 did well. lost championship game in ot

northwoods oldtimer wrote:GR3343 the report I got on the 16 team was the following:
6-5 OT loss in game 1.
7-5 win in second game.
1-7 loss in the consolation final. Is that correct? If so what happened to them in the final (kind of a blowout)?
Thanks.

Thought I heard they lost the second game but must have misunderstood. As for the Sunday game, one of the parents told me they did a lot of standing around and appeared to be still asleep throughout the game. Saw bits of that but it was the same time as the Sec. 7 17 game so didn't catch a lot.

I was surprised to see that section 5 won the 16's tournament, did anyone see their games?

eat sleep hockey wrote:I was surprised to see that section 5 won the 16's tournament, did anyone see their games?

Saw a lot of the 17's, a few of the 16's and a little bit of the section 5 game. The challenge with these festivals is that every team is a wild card in any given year at various positions. In some years some section teams have great forwards but lousy goalies and D. Some have great D and lousy Goalie and forwards. In some cases one goalie is great but the other is poor. The evaluators really focus on individual skills so it really doesn't matter how the team performs or how they finish. For example, I watched one seventeen team win every period that goalie "A" was in net and lose by a wide margin every period when goalie "B" was in net. Frustrating to the kids but I don't think the evaluators much care about team performance. In another example I saw a team that I thought had really good forwards but very poor D and mediocre goalies. They struggled in every game despite the fact that they had a high number of quality forwards. Takes a village to win a hockey game...

what I have seen is that not all of the top kids make the teams, could be politics or past performance...whatever, not all of the best kids are even playing, I have heard that some kids made the team without even trying out and for their section, they were not playing for their varsity team, only bantams. which means that the best kids aren't really playing.....which makes me left believing that this is very political,,,,not about the best players..........

coach95 wrote:what I have seen is that not all of the top kids make the teams, could be politics or past performance...whatever, not all of the best kids are even playing, I have heard that some kids made the team without even trying out and for their section, they were not playing for their varsity team, only bantams. which means that the best kids aren't really playing.....which makes me left believing that this is very political,,,,not about the best players..........

Coach95, are you saying that in the past you have seen a kid from a Bantam team make it over a kid from a Varsity team in the same town? That would be disturbing and suggest politics as these coaches have the records of these kids in the past year to go on which you would think they would look at before making a decision. I could see it happening where a kid from a Bantam team in a very strong AA town made it over a High School player from a very weak A town but not the other way around...

Factsmatter1 wrote:

coach95 wrote:what I have seen is that not all of the top kids make the teams, could be politics or past performance...whatever, not all of the best kids are even playing, I have heard that some kids made the team without even trying out and for their section, they were not playing for their varsity team, only bantams. which means that the best kids aren't really playing.....which makes me left believing that this is very political,,,,not about the best players..........

Coach95, are you saying that in the past you have seen a kid from a Bantam team make it over a kid from a Varsity team in the same town? That would be disturbing and suggest politics as these coaches have the records of these kids in the past year to go on which you would think they would look at before making a decision. I could see it happening where a kid from a Bantam team in a very strong AA town made it over a High School player from a very weak A town but not the other way around...

No he`s right there are politics...unfortunately

We're a basketball familly that happens to have a hockey player. Last weekend we watched some of the advaced 16 games. One game was between section 2 and section 8.Plenty of good players on both teams. At the end of the 1st half the score was 2 to 2. At the end of the game the score was 10 to 5.
It was like watching a completely different game. Hows it happen?

keepmeoutofit wrote:We're a basketball familly that happens to have a hockey player. Last weekend we watched some of the advaced 16 games. One game was between section 2 and section 8.Plenty of good players on both teams. At the end of the 1st half the score was 2 to 2. At the end of the game the score was 10 to 5.
It was like watching a completely different game. Hows it happen?

The only thing that changes at the half is the goalies for both teams which probably explains what you saw.

i have heard that they are taking less people from the top 54 this year does anyone know if this is true?

eat sleep hockey wrote:i have heard that they are taking less people from the top 54 this year does anyone know if this is true?

Not sure what you mean.... Less people for what? The final tryout process will select approximately 20-25 players from the Final 54 for the final MN team.

i heard they are taking 16 skaters and only 1 goalie to the next thing after the top 54

eat sleep hockey wrote:i heard they are taking 16 skaters and only 1 goalie to the next thing after the top 54

there are 12 districts in USA hockey
there are 12 teams at the national camp
in the past, each district sends 2G, 8D and 12F

Also, seems like mn always finds a way to get some of thier alternates in too.

I guess it is possible that they could reduce that number (if they wanted to) to only three lines, which would be 15 skaters. Then as soon as someone gets hurt (they do) they are skating with less than 15.

Also would mean less money (X$ times 60 players) to reduce to 3 lines, yet the expenses would still be the same for a 22 man teams vs. 17

Doesn't seem likley that they would take fewer players this year, but it's possible.

MN Hockey would not voluntarily reduce the number of players they send to the National Camp and with the talent in MN and the reputation - especially with the '93s, I highly doubt USA Hockey would want less players from MN represented at National Camp. MN Hockey is careful to always replace any of their players that find they can't attend with another MN player so as to not lose a MN spot at the camp.

I don't know - just doesn't make sense. This is a very strong pool of kids. Out of the 40 invited to Ann Arbor, I think over 10 of them were from MN and they already have offers out to at least 4 that we're aware of. Just don't think they would reduce the number of MN kids with the talent of the 93's.

hey thanks everyone for the info