Page 2 of 11
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 11:22 am
by mngopherfan
How will Rogers be?? They were a tough team to play last year...
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:09 pm
by loveitorleaveit
blueliner5 wrote:BlackTape wrote:Rumor has it that Coon Rapids will lose 2-4 skaters to the varsity squad.
Rumor is right......Can't be 100%, but I would be surprised to see any one of these players make the Varsity
Very true, but I think the number is more like 6-7 kids going to play varsity.
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 12:10 pm
by loveitorleaveit
mngopherfan wrote:How will Rogers be?? They were a tough team to play last year...
CR and Rogers are playing Sat in a tryout scrimmage. Rogers looked ok when the two teams played last week.
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:53 pm
by blueliner5
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 1:55 pm
by MaxSnatch
I heard last night that CR will lose their goaltender and 4-5 of their top skaters to HS. Looking at their HS team, these kids could be playing varsity by the start of the season......
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:16 pm
by blueliner5
MaxSnatch wrote:I heard last night that CR will lose their goaltender and 4-5 of their top skaters to HS. Looking at their HS team, these kids could be playing varsity by the start of the season......
Max...If, this is true, most likely the H.S. Coach will be cutting Seniors to begin the rebuilding process. This will leave a dominant Junior class team with the Sophmore class placing 1 or 2 on the squad. This will leave the "A" Bantam team high and dry! Do you think the"A" Bantam coach knows this? I hope so cuz if he doesn't it's going to be a long season for all. I think (my opinion only) this is highly unlikely, but I have been wrong many times before. Isn't the goalies Dad on the Varsity coaching staff?
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:39 pm
by Duluth East Hockey Fan
blueliner5 wrote:MaxSnatch wrote:I heard last night that CR will lose their goaltender and 4-5 of their top skaters to HS. Looking at their HS team, these kids could be playing varsity by the start of the season......
Max...If, this is true, most likely the H.S. Coach will be cutting Seniors to begin the rebuilding process. This will leave a dominant Junior class team with the Sophmore class placing 1 or 2 on the squad. This will leave the "A" Bantam team high and dry! Do you think the"A" Bantam coach knows this? I hope so cuz if he doesn't it's going to be a long season for all. I think (my opinion only) this is highly unlikely, but I have been wrong many times before. Isn't the goalies Dad on the Varsity coaching staff?
A varsity coach cutting seniors to be begin rebuilding??? Leaving a bantam a team high and dry???
I can't imagine that a varsity coach would do such a thing....My God that seems impossible!!
Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 10:16 pm
by forecheckbcpc
CR will lose some kids to the HS program this year, just like many D10 teams. ER, Blaine, Anoka and St. Cloud seem to always take some Bantam eligible players, so the District most likely will be mediocre at best. D10 Bantam coaches should be used to losing players with the exception of Centennial, that has good numbers and good players from a successful youth program. D10 teams will not be a factor when it counts at the end of the season.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 6:38 am
by BlackTape
There will be 12 A bantam teams this season and 13 B1 Bantam teams this season.
Sauk Rapids and Chisago Lakes will be sand bagging again this season at the B1 level.
If Coon Rapids doesn't lose their core group of players, then they will be tough this season. I still beleive that it will be either Centennial or Elk River taking the title.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 1:29 pm
by play4fun
[quote="BlackTape"]
Sauk Rapids and Chisago Lakes will be sand bagging again this season at the B1 level.
quote]
Really? Sand bagging? Or, do they have a good grasp on what level their kids can compete? If they were to play A, where would you rank them?
If anything, there are a couple of A squads that might be better off competing at the B1 level. Just my opinion.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 10:31 pm
by blindref
I think Sauk Rapids would be better off challenging their kids and trying to play A. They used to do it when Raduns was there a few years back.
If they went 18-30 and improved at the end of the year, their kids would develop more than going 45-3 playing half of their kids down a level.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:00 pm
by Chuck Norris Fan
blindref wrote:I think Sauk Rapids would be better off challenging their kids and trying to play A. They used to do it when Raduns was there a few years back.
If they went 18-30 and improved at the end of the year, their kids would develop more than going 45-3 playing half of their kids down a level.
They were a lot better the years they had Raduns and Peckskamp (also D1 at St. Cloud) they had good players and good coaching and were in the top half of D10. Of course that is when St. Cloud was the bomb with Howe and Bakker, Blaine and Coon Rapids rounded out the top 3. Centennial was a peon of D10 then. Hell SLP was good with Backes and Urista!
A couple years later Sauk was good again and competed at a high level but some poor coaching probably held that group back.
Plain and simple they don't have the talent they used to. The split from Sartell has changed all that. Maybe they will again some day, their last year at the A level they got worked and did not get the 18 wins you speak of.
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2009 11:20 pm
by blindref
Chuck,
You are probably right.
I did see their team play 4-5 times last year and they good size, skills, special teams and goaltending.
I don't think they have any D-1 prospects (yet), but who knows.
They probably had 7-8 true A bantams on the team.
I just thought it seemed like they would get up a few goals and go on cruise control. They weren't challenged much and probably didn't have to learn how to play from behind very often.
They were well coached, they could have been a nasty, physical team; but he had them playing pretty disciplined hockey.
It will be interesting to see how things shake out in the CLC in a couple of years with this bunch.
District 10 Bantam Rankings
Posted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 11:58 am
by Sneakyfast99
Talking about teams that should or should not play A level, you have CINB going A bantam (keep in mind this is the year they ususally play competitevly) but have lost the top 7 kids to private schools, high school and moves. This team brings 6 kids that have never played A squirts or A peewees and have 5 first year bantams coming from the A peewee team and they were not the top on the A peewee team. And a goaltender that has played about 8 months at the goalie position. I can already hear the complaints that people had to travel to Isanti for this.....and it gets better with a small association that are only fielding 2 bantam teams, they are also going with B1 bantam. All first years and a couple that are perfect contenders for a C bantam team. Coaches and board must know something everyone else doesn't.......
Re: District 10 Bantam Rankings
Posted: Tue Oct 13, 2009 2:31 pm
by loveitorleaveit
Sneakyfast99 wrote:Talking about teams that should or should not play A level, you have CINB going A bantam (keep in mind this is the year they ususally play competitevly) but have lost the top 7 kids to private schools, high school and moves. This team brings 6 kids that have never played A squirts or A peewees and have 5 first year bantams coming from the A peewee team and they were not the top on the A peewee team. And a goaltender that has played about 8 months at the goalie position. I can already hear the complaints that people had to travel to Isanti for this.....and it gets better with a small association that are only fielding 2 bantam teams, they are also going with B1 bantam. All first years and a couple that are perfect contenders for a C bantam team. Coaches and board must know something everyone else doesn't.......
Maybe they have it right like teams in the north. Play A or don't play at all.
Posted: Thu Oct 15, 2009 12:43 pm
by smalltownhockey21
Agreed with Loveitorleaveit, play up a level let the kids what they will be seeing in High School. Youth Programs are there to develop kids..I think some people get caught up in having that perfect record.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:16 am
by Cowboy
Yea, the board of directors have it right. Youth hockey is not about the kids and allowing them to have fun. It is about developing players for the high school program. That way instead of a team like Cambridge losing 8-0 against Duluth East in the section quarterfinals they will only lose 6-2 and it will all be worth it.
Because it is a proven fact that playing over your head and losing every game makes you a better player. I hear next year that CINB is planning on going with 3 A bantam teams and no B/C teams so even more kids can develop.
In fact the varsity program is trying to line up some scrimmages with WCHA teams so the h.s. players will learn to play at a faster pace and it will help them prepare for the rigors of playing in the Mississippi 8 conference.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 6:46 am
by Cowboy
But seriously, while CINB did lose 7 bantam players this year they weren't the 7 best players. 2 of the kids would have been the top 2 players, 1 left the year before, 2 wouldn't have made the A team anyway if everyone would have returned, and 2 were solid players for sure but replaceable. In fact one of them probably wouldn't have made the A team if everyone came back and CINB had 3 teams instead of 2 just because of the position he played.
But on the bright side, along with losing the 7 players they also lost their parents.
It's just nice to see that many parents taking such an interest in their kids' education. Paying for a private school in these difficult times is to be commended. And splitting the family up by having mom and junior live in another town is a real sacrifice but worth it for that good education. It's just a coincidence that their new schools have very good hockey programs. Seriously. They told me themselves.
It just goes to show what a terrible program they have in Cambridge; they had at least 5 future NHLers on one youth team and they still couldn't compete with the elite programs.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 8:43 am
by blueliner5
[quote="MaxSnatch"]I heard last night that CR will lose their goaltender and 4-5 of their top skaters to HS. Looking at their HS team, these kids could be playing varsity by the start of the season......[/quote
Max... you might want to check back with your source/sources. A Bantam team will not be losing 4-5 skaters to the H.S. Varsity team
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 1:38 pm
by smalltownhockey21
Cowboy you are wayyyy fired up you must have a kid playing in the association. But I am not sure that comparing scrimmaging HS teams to WCHA teams is comparable to playing up at a level you might not have the talent to play at.
I think their association needs some work, but playing up is ok. Show the parents the kind of commitement they need to have their kids skate at this level. I just don't understand why its such a big deal to parents if the kids are having fun playing at higher levels?
Youth hockey has gotten so bad, parents I get it are trying to protect their kids. But seriously if the kids want to work hard and try to get to that next level and say if they are a "C" or "B2" player and they go "B1" and by the end of the year they start winning some games...I think the association/Coaches have done their jobs.
There are plenty of associations that play higher then they should it happens all over. Every parent thinks their kid is better then where they are placed for the most part. Especially in hockey it seems, but hey you keep hating on people must make for a great life...lol.
Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2009 9:22 pm
by MaxSnatch
blueliner5 wrote:MaxSnatch wrote:I heard last night that CR will lose their goaltender and 4-5 of their top skaters to HS. Looking at their HS team, these kids could be playing varsity by the start of the season......[/quote
Max... you might want to check back with your source/sources. A Bantam team will not be losing 4-5 skaters to the H.S. Varsity team
The Snatch has only been wrong one time and it eventually turned out that I was right.!.!.!.!.! Enjoy the next month and you may want to take in a B practice so you can take a look at some of your future A players
Posted: Sun Oct 18, 2009 5:34 pm
by blueliner5
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 6:40 am
by Cowboy
Actually I'm not that fired up about CINB hockey. I have no problem with pushing kids out of their comfort zone but there is a point when it becomes absurd. What I do get tired of is always pushing kids so they can get ready for the "next level". If the kids are having fun, fine. But when there is a higher than normal rate of kids that are switching programs or quitting maybe things should be evaluated.
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 9:26 am
by steelheader
Don't you think thaose players would have left if A hockey was not available at CI?
Then the criticism would be that they are losing players because they are a B level association.
District 10 Bantam Rankings
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:48 am
by Sneakyfast99
Cowboy wrote:But seriously, while CINB did lose 7 bantam players this year they weren't the 7 best players. 2 of the kids would have been the top 2 players, 1 left the year before, 2 wouldn't have made the A team anyway if everyone would have returned, and 2 were solid players for sure but replaceable. In fact one of them probably wouldn't have made the A team if everyone came back and CINB had 3 teams instead of 2 just because of the position he played.
But on the bright side, along with losing the 7 players they also lost their parents.
It's just nice to see that many parents taking such an interest in their kids' education. Paying for a private school in these difficult times is to be commended. And splitting the family up by having mom and junior live in another town is a real sacrifice but worth it for that good education. It's just a coincidence that their new schools have very good hockey programs. Seriously. They told me themselves.
It just goes to show what a terrible program they have in Cambridge; they had at least 5 future NHLers on one youth team and they still couldn't compete with the elite programs.
Cowboy, has your child played with this group in the past since you are so knowlegeable about whats going on, maybe I can help clarify some details for you, actually it is 6 players that have moved on from this group that has been playing together every other year for the last 4 years. Most of this group was their best players too. 3-4 were the best of the team, Everyone one of them would have made this A bantam team this year every one. Yes you are correct about losing the parents too, I suppose your feelings on that depends on if you got along with them or not, actually a lot of great parents and put a lot of time and effort and money into their childs hockey training and probably do have more hockey sense and knowledge than a lot of the small town association CINB carries. For the three that went to private schools, lets see better schooling and being able to play on a team that their talents will be gratified and rewarded. For the other 3 either moving out of association, 1 trying the fire, and 1 transferring to a new high school they all have reasons that their families think is best for their child or family who are you to say any different.....is cambridges program terrible no but do they have things to work on yes like everyone else, but their bantam decisions this year between the coaches and board are quite questionable. Preliminary scrimmage for A bantam CINB, Forest lake 12 CINB 4 scored some goals at least, what will Elk River Bantam A or Blaine Bantam A do to this team, only time will tell........
