HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I heard that they just won the Showcase Spring League. I guess they beat Osseo, Elk River, and Anoka. They also crushed Rogers. Is this team really going to be this strong in the winter?

Govs' nephew is a 4 year old who will be in the program next year. You better believe that in 2021, the Jackets are going to be a team to reckon with.


I have no opinion until then.

Mister Hockey wrote:I heard that they just won the Showcase Spring League. I guess they beat Osseo, Elk River, and Anoka. They also crushed Rogers. Is this team really going to be this strong in the winter?

They also played in a Tier II division in which many of the other teams used Bantams and younger JV players with a smattering of players with Varsity experience while they used (info I got from one of their parents) a vast majority of older players, juniors and seniors to be with only a few younger players. In my opinion, they were more cheap than good. GR put together a younger team to play 8 games over two weekends and their game vs Cambridge was stopped due to the extreme amount of cheap penalties. Not cheap as in bad call either, cheap as in WOW was that stupid. No one from Cambridge should get their hopes up as CI will most likely be battling it out for the 8 seed in the play in game next Feb.

Mister Hockey wrote:I heard that they just won the Showcase Spring League. I guess they beat Osseo, Elk River, and Anoka. They also crushed Rogers. Is this team really going to be this strong in the winter?

Did these teams that Camb-Isanti beat, have any varsity level kids on their teams? Returning varsity time?

I find it hard to believe that if any of those teams had returning players on the team would lose to them.

GR3343 wrote:

Mister Hockey wrote:I heard that they just won the Showcase Spring League. I guess they beat Osseo, Elk River, and Anoka. They also crushed Rogers. Is this team really going to be this strong in the winter?

They also played in a Tier II division in which many of the other teams used Bantams and younger JV players with a smattering of players with Varsity experience while they used (info I got from one of their parents) a vast majority of older players, juniors and seniors to be with only a few younger players. In my opinion, they were more cheap than good. GR put together a younger team to play 8 games over two weekends and their game vs Cambridge was stopped due to the extreme amount of cheap penalties. Not cheap as in bad call either, cheap as in WOW was that stupid. No one from Cambridge should get their hopes up as CI will most likely be battling it out for the 8 seed in the play in game next Feb.

Agreed!
Rogers had mostly bantam and JV players and played in the T1 league, and were about .500, and I believe only 2 Varsity players that played any regular time last year were playing, when they weren't playing Bball.

Cambridge-Isanti is a dirty hockey team. Showcase means nothing. They are not a good team at all. Sorry, its just the facts.

Cheap would be nothing new for this program. It's been a blue collar nut job outfit from the start.

Marty McSorely wrote:Cheap would be nothing new for this program. It's been a blue collar nut job outfit from the start.

That's the attitude that was portrayed by both players and fans when I saw them play earlier this spring. They were all pretty proud of the cheap shots thrown and given by members of their "Elite Showcase" team.

give cambridge hockey about 3 or 4 more years and they will be in the middle of the section 7 pack. They had a decent Peewee A team (which they have never had before) and beat some quality teams, a few were ranked I believe. A few factors that will decide how good they will be is if they actually hire a good coach that knows what he is doing. And also if the younger Chumley stays. I heard his family isn't to fond of Cambridge and Garet tried to transfer. Its only a matter of time they are no longer competing for the bottom of the section year and year out.

Are you joking about the Pee Wee A team. I saw them in Rochester, only 1 player had any skill or composure and she'll play girls hockey someday. The tourney was full of weak teams and I believe they finished dead last.

2 Bantams
6 or 7 jv
6 varsity
Goalie had only a couple periods of varsity last year.
Alternate player (half dozen games) was cut from hs. last year.

The played two Tier 1 teams, lost to NSP 4-1 and beat Rogers 7-2.

Showcase is a cheap league. They played some games that were full of that kind of stuff and some that were played cleanly. Never one-sided.

That PW player you are talking about was middle of the pack on that team last year.

I take it then the top half of the team didn't go to Rochester

You are still talking about the girl, I wasn't.

Anyway, this started by someone asking if C-I is improving. It remains to be seen, obviously but whether some will admit it or not there has been some talented, yet very selfish players come through the program. We've seen how far that got the players and the team. Junior A tier 3 for one player and zero section wins (play-ins don't count).

This team decided to play together at Showcase to get better for next season. They were not allowed into Tier 1, but to the director's credit he came and watched them halfway through and scheduled Tier 1 games after seeing them play. Their goal was to get better as a TEAM and also get into Tier 1 for the fall. They accomplished both of those.

They didn't have a girl on their Peewee A team last year....I just looked and they beat Coon Rapids who was ranked 12th for Peewee A. So obviously they can compete at the top level.

They did have a girl on PW A. Not the topic here, though.

showcase tier II.. congrats on beating those teams. CONGRATTTSSSS

will CI challege for M-8 crown?

HOFam'r wrote:will CI challege for M-8 crown?

No.

Puckguy19 wrote:

HOFam'r wrote:will CI challege for M-8 crown?

No.

But they might challenge !

Can't Never Tried wrote:

Puckguy19 wrote:

HOFam'r wrote:will CI challege for M-8 crown?

No.

But they might challenge !

what about Rogers???

HOFam'r wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote:

Puckguy19 wrote: No.

But they might challenge !

what about Rogers???

I think they'll be OK, they will have an almost all Sr. group, but return only about a 1/2 dozen tested varsity players, goal tending again this year is a question mark.
All I can say at this point is that it will be interesting, a lot will depend on how some of these players prepare themselves here in the off season.

Can't Never Tried wrote:

HOFam'r wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote: But they might challenge !

what about Rogers???

I think they'll be OK, they will have an almost all Sr. group, but return only about a 1/2 dozen tested varsity players, goal tending again this year is a question mark.
All I can say at this point is that it will be interesting, a lot will depend on how some of these players prepare themselves here in the off season.

Buffalo... if everyone plays... will be very solid but very untested at goalie. They are returning 80% of their scoring and will have at least 3 very solid defensemen...this team should just fly and be high scoring...however, I go back to style of play again...if they play how they have been they lose alot of tight games...if they open it up they could have chance at the dance. Let the kids battle and win or lose...certainly the 1-2-2 forecheck against Roseau ended up horrible...

Can't Never Tried wrote:

HOFam'r wrote:

Can't Never Tried wrote: But they might challenge !

what about Rogers???

I think they'll be OK, they will have an almost all Sr. group, but return only about a 1/2 dozen tested varsity players, goal tending again this year is a question mark.
All I can say at this point is that it will be interesting, a lot will depend on how some of these players prepare themselves here in the off season.

Rogers will have a solid goalie in Austin Eakman

Cambridge hired Chad Carlson as their new varsity head coach. He was an asst. last year. I believe he is from Forest Lake and teaches in the Cambridge school district..

So far they have not won a game at the Wal-Mart cup.