Johnson/Como "B" Pee Wee's win Edina Tourney

Johnsonpres · Post by **Johnsonpres** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:30 am

Johnson/Como beat Minnetonka 1 to 0 to win the "B" Pee Wee Edina Tourney. In the semi finals they beat Edina 2 to 1.

Trout · Post by **Trout** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:52 am

Nice win, it is a great tourney to win the Championship in Edina...

This team is ceratainly up near the top of the Pee Wee B ranks.

YouthHockeyHub · Post by **YouthHockeyHub** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:54 am

Yes a great win for them indeed. Congrats! They lost this weekend to Edina and had a tie with Wayzata...they fell out of our top spot in the rankings. My guess is they will go right back to #1 again next Monday.

TS

Johnsonpres · Post by **Johnsonpres** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:57 am

People are complaining that this team is a "B" team but don't forget the larger associations mostly chose to Go the "AA" and "A" route first. This team is where it belongs. We heard the same thing last week from the parents when our Squirt "B" team played Lakeville South and beat them 7 to 2 but than we lost the next day to Woodbury.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:02 pm

I guess it depends on if you are looking out for the development of your players or just trying to win games. I would argue that with the new AA / A system they should have played A. In the old system B1 may have been a decent option. You have your top 17 (assuming full rosters) playing against other associations 35 to 51. I also know you have a least one 8th grader that is a few weeks from being a Bantam on the Pee-wee team. It could be a possibility that he plays Varsity next year as a freshman - The smart move would have been have him play up with the B1 bantams if you cared about player development. Don't get me wrong I like seeing Johnson have success the only issue is at what cost? The best thing for St. Paul would be to take a note from MPLS - Drop the ego's (Highland / Johnson / Como) and go with one team so all kids have the opportunity to play at the level they deserve to be at.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:50 pm

hockeyfan74 wrote:I guess it depends on if you are looking out for the development of your players or just trying to win games. I would argue that with the new AA / A system they should have played A. In the old system B1 may have been a decent option. You have your top 17 (assuming full rosters) playing against other associations 35 to 51. I also know you have a least one 8th grader that is a few weeks from being a Bantam on the Pee-wee team. It could be a possibility that he plays Varsity next year as a freshman - The smart move would have been have him play up with the B1 bantams if you cared about player development. Don't get me wrong I like seeing Johnson have success the only issue is at what cost? The best thing for St. Paul would be to take a note from MPLS - Drop the ego's (Highland / Johnson / Como) and go with one team so all kids have the opportunity to play at the level they deserve to be at.

As I understand it they barely beat Edinas 35-51 and then barely beat Minnetonka's 35-51 (one goal each). This does not appear to be some ego driven attempt to win - although that may be part of it. It appears that they are a strong B1 team but wouldn't necessarily be a strong A team. And who are you to say what level kids "deserve" to play at. These kids may be very happy having success at B1. And it's not up to the association to worry about what's best for one kid vs. what's best for all. If he and his family wanted him to play at Bantams, they could have asked for a waiver. It is possible to develop and win games.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:20 pm

Blue/white - I sent you a pm concerning part of your response. Don't think it needs to be addressed in a public form. I do appreciate your response - I coach a team that is playing at a higher level and struggling. I have a great group of kids. We have 1/3 of the kids that belong at the level - 1/3 that are questionable and a 1/3 that don't belong. The team could have very easily played down a level and had much more success. The issue with that is the top players would not get challenged. We certainly could win a lot more games and probably had a few close ones. If you have an option to play up and face tougher competition I feel that is the better option. Just my opinion and I know there will be many. All the kids on the team have seen significant improvement and even though we have not won a ton of games moral is good. To be clear - I don't have a child on the team. I do have boys playing just on a different teams. I love to coach and there was a need on a team so I filled that need. It has been a fun challenge and I feel for the players I have it was the better choice to move up and struggle then stay down for more wins in the win column.

Bluewhitefan · Post by **Bluewhitefan** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:32 pm

hockeyfan74 wrote:Blue/white - I sent you a pm concerning part of your response. Don't think it needs to be addressed in a public form. I do appreciate your response - I coach a team that is playing at a higher level and struggling. I have a great group of kids. We have 1/3 of the kids that belong at the level - 1/3 that are questionable and a 1/3 that don't belong. The team could have very easily played down a level and had much more success. The issue with that is the top players would not get challenged. We certainly could win a lot more games and probably had a few close ones. If you have an option to play up and face tougher competition I feel that is the better option. Just my opinion and I know there will be many. All the kids on the team have seen significant improvement and even though we have not won a ton of games moral is good. To be clear - I don't have a child on the team. I do have boys playing just on a different teams. I love to coach and there was a need on a team so I filled that need. It has been a fun challenge and I feel for the players I have it was the better choice to move up and struggle then stay down for more wins in the win column.

It truly is one of the oldest debates on these boards and comes up every time a Denfeld or Como type team comes up. Bottom line is that it will always be difficult to get all the kids a great experience no matter what level they play at.

Trout · Post by **Trout** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:42 pm

definately a debate we have seen a lot of.

A little different twist this year with the A / AA dynamic.

I see a lot of the single "A" teams that have a "AA" big brother struggling to hit a .500 winning %. It seems only Edina and Wayzata are doing it consistently.

There will likely be some of the same arguments against the big associations that didn't do it and elected to spllit equal B1 teams between players 16 and 45 (WBL and Stillwater at Pee Wee and Bantams and Woodbury at Pee Wee). We can all talk about development all we want but losing seasons are not great for development either if you lose the majority of your games most are not very happy. tough call...

Like I said I am not sure everyone who is in that under .500 single A group would elect to do it again.

In the end no one has the crystal ball and most don't really know how well the group would do if they moved up a level.

Johnsonpres · Post by **Johnsonpres** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:06 pm

When people say we are playing their 35th through 51st players the may be right but we only have 34 pee wee's at Johnson/Como with 14 being on the "B" team with one goalie and 20 on the "C" team which has hardly won a game. As far as joining with Highland that would be fine but the cost of hockey would go up for our families that most would just quit hockey.

Snoopdog007 · Post by **Snoopdog007** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:22 pm

Trout wrote:definately a debate we have seen a lot of.

A little different twist this year with the A / AA dynamic.

I see a lot of the single "A" teams that have a "AA" big brother struggling to hit a .500 winning %. It seems only Edina and Wayzata are doing it consistently.

There will likely be some of the same arguments against the big associations that didn't do it and elected to spllit equal B1 teams between players 16 and 45 (WBL and Stillwater at Pee Wee and Bantams and Woodbury at Pee Wee). We can all talk about development all we want but losing seasons are not great for development either if you lose the majority of your games most are not very happy. tough call...

Like I said I am not sure everyone who is in that under .500 single A group would elect to do it again.

In the end no one has the crystal ball and most don't really know how well the group would do if they moved up a level.

Stated perfectly Trout. The idea of player/team development does not always mean playing at higher levels where you lose many games. There are many teams having success at lower level but are still being developed in many ways. You can learn a lot while having success just as you can facing adversity. Many of these teams are not doig this to collect wins and trophies. This is why I have been screaming to allow single A teams and B1 teams scrimmage during the pilot season. We now know (January 1st) which teams are having success at B1 level and which ones are struggling at A level.

Trout · Post by **Trout** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:38 pm

I agree with you Snoopdog. It might be nice to see how some of these B1 teams would do agianst some of those A teams.

The funny thing is next year the groups change, the kids change and the associations will make decisions based on last years results which quite frankly will mean nothing. Like I said it is all a guess at the beginning of the year.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 2:40 pm

I saw this team play this weekend and huge congrats to them for bouncing back from a pretty thorough butt-kicking from Edina in pool play.

Should they be playing up to A? Maybe, but that's a two or three season question, not one after results from a single tournament.

The same could be said of North Metro, who have a top-10 B1 team at Peewee.

I think some raw success in the Win/Loss category can do huge things for the kids and for the association. Beating Edina and Tonka -- those are memories those kids are going to have long after they've forgotten what level they were playing.

The fact is, Edina and Tonka's B1 Peewees could play competitively with many A teams -- but no one is arguing that they should. Their associations are as deep as Johnson's is shallow. These close games tell me they are playing where they should be, and if we're going to err in division placement, let's err on the side of smaller and weaker and maybe just barely growing associations, who retain great players and attract new ones by winning more games than they lose.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 3:12 pm

I am not basing my comments off 1 tournament - They have all their scores listed on their website - they are 20 - 2 - 1 including 10 - 0 in district play - outscoring their opponents 43 - 11 in districts and 95 - 29 overall. If you read on their website - they are consistently outshooting their opponents - including Edina in the loss. This is from their website.

I do agree Mn Hockey should allow the struggling A teams to play the top end B1 - would be good for both - once peoples egos can get away from the letter designation. It is not an easy answer but I would definitely disagree with the comment that losing hurts development. My team is 3 - 15 - 1 and the parents are very happy with the improvement we have had from day 1. It all starts with expectations - As a coach and a program you need to be clear with your communication and expectations.

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 4:29 pm

My opinion is I would always error on the side of playing up. From what I've seen, youth hockey teams have a tendancy to play to the level of their competition, either up or down. I'd rather see the kids elevating their game by forcing them to play up. What has to be determined is when it becomes a case of diminishing returns to do so.

One advantage I can see to winning and putting up a lot of goals, the kids will learn how to put the puck in the net. If they're being outshot 40-5 every game it's kinda hard to develop that skill.

57special · Post by **57special** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 5:35 pm

You do realize that Edina beat them 6-1 earlier, don't you? Beating Tonka and Edina by one goal margins is hardly a basis for moving up to the "A" ranks. Let the kids win some for a change, maybe have a chance at a State title. Something like that will definitely attract a few kids to the program, or at least keep some playing.

I'm pretty sure that Edina will be adding another team at either the A or B1 level next year. They have enough talented kids at the B2 level to make a very competitive B1 team.

C-dad · Post by **C-dad** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:56 am

57special wrote:You do realize that Edina beat them 6-1 earlier, don't you? Beating Tonka and Edina by one goal margins is hardly a basis for moving up to the "A" ranks. Let the kids win some for a change, maybe have a chance at a State title. Something like that will definitely attract a few kids to the program, or at least keep some playing.

I'm pretty sure that Edina will be adding another team at either the A or B1 level next year. They have enough talented kids at the B2 level to make a very competitive B1 team.

Same for Edina's Bantam B2s. All 3 are top 3 in District with no losses, except to each other.

Think they couldn't have made a second B1 out of that group?

57special · Post by **57special** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 8:58 am

Tell me about it! There are some kids in Edina B2 that wouldn't look out of place on the A team, and could play on the AA teams of many associations. Another B1 team would give the existing Edina B1 a run for the money.

On the flip side, the PWB2 Waconia team is an example of what happens when you push your kids up to a level they don't belong. Don't think they've won all year, and are obviously outclassed. Feel sorry for the kids.

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 10:59 am

57 - read the whole post - I said they even outshot Edina in their loss - so clearly I saw they lost to Edina. Maybe goalie had an off day - Once again according to their website they outshot Tonka 26 - 10 in there 1 - 0 victory. Game not as close as the score according to the J/C website. I am sure there are all sorts of examples of teams that could play up - Once again in my opinion it is better play up. It is not like they didn't have an idea - They have at least 5 returners from a B1 pee-wee team that was 1 game away from a state tourney appearance last year. With the new format I still believe this team could have competed at the single A level - maybe not for a state title but they would have been fine - I would guess around .500. I know there top end - mostly 99's and a few 8th graders - How many B1 pee-wee teams have that. I would argue if you are looking out for player development you challenge those kids and in my opinion playing B1 pee-wee's is not challenging those kids on a consistent basis - maybe a game here or there. The A level would have presented a better challenge and there is nothing wrong with going .500.

iseepalms · Post by **iseepalms** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:41 pm

I see by the Johnson/Como website that their home tourney is next weekend, if they blow everyone away there the writing is on the wall.
Usually that tournament doesn't have many good teams in it. Does anyone know who is in the tournament? the website is poor at best for tournament information.

Shinbone_News · Post by **Shinbone_News** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 10:11 am

The problem with a universal "rule" y'all are throwing out about whether a team should play up or play down is that it doesn't take into account an association's individual needs and plans or the players in the pipeline. Johnsonpres could speak to this more authoritatively than me, but from my armchair I'd say Johnson/Como is dealing with a decade of decline and scant growth. It's a proud, historic association -- home association of Herb Brooks, if memory serves -- and judging by the "spirit" of current parents, very eager to recapture some of that old glory. Sometimes development simply means recruiting and retaining. After that, you can have the luxury of worrying whether to play up or play down.

That all said, if this team really missed the state tournament by one game last year with a handful of returning 99s.... well, I have to wonder about their conference schedule at the B1 level, and how badly they must be blowing up the mid-pack teams. Good opponents make you better not so much during games, but because they expose what your weaknesses are and then you work on those things in practice. Not many apparent weakenesses in a team that's running at about 20-2-0. Other than your opponents.

Johnsonpres · Post by **Johnsonpres** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:22 pm

Thanks Shinebone_news, You are exactly correct we have a proud tradition in both the Johnson and Como areas. If you look at last year our "B" Pee Wee team did get one game from the state tournament and yes their are a couple of returning players but in the large association like Edina, Minnetonka and others they go to the state tourney every year. I would like to see all of you on this board next year when the talent drops back down. It seems like just because a team from a small organization does well for a couple years it is gospel, so not true. Just remember with the "AA" and "A" teams the large associations are watered down and that is not the fault of a small association like ours. We have less say than the big boys and this is how they want it. If they don't like it this way go"A" and have a strong "B" team. Than the small associations will be forced to play "C". Like I have posted in the past we only have 34 Pee Wee's and 34 Squirts. I like the idea that if you choose to go "B" you can play "A" teams until January 1st and decide. Don't start league play until than.

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:11 pm

Way to go Johnson/Como!

The only way to avoid peaks and valleys is with a continuous pro-active recruiting effort. Any knowledge regarding the number of new mites this year?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:40 pm

Is AA and A all the same A level like MNH says or is B-1 really the new B-2 and B-2 must be the new C? Not sure how to describe the current C teams....

Nobody knew where to declare since there was a total lack of common sense from MNH in this AA/A fiasco. No, Johnson-Como should not have played at the "A" level if they took MNH for knowing what they were talking about.

They should just be happy they're not part of the Slaughter-Fest that is going on between all the "A" (

) teams in District 10.

Would be nice to see a trophy taken away from Ediner... Good Luck!

hockeyfan74 · Post by **hockeyfan74** » Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:45 pm

Johnsonpres - Let's remember who started this post - that would be you. We all understand teams have peaks and valley's. Yes the numbers are low in the J/C association - I also know of quite a few families that have left in the last couple years for reason that don't need to be posted but could have been prevented. I have a lot of friends from the eastside and do like to see J/C having success. As you said take a year by year - it was not a secret this years pee-wee team would be strong with the returners. Then challenge those players this year and play single A and if next year is not as strong play B1. Not matter who the Association is the goal should be to develop the players that play for your teams. I believe your squirt and bantam teams are where they belong - B1 and B. They are having success but being challenged on a more consistent basis. I know the demographics of St. Paul are much different and commend all of the people involved in the J/C Hockey association for fighting to keep both traditions going, but sometimes you need to listen to people that want to help and not push them away. Best of Luck to the J/C pee-wees - Go get a state title.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Johnson/Como "B" Pee Wee's win Edina Tourney

Johnson/Como "B" Pee Wee's win Edina Tourney

Johnson/Como Tournament