PDA

View Full Version : UNH Recruits: 2012-2014



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 [45] 46 47 48 49 50

dover4345
12-25-2011, 07:35 PM
And I have not bashed an 18 year old kid. I have stated I do not feel he is ready for college hockey next season. I have stated he has not proved in the USHL that he is ready for college hockey. I have stated that his numbers are not impressive. I have said I would not refer to him as a TOP recruit. At no point did I say he was a bad player. At no point did I say he wont eventually find a home. I am entitled to my opinion. I am not alone in my opinion. If he is not playing college hockey next season it shows that college coaches agree with me that he is not ready...Just back your underage argument up---we are going in circles...just agree to disagree on his talent level.

Umileated
12-25-2011, 08:29 PM
*Speculation Alert*

I've been passively reading this thread for the last few days. We can conclude that MV was indeed asked to wait out a year, and that MV opted to withdraw his commitment to UNH after this request was made. Exactly how much of that decision was dictated by other matters such as insufficient communication has been one of the points debated here without resolve. That issue doesn't greatly concern me, nor the remainder of this post.

The first question I ask is why did UNH ask somebody to wait a year? I believe someone mentioned that there are 6 forwards scheduled to come in next year, and 3 scheduled to leave. Forgive me if I got the numbers wrong, I've lost track of nearly every detail in this argument. If this imbalanced influx is true, then it makes sense to put someone off. It's not a great situation, but I'd file it under "you made the mess, now clean it up."

Now let's take it as a given for the sake of the next question that UNH had to postpone at least one of the incoming forwards. Now the question is "Why Mikey, and not one of the other guys?"

So far I've seen three explanations. Forgive me for oversimplifying them.
1) MV isn't a great prospect, so it doesn't matter if he's here now, later or never.
2) MV will be a great player, but hasn't proven it yet in the USHL. Asking him to wait is a wise move, and his withdrawal is a wicked bummer.
3) MV already is an amazing player, and the coaching staff is getting old and stupid in their management of recruiting.

Let me now raise a couple of considerations that came to me while trying to get to sleep on the sofa back home last night.

1) I believe I read an outline of the USHL/EJHL tenure of each incoming recruit in one of the posts of this thread. I could be wrong and would be raising a moot point, but I believe MV was the only one listed with <1 year of experience at that level. My untrained mind is inclined to say that a USHL player with 1 year of experience will gain more towards his potential than a USHL player with 2-3 years of experience at that level by sticking around a while longer. In this thought I am not comparing the two players to each other, simply to their respective potential abilities. In this train of thought, I would be inclined to leave the player behind who would most benefit from that circumstance. Economically, the USHL is making your recruits better on their dime. Once they're here, scholarship or none, bench warmer or not, that player is an expense to UNH. It makes sense to me to get the most out of these leagues as possible. I'm not claiming authority here, so please don't read this as "this is absolutely what Coach Dickie was thinking" kind of post. If you have the numbers that I'm vaguely referencing (C-H-C?), please help me out here.

2) The short term success of the shift aside, I would argue that the team has a radically different defensive presence when compared to years past with the addition of Tortorella as the defense coach. I think it's possible that we're going to see a shift in the identity of the team in the next few years. We don't yet know how much of an asset Quast will be, but he and Knodel are setting a possible trend of big, heavy defensive players that might be best used to slow down the opposing team on our oversized rink. Is it worth considering that with a new defensive strategy coming into play that the staff would now be looking for different veins of development in someone like MV, whether he was on track to begin with or not?

3) It seems that the general consensus is that the current lineup is not as great as ones of years past (07-08 vs 01-02, take your pick). I'm inclined to agree with this, and it leads me to think that UNH might be looking to rebuild its lineup. In contrast to a pro team that's looking to rebuild, UNH can't simply dump and trade the players it no longer desires. Rebuilding will have to take place over a period of years to cycle through current players. Given this idea, is it better to bring in your stronger players as soon as possible, or would you rather hold them off and get your mediocre ones in, out and over with? If we accept that MV is superior to the majority of his co-recruits, would this be an acceptable explanation for putting him off for a year?

C-H-C
12-25-2011, 10:30 PM
*Speculation Alert*

I've been passively reading this thread for the last few days. We can conclude that MV was indeed asked to wait out a year, and that MV opted to withdraw his commitment to UNH after this request was made. Exactly how much of that decision was dictated by other matters such as insufficient communication has been one of the points debated here without resolve. That issue doesn't greatly concern me, nor the remainder of this post.

The first question I ask is why did UNH ask somebody to wait a year? I believe someone mentioned that there are 6 forwards scheduled to come in next year, and 3 scheduled to leave. Forgive me if I got the numbers wrong, I've lost track of nearly every detail in this argument. If this imbalanced influx is true, then it makes sense to put someone off. It's not a great situation, but I'd file it under "you made the mess, now clean it up."

Now let's take it as a given for the sake of the next question that UNH had to postpone at least one of the incoming forwards. Now the question is "Why Mikey, and not one of the other guys?"

So far I've seen three explanations. Forgive me for oversimplifying them.
1) MV isn't a great prospect, so it doesn't matter if he's here now, later or never.
2) MV will be a great player, but hasn't proven it yet in the USHL. Asking him to wait is a wise move, and his withdrawal is a wicked bummer.
3) MV already is an amazing player, and the coaching staff is getting old and stupid in their management of recruiting.

Let me now raise a couple of considerations that came to me while trying to get to sleep on the sofa back home last night.

1) I believe I read an outline of the USHL/EJHL tenure of each incoming recruit in one of the posts of this thread. I could be wrong and would be raising a moot point, but I believe MV was the only one listed with <1 year of experience at that level. My untrained mind is inclined to say that a USHL player with 1 year of experience will gain more towards his potential than a USHL player with 2-3 years of experience at that level by sticking around a while longer. In this thought I am not comparing the two players to each other, simply to their respective potential abilities. In this train of thought, I would be inclined to leave the player behind who would most benefit from that circumstance. Economically, the USHL is making your recruits better on their dime. Once they're here, scholarship or none, bench warmer or not, that player is an expense to UNH. It makes sense to me to get the most out of these leagues as possible. I'm not claiming authority here, so please don't read this as "this is absolutely what Coach Dickie was thinking" kind of post. If you have the numbers that I'm vaguely referencing (C-H-C?), please help me out here.

2) The short term success of the shift aside, I would argue that the team has a radically different defensive presence when compared to years past with the addition of Tortorella as the defense coach. I think it's possible that we're going to see a shift in the identity of the team in the next few years. We don't yet know how much of an asset Quast will be, but he and Knodel are setting a possible trend of big, heavy defensive players that might be best used to slow down the opposing team on our oversized rink. Is it worth considering that with a new defensive strategy coming into play that the staff would now be looking for different veins of development in someone like MV, whether he was on track to begin with or not?

3) It seems that the general consensus is that the current lineup is not as great as ones of years past (07-08 vs 01-02, take your pick). I'm inclined to agree with this, and it leads me to think that UNH might be looking to rebuild its lineup. In contrast to a pro team that's looking to rebuild, UNH can't simply dump and trade the players it no longer desires. Rebuilding will have to take place over a period of years to cycle through current players. Given this idea, is it better to bring in your stronger players as soon as possible, or would you rather hold them off and get your mediocre ones in, out and over with? If we accept that MV is superior to the majority of his co-recruits, would this be an acceptable explanation for putting him off for a year?

Here's some of the relevant info for the forwards that are projected to enroll in the Fall of 2012:

Dan Correale
If Correale comes to Durham in Sept. 2012, he will be 21 years, 1 months old. He will have played 4 and 1/2 seasons in Canadian Junior A Leagues (BCHL and AJHL). He committed to UNH on Oct 19, 2010.

Jamie Hill
In Sept. 2012, Hill will be 20 years, 7 months old. He will have played 3 seasons in the Tier I American Junior A League (USHL). He committed to UNH on Mar 10, 2009.

Kyle Smith
In Sept. 2012, Smith will also be 20 years, 7 months old. He will have played 3 seasons in a Tier III American Junior A League (EJHL). He committed to UNH on Jan 28, 2009.

Collin MacDonald
In Sept. 2012, MacDonald will be 20 years, 3 months old. He will have played 1 season in a Tier III American Junior A League (EJHL) and 2 seasons in a Tier III Junior B League (Empire Junior Hockey League). He committed to UNH on Aug 26, 2010.

Maxim Gaudreault
In Sept. 2012, Gaudreault will be 20 years, 2 months old. He will have played 2 seasons in the Tier I American Junior A League (USHL). He committed to UNH on May 13, 2010.

The same type of info for Mike Vecchione:
In Sept. 2012, Vecchione will be 19 years, 7 months old. He will have played 1 season in the Tier I American Junior A League (USHL). He committed to UNH on April 1, 2010.

dover4345
12-25-2011, 10:57 PM
You didn't specify where they developed later on. Would you agree it is safe to assume Lovejoy would have developed at BC just as he did at Dartmouth? To be honest it is tough to figure out what points you are trying to make. Hokydad and Dan are ripping you a new one every other post.

"What big money players have they brought in, sat in the stands for an entire season and had them develop later in their careers? Please give me a name?"

Your right though--this discussion has gotten out of hand. Its about the time I just turn the page. But the discussion Dan and I were having was this--- I felt that it would be better for a players (MV) development to play another year of juniors, score lots of goals and play in every situation vs. being brought in, practicing with the team and sitting out nearly every game. Dan suggested that BC does the later all the time. He felt that BC brings in full scholorship players and sits them in the stands, but develops them via practices and then they end up being great players as sophmores/juniors/seniors. I stated that I do not believe that to be the case. I can not think of a big name/big money player that they have brought in and rarely played and ended up being a good player for them. BC brings guys in and plays them. If they are not prepared to do that they will tell them to play another year. I stated that I feel UNH did the right thing with MV if they felt he was not ready. Ben Lovejoy would be a good example of a player that they soured on--they were not playing him and he decided to move on. Similiar to how UNH dealt with Chevrier. Todd Perry is another example at BC--they felt they missed on him as a player, did not play him much and because of this he left and went to the OHL. And obviously in regards to tiefenworth the BC staff simply did not want him to ever come on. I also stated to Dan that I do not feel that UNH losing to recruits because of academic issues is a "Trend"... It happened with one class and has not happened since. Merry Xmas Wildcat FANS...

Wildcat13
12-25-2011, 10:59 PM
[QUOTE=dover4345;5304039]

I am sure you could. Because that is what get a lifers that have zero connections and or contacts do. They read articles and newspaper clippings

I am a bitter phoney? You are the guy on here trashing an 18 year old kid. Next time you see his dad, say hi to him....

"of what I would call underage players". Wow, your definition is gospel.

The USHL is a college development league dope, allowing underage players in and than leaving has 100% nothing to do with keeping them. they leave for draft status. If they are college bound, they can't/wont leave. Your level of fringe ignorance is mind boggling. That is what google and no life will do for you\

I just texted a coach from ushl and asked him what birthyears are considered under age this year. Respone, 93-95. I told him he was wrong...

I love the theory that it somehow hurts ushl by letting underage players in. This lets kids from OHL to play there when they cant back home, thus getting a jump on them. in your world that is a negative as you feel it is better to keep out and never get a shot at. never would have had a shot at Oleksiak without it.


"As great as the USHL is, there are very few elite players that would choose to play in the league for three seasons" Really? Your ignorance is overwelming after a while. Might have something to do with the fact they either go to college or MJ at 18, you are so ignorant. USHL is in fact a young players elite dev league and that is why they stay a couple years and move on. Not retiring at 20 like OHL meatheads

Just like draft lists, I dont waste time talking about articles, written by outsiders


Any chance you could allow us to talk about something other than MV? I think we know your position on MV and frankly don't need to keep hearing it. I would like to get back to discussing UNH recruits rather than one person with the same information.

Hokydad
12-25-2011, 11:17 PM
[QUOTE=Hokydad;5304046]


Any chance you could allow us to talk about something other than MV? I think we know your position on MV and frankly don't need to keep hearing it. I would like to get back to discussing UNH recruits rather than one person with the same information.

You post what you want, I will post what I want.

Dover, you are a fool with nothing but a computer and no life. Take away google and you have a blank stare, looking in the mirror at a man with zero connections/contacts.

"I dont believe" Thats your problem, you think that your speculation matters, it does not

You have not spoken to 1 human being that has any direct info but you have all the facts.
You are a joke...

dover4345
12-26-2011, 12:24 AM
[QUOTE=Wildcat13;5304096]

You post what you want, I will post what I want.

Dover, you are a fool with nothing but a computer and no life. Take away google and you have a blank stare, looking in the mirror at a man with zero connections/contacts.

"I dont believe" Thats your problem, you think that your speculation matters, it does not

You have not spoken to 1 human being that has any direct info but you have all the facts.
You are a joke...

I have not personally attacked you once. You have no clue who I am or what I do for work. Lets keep this Hockey related bud. You stated that only '92 born players are of age---all the rest are underagers or overagers. I have showed you that is not the case. Is your personal attack your way of side stepping the fact that you just made crap up? Show me. Clearly if that is true there has to be something out there other than made up phone calls that can not be verified by anyone other than yourself. And yes, I have paid attention to this thread--but you have called me a computer nerd with no life. I have posted on this forum 157 times in comparison to your 2,921 posts. I have been a member twice as long as you. Sit on your computer much? Have much of a life? If that isnt the pot calling the kettle black I dont know what is. You make all your hockey connections by posting thousands of times? I am in the rinks--I dont have time (when its not the holidays) to post thousands of times. You average how many posts per day? haha--tool....back to hockey--I believe the question was that MV is not an underager--I have showed you what me, and everyone but you refers to an underager--proof of your theory? Or will you just concede that you are wrong and made stuff up to support your argument. And please--mature up and keep this hockey related. No need to sit behind computers and insult others with no accountability. Hockey players/recruits are fair game--this is a FAN forum and we are entitled to our opinions about the players. I never insulted MV--just stated I didnt feel he was ready for college next year--at UNH.

Hokydad
12-26-2011, 05:58 AM
[QUOTE=Hokydad;5304100]

I have not personally attacked you once. You have no clue who I am or what I do for work. Lets keep this Hockey related bud. You stated that only '92 born players are of age---all the rest are underagers or overagers. I have showed you that is not the case. Is your personal attack your way of side stepping the fact that you just made crap up? Show me. Clearly if that is true there has to be something out there other than made up phone calls that can not be verified by anyone other than yourself. And yes, I have paid attention to this thread--but you have called me a computer nerd with no life. I have posted on this forum 157 times in comparison to your 2,921 posts. I have been a member twice as long as you. Sit on your computer much? Have much of a life? If that isnt the pot calling the kettle black I dont know what is. You make all your hockey connections by posting thousands of times? I am in the rinks--I dont have time (when its not the holidays) to post thousands of times. You average how many posts per day? haha--tool....back to hockey--I believe the question was that MV is not an underager--I have showed you what me, and everyone but you refers to an underager--proof of your theory? Or will you just concede that you are wrong and made stuff up to support your argument. And please--mature up and keep this hockey related. No need to sit behind computers and insult others with no accountability. Hockey players/recruits are fair game--this is a FAN forum and we are entitled to our opinions about the players. I never insulted MV--just stated I didnt feel he was ready for college next year--at UNH.

you have nothing to add outside clipping and pasting

you are wrong and your opinions are not facts, they are the opinion of a guy who has not seen anyone play in ushl, have not spoken to tri city and have not spoken to unh

clip on

you can pretend you have not insulted a kid but you have. 18 year old college kids are not fair game, know it alls like you are.

Hokydad
12-26-2011, 09:50 AM
Assuming that what Dover writes is a reflection of UNH's thought process, I am still left without an answer as to what has been learned or fixed at UNH.

We are told that there were academic issues with recruits. Frustrating, but nothing can be done about that.
We are told that other top-end recruits were deferred. In the case of Laleggia he bolted, and in the case of Downing they assert they were proven right.
We are told that they realize the roster has too many "fillers." It is unclear whether this was the result of bringing in known filler, or bad talent evaluation so that kids became filler.

So, does this mean UNH realizes that they have screwed up by deferring top end kids (i.e., as Dan asked, will Pesce come in next year, even though he probably is not "ready." Will Masters be brought in this year even though his stats are not great?) Frankly, a "wasted year" of having Laleggia would be preferrable to the wasted years of Agosta/Knodel).

The discussion of MV being a top recruit is not productive. It is only useful in that Dover suggests a recruiting schism, between him being a Lassonde guy, while Borek was not a fan. Dover suggests that deferring him might have been an attempt to ease the glut of filler (not clear whether he means UNH didn't mind that MV would bolt). To my mind, MV would rank ahead of many others in that class, so I'm curious why they would not want him (regardless of that he is not the "gaudreau/Laleggia" type recruit to cry over. Frankly, if that is the standard, the whole 2012 class and 10 guys on the current UNH roster fall into that category.).
Getting to the nub of the issue, Dover, you think Borek has done fine talent evaluation wise, and attribute White/Reid/Bourque to one-time events. How does that reconcile with your acknowledgement that there are too many "fillers" on the roster and in the 2012 class? (1) its not just that they loaded up with filler after those losses (though they did, and I groussed about the Blocks/Pavelski/Silengos rather than going young for talent that wasn't quite ready) and (2) they have clearly missed on 2011/2012 (Agosta/Chevrier/Smith/Gaudreault; and modest recruits Correale/Hill/MacDonald).

Why should we trust that they (1) now have found a solution after this recent track record, and for purposes of the discussion, (2) were correct in assessing MV's role in the pecking order?

Lastly, just on MV, the statements smack of arrogrance, that they are acting in his best interests in deferring him. If they promised for 2012, which, from all accounts, was the promise, who cares if they now think they missed on evaluating him and that another year would be in his best interests. Also, who cares if other programs snatch him up right away, or say they want to watch him some more before offering. The "it's in his best interests" line sounds an awful lot like "it's in our best interests, so you should see it that way too." It's still breaking a promise, hence the twitter comments. (Bearing in mind that telling the kid he can come if he wants, but with the implied threat that you will refuse to play him even if he could contribute somewhat is not all that "good faith" -- I'm guessing Chevrier was disappeared too because he insisted on coming even though Borek/lassonde missed on him)

Very good post and as usual, very good points.

The only issue I have with this is the arrogance of Dover is acting like his assumptios are facts, when in reality he is clueless and has no idea what he is talking about. They never went to him and said, "we think you should do another year as it is in your best interest". They were never direct and they didnt do things right. If you really believe a kid would call them dishonest for just doing that, well you would be like Dover, clipping and pasting meaningless quotes off the internet. I give the kid credit for not saying exactly what happened and keeping it as he did.

The disconnect there is laughable. Telling when you go back and read the article when MV won the Super 8 and who he says called to congratulate after winning.

Strange how the pros who know the facts, his advisor(very close coaches friend), Serino, USHL coach etc all 100% supported and told him he should move on and go elsewhere. If you also go back and read the Super 8 article where MV talks about how he was proud that the chool respected him and he stayed 4 years, very loyal, stand up player. Promissed his coach hey would win a title and no matter what never considered leaving.

they have kids coming in next year that couldnt make a USHL team, zero chance of being top 2 lines and PP.

If after reading that article, do you really believe that he would say that based upon dovers naieve assumptions? Clealy he worshipped UNH and Umile and would have been dissapointed but would have understood.

He took the high road.

Dan
12-26-2011, 10:12 AM
He felt that BC brings in full scholorship players and sits them in the stands, but develops them via practices and then they end up being great players as sophmores/juniors/seniors. I stated that I do not believe that to be the case. I can not think of a big name/big money player that they have brought in and rarely played and ended up being a good player for them. BC brings guys in and plays them....

I never said BC sat kids in the stands and developed them in practice - I said they developed them via regular shifts on lower lines AND practicing with the teams (like Destry Straight - 1-1--2 currently). Just like UNH used to do (Saviano, Thompson, etc, etc, etc). Like I imagine MV would have done. Its only a recent development at UNH that recruits have ended up sitting out entire seasons or been constantly defered because they were perceived to not be ready. A player may not be 'ready' and he may make mistakes - but playing on a lower line in HE is better than a first line in a junior league (I think Sorkin and Thrush are proving the rule). That was my point. But, I agree were just running in circles...Merry Christmas...

dover4345
12-26-2011, 12:32 PM
Hokydad..

Until you can back this statement up with some sort of evidence--any evidence really---I am done speaking with you.

"If you call 10 USHL coaches today and ask them 3 questions, their answers will be as follows
1. What is an over ager.... 1991 birthyear
2. What is an age on player... 1992 birthyear
3. What is an underager... 1993-1995"

All you did was personally attack me instead of A.) admitting that you make crap up or B.) showing me evidence that supports what you wrote.

You also stated that the CC is "taking off" and is now better than prep hockey and "all the college coaches agree."

I showed you evidence that suggest otherwise. 36 committments to 3. Dont bother responding to anything I say unless you can show me that your definition of an underage player is accepted anywhere besides in your own head---or that the college coaches agree that the CC is better than prep hockey--because evidence suggest that they spend a heck of alot more time recruiting players in prep hockey.

NCAA watcher--we clearly disagree on our thoughts of the UNH staff. I will respond to your post but am growing tired of being attacked by hokydad for any opinion I have. I can see that you have a clue as to what you are talking about---Since hokydad thinks highly of your opinion could you please tell him an 18 year old kid that has already graduated highschool is not an underage player? Can you please tell him that there are far more committments in prep hockey than in the CC and other mass highschool leagues? Then I can move on and address the issues that you have requested me to talk about. If not I will have to continue to listen to hokydad's 5 posts per day. The guy has posted thousands of times over the last 2 years--clearly i do not have the time or patience to compete with that.

Hokydad
12-26-2011, 01:50 PM
Hokydad..

Until you can back this statement up with some sort of evidence--any evidence really---I am done speaking with you.

"If you call 10 USHL coaches today and ask them 3 questions, their answers will be as follows
1. What is an over ager.... 1991 birthyear
2. What is an age on player... 1992 birthyear
3. What is an underager... 1993-1995"

All you did was personally attack me instead of A.) admitting that you make crap up or B.) showing me evidence that supports what you wrote.

You also stated that the CC is "taking off" and is now better than prep hockey and "all the college coaches agree."

I showed you evidence that suggest otherwise. 36 committments to 3. Dont bother responding to anything I say unless you can show me that your definition of an underage player is accepted anywhere besides in your own head---or that the college coaches agree that the CC is better than prep hockey--because evidence suggest that they spend a heck of alot more time recruiting players in prep hockey.

NCAA watcher--we clearly disagree on our thoughts of the UNH staff. I will respond to your post but am growing tired of being attacked by hokydad for any opinion I have. I can see that you have a clue as to what you are talking about---Since hokydad thinks highly of your opinion could you please tell him an 18 year old kid that has already graduated highschool is not an underage player? Can you please tell him that there are far more committments in prep hockey than in the CC and other mass highschool leagues? Then I can move on and address the issues that you have requested me to talk about. If not I will have to continue to listen to hokydad's 5 posts per day. The guy has posted thousands of times over the last 2 years--clearly i do not have the time or patience to compete with that.

If you have such litte time, than go away. You add nothing to the conversation. Whether you believe something or not is meaningless. You have zero facts or insight, simply a 7 year old girl clipping and pasting on facebook.

Again, I dont want to waste time talking fringe crap with a borderline brad paisley poster boy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ&ob=av2e

The point about preps being a thing of the past and huge downswing is obvious to anyone with long term knowledge.

7-10 years ago Cushing, Andover, Exeter used to pump kids out left and right. The Catholic Conference did not, outside of CM. Even that had dried up over past 3-5 years+/-.

Now you have St Johns who has 4 already, MC, who had not had one since Keith (20 years ago) now has 2 currently playing D 1, 3 on the current roster and 2 more who will be signed by years end. Thats 7, vs 0 in 20+ years.

CC is clearly on the rise and the D 1 coaches know it. That is why you have a better chance of watching Parker, York, Donato etc at a CC game thana p[rep game, which I have seen 3 or 4 times so far this year.

CC is all local kids 17/18 tops. Kids from our communities who drive back and forth to school.

Prep deals are way, way down and not considered the dominant league they once were. Again, only a guy with internet and zero connections would feel otherwise.

Exeter has 4 out of 24 kids on roster from Mass.

Exeter has 1 kid from mass in top 10 in scoring, a 19+ year old with 1 goal....

In 04/05 they had 10 mass kids with 6 of the top 10 in scoring from mass

Andover had 15 kids on roster from mass, 8 of the top 10 in scoring and all 3 captains from mass.

It is not even worth discussing with someone who has no idea what he is atlking about outside what he reads on line.

Most importantly, my opinion does not matter asd neither does his. the coaches do. Ask one the next time you see them if they would have taken a kid from mc 8-10 years ago, nope. Now, all day long.

Ask them if they feel prep is a shell of itself.

Just like this clown(literal) uses the internet to get a definition of an uderage player.

Overage to the coaches means aging out as we speak/current year.

Of age means this year, free from any roster restrictions(limited to certain number per team, different for USHL and BCHL)

Underager means 2+ years left, in other words no restrictions this year or next. Just like I am sure he wouldnt get it if a coach said we can trade him now with no import issue and underage. Or he is an underager with zero educational exposure. He would simply shrug and say "Huh, or Duh"

Only someone arrogant enough to tell everyone what an entire coaching staff has done, exactly what they said etc would write like he does.



Its like talking with an nfl coach based upon what you read in the paper.

Clueless times 50

dover4345
12-26-2011, 02:16 PM
If you have such litte time, than go away. You add nothing to the conversation. Whether you believe something or not is meaningless. You have zero facts or insight, simply a 7 year old girl clipping and pasting on facebook.

Again, I dont want to waste time talking fringe crap with a borderline brad paisley poster boy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UE6iAjEv9dQ&ob=av2e

The point about preps being a thing of the past and huge downswing is obvious to anyone with long term knowledge.

7-10 years ago Cushing, Andover, Exeter used to pump kids out left and right. The Catholic Conference did not, outside of CM. Even that had dried up over past 3-5 years+/-.

Now you have St Johns who has 4 already, MC, who had not had one since Keith (20 years ago) now has 2 currently playing D 1, 3 on the current roster and 2 more who will be signed by years end. Thats 7, vs 0 in 20+ years.

CC is clearly on the rise and the D 1 coaches know it. That is why you have a better chance of watching Parker, York, Donato etc at a CC game thana p[rep game, which I have seen 3 or 4 times so far this year.

CC is all local kids 17/18 tops. Kids from our communities who drive back and forth to school.

Prep deals are way, way down and not considered the dominant league they once were. Again, only a guy with internet and zero connections would feel otherwise.

Exeter has 4 out of 24 kids on roster from Mass.

Exeter has 1 kid from mass in top 10 in scoring, a 19+ year old with 1 goal....

In 04/05 they had 10 mass kids with 6 of the top 10 in scoring from mass

Andover had 15 kids on roster from mass, 8 of the top 10 in scoring and all 3 captains from mass.

It is not even worth discussing with someone who has no idea what he is atlking about outside what he reads on line.

Most importantly, my opinion does not matter asd neither does his. the coaches do. Ask one the next time you see them if they would have taken a kid from mc 8-10 years ago, nope. Now, all day long.

Ask them if they feel prep is a shell of itself.

Just like this clown(literal) uses the internet to get a definition of an uderage player.

Overage to the coaches means aging out as we speak/current year.

Of age means this year, free from any roster restrictions(limited to certain number per team, different for USHL and BCHL)

Underager means 2+ years left, in other words no restrictions this year or next. Just like I am sure he wouldnt get it if a coach said we can trade him now with no import issue and underage. Or he is an underager with zero educational exposure. He would simply shrug and say "Huh, or Duh"

Only someone arrogant enough to tell everyone what an entire coaching staff has done, exactly what they said etc would write like he does.



Its like talking with an nfl coach based upon what you read in the paper.

Clueless times 50

What you just did was give me YOUR definition of an underage player. I am not interested in YOUR definition. I have provided you with NHL scouts/hockey writers stating that 15 year olds are underage players. I am not interested in YOUR definition.

And in regards to the CC conference. Here is why "some" kids are committing out of the CC---because the college coaches commit to players at a YOUNGER age than they did 10 years ago. 10 years ago a player would have played at his local school, moved up a level to prep hockey---then committed. Now a days a player in 9th/10th grade commit, then go to prep school to develop--just like Eiserman.

What 4 players on SJ's current roster have D1 deals? You stated above that they have 4? I know you are not counting players that have moved on to prep school/junior leagues to player at a higher level?

Salisbury's current roster has 10+ guys on it that will probably have deals by the end of the season---when was the last time that happened in the CC? If you were at the Flood Marr you would have seen the amount of scouts/agents/college coaches---the sign sheet there is far better than anything that could be produced at the CC level.

dover4345
12-26-2011, 02:22 PM
Hokydad---recent ushr article...thought this didnt happen anymore at the prep level?

"The big story was 6’1”, 195 lb. junior Chris Calnan. The power forward was dominant against Westminster on Saturday night, scoring two goals that had scouts scribbling all over their programs. If there were any question as to whether or not he was a D-I player/NHL prospect they were answered here. That particular game had some heavy hitters in the stands—e.g., Jack Parker (BU), Toot Cahoon (UMass) and Jim Madigan (Northeastern) – and they all witnessed the Bulldogs forward at his best."

dover4345
12-26-2011, 03:01 PM
Oh--and just so we are clear--I am not arguing that prep hockey has not declined over the years, but their demise has coincided with the demise of mass highschool hockey. Its a food chain--USHL now takes the top Jr/Sr players from the prep schools---the preps now take the top freshman/sophs from the mass highschools. Mass Highschool hockey is nowhere near where it was 10-15 years ago. You will not find one person to support that argument--not one college coach will agree with you. Malden Catholic's program has improved since Serino has stepped in, but thats it---MC does not count for everyone else. Used to be a regular thing to see players moving from mass highschool right into college---Brian Collins, Sean Collins, Dan Spang, Chris Capraro, Brian Carthas, and on an on...Colin Blackwell is very rare. If the level of hockey was respectable coaches would be comfortable with bringing in player directly from that league--but they are not. Collier will light the league up this season and will still be required to play in the USHL before BU--15 years ago that does not happen.

Wildcat13
12-26-2011, 03:38 PM
[QUOTE=Wildcat13;5304096]

You post what you want, I will post what I want.

Dover, you are a fool with nothing but a computer and no life. Take away google and you have a blank stare, looking in the mirror at a man with zero connections/contacts.

"I dont believe" Thats your problem, you think that your speculation matters, it does not

You have not spoken to 1 human being that has any direct info but you have all the facts.
You are a joke...

My God are you arrogant. You must be a BC fan.

Hokydad
12-26-2011, 03:55 PM
[QUOTE=Hokydad;5304100]

My God are you arrogant. You must be a BC fan.

Yes, everyone loves a winner and most people cant stand a loser.

Hokydad
12-26-2011, 04:00 PM
Oh--and just so we are clear--I am not arguing that prep hockey has not declined over the years, but their demise has coincided with the demise of mass highschool hockey. Its a food chain--USHL now takes the top Jr/Sr players from the prep schools---the preps now take the top freshman/sophs from the mass highschools. Mass Highschool hockey is nowhere near where it was 10-15 years ago. You will not find one person to support that argument--not one college coach will agree with you. Malden Catholic's program has improved since Serino has stepped in, but thats it---MC does not count for everyone else. Used to be a regular thing to see players moving from mass highschool right into college---Brian Collins, Sean Collins, Dan Spang, Chris Capraro, Brian Carthas, and on an on...Colin Blackwell is very rare. If the level of hockey was respectable coaches would be comfortable with bringing in player directly from that league--but they are not. Collier will light the league up this season and will still be required to play in the USHL before BU--15 years ago that does not happen.

The preps dont take the top fresh and sophs, another bs comment. SJP has more going d 1 from last 2 years than previous 10, wrong again

going directly fromm cc to college has nothing to do with quality of league/players. Has to do with the fact they take 20 year old freshman, regardless of whre they come from

USHL doesnt take top jrs/srs from preps. northeast kids never fair well out there, as a rule of thumb.

"not one will agree with you" I just texted back an HC in USHL and told him he was wrong. He said, "I will sleep better knowing that"

TOOL

dover4345
12-26-2011, 04:28 PM
The preps dont take the top fresh and sophs, another bs comment. SJP has more going d 1 from last 2 years than previous 10, wrong again

going directly fromm cc to college has nothing to do with quality of league/players. Has to do with the fact they take 20 year old freshman, regardless of whre they come from

USHL doesnt take top jrs/srs from preps. northeast kids never fair well out there, as a rule of thumb.

"not one will agree with you" I just texted back an HC in USHL and told him he was wrong. He said, "I will sleep better knowing that"

TOOL

Eiserman was the top sophmore in the CC last year. Where is he this year? Prep school? That would validate my statement.

You stated that SJP has 4 players with D1 deals and MC has 3 players committed... I count 1 at SJP (Kurker) and 2 at MC (Collier/fizgerald) you stated there was a total of 7...I only see 3...my math must be off. Please tell me who the 4 SJP players are and the 3 MC players? or was that more stuff you made up on a whim hoping no one would notice?

Also, you stated MC had no D1 playes in the last 20 years. I am sure I could find more players--but off the top of my head I remember Roo Adams committing to Providence and getting drafted right out of MC.

Prediciton---instead of stating that you were wrong and SJP does not have 4 players with D1 deals on their roster and that MC does not have 3 players with D1 deals on their roster you will insult me and hope that everyone just forgets that you make crap up. Its really becoming a pattern with you. You still have not shown me ONE person other than yourself refer to a 18 year old highschool graduate as an "underager" other than yourself...I really enjoyed your self made "definition" of an underager as well...

And btw--no one can validate your texts other than you. Oh, I just got a text from the USHL comish---he told me I was right--and under ager is a 15 year old. Right from the comish's mouth. VALIDATED AS FACT!

Nifty16
12-26-2011, 05:06 PM
The only issue I have with this is the arrogance of Dover .

Hello Pot meet the Kettle!!!