PDA

View Full Version : New Poll Predictions for 11/1



Pages : 1 [2] 3

CARDS_rule_the_Burgh
10-31-2011, 08:31 PM
The fact of the matter is..........

From the program I received, 22 players dressed for the Adrian game.
All players on the program had played 11 games in 2011-2012.
The D1 schools that had received verbal committments were named for 17 of the rostered players that dressed.
I suspect this is the same line-up that Manhattanville faced the following night..

The assumption that the Under18 program sends less than their best to play these games just isn't true.

The team that beat Plattsburgh was the same roster that beat UVM the night before. However, if I remember correctly... the most recent time Williams hosted them, they had about 60 guys to choose from and only 3 that night had played the night before. (But then again, maybe my memory isn't quite what it used to be)

PrezdeJohnson09
10-31-2011, 08:41 PM
The US 18U team USED to carry a much larger roster 5-7 years ago.

They used to have 30 or so guys on it or more. Now, they have really paired it down to the low 20's.

collegehcky2
10-31-2011, 09:29 PM
The US 18U team USED to carry a much larger roster 5-7 years ago.

They used to have 30 or so guys on it or more. Now, they have really paired it down to the low 20's.

They used to have a lot of younger players but then they added a U-17 team.

sshablak
11-01-2011, 09:52 AM
Why no poll out ???

Russell Jaslow
11-01-2011, 09:59 AM
Mr. Jaslow, would we be correct if we were to believe that there will not be a new poll this week?

Apparently, because I never got an email to submit my votes...

Russell Jaslow
11-01-2011, 10:00 AM
The US 18U team USED to carry a much larger roster 5-7 years ago.

They used to have 30 or so guys on it or more. Now, they have really paired it down to the low 20's.

Mystery solved. I knew I wasn't going crazy ... at least not over this matter.

PrezdeJohnson09
11-01-2011, 10:44 AM
Mystery solved. I knew I wasn't going crazy ... at least not over this matter.

I remember RIT played them at least once, maybe twice while they still a D-III team and this was the case. RIT played them close, or maybe even beat them but then upon closer review, the team the US18U fielded against RIT was more of their "B" squad than their A lineup.

NUProf
11-01-2011, 07:50 PM
I remember RIT played them at least once, maybe twice while they still a D-III team and this was the case. RIT played them close, or maybe even beat them but then upon closer review, the team the US18U fielded against RIT was more of their "B" squad than their A lineup.

So, the current state of affairs with the U18ers is all RIT's fault :D

spwood
11-02-2011, 08:52 AM
So, the current state of affairs with the U18ers is all RIT's fault :D

Cue Babs for her solo....."Memories - Like the corners of my mind....."

Russell Jaslow
11-02-2011, 12:22 PM
NEWS FLASH:

There isn't anybody on the USDT U-18 roster who can't play. Deal with it.

If you lost to them, then Adrian and M-Ville played better against them than your team did. Get over it.

Ummm, what's your problem?

altazo
11-02-2011, 06:53 PM
Ummm, what's your problem?

I don't think I have one.

I just don't understand why everyone has to attempt to justify why their team lost to a group of 17 or 18 year olds and why another team beat them. This happens every year. No, Plattsburgh didn't play the "good" U-18 roster while Adrian played the scrubs. There are no scrubs in the USDT program. That's the point, they're for the most part the very best American players of their age. No one sits and doesn't play against good teams. If you're sitting on the US U-18 team, you leave and return to a Midget tier 1 or Junior program. The whole point of the USDT program is to get those kids playing against good competition on a regular basis. If you're sitting, you're not getting better, and would be better suited going somewhere else where you can play in game situations and improve your skill set.

Sorry my original post was misconstrued by some people. Especially to the person who negative repp'd me anonymously.

dmac1103
11-03-2011, 12:06 AM
I don't think I have one.

I just don't understand why everyone has to attempt to justify why their team lost to a group of 17 or 18 year olds and why another team beat them. This happens every year. No, Plattsburgh didn't play the "good" U-18 roster while Adrian played the scrubs. There are no scrubs in the USDT program. That's the point, they're for the most part the very best American players of their age. No one sits and doesn't play against good teams. If you're sitting on the US U-18 team, you leave and return to a Midget tier 1 or Junior program. The whole point of the USDT program is to get those kids playing against good competition on a regular basis. If you're sitting, you're not getting better, and would be better suited going somewhere else where you can play in game situations and improve your skill set.

Sorry my original post was misconstrued by some people. Especially to the person who negative repp'd me anonymously.

Nobody was trying to justify why one team lost and why one team won, people were wondering if the same players were playing from the beginning. Mainly because before the addition of the Under 17 team the Under 18 team had a number of players that coaches had to run different players excecpt for a select few. The only post about Plattsburgh was we as fans would like to see Platty play them after a few games under thier belt and some of the upperclassmen back that were not able to play. I was at that game and it could have gone either way with Plattsburgh hitting 2 post's and 1 phantom goal that the ref said didn't go in but that is hockey 1" and the game is 2-2 or a puck off the ice hits the net to stop the doubt and the game is 3-2. Congrats to all the D3 teams win or lose they showed that they could hang with a team with some projected 1st rd NHL draft picks and future D1 players. I am not trying to be rude or argumenitive just saying what I read and took from the post's. As for what the tread is about I could see Oswego drop maybe to the 4th spot from the 2nd spot with the loss Utica isn't going to jump high maybe 5 spots at the most. Right now the polls don't mean much because I believe they go off SOS from the end of last year since it is only a few weeks into the season.

Russell Jaslow
11-03-2011, 09:52 AM
No one sits and doesn't play against good teams.

But this used to be the case, which is why I brought it up, and then proven to be wrong.


Sorry my original post was misconstrued by some people. Especially to the person who negative repp'd me anonymously.

And that wasn't me... I don't bother with repping anyone.

PSUChamps2001
11-03-2011, 10:05 AM
The one thing I will say about the US team is yes they are very talented, but they also seem to be inconsistant at times. Beating them is no easy task but over the years you will see them beat a D1 power and then lose to a mid tier junior team. I don't know if its the age factor? Team chemistry? The whole Herb Brooks All-Star team vs. team concept. Winning or losing to the US team is no slouch either way. But some of us who have been around a while do remember the days when the US team would play their "A" squad against D1 schools and then tbier "B" squd against D3 teams. Obviously its changed. When you're playing the US team you're getting one heck of a hockey team for any DIII team. Its a great tune up for any DIII team. Obviously I think Norwich and Neumann proved once again the top DIII teams are not that far off from the lower end DI teams.

Russell Jaslow
11-03-2011, 10:16 AM
The one thing I will say about the US team is yes they are very talented, but they also seem to be inconsistant at times. Beating them is no easy task but over the years you will see them beat a D1 power and then lose to a mid tier junior team. I don't know if its the age factor? Team chemistry? The whole Herb Brooks All-Star team vs. team concept. Winning or losing to the US team is no slouch either way. But some of us who have been around a while do remember the days when the US team would play their "A" squad against D1 schools and then tbier "B" squd against D3 teams. Obviously its changed. When you're playing the US team you're getting one heck of a hockey team for any DIII team. Its a great tune up for any DIII team. Obviously I think Norwich and Neumann proved once again the top DIII teams are not that far off from the lower end DI teams.

Considering they practice and play together for quite a long time, I would go with the age factor.

Despite all these debating points, for me it all comes down to the fact these are exhibition games. And I never give a crap about exhibition game results. They never mean squat to me (except the Jets-Giants game, and this year we get the real thing) nor indicate anything, IMO.

bakdraft21
11-03-2011, 10:17 AM
The one thing I will say about the US team is yes they are very talented, but they also seem to be inconsistant at times. Beating them is no easy task but over the years you will see them beat a D1 power and then lose to a mid tier junior team. I don't know if its the age factor? Team chemistry? The whole Herb Brooks All-Star team vs. team concept. Winning or losing to the US team is no slouch either way. But some of us who have been around a while do remember the days when the US team would play their "A" squad against D1 schools and then tbier "B" squd against D3 teams. Obviously its changed. When you're playing the US team you're getting one heck of a hockey team for any DIII team. Its a great tune up for any DIII team. Obviously I think Norwich and Neumann proved once again the top DIII teams are not that far off from the lower end DI teams.agree very good warm-up for these d3 teams....also I think dartmouth is a highly rated team this yr they have several votes in the polls, so NOT a bottom tier team THIS yr, Norwich was impressive from what I have read.....

NorthernLite
11-03-2011, 10:28 AM
Nobody was trying to justify why one team lost .........e

Really ?? .......then why is it necessary to add this ?


......as fans would like to see Platty play them after a few games under thier belt and some of the upperclassmen back that were not able to play. I was at that game and it could have gone either way with Plattsburgh hitting 2 post's and 1 phantom goal that the ref said didn't go in but that is hockey 1" and the game is 2-2 or a puck off the ice hits the net to stop the doubt and the game is 3-2. .

Appears to be a case of woulda, shoulda, coulda. ........to me.

AldenPartridge1819
11-03-2011, 11:58 AM
Despite all these debating points, for me it all comes down to the fact these are exhibition games. And I never give a crap about exhibition game results. They never mean squat to me (except the Jets-Giants game, and this year we get the real thing) nor indicate anything, IMO.

I think they can mean quite a lot. For Norwich to outshoot Dartmouth and then beat Trois-Riviers, that's a big deal. That can create quite a lot of momentum and confidence. Great experience for the younger players as well. It can be true with a poor performance as well. I remember Norwich losing to Curry in an exhibition game. It was a wake up call for the players and coaches.

I think that playing an exhibition game is always a positive. I bet Dartmouth had an amazing week of practice last week. I bet they were humble and ready to get down to business.

sshablak
11-03-2011, 11:58 AM
Russ I see you vote...Where would you put Utica and Oswego now ?

Russell Jaslow
11-03-2011, 02:00 PM
I think they can mean quite a lot. For Norwich to outshoot Dartmouth and then beat Trois-Riviers, that's a big deal. That can create quite a lot of momentum and confidence. Great experience for the younger players as well. It can be true with a poor performance as well. I remember Norwich losing to Curry in an exhibition game. It was a wake up call for the players and coaches.

I think that playing an exhibition game is always a positive. I bet Dartmouth had an amazing week of practice last week. I bet they were humble and ready to get down to business.

Read what I wrote carefully.

The RESULTS never mean squat to ME. I don't pay any credence to exhibition game results. Ergo, I don't waste my time bothering to argue whether the results mean anything over whom did or did not beat whom. That's why they are called EXHIBITIONS. I understand exhibitions have significance to coaches and players (I used to play sports) for various reasons, but the results themselves don't mean a thing to me.