2007 USA team, whats next?

[time]

The thing i never get then is how do guys like Bouchard then survive the CHL only to need 4 years to catch up to the NHL. Where guys like Paul Martin. A bean in skates adapted to a full NHL season and the physical play with basically only one rough week to start the season. And Ballard has opened an eye to his recklass/fearless style. Forgot who he fought but Matt Greene just gave some guy a hand full.

But i guess i like watching hockey and not Lord of the Flies ice capades.

The Lord of the Flies quip is a good one.

Listen, the RSl and SEL also produce high level hockey, and very talented (and tough) players come out of there as well, but they always end up in the NHL. Top shelf players usually go for the CHL because it is the highest level possible at that age group. Simple, really.

The bigger question the US has to face is how they can hothouse their players in a development program and not win the under-18 every year. They send the only team which has (mostly) played, practiced and lived together for a year or two. It's a bit like the old Soviet system.

The US should dominate the under-17, 18 and do consistently well at the under-20.

Wassup? Is it systematic failure in the coaching ranks, or a thin talent pool?

 

[MN_Gopher]

The problem is. Guys like Brian Lee, Taylor Chorney, Matt Niskanen and the like. Guys that played HS the year before or Shattucks or USNDP have only played at or around that level for one or two years with very few exeptions. The highest level in the USA is college. Lee, Chorney, Wheeler, Kessel and J. Johnson still combined for less than 100 games in the NCAA at tourney time. Where CHL guys have over 100 some by themselves. They have played at a higher level for longer. I do feel strongly that a high contingant of CHL players with experiance in that type of play will help. It would be a strong assest. But not because, what i hear, is the NCAA guys are not just as good. To me they are just under exposed to high level hockey at that point in their careers. Because they wanted to play NCAA. A guy like E. Johnson is going to play well no matter what route he took. Brian Lee is going to be more of a project. He is 30 games USHL and NCAA removed from HS.

I do agree. But not becasue the CHL is so big, mean and tough. Just our guys have not played enough. So if that makes them better than i will agree. But playing more early on does not make you a better player in the long run. Which seems to be the tie in. That i do not agree with.

 

[VOB]

Well Schremp and Ryan just outplayed everyone in the whole tourney right? They must have just dominated right? Um, No they did not. And if you say it was the coaching. I ll agree but those two were not the only ones mis used. Blame the coach and the staff for not geting the team organized. It had nothing to do with where the players were from.

No they didn't outplay everybody but Schremp, Ryan and Mueller certainly aquited themselves rather well and the young Mueller certainly showed more than similiar players his age, such as Toews.

My point was that they left off players who should have been on this team, players that could have made the difference between gold and a lousy 4th place finish!

You claim that the CHL guys do better because they have been exposed to a higher level for a longer period of time compared to the NCAA freshman who graduated from HS or a lower level league like the USHL but what about a player like Mueller? He had as many points as a seasoned NCAA vet like Porter yet only played less than 30 games in the WHL prior to the tourney.

You miss the mark Gopher. Its not because the CHL players have been playing at a higher level for longer, its just because they are better.

Now before your head explodes, this does not mean they are all better and that the U.S. should have taken a team comprised only of CHL based players or even a majority of CHL based players but Yandle, Sauer and Lashoff are better than Lee, Chorney, Niskanen and Butler and they should have been on the team! Dubinksy should have replaced a Paukovich!

I only hope that next year USA Hockey gets its head of out its A@S and truley picks the best team.

 

[MN_Gopher]

You miss the mark Gopher. Its not because the CHL players have been playing at a higher level for longer, its just because they are better.

Now before your head explodes, this does not mean they are all better and that the U.S. should have taken a team comprised only of CHL based players or even a majority of CHL based players but Yandle, Sauer and Lashoff are better than Lee, Chorney, Niskanen and Butler and they should have been on the team! Dubinksy should have replaced a Paukovich!

I only hope that next year USA Hockey gets its head of out its A@S and truley picks the best team.

So the time Mueller spent at Breck MN HS team, the time he spent with the USNDT meant nothing. He is only good because he spent 31 games in the WHL? And if he had not gone that route he would suck now? I agree they did not pick a well rounded team. It looked more like a team for the next few years, But not for an immediate win.

If you mean better this year. I agree because of the level they have played at. But it does not make them better in the long run.

And oh yeah VOB. What are Carters and Vaneks numbers looking like this year? And who is on a way better offensive team?

 

[VOB]

So the time Mueller spent at Breck MN HS team, the time he spent with the USNDT meant nothing. He is only good because he spent 31 games in the WHL? And if he had not gone that route he would suck now? I agree they did not pick a well rounded team. It looked more like a team for the next few years, But not for an immediate win.

If you mean better this year. I agree because of the level they have played at. But it does not make them better in the long run.

And oh yeah VOB. What are Carters and Vaneks numbers looking like this year? And who is on a way better offensive team?

Carter is in his first season as a pro and began the season with an illness that set him slightly back. I believe that by his third season in the NHL, he will be viewed as the better player. Besides, Vanek's 28 pts are not that much more than Carter's 21 pts now are they Goph. Add to the fact that Carter is a plus 4 and Vanek is a minus 5 and you really don't have that much of a difference! Carter is also a year younger as well (I know how important age is to you). And you are right, he plays on a much deeper team, meaning he is getting less ice time than Vanek.

You really make little sense. First you claim that college freshman such as Lee are not as good as their CHL counterparts because they played at a lower level. I counter with Mueller, stating that he had only played 25 games in the WHL this season but had a better tourney than many of his U.S. teammates and, in my opinion, better than Toews. Mueller is simply more talented than many others and it wouldn't have mattered where he played.

Now you are saying that his time at Breck and the NTDP was more important than the little time he has spent in the WHL. Thanks for making my point and totally craping on yours!

 

[5mn Major]

So the time Mueller spent at Breck MN HS team, the time he spent with the USNDT meant nothing. He is only good because he spent 31 games in the WHL?

Now you got it.

Some posters would have you believe that a few months with a Canadian zipcode (in this case Washington state) pushes players to another level. What is often forgotten is that Mueller was easily the #2 forward to Kessel on the U18 team. Has Mueller cruised past Kessel since he's joined the CHL? Don't remember seeing anyone in the last few months who'd take Mueller before Kessel now that he's joined the CHL (even with Kessel's supposedly disappointing showing at the world juniors).

So I'm still waiting to see one sliver of empirical evidence that the CHL develops players more effectively than the NCAAs...and that the CHL is not just primarily a beneficiary of large quantities of talent coming in. Until that...save your CHL sales pitch for a CHL thread.

 

[5mn Major]

I wasnt trying to name the whole roster, I just threw out some names who I think should make the team next year. I also left a few spots open because I knew guys like Pat Kane, Jimmy O'brien, Dan Collins, and Jimmy Fraser could have monster years next year. All of these players would add skill and speed to the team that I picked, and would definitely compliment each other greatly.

I agree with you that Pat Kane is definitely a very talented player who probably will find his way onto this team.

Jimmy O'brien is the guy that I cant wait to see the most. This kid could have the hype of Phile Kessel come WJC time, and dont think for one second that he isnt in the #1 overall talk come draft time next year. This kid is dynamic and just getting started to show off his talent. I hope he makes this team next year, he would be a force to handle.

Completely agree. Each of these guys has a good chance to bring it. O Brien is really starting to find it on the U18 team...and although seeing fewer games, has really started to make his mark there. I expect he'll start a little slow as he makes the jump to next year...but he's been making adjustments each of the last several and quite successfully. His name should start to pop on upcoming prospect lists soon.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Now you are saying that his time at Breck and the NTDP was more important than the little time he has spent in the WHL. Thanks for making my point and totally craping on yours!

You say he is a lord because he plays CHL. I say he got good teaching from his years at the USNDT and Breck. As do lots of other players. He was the second best forward on that USNDT team. Now guys like Skille and Wheeler are more projests. Its the 3-4th line guys and 4-7 d men that needed the help. Mueller is good no matter what. Lee needs to play more. Mueller is better than Lee. So what cannot you understand?

And did i ever say it was MORE important. Get your eyes checked and stop placing words in my posts i do not use. I wish i could make a little red bouncing ball. Maybe that would help you follow along.

 

[Juan]

Now you got it.

Some posters would have you believe that a few months with a Canadian zipcode (in this case Washington state) pushes players to another level. What is often forgotten is that Mueller was easily the #2 forward to Kessel on the U18 team. Has Mueller cruised past Kessel since he's joined the CHL? Don't remember seeing anyone in the last few months who'd take Mueller before Kessel now that he's joined the CHL (even with Kessel's supposedly disappointing showing at the world juniors).

So I'm still waiting to see one sliver of empirical evidence that the CHL develops players more effectively than the NCAAs...and that the CHL is not just primarily a beneficiary of large quantities of talent coming in. Until that...save your CHL sales pitch for a CHL thread.

Putting aside all of the empirical evidence that does exist (e.g., number of NHL draft picks, number of 1st round NHL draft picks, number of NHL players, group quality of NHL players), if the only difference was that the CHL was "a beneficiary of large quantities of talent coming in", wouldn't that in and of itself make the CHL a better place to develop for the elite pro prospect?

 

[VOB]

The problem is. Guys like Brian Lee, Taylor Chorney, Matt Niskanen and the like. Guys that played HS the year before or Shattucks or USNDP have only played at or around that level for one or two years with very few exeptions.Lee, Chorney, Wheeler, Kessel and J. Johnson still combined for less than 100 games in the NCAA at tourney time. Where CHL guys have over 100 some by themselves. They have played at a higher level for longerJust our guys have not played enough. So if that makes them better than i will agree.

Here is exactly what you said! Not my problem that you contradicted yourself two posts later!

 

[VOB]

Putting aside all of the empirical evidence that does exist (e.g., number of NHL draft picks, number of 1st round NHL draft picks, number of NHL players, group quality of NHL players), if the only difference was that the CHL was "a beneficiary of large quantities of talent coming in", wouldn't that in and of itself make the CHL a better place to develop for the elite pro prospect?

Well said!

 

[MN_Gopher]

Here is exactly what you said! Not my problem that you contradicted yourself two posts later!

Where is the contradiction?

 

[MN_Gopher]

Putting aside all of the empirical evidence that does exist (e.g., number of NHL draft picks, number of 1st round NHL draft picks, number of NHL players, group quality of NHL players), if the only difference was that the CHL was "a beneficiary of large quantities of talent coming in", wouldn't that in and of itself make the CHL a better place to develop for the elite pro prospect?

Just because good players go to a league it does not make the program better. If i could convince all the top talent to train in my apartment. Does that make my apartment the best place for players to go? Because i have a huge base of top players.

 

[VOB]

Where is the contradiction?

Can you not read what you wrote? Must I spell it out for you? You stated, and in your own words....

Chorney, Wheeler, Kessel and J. Johnson still combined for less than 100 games in the NCAA at tourney time. Where CHL guys have over 100 some by themselves. They have played at a higher level for longerJust our guys have not played enough. So if that makes them better than i will agree.

Here you are saying that the CHL players are better than the NCAA ones because they played longer in the CHL at, as you put it, a much higher level.

I retort that its not so much because those players are in the CHL as it has to do with their innate talent level. Many of those CHL players are simply better than their NCAA counter-parts and I use Mueller as an example to refute your premise. He only played in the WHL for less than 30 games, meaning (and here is where I will spell it out for you!) that he was at that "high level" much less than a player like Porter who by the tourney had played 55 or so games in the NCAA!

You then do a complete 180 and begin blabering how useful the NTDP and Brek was for Mueller's development!

Get it now Goph? Did I S-P-E-L-L it out for you enough or do you need some remedial training? I do have that red bouncing ball, it could help you!

 

[5mn Major]

Putting aside all of the empirical evidence that does exist (e.g., number of NHL draft picks, number of 1st round NHL draft picks, number of NHL players, group quality of NHL players)

As you should...because this is not evidence of being a better developmental league...but rather the raw material of incoming players. Regardless, my team's in the WCHA and I have no reason to think league play is at a different level than CHL league play.

In the only language that seems to resonate, the NCAA team I follow has two first rounders, 7ish second rounders currently...is slated to have the top 2 players in next years draft...could easily have a total of 5 first rounders in the same draft...and is bringing in a player this upcoming year who has a good shot to go in the top 10 in 2007. Indeed, playing with that kind of talent...I still don't see why players would go north.

So are you almost done with your CHL agenda yet? Can we actually get back to talking about Team USA now?

 

[Juan]

Just because good players go to a league it does not make the program better. If i could convince all the top talent to train in my apartment. Does that make my apartment the best place for players to go? Because i have a huge base of top players.

The rub is that you can't convince all the top talent to train in your apartment, which causes the rest of your assertion to fall apart.

Whereas the CHL can and does convince a high percentage of North American based elite pro prospects to train in its apartment. There must be some reason for that.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Can you not read what you wrote? Must I spell it out for you? You stated, and in your own words....

Here you are saying that the CHL players are better than the NCAA ones because they played longer in the CHL at, as you put it, a much higher level.

I retort that its not so much because those players are in the CHL as it has to do with their innate talent level. Many of those CHL players are simply better than their NCAA counter-parts and I use Mueller as an example to refute your premise. He only played in the WHL for less than 30 games, meaning (and here is where I will spell it out for you!) that he was at that "high level" much less than a player like Porter who by the tourney had played 55 or so games in the NCAA!

You then do a complete 180 and begin blabering how useful the NTDP and Brek was for Mueller's development!

Get it now Goph? Did I S-P-E-L-L it out for you enough or do you need some remedial training? I do have that red bouncing ball, it could help you!

You are just nit picking. It not worth it for me. Ask the driver of your short bus for clarifacation then.

 

[VOB]

You are just nit picking. It not worth it for me. Ask the driver of your short bus for clarifacation then.

What ever Goph, what ever. I am sure though that the UofM must have some decent remedial reading and writing programs that may help you.

As for 5mn Major - some fair comments. You are right in that your program has acquired a good degree of talent and I agree, a player does not have to go the CHL route to make it to the NHL. The reason that so many do, however, is because it is a prime developmental league and USA Hockey should never lose sight of that fact.

 

[MN_Gopher]

What ever Goph, what ever. I am sure though that the UofM must have some decent remedial reading and writing programs that may help you./QUOTE]


You have only spelled out your own dilusions which you mix with my posts for some reason. You add words and ideas. And jump to conclusions. Twisting ideas.

 

[Remax]

I guess i am i minority here. To me 18 year olds are not up to par with mid low twenty guys. I have played summer league basketball and played in many football games and camps. I played against guys who are now in the NFL and NBA. In some cases i was older and better than some, equal with others and a few were better. Its like would you rather have had Kirby Law or Crosby 3 years ago. When they were both at Shattucks Parise was better than Crosby. The gap narrows with age but i think that is about 22 years old. Phanuef and Crosby are playing very very well this year. But thats two, not the whole Canadian team. And high school all star teams will loose to any D1 program almost all D2 programs and most D3 programs.

In Crosby and AO case three years will be the difference between top 20 to 1-2 in the league. I do not think most people give age that big of an advantage.

Ok so what you are say is this team:

The team overall would have had. Eaves, Collins, Guerrieo, Sertich, Sterling, Gauthier, Shannon, Stempniak and more. With guys like Irmen and Nystrom playing a 4th line checking role maybe.

On D it would have been. Matt and Andy Greene, Alberts, Welch, Carle, Stuart, Yandle, Cashman. And more

Goal would have been Jimmy Howard and David McKee.

And again thats just taking a quick look at last year. A totally different team then the one that was sent. You have to remember some of these guys are 21-24 years old. It makes a world of difference. No way that team losses.

would dominate this team:

Gagne--Lecavalier--Nash
Carter--Richards--Crosby
Staal--Spezza--Horton
Weiss--Bergeron--Lupul

Phaneuf--Bouwmeester
Eminger--Seabrook
Colaiacovo--Weber

Fleury
Raycroft
Ward


??
All of these players were 24 or younger for the same year just like you had.
Give me a break, I would be surprised if that team you listed could beat this team 1 time in 10 games.

 

[MN_Gopher]

Ok so what you are say is this team:

The team overall would have had. Eaves, Collins, Guerrieo, Sertich, Sterling, Gauthier, Shannon, Stempniak and more. With guys like Irmen and Nystrom playing a 4th line checking role maybe.

On D it would have been. Matt and Andy Greene, Alberts, Welch, Carle, Stuart, Yandle, Cashman. And more

Goal would have been Jimmy Howard and David McKee.

And again thats just taking a quick look at last year. A totally different team then the one that was sent. You have to remember some of these guys are 21-24 years old. It makes a world of difference. No way that team losses.

would dominate this team:

Gagne--Lecavalier--Nash
Carter--Richards--Crosby
Staal--Spezza--Horton
Weiss--Bergeron--Lupul

Phaneuf--Bouwmeester
Eminger--Seabrook
Colaiacovo--Weber

Fleury
Raycroft
Ward


??
All of these players were 24 or younger for the same year just like you had.
Give me a break, I would be surprised if that team you listed could beat this team 1 time in 10 games.

What a waste of time. I know that. But none of those guys stay around. They never do. They never will stay that long in the CHL. You can only use the players that actually stay. And you would also note then. I did not use all available under 24 year olds from America either. Just ones that played NCAA.

 

[VOB]

What ever Goph, what ever. I am sure though that the UofM must have some decent remedial reading and writing programs that may help you./QUOTE]


You have only spelled out your own dilusions which you mix with my posts for some reason. You add words and ideas. And jump to conclusions. Twisting ideas.

Ummm, like I said Goph - go and take those remedial classes, it might just help you to clue in and keep you from looking like the board fool!

 

[Remax]

What a waste of time. I know that. But none of those guys stay around. They never do. They never will stay that long in the CHL. You can only use the players that actually stay. And you would also note then. I did not use all available under 24 year olds from America either. Just ones that played NCAA.

They don't stay because THEY ARE READY FOR THE NHL AND READY TO PLAY AGAINST MORE ELITE PLAYERS!! Most of the guys you put down on your team are still in the NCAA because they are not good enough to play in the NHL.

 

[MN_Gopher]

They don't stay because THEY ARE READY FOR THE NHL AND READY TO PLAY AGAINST MORE ELITE PLAYERS!! Most of the guys you put down on your team are still in the NCAA because they are not good enough to play in the NHL.

Yeah, i agree whats your point?

 

[MN_Gopher]

Ummm, like I said Goph - go and take those remedial classes, it might just help you to clue in and keep you from looking like the board fool!

C'mon VOB. Thats twice now with the remedial remarks. Get some new material. At least try a bit. Its becoming no fun. I have come to expect more from you.