American Prospect Update Thread - Part 4

[William H Bonney]

The USA Select 15 Player Development Camp just wrapped today and it sounds like most of the top names that were there acquitted themselves really well. There were two top players (at this point) that weren't at camp - Cruz Lucius and Lane Hutson. Cruz's older brother Chaz ('03 and now on the NTDP U17s) also didn't play in the Select 15 so it looks to be a family decision not to participate. Hutson likely in a similar situation.

The only top guy I've heard that didn't live up to the hype from the camp is Devin Kaplan as he registered 1 assist in the camp but I've seen some scouts say he looked good, although snakebitten and on a team that struggled, but not his dominant self. But 4 games of exhibition hockey in the summer don't overwrite what he's done so far in his young career.

It's incredibly early but the '04 class right now looks highly promising. Could this be the next great birth year - unless it's the '03s as we'll know that for sure in about 7 months - for USAH to rival the '97s and '01s?

Guys like Maddox Fleming, Rutger McGroarty, Frank Nazar, Seamus Casey, Hunter Brzustewicz, Devin Kaplan, Nick Pierre, etc. are all really hyped and everyone that watches these guys seem to come away with the opinion that the hype is justified. Most of them have also dominated in a variety of settings, whether it's their normal league play, national championships, NA tournaments, or international tournaments (i.e. WSI) against their peers in what looks to be a birth year with a lot of talent globally. Another nice thing about a lot of these top guys is they all have pretty decent frames already despite being '04s. Things change quickly at 14/15 but it's an exciting class right now for sure.

It's also a birth year we'll be able to follow pretty closely over the next 9+ months. They'll start their hockey seasons here in a couple of months and then in November/December the roster for the 2020 Youth Olympic Games (January 2020) will be named, and most of these guys should feature prominently on that team. And then a couple months later, they'll be trying out for the NTDP.

 

[Artorius Horus T]

The USA Select 15 Player Development Camp just wrapped today and it sounds most of the top names that were there acquitted themselves really well. There were two top players (at this point) that weren't at camp - Cruz Lucius and Lane Hutson. Cruz's older brother Chaz ('03 and now on the NTDP U17s) also didn't play in the Select 15 so it looks to be a family decision not to participate. Hutson likely in a similar situation.

The only top guy I've heard that didn't live up to the hype from the camp is Devin Kaplan as he registered 1 assist in the camp but I've seen some scouts say he looked good, although snakebitten and on a team that struggled, but not his dominant self. But 4 games of exhibition hockey in the summer don't overwrite what he's done so far in his young career.

It's incredibly early but the '04 class right now looks highly promising. Could this be the next great birth year - unless it's the '03s as we'll know that for sure in about 7 months - for USAH to rival the '97s and '01s?

Guys like Maddox Fleming, Rutger McGroarty, Frank Nazar, Seamus Casey, Hunter Brzustewicz, Devin Kaplan, Nick Pierre, etc. are all really hyped and everyone that watches these guys seem to come away with the opinion that the hype is justified. Most of them have also dominated in a variety of settings, whether it's their normal league play, national championships, NA tournaments, or international tournaments (i.e. WSI) against their peers in what looks to be a birth year with a lot of talent globally. Another nice thing about a lot of these top guys is they all have pretty decent frames already despite being '04s. Things change quickly at 14/15 but it's an exciting class right now for sure.

It's also a birth year we'll be able to follow pretty closely over the next 9+ months. They'll start their hockey seasons here in a couple of months and then in November/December the roster for the 2020 Youth Olympic Games (January 2020) will be named, and most of these guys should feature prominently on that team. And then a couple months later, they'll be trying out for the NTDP.

Just to add few top names:
F Isaac Howard, F Zach Filak, D Tyler Duke*, F Cutter Gauthier.
* brother of Dylan Duke (03)

04 class seems insane good

 

[Daneurism]

04 American class better than the 03 class, at least in the OHL region from what i've seen.

 

[Luc Poitras]

There was a lot of talent at the U15 Development Camp. The 04 talent level is pretty deep. The below is a good summary of who the top performers were at the camp.

 

[Samsquanch]

Sens fan here. Im blown away by the number of American prospects and players that the team has acquired, and its great to see for USA hockey and the game in general. Any of you guys who've followed them care to rank from best to worst?

Brady Tkachuk - 1st line elite PWF in the making. Future captain.

Colin White - above average 2nd line center or winger loaded with intangibles. Lots of Sens fans doubt this kid, but I think hes going to be an impact player who thrives in big games.

Logan Brown - the wildcard that could either be anywhere from a 1st liner or 3rd liner. He had a solid rookie pro season and I think hes going to explode soon, personally.

Josh Norris - Was crapped all over when traded to Ottawa (unfairly to him), and proceeded to have a great sophomore season that got derailed by injuries. Has solid middle six potential with room to grow alongside his RL best buddy, Brady Tkachuk.

Shane Pinto - I know nothing of him other than hes a late bloomer who played many sports and only chose to focus on hockey a few years back. Likely a bottom 6 guy but could have some hidden potential, like say another Sens prospect Drake Batherson. Seems like a really athletic kid anyways, apparently killed it at the combine (top 5 5 for all but one category).

Jonathan Gruden - Another guy I dont know much about. I know he had an up and down year on a terrible team, and hes going to the London Knights next year instead, so it should be interesting to see what hes capable of there.

Theres more, but I dont think we should bother with any of them at this point tbh.

 

[tealhockey]

Sens fan here. Im blown away by the number of American prospects and players that the team has acquired, and its great to see for USA hockey and the game in general. Any of you guys who've followed them care to rank from best to worst?

Brady Tkachuk - 1st line elite PWF in the making. Future captain.

Colin White - above average 2nd line center or winger loaded with intangibles. Lots of Sens fans doubt this kid, but I think hes going to be an impact player who thrives in big games.

Logan Brown - the wildcard that could either be anywhere from a 1st liner or 3rd liner. He had a solid rookie pro season and I think hes going to explode soon, personally.

Josh Norris - Was crapped all over when traded to Ottawa (unfairly to him), and proceeded to have a great sophomore season that got derailed by injuries. Has solid middle six potential with room to grow alongside his RL best buddy, Brady Tkachuk.

Shane Pinto - I know nothing of him other than hes a late bloomer who played many sports and only chose to focus on hockey a few years back. Likely a bottom 6 guy but could have some hidden potential, like say another Sens prospect Drake Batherson. Seems like a really athletic kid anyways, apparently killed it at the combine (top 5 5 for all but one category).

Jonathan Gruden - Another guy I dont know much about. I know he had an up and down year on a terrible team, and hes going to the London Knights next year instead, so it should be interesting to see what hes capable of there.

Theres more, but I dont think we should bother with any of them at this point tbh.

Yeah I totally agree, Pinto could come on strong, White is a player, Norris was awesome for Michigan other than the injury. Sens doing a nice job with the Americans. Gruden has always been a nice one as you said not the best Miami team but he had some points as an 18 y/0, could still be a good player at the next level too

 

[Dux917]

Showcase games will televised on the NHL Network beginning this Wednesday -

NHL Network to Televise 2019 WJSS

 

[Dux917]

FYI, lone undrafted player still playing - Parker Ford, played in the USHL last year, will be a freshman at Providence College this year...

 

[Artorius Horus T]

Earmark these 3 American top prospects:

2020 Draft: Antonio Stranges
2021 Draft: Jeremy Wilmer
2022 Draft: Maddox Fleming

 

[pb1300]

Anyone have a stream they can DM me?

 

[Pavel Buchnevich]

Perreault didn't make the Canadian Hlinka team. Big snub. USA Hockey should give him a spot on our team, and see if he takes it.

 

[William H Bonney]

Not a positive sign for the Hlinka team when they can only beat the Hungarian U20 team 6-4 in an exhibition game. The US goalies gave up 4 goals on 14 shots (Purcell 2 on 6 and Hogg 2 on 8) and a couple of those were real stinkers that a house league goalie would stop. It could get ugly at the Hlinka if the goalies don't play well.

I thought David Ma stood out the most of the defensemen and up front it was Cross Hanas and Alex Gaffney. Others like Mark Estapa and Ben Schoen had moments. As the most hyped guy on the team, Blake Biondi was a disappointment. They'll need guys like Avery Hayes and Mackie Samoskevich to be a lot better too as they were mostly non-existent. I was intrigued to see Artem Shlaine play but it wasn't an impressive outing. He's probably more skilled than he showed here and he has good size, but he really needs to work on his skating. He's centering a line with Samoskevich on his wing, so hopefully those two can put provide some offensive depth, as neither was on the PP as far as I noticed.

Mark Estapa scored the 6th goal a la Mike Legg. As he was skating behind the net, the puck was rolling at him and he picked it up while heading to the right post, lifted it up and tucked it under the crossbar. Lots of "ooh's" and "ahh's" from the Hungarian crowd.

Alex Gaffney was named the US player of the game. Kristóf Papp, who played for the Madison Capitals in the USHL last year and is committed to Michigan State, was by far their most dangerous player and factored in on all their scoring.

After the game ended, they also played a 5 minute 3-on-3 OT and had a 5 man shootout. There were no goals in the OT session and the US won the shootout 2-1 with goals by Gaffney and Kirwan. The Hungarian shootout goal came on their last shooter when the US already had scored twice on their attempts, so while normally it wouldn't have even been taken, they were just doing the OT/Shootout for practice purposes, so the 5th Hungarian shooter still went.

Here's that Mark Estapa goal:

 

[Bologna 1]

Not a positive sign for the Hlinka team when they can only beat the Hungarian U20 team 6-4 in an exhibition game. The US goalies gave up 4 goals on 14 shots (Purcell 2 on 6 and Hogg 2 on 8) and a couple of those were real stinkers that a house league goalie would stop. It could get ugly at the Hlinka if the goalies don't play well.

I thought David Ma stood out the most of the defensemen and up front it was Cross Hanas and Alex Gaffney. Others like Mark Estapa and Ben Schoen had moments. As the most hyped guy on the team, Blake Biondi was a disappointment. They'll need guys like Avery Hayes and Mackie Samoskevich to be a lot better too as they were mostly non-existent. I was intrigued to see Artem Shlaine play but it wasn't an impressive outing. He's probably more skilled than he showed here and he has good size, but he really needs to work on his skating. He's centering a line with Samoskevich on his wing, so hopefully those two can put provide some offensive depth, as neither was on the PP as far as I noticed.

Mark Estapa scored the 6th goal a la Mike Legg. As he was skating behind the net, the puck was rolling at him and he picked it up while heading to the right post, lifted it up and tucked it under the crossbar. Lots of "ooh's" and "ahh's" from the Hungarian crowd.

Alex Gaffney was named the US player of the game. Kristóf Papp, who played for the Madison Capitals in the USHL last year and is committed to Michigan State, was by far their most dangerous player and factored in on all their scoring.

After the game ended, they also played a 5 minute 3-on-3 OT and had a 5 man shootout. There were no goals in the OT session and the US won the shootout 2-1 with goals by Gaffney and Kirwan. The Hungarian shootout goal came on their last shooter when the US already had scored twice on their attempts, so while normally it wouldn't have even been taken, they were just doing the OT/Shootout for practice purposes, so the 5th Hungarian shooter still went.

Here's that Mark Estapa goal:

Ma is a stud. Ditto for Hanas. Regarding the goaltending, comical that aidan campbell, the best goalie at the Select 17 camp, didn't even come close to getting a sniff.

 

[William H Bonney]

I didn't catch the game but the Hlinka team lost to the Czechs 3-1 in their final exhibition. Williams scored, assisted by Estapa.

Gee, I wonder if there's an available American forward that would possibly have helped this team generate more offense? Strange that they'd choose to leave their most talented player at home.

It'd be pretty shocking if this team finishes above like 6th place.

USAH needs to completely rethink and revamp its approach to this tournament.

 

[tealhockey]

I didn't catch the game but the Hlinka team lost to the Czechs 3-1 in their final exhibition. Williams scored, assisted by Estapa.

Gee, I wonder if there's an available American forward that would possibly have helped this team generate more offense? Strange that they'd choose to leave their most talented player at home.

It'd be pretty shocking if this team finishes above like 6th place.

USAH needs to completely rethink and revamp its approach to this tournament.

I don't know. winning isn't the end-all, be-all, but it isn't great that they barely got past Hungary, lose to cz. They have to do something to counteract the outsized amount of attention the NTDP gets when it comes to americans, this is one of the only ways they deal w that

 

[William H Bonney]

I don't know. winning isn't the end-all, be-all, but it isn't great that they barely got past Hungary, lose to cz. They have to do something to counteract the outsized amount of attention the NTDP gets when it comes to americans, this is one of the only ways they deal w that

I'm not necessarily advocating that the NTDP players participate at the Hlinka. I do think it's a mistake not to send your best team to a tournament whenever you can, which is essentially what all the other countries do for the most part, barring tournaments where a country has multiple teams (i.e. Canada at the WHCU17) or it's a low level tournament (i.e. WJAC). Usually if a non-USA team isn't sending their best players, it's because those players have advanced up a level and are at other tournaments (i.e. Raymond and Holtz who are missing the Hlinka to play for Sweden at the WJSS) or they're unavailable due to other team obligations (i.e. CHL playoffs). The NTDP is unique though and trying to include some of those players would create challenges, but I think USAH should be a bit more flexible about it.

My issues are around the process aside from whether they should include NTDPers:

• The Select 17 Player Development Camp is a joke. There's way too many players involved and the timing is stupid. I understand player development camps for 15/16 year olds where the exposure to a lot of players is helpful and relevant for possible NCAA scholarships, CHL drafts, USHL teams, NTDP tryouts, etc. But with 17/18 year olds, it's a bit asinine to think evaluating 160+ players to choose a team is worthwhile, or that USAH should be relying on this camp, or even worse the regional camps, to pass as scouting for a major international tournament. Just like USAH killed the Select 14s, they need to do the same for the Select 17s.
• The process right now is they evaluate a ridiculous amount of players at the end of June, the majority of which don't have any chance or ability to play at the international level, the Hlinka team is named, and those players scatter for a month. They then reconvene right before the tournament in an attempt to quickly gel and build chemistry because it's non-existent at that point as the Select 17 camp is set up in a way where nearly every guy on the Hlinka team exclusively played at the Select 17s with teammates that don't make the Hlinka team.
  
• The Select 17 process eliminates the possibility of elite underagers making the team. There's been underage Americans that were good enough to play at the Hlinka a year early, but they're not eligible because USAH only chooses players from the Select 17 Camp. A guy like Jack Hughes should have been at the Hlinka even if he would be officially playing for the NTDP the following month. It's an easy way to include the elite American players without playing favoritism to the entire NTDP. We're the only country that doesn't include underagers at the tournament.
• Instead of the Select 17s, USAH should select a much smaller pool of players in the 40-50 range - made up of the best non-NTDPers for the current Hlinka birth year and any elite U17s - and then have an actual tryout camp closer to the tournament. You'll end up with a much more intense camp to decide the team because you'll have the best and most talented eligible guys playing with and against each other on every shift with a Hlinka spot on the line instead of the current process where you have some of those guys scattered amongst 10 teams with a bunch of low-level players involved.
• If you move the camp back about a month, after USAH selects the Hlinka team, they could then essentially start training camp with the team, play their exhibition games, and head into the tournament with some continuity and chemistry.

There are valid reasons to not include NTDPers. But whatever the player eligibility requirements you're going to put in place, at least set the actual team up for success by evaluating a smaller pool of players in a more intense evaluation camp that leads into immediate tournament preparation. Instead, we don't consider the best players, we have a laughable evaluation camp, and we show up cold to the actual tournament, and USAH is surprised that it doesn't do well here. We basically treat the Hlinka like we do the World Championships, except the Hlinka is different than the WC in two ways: the best players want to play in it and the players would participate in a longer training camp to prepare for the tournament.

 

[tealhockey]

bloop bloop long post

I agree with most of what you said. The problem is that it is easy for us to say here on a forum on a saturday night, much harder to convince all the stakeholders and the institution that is USAH to make a change. I think getting rid of Select 17s is a non-starter, for a lot of reasons. one of those being that it isn't just a hlinka camp, it is also a major event for recruiters to see all those kids play together. Also in theory they can find a late add like Tage Thompson for the NTDP there. Those types do and can fall through the cracks. The new seattle owner mentioned making a western NTDP, I think that would be a great idea, and we should focus the NTDP on also developing guys who need it rather than our already-elite talent. Getting rid of 17s would not be great as far as that is concerned but they could deal with it by investing in year-long scouting of actually meaningful games.

I actually don't think the quality of play at those USAH camps are great, it is obviously summer hockey, in some respects antithetical to the whole approach of ADM as most kids are also playing in other summer events and never really stop being hockey players. In some ways they are good because you can check a guys skills and vitals out, and it is still hockey, so, they'll show you something. It is one of the bigger events of the year from a recruiting standpoint. As are the 15/16s, which would only become more packed with recruiters were we to lose the 17s. Not possible IMO particularly at a time when, ostensibly, the hockey community is looking to get recruiting back to a sane age range.

Here's what I really agreed on

• Some NTDP guys should be able to play on the team. It is not a good look for us to not be competitive in any international tournament. This should be a judgment call and capped at under 5 players. On a team like this, if we had a Ty Smilanic, Dylan peterson, sanderson, bordeleau, whoever. Their presence by virtue of making the team better would help to show the other players in a more talented configuration rather than what it is now, something like a 'best of the rest' team.
• Elite underagers should be allowed to play (capped at like...2 players)
• The 17s should be re-worked, I like your idea, but it is super complex. Not only because of all the stuff I said above, but also all the stakeholders and politics at play. For example, there are usually some controversial picks for the summer camps, or vice versa guys who should be there who are left at home for whatever reason. But by virtue of taking *so* many players from around the country, I think they keep most of the districts happy. For better or for worse the 17s does a good job of gathering a ton of talent from all over the country, and just from an identification standpoint, it serves a purpose in its current iteration. Just my 2 cents

 

[William H Bonney]

I agree with most of what you said. The problem is that it is easy for us to say here on a forum on a saturday night, much harder to convince all the stakeholders and the institution that is USAH to make a change. I think getting rid of Select 17s is a non-starter, for a lot of reasons. one of those being that it isn't just a hlinka camp, it is also a major event for recruiters to see all those kids play together. Also in theory they can find a late add like Tage Thompson for the NTDP there. Those types do and can fall through the cracks. The new seattle owner mentioned making a western NTDP, I think that would be a great idea, and we should focus the NTDP on also developing guys who need it rather than our already-elite talent. Getting rid of 17s would not be great as far as that is concerned but they could deal with it by investing in year-long scouting of actually meaningful games.

I actually don't think the quality of play at those USAH camps are great, it is obviously summer hockey, in some respects antithetical to the whole approach of ADM as most kids are also playing in other summer events and never really stop being hockey players. In some ways they are good because you can check a guys skills and vitals out, and it is still hockey, so, they'll show you something. It is one of the bigger events of the year from a recruiting standpoint. As are the 15/16s, which would only become more packed with recruiters were we to lose the 17s. Not possible IMO particularly at a time when, ostensibly, the hockey community is looking to get recruiting back to a sane age range.

Here's what I really agreed on

• Some NTDP guys should be able to play on the team. It is not a good look for us to not be competitive in any international tournament. This should be a judgment call and capped at under 5 players. On a team like this, if we had a Ty Smilanic, Dylan peterson, sanderson, bordeleau, whoever. Their presence by virtue of making the team better would help to show the other players in a more talented configuration rather than what it is now, something like a 'best of the rest' team.
• Elite underagers should be allowed to play (capped at like...2 players)
• The 17s should be re-worked, I like your idea, but it is super complex. Not only because of all the stuff I said above, but also all the stakeholders and politics at play. For example, there are usually some controversial picks for the summer camps, or vice versa guys who should be there who are left at home for whatever reason. But by virtue of taking *so* many players from around the country, I think they keep most of the districts happy. For better or for worse the 17s does a good job of gathering a ton of talent from all over the country, and just from an identification standpoint, it serves a purpose in its current iteration. Just my 2 cents

I wouldn't suggest that changing the system is easy, but I also don't think that's really relevant either. USAH is a big organization with a lot of sway. American hockey fans should expect and demand results from them regardless if the challenge is difficult. It's their job. Getting something like the NTDP in place was an astronomical challenge and they were able to pull that off. I don't think the issue here is the challenge, it's inertia, a USAH specialty.

They're trying to do too much with one camp. Let's hypothetically say there are too many obstacles to get rid of the Select 17. In that case, at least decouple the Hlinka process from the Select 17s. USAH could name like 30-35 players to a Hlinka Camp that would start like 2 weeks before the Hlinka and those players don't attend the Select 17s, which is fine because for the most part, these are all players that have been scouted and are committed to colleges or are in the CHL. Then have the Select 17s earlier in the summer as normal with like 8 teams instead of 10 (or leave it at 10 and allow the districts to send more players, making them happier), and use the Select 17s as a scouting event where they'll also choose 10 or so players to move on to the Hlinka Camp. That way the Select 17 can still serve its purpose for scouts and there's still a chance for late bloomers or unheralded guys to impress college coaches and/or make it in play for the Hlinka, which is why these kids show up.

Generally though, I don't really buy the scouting angle for recruiters as a roadblock to change. Does the Select 17 help some kids and/or recruiters? Absolutely. It mostly just makes it easy for scouts because they're all in one place as you point out, but most these players are already being scouted by coaches long before the Select 17s. Look at a lot of the (as of now) no name players that attended the last Select 17 and did nothing of note, guys like: Ian Pierce, Chase McInnis, Christian Miller, Ethan Szmagaj, Nicklas Andrews, and on and on and on. Basically no name players with unimpressive Select 17 showings, and unimpressive Select 15/16 showings if they had them, and every single one of them, among the numerous others I won't bother naming for sanity's sake, were already committed to colleges before the camp.

Players are always going to fall through the cracks. You could have endless camps and it would still happen. A guy like Alex DeBrincat couldn't even make the Select 15s and Select 16s, wasn't drafted in the OHL, and the Erie Otters were still able to identify him and sign him as a free agent before he played in his first camp (Select 17). These kids play so much hockey, so much of it covered by scouts, that it's not an issue of enough opportunities, it's that scouting is imperfect. I don't think poor quality summer hockey is the solution. Sometimes it helps (i.e. Tage Thompson), but is that really because he never had an opportunity or because he wasn't good as a younger player, was a late bloomer, and hit a huge growth spurt? Maybe without the Select 17s he doesn't get an NTDP offer, but he could have just as easily made a USHL roster, played prep hockey, etc.

While the NCAA is thankfully doing something about the ridiculous recruiting trends that had developed, I think the recruiting changes, not possibly dropping the Select 17s, will actually increase the recruiting activity at the Select 15s and 16s. College coaches can start recruiting and participating in unofficial campus visits when it's January of a player's 10th grade year, which is basically when the average player is 15-16. These coaches are still going to know who these kids are and be engaged with them long before the Select 17s ever roll around, they'll just have shorter window to do so.

I don't think USAH has enough talent to justify another iteration of the NTDP. I'd rather see them continue to invest those resources at the youth level in programs such as the ADM.

 

[tealhockey]

..

Thompson was pretty talented but played in Alaska and moved, was injured around those ages so not playing at 100%. He was going to play at salisbury before that, but I do think it is a worthwhile point that we try to identify those guys, and it is one thing to have a scout say 'he looked pretty good in the season playing X league where we don't know how good it is (in this case the USPHL 16 circuit)', another to have the whole evaluation staff with usah look at a guy doing better playing with most of the best 17 year olds. Yeah a lot of these guys are already on the radar but they aren't in one place the way they are at 17s, and youth hockey is pretty diluted in some areas. You always want to get more eyes on kids. Summer hockey is getting worse not better these days so 17s gets stronger relative to the rest of the offerings thanks to having all those guys. Especially with recruiting so young, coaches want to see guys at 17, track progress etc.

If there were 18s and 19s they would be packed as well. Part of it I think is the need to not miss anything, quality of play be damned, since so many coaches work the camp for USAH if there are any stand-outs and you miss out on it, you risk being behind the game / lacking intel going into recruiting season. Recruiters can come in the summer because the season is done, they get their live viewings in, figure out who would be worth the time to follow up on. I don't think 'poor quality summer hockey' is a great solution either but it is better than no solution, and I don't know that they really have a great alternative.

Tweaking the 17s seems like it has some potential but I don't have much more to add, I do think you are underestimating the effect of exacerbating the problem by closing the window of 'quality' viewings. For example the NCAA are trying to create a new set of showcases for players in basketball and they are finding it incredibly hard to make something that works better than what it was before, a recruiting circuit dominated by shoe company-sponsored showcases that have all the big names. To change it I think there would have to be a solution that is clearly much better otherwise it could just make the problems worse and deny the late-bloomers even more opportunities. I do think kids fall through the cracks more than people like to think but yeah many of the guys would get recruited regardless. In this sport where reputation/perception matter an astonishing amount, showing what you can do against many of the countries best 17 year olds is a unique opportunity, summer hockey or not

 

[William H Bonney]

Thompson was pretty talented but played in Alaska and moved, was injured around those ages so not playing at 100%. He was going to play at salisbury before that, but I do think it is a worthwhile point that we try to identify those guys, and it is one thing to have a scout say 'he looked pretty good in the season playing X league where we don't know how good it is (in this case the USPHL 16 circuit)', another to have the whole evaluation staff with usah look at a guy doing better playing with most of the best 17 year olds. Yeah a lot of these guys are already on the radar but they aren't in one place the way they are at 17s, and youth hockey is pretty diluted in some areas. You always want to get more eyes on kids. Summer hockey is getting worse not better these days so 17s gets stronger relative to the rest of the offerings thanks to having all those guys. Especially with recruiting so young, coaches want to see guys at 17, track progress etc.

If there were 18s and 19s they would be packed as well. Part of it I think is the need to not miss anything, quality of play be damned, since so many coaches work the camp for USAH if there are any stand-outs and you miss out on it, you risk being behind the game / lacking intel going into recruiting season. Recruiters can come in the summer because the season is done, they get their live viewings in, figure out who would be worth the time to follow up on. I don't think 'poor quality summer hockey' is a great solution either but it is better than no solution, and I don't know that they really have a great alternative.

Tweaking the 17s seems like it has some potential but I don't have much more to add, I do think you are underestimating the effect of exacerbating the problem by closing the window of 'quality' viewings. For example the NCAA are trying to create a new set of showcases for players in basketball and they are finding it incredibly hard to make something that works better than what it was before, a recruiting circuit dominated by shoe company-sponsored showcases that have all the big names. To change it I think there would have to be a solution that is clearly much better otherwise it could just make the problems worse and deny the late-bloomers even more opportunities. I do think kids fall through the cracks more than people like to think but yeah many of the guys would get recruited regardless. In this sport where reputation/perception matter an astonishing amount, showing what you can do against many of the countries best 17 year olds is a unique opportunity, summer hockey or not

But I think your Thompson example still proves my point. He was playing AA hockey in Alaska and he was injured, so it's less about needing additional scouting opportunities, and more about the fact that he needed to be better (i.e. advance beyond AA) and not be injured. So once he did those things, he was on people's radars before the Select 17s, i.e. you knew he was talented and Salisbury had scouted him to join their team.

While I can empathize with the desire to be able to look at most of the 17 year olds in one place, it's not really necessary for the purpose you've laid out, i.e. it's hard for scouts normalize leagues and competition. Scouts are primarily scouting in those types of environments, they would still have that same opportunity at the Select 15 / Select 16, which typically attract more talent than the Select 17s and are more competitive, and if the NTDP, CHL, USHL, and NAHL can effectively scout in those league environments pre-select 17s, so too can college coaches and scouts. You know, the same college coaches and scouts that have been essentially recruiting 13 and 14 year olds for the past decade.

I think you're overestimating the value of the Select 17s when it comes to scouting. Let's take a look at the 2018 Select 17 Player Development Camp as an example:

• 178 players in attendance
• 54% of them were either already committed to college (47%) or the CHL (7%) before the camp
• Of the remaining 46% of players, essentially the primary scouting targets, the 61% of them are still uncommitted to a college or the CHL over a year after the camp ended.

If you're looking for an NCAA opportunity and you don't have one pre-camp, you're more likely to come out of that camp still looking. It's an incredible waste of resources to build a camp around the minority of the participants, of which the majority of the NCAA/CHL coaches and scouts don't have any current interest because they're low-level players.

If there's a large demand for a camp to evaluate uncommitted players or find diamonds in the rough, fine, but don't waste the time of the good players by bundling them all together, in turn diminishing the Hlinka in the process. Set up a separate camp for the Hlinka and invite the top players, and then have a separate camp for the NCAA/USHL/NAHL to evaluate players that are looking for their next opportunities.

 

[tealhockey]

But I think your Thompson example still proves my point. He was playing AA hockey in Alaska and he was injured, so it's less about needing additional scouting opportunities, and more about the fact that he needed to be better (i.e. advance beyond AA) and not be injured. So once he did those things, he was on people's radars before the Select 17s, i.e. you knew he was talented and Salisbury had scouted him to join their team.

While I can empathize with the desire to be able to look at most of the 17 year olds in one place, it's not really necessary for the purpose you've laid out, i.e. it's hard for scouts normalize leagues and competition. Scouts are primarily scouting in those types of environments, they would still have that same opportunity at the Select 15 / Select 16, which typically attract more talent than the Select 17s and are more competitive, and if the NTDP, CHL, USHL, and NAHL can effectively scout in those league environments pre-select 17s, so too can college coaches and scouts. You know, the same college coaches and scouts that have been essentially recruiting 13 and 14 year olds for the past decade.

I think you're overestimating the value of the Select 17s when it comes to scouting. Let's take a look at the 2018 Select 17 Player Development Camp as an example:

• 178 players in attendance
• 54% of them were either already committed to college (47%) or the CHL (7%) before the camp
• Of the remaining 46% of players, essentially the primary scouting targets, the 61% of them are still uncommitted to a college or the CHL over a year after the camp ended.

If you're looking for an NCAA opportunity and you don't have one pre-camp, you're more likely to come out of that camp still looking. It's an incredible waste of resources to build a camp around the minority of the participants, of which the majority of the NCAA/CHL coaches and scouts don't have any current interest because they're low-level players.

If there's a large demand for a camp to evaluate uncommitted players or find diamonds in the rough, fine, but don't waste the time of the good players by bundling them all together, in turn diminishing the Hlinka in the process. Set up a separate camp for the Hlinka and invite the top players, and then have a separate camp for the NCAA/USHL/NAHL to evaluate players that are looking for their next opportunities.

Yeah I don't really disagree with anything you are saying but it will be complicated to replace it with something 'better', and like I said, I do think it serves a purpose, have the whole staff see a guy rather than whoever would be scouting them throughout the year. However with video and more investment in scouting that could be mitigated. There are always pros and cons. I worry that the cons would outweigh some pros if we did get rid of it, though people would obv adjust without it.

 

[William H Bonney]

Not unexpected but the Hlinka team choked away a 2 goal lead in the 3rd against Sweden, eventually losing in a shootout to miss the semifinals. They'll now play the Czechs in the 5th place game.

Louden Hogg may be one of the weakest goalies I can remember for Team USA here. So many of his goals against were unscreened wrist shots from distance. It's quite remarkable how many of those he let in.

 

[AmericanDream]

if only we had a few guys sitting at home who could have scored some goals here....

 

[Bologna 1]

if only we had a few guys sitting at home who could have scored some goals here....

and arguably the best goalie from select 17s who didn't even make the camp's all star game.

 

[AmericanDream]

and arguably the best goalie from select 17s who didn't even make the camp's all star game.

yes, that too...