AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
you mean the same tournament that the US does not send their entire best either? that one? quit making stupid excuses.
No american in the top-10 the last three drafts
- Thread starter cheerupmurray
- Start date
you mean the same tournament that the US does not send their entire best either? that one? quit making stupid excuses.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
not sure where I put lock in my post, but the 4th will be Jordan Schmaltz.
glucker
Registered User
Sorry, but this is an absolute load of crap.
How is playing in Europe more "neutral" than playing in North America? Pretty much every tournament that takes place in Europe is on large ice, under IIHF rules and with crowds packed full of Europeans. North Americans never play by those rules growing up or in their professional leagues. Conversely, most of the best European players play the majority of their careers on North American ice, by North American rules. They understand the hockey and the culture/standards of it over here far better than North American players understand hockey in Europe. So if anything, hockey played in North America and by North American rules is more neutral, at least as far as best on best goes.
I'm not going to sit here and denigrate the world championships for being a European-centric tournament. It's quality hockey played the traditional European way. But it's certainly not going to be my measuring stick for the quality of American hockey. I hope the US will find a way to overcome the difficulties it has in the tournament, but it's important to recognize why the US has those difficulties.
Either way, this thread is regarding the hockey development system of the US. Based on talent, the US is clearly in the small cluster of nations right behind Canada, which I take to include Sweden and Russia. The Swedes are on a hot streak right now while the Russians produce a few high end types but lack depth. The US was on a hot streak a number of years back, with both high end players and great depth. The high end prospects may have fallen off but there's still good depth from year to year. We'll have to wait and see how that depth develops. Looking forward, it's likely the US will see some hot spells with top 10 picks again.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
I am not sure people really understand how bad USA Hockey was in the years 1991-1999 with regards to developing young players. This is the darkest period for USA Hockey that nearly set us back 10 years with no legitimate stars coming out of this 8 year span. Ironically it was the best period for us in international competition, World Cup/Canada Cup; as we could stand toe to toe with Canada in terms of high end talent for the first time ever.
But man were those drafts beyond brutal. Just look at some of the first and second rounds from those years. Some barely having any Americans, others having nothing but utter busts : Jason Bonsignore, Ryan Sittler (thought he would be a God),Brad Defauw, Nikos Tselios, David Wilkie, Chris O'Sullivan, Barrett Heisten, the Ferraro brothers, Peter Roed, Eric Chouinard (dual), Jeffrey Kealty, Ty Jones, Sean Haggerty, Deron Quint, Kevyn Adams, Rory Fitzpatrick, Joe Hulbig, etc, etc, etc....
Yes we did get Brian Gionta, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, Ryan Malone, Tim Connolly, David Legwand, Paul Mara, Erik Cole, Jay Pandolfo, Jamie Langenbrunner, Scott Lachance, Todd Marchant, Adam Deadmarsh, Steve Konowalchuk, Mike York, Jeff Halpern, Tom Poti, Bryan Berard, etc out of those drafts, but many were towards the 99 draft then the 1991 draft....where by 1999 the USNDP was in place. And yes Ryan Miller was drafted in 99, but it really wasnt until the 2000 draft that things started to change for USA Hockey. Also Jim Carey was solid for a few years, then kaboom....another bust.
In an 8 year span, the players I listed above where the best that our country produced in those drafts...if that isnt going to send things to a hault, not sure what will. Not a single star in that group imo outside of Miller and for a solid period Scott Gomez.
The US might not have a top 10 pick in the past three years, but just look back a decade and be damn thankful of what we are able to produce year in and year out. A bad year for the US now is 5 first round picks, and 45-50 players drafted overall. Go back to 91-96 and 5 first rounders would have been a block party, and with 9 to 12 rounds in those years, we probably still didnt hit over 50 players drafted overall.
Our birth years have high years and low years, and the past few years we have seen low in terms of pure highend talent. But the 2012,13,and 14 drafts should all have top 10 Americans in them in these early stages, and we should be right back on track to where we where in 2003 to 2008.
Ilike USA Hockey wanting more practice and training over games for our youth. i think that is the biggest change and it will be a huge positive for some of these kids. The lack of training and practicing on areas of weakness has been a long concern of mine for the past 10 years....glad to see a positive change here.
USA Hockey is and will be fine. We have some bumps in the road, but just look back to those years above and thank God we arent anything as bad as 91 to 99 was for this country.
But man were those drafts beyond brutal. Just look at some of the first and second rounds from those years. Some barely having any Americans, others having nothing but utter busts : Jason Bonsignore, Ryan Sittler (thought he would be a God),Brad Defauw, Nikos Tselios, David Wilkie, Chris O'Sullivan, Barrett Heisten, the Ferraro brothers, Peter Roed, Eric Chouinard (dual), Jeffrey Kealty, Ty Jones, Sean Haggerty, Deron Quint, Kevyn Adams, Rory Fitzpatrick, Joe Hulbig, etc, etc, etc....
Yes we did get Brian Gionta, Scott Gomez, Chris Drury, Ryan Malone, Tim Connolly, David Legwand, Paul Mara, Erik Cole, Jay Pandolfo, Jamie Langenbrunner, Scott Lachance, Todd Marchant, Adam Deadmarsh, Steve Konowalchuk, Mike York, Jeff Halpern, Tom Poti, Bryan Berard, etc out of those drafts, but many were towards the 99 draft then the 1991 draft....where by 1999 the USNDP was in place. And yes Ryan Miller was drafted in 99, but it really wasnt until the 2000 draft that things started to change for USA Hockey. Also Jim Carey was solid for a few years, then kaboom....another bust.
In an 8 year span, the players I listed above where the best that our country produced in those drafts...if that isnt going to send things to a hault, not sure what will. Not a single star in that group imo outside of Miller and for a solid period Scott Gomez.
The US might not have a top 10 pick in the past three years, but just look back a decade and be damn thankful of what we are able to produce year in and year out. A bad year for the US now is 5 first round picks, and 45-50 players drafted overall. Go back to 91-96 and 5 first rounders would have been a block party, and with 9 to 12 rounds in those years, we probably still didnt hit over 50 players drafted overall.
Our birth years have high years and low years, and the past few years we have seen low in terms of pure highend talent. But the 2012,13,and 14 drafts should all have top 10 Americans in them in these early stages, and we should be right back on track to where we where in 2003 to 2008.
Ilike USA Hockey wanting more practice and training over games for our youth. i think that is the biggest change and it will be a huge positive for some of these kids. The lack of training and practicing on areas of weakness has been a long concern of mine for the past 10 years....glad to see a positive change here.
USA Hockey is and will be fine. We have some bumps in the road, but just look back to those years above and thank God we arent anything as bad as 91 to 99 was for this country.
Last edited:
Once hockey becomes as cheap to play as basketball and baseball and football, they will always be 2 or 3 in competitiveness in the US in regards to international competition. Hell, even in baseball we are slipping to the Asain and Latin countries because of the decline in American athletes to those sports.
Here in Michigan, it is one of the only states I can think of that has hockey as it's unrivaled number one sport. Minnesota has the Vikings and Twinns, which are the darlings of the state/city. But in Canada (yes, I'm being stereotypical), hockey is the number one sport through and through.
Here in Michigan, it is one of the only states I can think of that has hockey as it's unrivaled number one sport. Minnesota has the Vikings and Twinns, which are the darlings of the state/city. But in Canada (yes, I'm being stereotypical), hockey is the number one sport through and through.
I highly doubt US will ever become #1 for hockey because so many other sports are ahead of it like, football, baseball.
Canada will and continue to produce the best in the game for at least the next 30 years simply because thats the nations sport. Even all the small towns have hockey rinks and teams, compared to football where you'll hardly find anybody actually playing it. Hell theres more people playing rugby in Canada then football.
Bigger the sport population, the more competition, which equals a higher compete level. The majority of Canadians play with their heart and thats what you need to ultimately make it to the NHL and be successful. Talent only takes you so far.
Also, why would Americans play hockey, then they wouldn't be able to add that to their Canadian Stereotype list when you say you're from Canada!
"So you drink beer and produce maple syrup, live in igloos, and have a pet polar bear!"
or
"So you play hockey, drink beer and produce maple syrup, live in igloos, and have a pet polar bear!"
Without hockey Canada just sounds so much lamer
Canada will and continue to produce the best in the game for at least the next 30 years simply because thats the nations sport. Even all the small towns have hockey rinks and teams, compared to football where you'll hardly find anybody actually playing it. Hell theres more people playing rugby in Canada then football.
Bigger the sport population, the more competition, which equals a higher compete level. The majority of Canadians play with their heart and thats what you need to ultimately make it to the NHL and be successful. Talent only takes you so far.
Also, why would Americans play hockey, then they wouldn't be able to add that to their Canadian Stereotype list when you say you're from Canada!
"So you drink beer and produce maple syrup, live in igloos, and have a pet polar bear!"
or
"So you play hockey, drink beer and produce maple syrup, live in igloos, and have a pet polar bear!"
Without hockey Canada just sounds so much lamer
There are a few things to consider, and I don't think that cost has as much to do with its popularity as you may think. We were, once upon a time, the wealthiest country in the world. We're doing a good job of putting that to an end. But even so, we have reaches of our country that have regular unwinter-like temperatures throughout the year.
Minnesota has never really had a good on-ice product in the NHL, but I suppose with the harsh winters and the lakes, hockey is huge there.
There aren't enough parents willing to pay private coaches etc. in USA that is currently very popular in Canada, and the quality and quanity of the business still lacks in the USA. Next generational superstars will be kids who've had their own private coaches from age of 8.
Very good post.
I am Canadian, but believe that USA could become the number one hockey producer. Note that I said could. I am not sure if it has been mentioned but the fact is that Canadian Hockey is subsidized by the taxpayer. The majority of the arenas are still community owned - and even those arenas further reduce the ice time costs for minor hockey. Should these 'subsidies' decline, so will the participation. This in fact is happening with changes to the demographics of the population - other sports are asking and getting similar subsidies (i.e. soccer). Given that there is only so much money for recreation hockey is bound to suffer.
I have coached both in Canada and the US. One thing that I like about USA hockey is that it is very easy for a player to move teams year to year. Good players can seek out teams that have better coaching and development. It is my opinion from watching the world juniors over the last few years that on a whole the Americans are better skaters. I believe this is as a result of the betters players moving more easily to teams with better coaching. Like any system, there are advantages and disadvantages - I am not saying the system is perfect, or that the relative advantages of one system over the other can't be overcome.
Probably the biggest impact on either system is the competition between Canada and USA. Neither can afford to be complacent - they must always strive to improve, and that is good for both.
Personally I very much appreciate being able to watch many of the top USA prospects in the OHL - they have made the league better and I think vice versa. I always hope that there will be a strong rivalry but I sincerly hope it never gets personal and stupid like some of the ridiculous crap in soccer.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,890
- 1,734
The US doesn't send their best to the Under 18 in April? News to me. I thought it was the team that played in the USHL. Enlighten us please.
As for excuses, Americans would be saying the same thing too if the roles were reversed.
Nac Mac Feegle
wee & free
- Jun 10, 2011
- 34,880
- 9,303
The United States still has problems with their feeder systems.
The USHL requires a lot of commitment, much like the CHL.
However, prep schools and regular high school hockey isn't really that competitive and doesn't have the type of schedule you'd like to see as a scout. We still see a lot of American talent choosing to go the high school and prep school circuit tho, while may retain their eligibility for US college, is not the optiomal route to development.
As a result, a lot of teams are wary about spending a high pick on a kid playing against 14-year-olds in high school for 35 games a season over a player in the CHL or USHL that plays 80+ game a year against older and better competition.
There is a ton of talent in the US. It's simply a matter of USA hockey continuing to get more of their elite kids unto their development program, and the USHL growing into CHL South.
The USHL requires a lot of commitment, much like the CHL.
However, prep schools and regular high school hockey isn't really that competitive and doesn't have the type of schedule you'd like to see as a scout. We still see a lot of American talent choosing to go the high school and prep school circuit tho, while may retain their eligibility for US college, is not the optiomal route to development.
As a result, a lot of teams are wary about spending a high pick on a kid playing against 14-year-olds in high school for 35 games a season over a player in the CHL or USHL that plays 80+ game a year against older and better competition.
There is a ton of talent in the US. It's simply a matter of USA hockey continuing to get more of their elite kids unto their development program, and the USHL growing into CHL South.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,890
- 1,734
As to the question, will the US be number 1 in hockey within 50 years? Probably. No one would have thought 30 years ago that the Americans would be 22% of the league and Canada 52%.
USA hockey has done an amazing job in the last few years and will only get better.
And to piss off AmericanDream.....it helps that Gary dishes out 8+ million a year to US hockey.
Development fees I can live with, but welfare nah.
USA hockey has done an amazing job in the last few years and will only get better.
And to piss off AmericanDream.....it helps that Gary dishes out 8+ million a year to US hockey.
Development fees I can live with, but welfare nah.
Rabid Ranger
2 is better than one
The U.S. sends the U18 USNTDP squad to that event. There is an inherant advantage with sending such a squad, but I'm not sure it's the aboslute "best" we can send though.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
As to the question, will the US be number 1 in hockey within 50 years? Probably. No one would have thought 30 years ago that the Americans would be 22% of the league and Canada 52%.
USA hockey has done an amazing job in the last few years and will only get better.
And to piss off AmericanDream.....it helps that Gary dishes out 8+ million a year to US hockey.
Development fees I can live with, but welfare nah.
hahahaha, lets not derail this thread like we have others....
doesnt matter how you label it, whether you call it "development fees" or not, welfare is welfare, and Hockey Canada has had more then its fair share of welfare from Gary and company.
back on topic.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
see Rabid Rangers post...
we send a team familiar with one another, but hardly considered the best this country has to offer. we DO NOT send the best possible players to this tournament as anyone not playing for the USNDP is usually not invited outside of 1-2 players per year.
the bulk of our talent is not at the USNDP.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,890
- 1,734
I agree...we can agree to disagree.
Obviously you're one of the more knowledgeable posters on here re US hockey.
What changes (if any) would you like to see? Would you prefer they disband the development program and put more emphasis on the USHL
If I was American I think it would piss me off a bit that some of the talent is playing in Canada. I know why some do but if the USHL was on the level of Canadian junior (it will eventually) having those players play in the USHL would be better.
Hivemind
We're Touched
Even with his down year, there's absolutely no way you can't argue that Carl Crawford is a supreme athlete. He's obviously a baseball mega-star, but for most of his life baseball was his third sport behind Football and Basketball. He was one of the top QB recruits in the country in 1998/1999, getting offers from schools like Nebraska, Oklahoma, USC, and Florida. UCLA and other NCAA basketball programs recruited him to play point guard.
He fell to the Rays first pick of the 2nd round because teams were afraid he'd pick Football instead of baseball. The first overall pick is another superstar American athlete, Josh Hamilton.
As for pitching talents, it's pretty much impossible to argue that Stephen Strasburg isn't a young super talent. We'll see what happens after he recovers from surgery, but based on everything we've seen of him so far, the kid's ridiculous. Guys like David Price and Clayton Kershaw could reach that level if they continue improving as well.
Because you can only be a fan of one sport?
And that relates to his post how? He was talking about improvement to the US program, not the US passing Canada.
Priority one: Bettman has to go. I'm quite certain my fellow NHL fans feel the same. We need a true Hockey "person" in that position. I recall when the Lightening won the Cup, a local Tampa Bay news show interviewed a number of Tampa residents about their championship team. No one, literally no one! interviewed even knew they had a hockey team in Tampa! Some guessed that the "Lightning" was perhaps the name of their soccer team. Hockey is a novelty in the south. It is a passion in the north.
I was totally upset when the Avalanche won the cup their first year in Colorado for, what could be described as "novice" hockey fans. That cup (and team) belonged to the people of Quebec City (Nordiques). The fans in Quebec watched their team build through the draft. They were loyal, and they supported their team with passion, only to have it snatched away because of the "big market" possibility.
As it turns out, we lost a year of hockey for a salary cap "solution" that has already eroded. We lost a Canadian NHL team (Quebec) to the Bettman numbers game.
Let's face it, the youngsters in in the southern market are playing basketball, baseball, touch football and so on. They are not exposed to hockey. There isn't a local rink or open frozen ponds to play pick up. The sport is expensive. Equipment, ice time, and maintenance is too costly. Southern High Schools don't have hockey in their sports programs. Bottom line is; it's not likely those kids will become hard core NHL fans in their adulthood. If the sport is to have the passionate fans that exist in the Canadian cities, then the NHL needs to look at Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee...places in the States that have hockey youth programs and a fan base. I watch my hockey on CBC (Vancouver) because the broadcasts are superior to the local US channels. And of course, my favorite, and a true patriot...Don Cherry. He's the best ambassador of the NHL, bar none.
I was totally upset when the Avalanche won the cup their first year in Colorado for, what could be described as "novice" hockey fans. That cup (and team) belonged to the people of Quebec City (Nordiques). The fans in Quebec watched their team build through the draft. They were loyal, and they supported their team with passion, only to have it snatched away because of the "big market" possibility.
As it turns out, we lost a year of hockey for a salary cap "solution" that has already eroded. We lost a Canadian NHL team (Quebec) to the Bettman numbers game.
Let's face it, the youngsters in in the southern market are playing basketball, baseball, touch football and so on. They are not exposed to hockey. There isn't a local rink or open frozen ponds to play pick up. The sport is expensive. Equipment, ice time, and maintenance is too costly. Southern High Schools don't have hockey in their sports programs. Bottom line is; it's not likely those kids will become hard core NHL fans in their adulthood. If the sport is to have the passionate fans that exist in the Canadian cities, then the NHL needs to look at Seattle, Portland, Milwaukee...places in the States that have hockey youth programs and a fan base. I watch my hockey on CBC (Vancouver) because the broadcasts are superior to the local US channels. And of course, my favorite, and a true patriot...Don Cherry. He's the best ambassador of the NHL, bar none.
New User Name
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2008
- 12,890
- 1,734
Do you have any idea how much minor hockey has increased in the southern states? Just look at the last few drafts and how many players are coming from California and other so called non traditional areas.
I'm not sure what the figures are right now but in the past year the number of American registered kids playing is almost the same as Canadian kids playing. Within 5 years more American kids will be playing hockey than Canadian.
The growth of hockey in the states is why roughly 22% of the players in the NHL are American. Look at the rosters of NCAA teams. Twenty years ago, most were Canadian, today most are American.
As a Canadian you should be thankful Americans don't take hockey serious.
AmericanDream
Thank you Elon!
not sure what I would want changed to be honest.
as I stated in an above post, when you look at the state of amateur US hockey from 91-99, and compare that to now, we have improved immensely. Nothing is perfect, and I am not sure there is a perfect solution. I like the fact that more players are coming from more non traditional hockey areas. Those areas are "usually" the best areas for producing athletic talent in this country. To know that from 1980 until 2000, some of the best places of pure talent (California, Texas, Arizona, Florida, etc) hadnt produce much if any players at all.
Now we can count on players coming out of Cali, Texas, and Florida almost every year, and that is where I think some very highend talent is going to come from. Those states tradionally produce the most baseball and football players, so seeing hockey kids come out of there is such a promising new development. (I know football is massive in Oklahoma, Mississippi, Tennesse, Nebraska, Louisiana, etc) It is honestly and will be a game changer for overall talent in this country.
The development program needs to stay. It really is that simple. It is effective for its goal, and what it has done for USA Hockey as a whole. Would I like to see more emphasis on the USHL? Ofcourse I would, but that league needs to make changes itself before I would want any additional funds or attention going to them. If the USHL truly wanted to be like the CHL, then I would say 100% put all efforts into building that league up. But sadly it does not want to be that but instead be just a feeder system to NCAA hockey. The schedule the USHL plays is a tad short compared to the CHL, but it could be a better building block to getting kids to the NHL over the NCAA which really has a short schedule.
I dont think it is all the USHL's fault. NCAA hockey simply could not have another competitor in this country for these players as they already lose many to the CHL. I think the USHL realizes that it does a good job preparing kids for college or the CHL and they are okay with that. They arent look to unseed the NCAA....at least not anytime soon.
I am not upset that many American kids are going to the CHL, I am more upset with those that are backing out of college commitments to do so. I like the fact that more and more American kids are wanted in the CHL as a whole, and you better believe that will mean more highend Americans in the NHL.
Maybe in 10 years the USHL will have to switch its positioning on being a feeder system to the NCAA if it truly does start seeing a massive growth in overall American kids playing the game like many on here are expecting and stating will happen. The growth of the game is just beginning in many of these markets, and it will take time for players to evolve out of many of these non traditional markets, but when they do the USHL might have to rethink a thing or two and try to fight and keep these kids in the US and not bolt to the CHL.
I love the change that USA Hockey is making : less games at the youth level, and more practicing. I cannot emphasis this enough as to how important of a switch this truly will be for our kids.
Last edited:
edgevolution
GO USA!
Dude, Minnesota has the best all-state team of any state.
Parise-Backes-Okposo
Blake-Mueller-Wheeler
Langenbrunner-Cullen-Parrish
C.Stuart- R.Carter-Hendricks
McBain-E. Johnson
Martin-Goligoski
Ballard-Leopold
Gilbert
You can't tell me that's not good on ice product. And with 206 (the most of any state) players having played in the NHL, the likes of Housley, Broten, and Brimsek coming out of here, you can't say we don't have good on ice product.
Interesting...
I think hockey in Canada is too big to make that. I do believe that America will match Canada's talent, but not overpower it.
As for US hockey I wouldn't worry because there are some AMAZING prospects coming down the line including the next wave of potential all-star defenders.
Trouba
Jones
Coyle
Schmaltz
Galchenyuk
Nieves
Kerdiles
Michaelson
Santini
Savage
B. Williams
Shea
Erne
DeAngelo
Ebert
After that you have two amazing kids still playing Bantam/Midget,
Clarke
Nylander
And I prefer USA's goalers much more than Canada's.
He shouldn't have slipped past 6. Watching him with Anaheim pretty much cemented it. He has a bright future, particularly once he gains more confidence playing with the adults.
Really? What's an inner city kid more likely to do with no money, pick up a basketball/football or go buy skates and equipment and a hockey stick? What about a hick out in Iowa, is he gunna pick up a stick and ball/ wrestle with some friends or drive 30 miles to a store and buy hockey stuff? There are only a few cities in the US that has no cost hockey programs for the poor.
It has just about everything to do with money.
Ad
Latest posts
-
Series Talk: WCQF: Winnipeg Jets Vs. Colorado Avalanche (Series tied 1-1)- Latest: SeanMoneyHands
-
HF Habs: Official 2024 HFHabs Mock NHL Draft (Round Six)- Latest: calder candidate
