What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Hammy said:
I appreciate the Vanek/Cammy numbers thing. Although I think Vanek had it tougher in that the USHL has gotten younger since his days. You see a lot more younger players playing in the league these days than we did ten years ago when Vanek was lighting it up. Still, Cammy had a great year. I already teased him on twitter that I am setting the bar at 40+ pts for him as a frosh. He is definitely capable of it. Some of it will depend on if the guys around him finish well as Cammy has amazing play making skills and his linemates will definitely benefit with opportunities to put the puck in the net.

It should be a fun year. I think we'll see a lot of creativity with the puck with these guys. I expect the power play to be very good. If we play responsibly on defense (not get too loose with the defense pushing the offense) and Wilcox plays as well as he did this past season, we'll be in good shape.
Click to expand...

Very true about a younger USHL these days. I was reading an article recently about the youngest player ever in the USHL, who plays with the Cedar Rapids Roughriders. He's 15 and has to be chauffeured to games and practices since he's too young to have a driver's license. :)

Cammy actually knows Vanek and played for Vanek's AAA team, the ITR 26ers, before going to Waterloo:

And even though the season at Shattuck is finished, the pair (Cammy played with Nathan MacKinnon/Halifax at Shattuck & ITR 26ers; and who is expected to go in the 1st rd./top 3 in the 2013 NHL draft) is still on the ice, this time as members of the ITR 26ers. The team, run by Buffalo Sabres star and former Minnesota Golden Gopher Thomas Vanek, plays several tourneys in the summer and acts as a bridge between seasons. One bonus of playing for the 26ers is the chance to grab some face time with Vanek himself and get some expert advice on how to develop as a player.

“After the NHL season, he comes and helps run the camp,” Cammarata said. “He said he really liked going to the University of Minnesota and he really likes the college route.”
Click to expand...

Hey, set the bar high...he's seems capable of 40+. The only criticism I've seen on Cammy is a hesitation to dig in the corners and fight for position in front for dirty goals.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

So I think its awesome that the school is supporting MN hockey by playing most of our instate rivals.

Does anyone think that 8 games against UMD, MSM, SCSU and BSU is one series too many?
 
5mn_Major said:
So I think its awesome that the school is supporting MN hockey by playing most of our instate rivals.

Does anyone think that 8 games against UMD, MSM, SCSU and BSU is one series too many?
Click to expand...

Who would you replace one of the series with? UND? All the Minnesota schools should play the U.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

5mn_Major said:
So I think its awesome that the school is supporting MN hockey by playing most of our instate rivals.

Does anyone think that 8 games against UMD, MSM, SCSU and BSU is one series too many?
Click to expand...

Glad you still have Kato on the schedule. Of course, you have a lot of scheduling flexibility as long as the BT is only a 6 team conference. If a couple more teams (Nebraska? Illinois?) start hockey programs, I'm guessing there will be fewer Maverick games and banned Beaver threads.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

4four4 said:
Who would you replace one of the series with? UND? All the Minnesota schools should play the U.
Click to expand...

Its May, just looking to discuss some topic. Its fine the way it is or a change of one series would be fine also. We could have a one series against mankato and scsu...another against UMD and BSU...and the MN cup. That would guarentee multiple games against several MN schools...and still retain the MN tourney. At this point, we are playing nobody else from the region (new wcha or nchc).
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

I am just an occasional NHL viewer, so I am curious. Who is the best former-Gopher Defenseman in the NHL currently? (As in, this season, or last 2, not just ones still alive in the playoffs.)
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Koho said:
I am just an occasional NHL viewer, so I am curious. Who is the best former-Gopher Defenseman in the NHL currently? (As in, this season, or last 2, not just ones still alive in the playoffs.)
Click to expand...

Leddy and Erik Johnson have both been solid, but I think Paul Martin was probably the best this year. He really turned his game around in the shortened season this year.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Leddy would have been a senior this last season with the Gophers, it's too bad all these kids bolt so early.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

5mn_Major said:
Its May, just looking to discuss some topic. Its fine the way it is or a change of one series would be fine also. We could have a one series against mankato and scsu...another against UMD and BSU...and the MN cup. That would guarentee multiple games against several MN schools...and still retain the MN tourney. At this point, we are playing nobody else from the region (new wcha or nchc).
Click to expand...

There is a part of me that would like to see a little more flexibility so we don't always have that many games tied up vs. MN teams every year. At the same time, there are trade offs. By playing games against the in-state teams, we continue to have about the same amount of games in the state's borders as we have had as a WCHA squad. Keeps the fans happy and keeps the presence in our main recruiting territory strong.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

5mn_Major said:
So I think its awesome that the school is supporting MN hockey by playing most of our instate rivals.

Does anyone think that 8 games against UMD, MSM, SCSU and BSU is one series too many?
Click to expand...

Gotta keep the Beavers on the schedule...even though they sometimes stink, the attraction is there nonetheless.:D
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

The Norman kid sounds like a great get by the Gophers, hell his old man played for the Fighting Dingleberries, but he saw through the BS and chose a real school. Smart kid.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Hammy said:
They are all gambles to some extent. After all, we even see 1st round NHL guys (drafted at the ripe old age of 18/19) that don't pan out. But when you see a kid that good and it isn't because he is relying on some early physical advantage (like being 6'3", 190 lbs. at 15), I'll take my chances. The ones that make me a little leery are the ones like Ambroz... kids that are a "man-child" at 14 or 15 and overpower their same age opponents.

I'll take my chances on the kid with excellent overall skills though.
Click to expand...


Over on GPL you wrote:

Hammy said:
It's a long ways to go w/ some of these kids. Frankly, I'd kind of like the Gophs to hold off a bit more on offering real young kids (under 16). If you go and look at the years after the first real young commit occurred (IMO, this all started with Jack Johnson and Michigan), there haven't been many of these guys that end up being Hobey candidates, all Americans, etc.

That's not to say young commits aren't ever good. Just that in terms of big picture impact, the young commit can end up not fulfilling the pre-college hype. It's buyer beware at that young age. I think this is especially true with young forwards.
Click to expand...

Seems you are a little more leery about a young kid than you argued on here.

(Ok, so there isn't a big difference from what you wrote. But its been a week since anyone posted, there's nothing happening and, its the Gophers. We shouldn't see this thread making it to the third page.)
 
Koho said:
Over on GPL you wrote:



Seems you are a little more leery about a young kid than you argued on here.

(Ok, so there isn't a big difference from what you wrote. But its been a week since anyone posted, there's nothing happening and, its the Gophers. We shouldn't see this thread making it to the third page.)
Click to expand...
Recruiting will always be a gamble.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Koho said:
Seems you are a little more leery about a young kid than you argued on here.
Click to expand...

I wasn't intending on saying never do it. I just feel it should be done a little more selectively than maybe we have done (and I am mainly talking about kids under 16). If other places want to jump at a kid early and offer, so be it. Doesn't mean we have to.

I don't have an issue with an elite D man like Lindgren. High end defenseman are a little more challenging to land than a scoring forward (sheer numbers at each position dictate that). Plus, we don't do that all that much. It is more the forward spot that I get leery about.

I have been doing a bit of research to show what I mean but I have slacked a bit on it in recent days. I'll try to pick it up soon though. The early returns on it though are that the guys that make the biggest impact tend to commit later (over 16 and usually around 17).
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

Hammy said:
I wasn't intending on saying never do it. I just feel it should be done a little more selectively than maybe we have done (and I am mainly talking about kids under 16). If other places want to jump at a kid early and offer, so be it. Doesn't mean we have to.

I don't have an issue with an elite D man like Lindgren. High end defenseman are a little more challenging to land than a scoring forward (sheer numbers at each position dictate that). Plus, we don't do that all that much. It is more the forward spot that I get leery about.

I have been doing a bit of research to show what I mean but I have slacked a bit on it in recent days. I'll try to pick it up soon though. The early returns on it though are that the guys that make the biggest impact tend to commit later (over 16 and usually around 17).
Click to expand...

Get off your butt and get that research done. These are slow times in the hockey discussion world. (And curious how you rate "productive" and how you factor in if it turns out kids recruited at 15-16 start at age 18 and are more likely to leave after a couple, versus if you see that 17-18 year old commits spend a year or two in Juniors and stay 3-4. What is better, a kid who has a good freshman year and great Soph year, where he is a difference maker, then leaves, or the kid who comes in and plays steady and improves a little every year, so after 4 years is one of the better players?) Sounds like a complex regression for Harley to take on.
 
Last edited:
Koho said:
Get off your butt and get that research done. These are slow times in the hockey discussion world. (And curious how you rate "productive" and how you factor in if it turns out kids recruited at 15-16 start at age 18 and are more likely to leave after a couple, versus if you see that 17-18 year old commits spend a year or two in Juniors and stay 3-4. What is better, a kid who has a good freshman year and great Soph year, where he is a difference maker, then leaves, or the kid who comes in and plays steady and improves a little every year, so after 4 years is one of the better players?) Sounds like a complex regression for Harley to take on.
Click to expand...

Probably some cases where a kid was recruited at 15-16, then didn't develop the way most thought they would too.
 
Re: Minnesota Gophers Offesason Thread: Back To 1896

There certainly would be discussion points on it. I certainly wouldn't be saying it's a point of discussion without some weak spots. For instance, just because a kid commits at 17 doesn't mean he couldn't have committed younger. Its not like the day they were offered was the day they committed. There are lag times of varying degrees.

I guess the point is ultimately a lot of the guys that end up Hobey winners, All Americans, etc weren't guys that committed real young. Often times, they aren't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top