EP 2010 state champs?

[Neutron 14]

Coach Aus is a great coach from what I hear...

[komada77]

I don't understand why people think that winning when you're younger translates into winning at the HS level. I'll use Woodbury as an example because taht's what I know about. For the class of 2009's freshman year, the 2 junior highs in the community (Woodbury JH and Lake JH) went a combined 17-3 in football, 39-5 in basketball (plus 3 traveling ball state championships), and 33-7 in baseball. There are no junior high hockey teams, but the bantam A team that year was dominated by first-years, and they were okay, not great. This year, Woodbury was a .500 team in football, a sub-.500 team in basketball, will probably be slightly better than .500 in baseball, and went to state in hockey. The point I'm trying to make is that excellence at the youth levels rarely translates into excellence at the high school level (with some exceptions of course).

[mulefarm]

I believe that Bantam A success and High school success go hand and hand. This is especially true if you can put together 2 strong classes. If each class can produce 7-8 players, that should make you extremely competetive. The experience you gain through youth tournaments should help you at the High School level. Kids do mature at different ages, but this will balance out for each program. I think a high school coach would love to have his Bantams be at the top each year. There are other factors, but you will most likely have the core players. Usually when you have strong Bantam teams you will have strong High School teams, maybe not state tournament teams, but 18-20 win years.

[Nogoalov]

no ep wont win. burnsville beat them this year in bantams, therefore burnsville will win, other wise holy angels.

2010 state championship
holy angels 3
eagan 2

mark it up

Eagan...

[Neutron 14]

I don't understand why people think that winning when you're younger translates into winning at the HS level. I'll use Woodbury as an example because taht's what I know about. For the class of 2009's freshman year, the 2 junior highs in the community (Woodbury JH and Lake JH) went a combined 17-3 in football, 39-5 in basketball (plus 3 traveling ball state championships), and 33-7 in baseball. There are no junior high hockey teams, but the bantam A team that year was dominated by first-years, and they were okay, not great. This year, Woodbury was a .500 team in football, a sub-.500 team in basketball, will probably be slightly better than .500 in baseball, and went to state in hockey. The point I'm trying to make is that excellence at the youth levels rarely translates into excellence at the high school level (with some exceptions of course).

Your first mistake is comparing hockey to other sports, ala HScircletalker.

Your second mistake is using Woodbury as an example, since they came through a relatively weak section.

You USUALLY see bantam success move on to the high school in hockey. Everyone knew in bantams that Edina was going to be good. Everyone knew in bantams that Roseau was going to be good. Everyone knew that Hill had enrolled a good portion of a extremely good AAA Blades team.

[Messier]

My 2cents. From Squirts to Pee Wee to Bantams the goal is to make the A team at the next level. When a player of a team like the EP Bantam A all move to HS, they want to play Varsity and do and have some success, then a scout talks to a kid and another kid, then it go's from being about the team to what do I have to do to get that scholarship or my draft ranking highier. Yes coaching has a part also, good coaches know how to focus a team and get the scouts and draft prospect out of the locker room and keep the team working as one. My HS team had this problem ranked in the top 5 all year but when it came down to playoffs the top players went away from the team to playing look 5 D1 schools here watching and I have to show them, that I can play for them. My point kids with pressure from parents saying you have to prove to Lucia that you are the best and the Gophers need you, instead of your team needs you to lead them to state and play as a team and everything will work out for college.

[Can't Never Tried]

Everyone knew that Hill had enrolled a good portion of a extremely good AAA Blades team.

I'm not sure if you intended it to be.......but this was pretty funny when you consider the 2 previous examples you had.

[Neutron 14]

Everyone knew that Hill had enrolled a good portion of a extremely good AAA Blades team.

I'm not sure if you intended it to be.......but this was pretty funny when you consider the 2 previous examples you had.

The truth is funny that way...

[Flin Flon Bomber]

Doglover

In regard to your stupid transfer rule comment.....maybe the private schools should develop there own youth programs so they don't invade other programs and recruit there best players.

[komada77]

I don't understand why people think that winning when you're younger translates into winning at the HS level. I'll use Woodbury as an example because taht's what I know about. For the class of 2009's freshman year, the 2 junior highs in the community (Woodbury JH and Lake JH) went a combined 17-3 in football, 39-5 in basketball (plus 3 traveling ball state championships), and 33-7 in baseball. There are no junior high hockey teams, but the bantam A team that year was dominated by first-years, and they were okay, not great. This year, Woodbury was a .500 team in football, a sub-.500 team in basketball, will probably be slightly better than .500 in baseball, and went to state in hockey. The point I'm trying to make is that excellence at the youth levels rarely translates into excellence at the high school level (with some exceptions of course).

Your first mistake is comparing hockey to other sports, ala HScircletalker.

Your second mistake is using Woodbury as an example, since they came through a relatively weak section.

You USUALLY see bantam success move on to the high school in hockey. Everyone knew in bantams that Edina was going to be good. Everyone knew in bantams that Roseau was going to be good. Everyone knew that Hill had enrolled a good portion of a extremely good AAA Blades team.

Everyone knows Roseau, Edina, and Hill are going to be good pretty much every year, regardless of bantam success. And Woodbury came through the 3rd toughest section in the state, with 2 top 10 teams other than Woodbury in it. But you're right, it is difficult to compare different sports to on another.

[Neutron 14]

Everyone knows Roseau, Edina, and Hill are going to be good pretty much every year, regardless of bantam success. And Woodbury came through the 3rd toughest section in the state, with 2 top
10 teams other than Woodbury in it. But you're right, it is difficult to compare different sports to on another.

When Edina didn't have bantam success, they lost their top players to privates. When Roseau didn't have bantam success, Moorhead went to state.

IMHO, youth success is directly related in hockey. Now a bounce of the puck here and there greatly reduces the predictability, but year after year of bantam success and HS underacheivment is no fluke.

What poll are you looking at? PS2 final has zero 3AAteams in the top ten.

[BodyShots]

Their is a big difference between bantams and varsity. Also, you can't just look at Bantam A as a sole indicator of a program. There are kids that develop (or fall off) after bantams as they grow and mature. Look at Cenntenials' bantam B's, how do they do? Many schools' varsity programs have a mix of the Bantam A players, and improved B players.

Preparation for the varsity level is important too. Since it is different, you must be prepared differently. Coach Aus is a great coach from what I hear, and the Bantam A program is top notch coaching as well. Somewhere along the way something isn't going right. I would look to the JV program and I would guess a improportional dependence on key players at the Bantam level is not developing the program all around.

Thats my 2 cents[/quote]

You hit the nail on the head with your comment about dependence on key players. What I've noticed is that in PeeWee and Bantam, many coaches get through Region and State using one, maybe two lines. When you get to HS, it takes depth to be the best as shown by HM this past year!

[packerboy]

We have all seen very good Bantams turn into average HS players and average Bantams turn into very good HS players.

But I agree with Neut that Bantam success has often times been a good predictor of HS success.

I dont agree with Nuet when he attributes a fall off from Bantams to HS to coaching or the HS program. There are too many other factors even if players dont attend a different school.

[komada77]

Everyone knows Roseau, Edina, and Hill are going to be good pretty much every year, regardless of bantam success. And Woodbury came through the 3rd toughest section in the state, with 2 top
10 teams other than Woodbury in it. But you're right, it is difficult to compare different sports to on another.

When Edina didn't have bantam success, they lost their top players to privates. When Roseau didn't have bantam success, Moorhead went to state.

IMHO, youth success is directly related in hockey. Now a bounce of the puck here and there greatly reduces the predictability, but year after year of bantam success and HS underacheivment is no fluke.

What poll are you looking at? PS2 final has zero 3AAteams in the top ten.

I was talking about pre-section rankings

[Hockeyguy_27]

I suspect EP will keep most of their outstanding Bantam age players and have a few good runs in the 2010-'12 state tournaments. However, I'd like their chances better if they had retained Meyers and Patterson who now play for BSM.

[breakout]

I suspect EP will keep most of their outstanding Bantam age players and have a few good runs in the 2010-'12 state tournaments. However, I'd like their chances better if they had retained Meyers and Patterson who now play for BSM.

Meyers yes, he was a big reason Benilde made their run. Patterson might want to try and stray into a corner sometime.

[rex123]

Doglover

In regard to your stupid transfer rule comment.....maybe the private schools should develop there own youth programs so they don't invade other programs and recruit there best players.

Be careful what you wish for - I think most of the private schools would love to do just that. That would decimate many programs. Where my kid plays ½ the peewees are thinking of going to private schools.
The only think holding it back are many district associations. You are already starting to see some schools with their own Bantam teams, but many districts are refusing to issue waivers. I don’t think many schools (public or private) would have a problem filling Bantam teams and possibility peewee too.
People whine about talent leaving local bantam programs for private schools, but what they fail to recognize is that there is a large percentage of those players that never intended to play for their local public school. Where would you have them play and how strong would you association be without those players?

[packerboy]

High schools, private and public, should stay out of the youth hockey business.

High schools should operate high school sports and the private associations run by parents should operate youth sports.

Its better that way. Its one reason hockey is as good as it is in Minnesota.

[komada77]

High schools, private and public, should stay out of the youth hockey business.

High schools should operate high school sports and the private associations run by parents should operate youth sports.

Its better that way. Its one reason hockey is as good as it is in Minnesota.

Very much agreed.

[rbk2090]

I suspect EP will keep most of their outstanding Bantam age players and have a few good runs in the 2010-'12 state tournaments. However, I'd like their chances better if they had retained Meyers and Patterson who now play for BSM.

Meyers yes, he was a big reason Benilde made their run. Patterson might want to try and stray into a corner sometime.

I agree about both kids. The Patterson kid is going to get his #%^@*%# head taken off if he keeps that cocky crap up! He is one of the biggest wussys I have seen in a long time.

[Lakeviewing]

Win a state title before claiming him as a great coach. These kids win in spite of him.

Coach Smith is a great coach, he just hasn't had the talent in resent years. Though people may say their youths coaches are better coach Smith is still a great coach.

[wannagototherink]

Win a state title before claiming him as a great coach. These kids win in spite of him.

Coach Smith is a great coach, he just hasn't had the talent in resent years. Though people may say their youths coaches are better coach Smith is still a great coach.

Now this is the opinion of an outsider looking in, and I will fully disclose that my sources may be biased against the high school program. But in any event this is an EP thread and maybe someone from EP can shed some light on my ensuing statement.

My understanding is, that the AD at EPHS is never going to do anything to take the spotlight of the EP football program. Therefore the AD is not necesarily going to be very concerned if the hockey team has any success or not. Again, I don't know the coach nor have I had any of my kids play for him, but what I have heard is, he's a super nice guy, but not a very good hockey coach. I have also been told that parents are again trying to get coach Lacombe in to coach that team.

Can any of you eagle fans enlighten us?

Also...

Whether or not you can compare high school success to bantam success I don't know, you can show more examples of teams having success at the bantam level and it not parlaying that into high school success.


These teams have dominated bantam a hockey over the last ten years and their high school teams have had only moderate success

Centennial
White Bear Lake
Duluth East
Wayzata
EP

These teams are fixtures at the bantam state tournament yet their success at the hs level is somewhat suspect...

what do you think it is?

I don't think this because of coaching though, there has to be other factors.

[rbkhockeyman2070]

wannagototherink I like you have to say, I also agree with you when you stated that their school is based around football and thats because the AD is Mike Grant, ( the head coach for FB.) With that I would like to see Nohl Rahn and Lacombe be coaches sense they are very similiar.

The reason i beilive teams have great success in bantams but not highschool is because of privite schools.
Edina has also had great success in bantams and highschool, so I think things can change and have Ep become a powerhouse, with or without a new coach.

[Doglover]

Many good points. I think Chris Lacombe is a big reason EP has had so much success. He has good players and even a few really good players, but from what I've heard he really prepares his team to win state - not just make it there. With all the EP Bantam A's staying (with the exception of Bullock whom they'll miss), I think their HS team should be strong in the next few years. Good point about the AD and football though. Hadn't considered that angle. It would be interesting to watch EP HS hockey success if Lacombe took over the program. I've also heard the current coach is a good guy though.

Flim Flam - your post was way off topic and it's "their" not "there". I sure hate the bad grammar on this board. Just for the record, I think many private schools would love to develop their own youth teams - especially at the Bantam level. I know several good private school kids who have gotten cut by their Bantam A coaches since they were not going to the local, public HS. It's definitely a complicated issue.

[Flin Flon Bomber]

I apologize for the spelling error. I respect your opinion, however, I don't believe I am off the mark. Why should youth programs develop kids who are leaving for private schools? One metro suburb does it right by not allowing kids who are leaving on a A team. I wish they all would do that.