Juniors vs. High School

[Wisco Dad]

When, if ever, does it make sense to play Juniors intead of HS hockey here in MN?

[lxhockey]

One might play juniors if one was not MSHSL eligible or had some irreconcilable differences with the HS coach and neither Jr. Gold nor the Xcel League was a fit or available.

[Love4Hockey]

When you have nothing left to play for meaning you have accomplished a state title and possibly your the best player in the state, if your able to dominate like Jered Festler did, then Juniors is the way, but almost never should a kid take Juniors over Minnesota High School Hockey in my opinion

[karl(east)]

There's no formula we can slap on people to say who should leave for juniors and who should not. Every individual is different.

This would be the best I could do, though. A player who leaves high school for juniors should probably meet one of the following criteria:

-Has already achieved most anything a player might want to at the high school level (namely, win a state title)
-If the player is so much better than his high school peers that it will stunt his development (can include players so much better than their teammates that they will asked to do too much and do things that will not help them grow as players)
-The player is a serious D-1 prospect and is sure that the jump to juniors will increase the odds of a very successful career
-Irreconcilable differences with coaching

All of these require that the player be mentally ready to leave home. The player should also realize what a serious commitment juniors is, and has to be willing to say goodbye to his friends and family a bit early. He also has to understand what it means to leave one's high school and undergo a very different HS experience than what most people go through.

[Love4Hockey]

I could not have agreed with you more Karl

[breakout]

There's no formula we can slap on people to say who should leave for juniors and who should not. Every individual is different.

This would be the best I could do, though. A player who leaves high school for juniors should probably meet one of the following criteria:

-Has already achieved most anything a player might want to at the high school level (namely, win a state title)
-If the player is so much better than his high school peers that it will stunt his development (can include players so much better than their teammates that they will asked to do too much and do things that will not help them grow as players)
-The player is a serious D-1 prospect and is sure that the jump to juniors will increase the odds of a very successful career
-Irreconcilable differences with coaching

All of these require that the player be mentally ready to leave home. The player should also realize what a serious commitment juniors is, and has to be willing to say goodbye to his friends and family a bit early. He also has to understand what it means to leave one's high school and undergo a very different HS experience than what most people go through.

Agree with you where I highlighted.

The player needs to be dominate at the high school level

Should be physically mature ......... because you will compete against men. Otherwise the player will likely have a higher risk of injury.

Must be willing to possibly fail ............ Jr. has a significant list of kids that couldn't excel at the next level.

[Wisco Dad]

What if he wants to skip his Senior year for TIER 3?

[breakout]

There's no formula we can slap on people to say who should leave for juniors and who should not. Every individual is different.

This would be the best I could do, though. A player who leaves high school for juniors should probably meet one of the following criteria:

-Has already achieved most anything a player might want to at the high school level (namely, win a state title)
-If the player is so much better than his high school peers that it will stunt his development (can include players so much better than their teammates that they will asked to do too much and do things that will not help them grow as players)
-The player is a serious D-1 prospect and is sure that the jump to juniors will increase the odds of a very successful career
-Irreconcilable differences with coaching

All of these require that the player be mentally ready to leave home. The player should also realize what a serious commitment juniors is, and has to be willing to say goodbye to his friends and family a bit early. He also has to understand what it means to leave one's high school and undergo a very different HS experience than what most people go through.

Maybe I missed it in another post.

Karl, I am wondering about your opinion on Forbert's decision. Obviously, there are people that will think it was a great move for the young man and some that think his development wouldn't be hindered by staying in high school.

Your thoughts?

[hockeyboys]

I can't imagine skipping Minnesota High School hockey - friends, school, relationships - for Tier III juniors. Some kids in Tier III still hold onto the dream of playing college hockey, but few from this level make it. A greater number of players who play at 16 or 17 here can use the time to improve, but overall - not really a stepping stone. It is a league filled with older players - many of which are there just because they love playing hockey and understand that this is their last stop before Sunday night men's league.

[johnnyquest]

given the "forbert" post I thought I would chime in and hopefully stay on topic.

When you look at the U-17 team in Ann Arbor, here you have an entire group of kids, none older than 16, who left home to play a Junior schedule. Granted many of the kids are not from minny, which is the topic here, and in that situation ann arbor seems to make sense.

Given the fall elite league, upper end minn hockey players are able to play a schedule similar to that of the midget aaa players from around the country. I have also heard the state of Michigan is trying to adopt the same type of elite league that exists in minny.

By the way, how will a team of 16 year olds, who were just average in the NAHL, compete against a better group of opponents playing in the ushl - I think most would agree the USHL is a step up from the NA?

[hockeyboys]

the USHL is a step up skill wise from the NAHL - but it is also a younger league (average age of the players). So, for natioanl development team - it probably makes sense. They will be playing against players somewhat closer in age.

[Wisco Dad]

The arguement that was presented to me (and thus prompted this topic) was that if a young man is really good and wants to improve faster, he whould forgo his sophmore/junior year of HS and play TIER 3 Juniors to get better with the faster pace and older players. Then his Senior year, do a higher level of juniors or go Canada.

I'm just wondering what others thought of this approach.

Thank you!

[Goldy Gopher]

The arguement that was presented to me (and thus prompted this topic) was that if a young man is really good and wants to improve faster, he whould forgo his sophmore/junior year of HS and play TIER 3 Juniors to get better with the faster pace and older players. Then his Senior year, do a higher level of juniors or go Canada.

I'm just wondering what others thought of this approach.

Thank you!

Not smart. Stay in high school with your friends and develop, if you develop enough, and that's the route you want to take, you'll be able to go somewhere during your senior year

[hockeyboys]

The arguement that was presented to me (and thus prompted this topic) was that if a young man is really good and wants to improve faster, he whould forgo his sophmore/junior year of HS and play TIER 3 Juniors to get better with the faster pace and older players. Then his Senior year, do a higher level of juniors or go Canada.

I'm just wondering what others thought of this approach.

The problem with that approach is that MN HS hockey is probably better than Tier III. Depending on where one lives, the HS program, the schedule of the HS team, etc. If a kid is at Bloomington Jefferson and plays a solid AA schedule - the first line players for the most part are better than the players at the Tier III level. The Jr. players are older and stronger, but that does not make them more skilled... just older and stronger.

If one lived in another part of the country without the HS program that MN has, than his might be a good way to go.

I am not trying to be critical of the MNJHL - it is absolutely a very fine league. With very good players, well run and officiated. The fighting has greatly decreased in recent years, etc. But, it is not the NAHL or USHL. I think it a very good place for a kid to get extra games by playing before and after. But it is not place where a kid should go and give up what really matters - playing High School hockey.

[karl(east)]

Maybe I missed it in another post.

Karl, I am wondering about your opinion on Forbert's decision. Obviously, there are people that will think it was a great move for the young man and some that think his development wouldn't be hindered by staying in high school.

Your thoughts?

Yeah, I posted some thoughts on the thread about him leaving but didn't come down strongly for or against it. I think it's complicated.

Forbort is obviously an incredibly talented player with great future potential. Parts of his game still need some refinement, and I can see how NTDP will probably give him a better shot at that than high school hockey. He has a very high ceiling, and I'm not sure how much another year at the HS level would have helped him achieve that. Also, East probably had its best chance at a state title in his time at the school last year. So there's a strong case to be made that this was a good move for Forbort.

Forbort's role on the team got more and more odd as the year went on, as he started playing forward more often. It's possible that he didn't like that change in roles, or that he thought it wasn't doing much for his development, and didn't want to spend another year at East where the spotlight would be focused on him even more. But that's just my speculation, and I've been known to read into things too much. But it's at least another possible reason for the decision, I think.

On the flip side, Mike Randolph obviously disagrees with Forbort's decision, and I have a ton of respect for his talent judgment. Because of that, I'd be interested in hearing more of what he has to say on the subject (though not through the media, since he really shouldn't have said what he did through the News-Tribune). It's enough to make me stop and think, at least.

[Hoops]

When, if ever, does it make sense to play Juniors intead of HS hockey here in MN?

As far as Mn goes..if you are an upper end talent...going D1 and looking to improve...it would be hard to argue w/ leaving their SR yr and going to an Ann Arbor and playing some international hockey. Don't forget SR yr you most likely already played 2 yrs of Varsity (upper end) and now you would be playing against ALOT of jrs and sophs...so each case is definitely unique.

[breakout]

Maybe I missed it in another post.

Karl, I am wondering about your opinion on Forbert's decision. Obviously, there are people that will think it was a great move for the young man and some that think his development wouldn't be hindered by staying in high school.

Your thoughts?

Yeah, I posted some thoughts on the thread about him leaving but didn't come down strongly for or against it. I think it's complicated.

Forbort is obviously an incredibly talented player with great future potential. Parts of his game still need some refinement, and I can see how NTDP will probably give him a better shot at that than high school hockey. He has a very high ceiling, and I'm not sure how much another year at the HS level would have helped him achieve that. Also, East probably had its best chance at a state title in his time at the school last year. So there's a strong case to be made that this was a good move for Forbort.

Forbort's role on the team got more and more odd as the year went on, as he started playing forward more often. It's possible that he didn't like that change in roles, or that he thought it wasn't doing much for his development, and didn't want to spend another year at East where the spotlight would be focused on him even more. But that's just my speculation, and I've been known to read into things too much. But it's at least another possible reason for the decision, I think.

On the flip side, Mike Randolph obviously disagrees with Forbort's decision, and I have a ton of respect for his talent judgment. Because of that, I'd be interested in hearing more of what he has to say on the subject (though not through the media, since he really shouldn't have said what he did through the News-Tribune). It's enough to make me stop and think, at least.

Randolph had him playing forward? Not sure that was a good idea.

[Nonamer]

Could be wrong, but I believe poor choices and judgment in working with Derek cost Randolph this fine player. Time will tell. Whatever, I do know you don't demean a kid on his way to achieving higher goals. Never.

[karl(east)]

Randolph had him playing forward? Not sure that was a good idea.

Yeah, for about half the season Forbort played wing on the Power Play. I don't have numbers to check this, but I didn't notice a real difference in PP production before vs. after the switch (Lee/any other East fans who saw the team more often than me...did you notice much?). I can see some of the logic behind it, as it got another one of their excellent defensemen on the ice for the top PP unit. But from the perspective of Forbort's development, it probably wasn't a great move.

He was also up there for the entire 3rd period of the Cretin game at the State Tournament. He didn't have a great period; it looked like he was trying to do too much, though he certainly wasn't alone in that respect. At that point, Randolph was throwing everything he had out there to try to win that game. You can call that desperate, or you can call it a coach going down fighting with everything he has. It's hard to draw the line there. If it had worked, Randolph would've been regarded as a genius. It didn't, so naturally the questions started to come.

There is, an Nonamer suggests, a very fine line between asking a player to be a leader and asking him to do too much. Maybe Randolph crossed it and frustrated Forbort, or maybe Forbort was going to leave no matter what, and we can really only speculate on that.

[breakout]

Randolph had him playing forward? Not sure that was a good idea.

Yeah, for about half the season Forbort played wing on the Power Play. I don't have numbers to check this, but I didn't notice a real difference in PP production before vs. after the switch (Lee/any other East fans who saw the team more often than me...did you notice much?). I can see some of the logic behind it, as it got another one of their excellent defensemen on the ice for the top PP unit. But from the perspective of Forbort's development, it probably wasn't a great move.

He was also up there for the entire 3rd period of the Cretin game at the State Tournament. He didn't have a great period; it looked like he was trying to do too much, though he certainly wasn't alone in that respect. At that point, Randolph was throwing everything he had out there to try to win that game. You can call that desperate, or you can call it a coach going down fighting with everything he has. It's hard to draw the line there. If it had worked, Randolph would've been regarded as a genius. It didn't, so naturally the questions started to come.

There is, an Nonamer suggests, a very fine line between asking a player to be a leader and asking him to do too much. Maybe Randolph crossed it and frustrated Forbort, or maybe Forbort was going to leave no matter what, and we can really only speculate on that.

Randolph is a proven high school coach. I assume he was doing what he felt was in the best interest of his team.

Having seen forbert play and understanding his upside, I would have had him stick to the back side and compliment a D unit that was arguably the best in the state.

He probably would have been better served running the D up top on the power play, wouldn't he?

[Papa Bergundy]

the USHL is a step up skill wise from the NAHL - but it is also a younger league (average age of the players). So, for natioanl development team - it probably makes sense. They will be playing against players somewhat closer in age.

I'm wondering from anyone who witnessed a game how the Ann Arbor boys handled the physical aspect of the NAHL? Obviously with players being 3-5 years older than these boys there was a size difference, I find it difficult to see them not getting manhandled and potentially injured in a game situation. They say Bantams to HS is a big jump, I can only imagine at the ripe age of 15 and 16 playing against some fully grown men.

Which leads to my next point. MOST players in the USHL are one year away from playing for a division one school. These are a sample of the most elite players from MN as well as other parts of the country and world. Maybe the age is closer, but I just dont know how well they will be able to compete. I guess we will have to see.

[karl(east)]

Randolph is a proven high school coach. I assume he was doing what he felt was in the best interest of his team.

Having seen forbert play and understanding his upside, I would have had him stick to the back side and compliment a D unit that was arguably the best in the state.

He probably would have been better served running the D up top on the power play, wouldn't he?

From a development standpoint, yes, it'd probably have been much better for him to be doing that. Since I also trust Randolph's abitilty to judge his players, I'll trust that what he did with the PP was best for the team until someone can do a good job of proving otherwise. It's one of those situations where what's good for the team isn't necessarily the same as what's good for a player.

I don't really blame Randolph for doing this. The move might not have been entirely in Forbort's best interests, but it's not like it was going to damage him somehow. Randolph put the team first, which is what his job is. And when you consider that this past year was East's best shot at a title run in a while, he's very justified in doing everything he could to achieve that.

Before the season, I remember thinking something along the lines of "I'm willing to sacrifice a year of Forbort at East for a State Title." I believe Randolph might've thought the same thing. It just didn't work out, leaving everyone a bit frustrated.

[goldy313]

The arguement that was presented to me (and thus prompted this topic) was that if a young man is really good and wants to improve faster, he whould forgo his sophmore/junior year of HS and play TIER 3 Juniors to get better with the faster pace and older players. Then his Senior year, do a higher level of juniors or go Canada.

I'm just wondering what others thought of this approach.

Thank you!

The pipeline isn't from Tier 3 up, it's pretty much a dead end at Tier 3. Given the money involved in playing Tier 3 I can't really see the benefit if you're a Minnesota kid. That said and I may be wrong but there is a Tier 3 league out East that does send some kids into D1 hockey, the EJHL I think. They also don't have to compete with high end high school hockey which helps them.

[Doglover]

It's important to remember that the 16 year olds headed to Ann Arbor are the cream of the crop. Most of these players were the top kids on their HS teams or AAA teams. Many are also physically large for their age which has helped them standout and gain the attention of Ann Arbor. They are very skilled players that have played with and against top players. The USHL will be a great challenge for them to help them develop into fine hockey players. I'm sure the NAHL was also good competition. The main idea here is development - not to see how many games you can win. If they finish middle of the pack, great! They've had the advantage of playing tougher, bigger, stronger competition than they would've playing other '93 teams or other HS teams, and that will only add to their development.

[Nonamer]

Karl, some may speculate, others are comfortable with the real story re: Forbort. Consider this: Randolph states he adequately prepares his players for DI hockey - he says Max Tardy, as a product of his system, is ready - what does it say about Rand's player preparation/evaluation/assessment if Tardy plays juniors next year, instead of playing for UMD as a true freshman?

About the PP unit with Forb as a forward. The most successful PP using this lineup changed in terms of players midway through the season, and lost it's effectiveness. Rand's reasoning behind his decision to change an extremely effective unit? Now this is where one can only speculate...