Brick Schedule for the Blades

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:19 pm

forreal: you are right about the 7 skaters on some teams but if you are referring to the 00 Machine, you are unfortunately incorrect. Team rolled 4 lines all weekend in Winnipeg. Kid will sit a shift if not working hard like the others, but the notion that the team plays 2 or 3 lines while the others sit is simply a fabrication that many like to throw out there because of their dislike for the program, BM or some other reason. Not saying that some teams and/or programs don't have kids that sit for inordinately long stretches of games, but it simply is not the case with the 00 Machine. As far as not caring about the team's success, fact is there is a good chance many kids playing right now will be done with the sport in a few years, so what is the problem with enjoying their success now? Doesn't seem right that you are only allowed to enjoy in a team's success unless they are all at least 15+ years old or being scouted to play in the Juniors or for college.

forreal · Post by **forreal** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 5:32 pm

Deep Breath wrote:forreal: you are right about the 7 skaters on some teams but if you are referring to the 00 Machine, you are unfortunately incorrect. Team rolled 4 lines all weekend in Winnipeg. Kid will sit a shift if not working hard like the others, but the notion that the team plays 2 or 3 lines while the others sit is simply a fabrication that many like to throw out there because of their dislike for the program, BM or some other reason. Not saying that some teams and/or programs don't have kids that sit for inordinately long stretches of games, but it simply is not the case with the 00 Machine. As far as not caring about the team's success, fact is there is a good chance many kids playing right now will be done with the sport in a few years, so what is the problem with enjoying their success now? Doesn't seem right that you are only allowed to enjoy in a team's success unless they are all at least 15+ years old or being scouted to play in the Juniors or for college.

I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

RMWCHOCKEY · Post by **RMWCHOCKEY** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:00 pm

observer wrote:Until the first year of bantam it's been common for a top MN summer AAA team to change at least 3-4 players per year. In 4 years half of a 2002 team will have turned over. With good management and coaching a team can evolve from middle of the AAA pack to top 2-3 during those 4 years.

I don't really understand rosters with more than 20 players either. 15 skaters and a goalie or two is ideal. Traveling to Chicago or Winnipeg with 20 skaters is nuts. I don't like it as a parent and the players don't like it either.

I do understand the financial piece of carrying 2-3 practice players but otherwise it seems like a money grab. I also know they like 15 at practices so they carry a few extras during the summer or you can end up with 6-8 players at a practice. But to travel with a fat roster is nuts.

The Bauer Selects is a unique team with kids from all over the US so really shouldn't be compared to anyone. Not what I would consider a normal AAA team as they might not even practice together. To me a summer AAA team, during Squirt and PeeWee years, practices 20-30 times together and plays in 3-4-5 tourneys together.

Maybe for the Brick or some other tourneys a 20 player roster doesn't seem ideal only for the reason that they play 13 minute periods. I get the logic in maximizing the time your best players get to be on the ice for that reason. BUT look at a tourney like the NAHC in Winnipeg or Stars & Stripes that play 20 minute periods. With a 20 player roster kids are getting basically the same amount of ice time AND the kids are learning to play a REAL hockey game, not a shortened version where you can live on a line or two of all stars.

I know the Brick is a well run event that many team and kids look forward to every year but in my opinion it is WAAAAAAAYYYYY overblown. Sure the kids get to hang out with some NHLers and play in a huge mall, trade some pins and they pick three stars of the game and whatever. But to be honest - most of the people on this board live in or around the twin cities and I'm fairly certain see NHLers, ex NHLers, College and HS stars on a daily basis and I KNOW everyone has been to the MOA. What you really have in some "mini" hockey games that last as long as a regulation MN squirt game in a week long format that attracts a bunch of good teams. I'm getting off track from my original point but like I said I believe it is all a bit overblown (not knocking the experience for the kids though). If you want to get some regulation (time) games against some of the best teams in North America I really do believe the NAHC is the better choice and a truer test of a TEAM.

phil mccracken · Post by **phil mccracken** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:36 pm

RMWCHOCKEY wrote:[
I know the Brick is a well run event that many team and kids look forward to every year but in my opinion it is WAAAAAAAYYYYY overblown. Sure the kids get to hang out with some NHLers and play in a huge mall, trade some pins .

Have you been to the Brick Tournament? I didn't know there was pin trading.

RMWCHOCKEY · Post by **RMWCHOCKEY** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:50 pm

phil mccracken wrote:
RMWCHOCKEY wrote:[
I know the Brick is a well run event that many team and kids look forward to every year but in my opinion it is WAAAAAAAYYYYY overblown. Sure the kids get to hang out with some NHLers and play in a huge mall, trade some pins .
Have you been to the Brick Tournament? I didn't know there was pin trading.

Yes, twice.

Deep Breath · Post by **Deep Breath** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 7:40 pm

I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.[/quote]

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.

forreal · Post by **forreal** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:05 pm

Deep Breath wrote:I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.[/quote]

It is unfortunate that, by nature, this board seems to bring out negativity. People should be proud of their accomplishments. Another example of this is how when people speak positive about accomplishments they often accompany it by having to bring down another team or experience. I think it takes away from the original success and seems like people are in need of attention.

Im happy for all the Minnesota teams that get to share in the experience of youth hockey. Congrats to you and your team for bringing home a ship from Winnipeg!

Also congrats to the 01' blades for competing well in a great tournament in Edmonton!

RMWCHOCKEY · Post by **RMWCHOCKEY** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:16 pm

Deep Breath wrote:I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.[/quote]

Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.

Pylon · Post by **Pylon** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 8:47 pm

RMWCHOCKEY wrote:
Deep Breath wrote:I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.

Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.[/quote]

Saweet Baby Jesus!!! Thank you! I agree 100%. Yes, some fall off at the time of contact hockey. Others lose interest but for the most part, the higher end kids right now, will be the higher end kids at an older age!
Disclaimer, no I am not saying all high end kids that play in the Brick will be drafted into the NHL because they played in this tournament.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:03 am

Good job by all the Blades parents and kids representing Mn.

black sheep · Post by **black sheep** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:42 am

sourgrapes wrote:Hard to compete at that level if your D is not super strong!

i think this is where we are lacking the MOST against this level of competition. In MN you mostly hear about the kids that are scoring goals, and they are the GREAT players.

In Canada they build the teams from the back end. Strong D & goalies.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:24 am

Congrats to the Toronto Bulldogs for winning the 2011 Brick. Looks like the championship was a great game. 4 OT!

Pucksahater · Post by **Pucksahater** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 10:52 am

Mr mccracken you have been pretty quiet recently, still keeping your list?

Lord Baltimore · Post by **Lord Baltimore** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:28 pm

[quote="Deep Breath"]Observer: then for the Blades '02 team to find some cohesion, they better do a better of job than the 00s have done in terms of stability with leadership. 3 different coaches in 3 years makes it tough because every coach has his "favorites" and his own "style". Very difficult to build consistency if the leadership changes every spring/summer. [quote]

If I'm not mistaken, 02 teams have been together for what...about 10 or 12 weeks total? Taking into consideration most 02 teams are new this year and most teams are on some sort of mid summer break now. Cohesion is something that develops over long periods of time so I'm fairly certain there isn't any panic about cohesion just yet. Are there reported coaching changes already for the 02 Blades?

lets play · Post by **lets play** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:31 pm

So whats the next move for the blades next year for the 02 brick team ?

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 1:21 pm

Lord Baltimore

If I'm not mistaken, 02 teams have been together for what...about 10 or 12 weeks total? Taking into consideration most 02 teams are new this year and most teams are on some sort of mid summer break now. Cohesion is something that develops over long periods of time so I'm fairly certain there isn't any panic about cohesion just yet. Are there reported coaching changes already for the 02 Blades?

The core of the Canadian teams will have been together for 2 seasons prior to entering the Brick.

icnet01 · Post by **icnet01** » Mon Jul 11, 2011 5:48 pm

[/quote]
The core of the Canadian teams will have been together for 2 seasons prior to entering the Brick.[/quote]

? That is a blanket statement as many of the Canadian teams are actually only together for 4 weeks before the tournament. The players play for their own spring teams.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 8:42 am

icnet01 wrote:

The core of the Canadian teams will have been together for 2 seasons prior to entering the Brick.[/quote]

? That is a blanket statement as many of the Canadian teams are actually only together for 4 weeks before the tournament. The players play for their own spring teams.[/quote]

You are correct! I should have typed "some" Canadian teams will have played together for 2 seasons prior to entering the brick.

Pylon · Post by **Pylon** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:01 am

Which teams are they?

MrBoDangles · Post by **MrBoDangles** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 10:26 am

RMWCHOCKEY wrote:
Deep Breath wrote:I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.

Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.[/quote]
It's more of a who will be 6'0" to 6'5" and can skate than who was dominant in squirts.. Every kid has some highlight tapes that mommy took back in the day.

99% of kids will "drop down"

Rau is one that breaks out of this mold

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:00 am

MrBoDangles wrote:
RMWCHOCKEY wrote:
Deep Breath wrote:I agree 100% that you and the players should enjoy their success. A lot of hard work goes in to it and wins are a great reward. I guess I was just looking at it from a long term development point of view. I don't mean to sell your success short.

You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.

Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.

It's more of a who will be 6'0" to 6'5" and can skate than who was dominant in squirts.. Every kid has some highlight tapes that mommy took back in the day.

99% of kids will "drop down"

Rau is one that breaks out of this mold[/quote]

Ahhh!!! so there is not much of a chance for HD's '02 because he is not on the Machine Black? Save your $$ at 9 if he isn't a star your out of luck.

sorry HD had to take a shot. I would bet there are as many Benders at 9 that make it as there are 9yr old superstars that don't. Might be a good study... Somebody get on that one!

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:12 am

MrBoDangles wrote:
RMWCHOCKEY wrote:
You are correct. You just read on these boards almost on a daily basis that none of this matters because the kids are only 10; or they're only 11 or they are only 12 or that it doesn't really matter until they are 15 or older. The problem is a lot of these kids will be out of hockey by the time they hit 15 yrs old, so I don't understand why some have a problem if the kids and families enjoy the moment instead of waiting for a moment that may never come.
Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.
It's more of a who will be 6'0" to 6'5" and can skate than who was dominant in squirts.. Every kid has some highlight tapes that mommy took back in the day.

99% of kids will "drop down"

Rau is one that breaks out of this mold

[/quote]
If you are talking NHL in regards to your comment about being 6' to 6'5" then I might agree agree. If you are talking High School, Juniors or college then I completely disagree. The AVERAGE height of a Division 1 college hockey player (based on 2009 data, so pretty recent) was 71.9 inches, in other words just under 6 feet tall and in fact there were 31 teams who's average height was under 6 feet tall, meaning only 27 teams had averages of 6 feet tall or taller and the tallest was right around 6'1" and their stats were a bit skewed by two players, take those two players out and that team was averaging under 6 feet tall. So apparently there are quite alot, in fact MORE than HALF of D1 college players under 6 feet tall to get those numbers. So it seems you can be 5'10" and be just fine, in fact you would probably represent close to a majority at that height. Now if D1 college is averaging under 6 feet tall, and they basically represent the best amateur hockey out there, then to think the best high school players are averaging over that is ridiculous and also I doubt the NAHL or USHL are averaging more than that either. As for your assumption that 99% of players "drop down", where do you get that stat and from where are they dropping? What ranking service is rating squirt players (and doing it so well they know them all?)? I am not aware of it myself. I was sort of under the impression that for the most part (exceptions to every rule) kids don't start getting rated/ranked until around freshman year of high school (whether that be bantams or high school or AAA hockey). And it has been my observation that the best kids in freshman year are usually the best kids senior year, again the majority of the time and noting here are exceptions to every rule. And again it's been my observation that those kids were usually amongst the best players as squirts. Perhaps 99% of kids are not "dropping down" but rather a good majority of kids are incorrectly looked upon as special at a young age because alot of times they really have no real comparison for making that assumption outside of their own association, when in relaity they are still about as good, relative to others, as they always were they are just now part of a much bigger pond from which to assertain their skills..... just a thought.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:19 am

dogeatdog1 wrote:
MrBoDangles wrote:
Also of note - Check with ANY successful high level hockey player (HS, COLLEGE, JUNIORS, NHL etc, etc. . .) and ask any one of them if they were one of the best players in their league, team or association from the time they were a squirt all the way up to age 15 when they go beyond bantam age and you'll soon find out that almost all of them were one of the best players at each level. The number of players that "blossomed" later is definitely in the minority. Just refer to the last NHL draft and look at the highlight clips they ran of each draftees from the first round while they were on their way up to the stage. Most if not all those clips were of when they were 9, 10, 11 or 12 years old dominating a bunch of ankle skaters! That's what kills me about all this "wait till they hit Select 14s and 15s, blah, blah, blah . . . fact is that if the kids are at the top now, they have a MUCH better chance of being one of the top players when they do hit the Select 14s and 15s. Sure kids drop down or drop out all together but I just love it how people always seem to talk about "the kid that was a B level player" his whole life and then made it big! Everyone loves an underdog and I guess that's why it's always talked about though.
It's more of a who will be 6'0" to 6'5" and can skate than who was dominant in squirts.. Every kid has some highlight tapes that mommy took back in the day.

99% of kids will "drop down"

Rau is one that breaks out of this mold
Ahhh!!! so there is not much of a chance for HD's '02 because he is not on the Machine Black? Save your $$ at 9 if he isn't a star your out of luck. sorry HD had to take a shot. I would bet there are as many Benders at 9 that make it as there are 9yr old superstars that don't. Might be a good study... Somebody get on that one!

[/quote]

Maybe, but I bet the number of 10/11 year old superstars who don't make it is about 10 times the number of 10/11 year old benders who do make it. And the 18 year old superstars who do make it were probably like 99% likely to have been superstars when they were 10/11. No data, just hunch based on personal observation. On a side note, I am not saying you cannot make it if your not a superstar at 10/11 but the odds are probably pretty overwhelming I bet. I love an uderdog who bucks the odds, but my guess is the numebrs are pretty low comparitively.

HockeyDad41 · Post by **HockeyDad41** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 11:39 am

dogeatdog1 wrote:Ahhh!!! so there is not much of a chance for HD's '02 because he is not on the Machine Black? Save your $$ at 9 if he isn't a star your out of luck. sorry HD had to take a shot. I would bet there are as many Benders at 9 that make it as there are 9yr old superstars that don't. Might be a good study... Somebody get on that one!

Somebody has to play at the top level at each age group. Don't feel bad if your kid makes one of those teams. Celebrate it. Video it. Share it. I wouldn't necessarily start contacting colleges or NHL scouts, but have fun with it. Work hard, have fun and see if you can repeat next year. Don't worry about anything beyond that.

Pylon · Post by **Pylon** » Tue Jul 12, 2011 2:29 pm

In Winnipeg I noticed the Jr Pats but they were in the 01 division. I never saw an 02 Jr Pats or an 02 Jr Jets etc.