Former Hill Murray d-man Blake Heinrich commits to Portland

[puckbreath]

What I don't understand, is how these type of kids get recruited in the first place.

It's not like they suddenly became lousy students; chances are they were in high school too.

It is a balance between risk/reward. If you think a kid has the ability to really do something good for your program despite a questionable academic record, you still might be willing to take a chance... especially if you think there is a chance that he will get his act together academically as he matures. Sometimes that gamble works, sometimes it doesn't.

If a kid doesn't have good grades by the time he's done with hs, he sure as hell isn't going to in college, with the tougher courses.

If he isn't mature enough to have good grades by hs graduation, he isn't mature enough to be playing in high level post hs hockey imo.

After hearing reports on here, over an over, about how schools don't like to take risks when it comes to scholarship $, you'd think avoiding this one would be a no brainer.

[coach95]

Big mistake, he should have really tried to make it the college route. The WHL is to risky and not really a good step for the americans.

[mulefarm]

Big mistake, he should have really tried to make it the college route. The WHL is to risky and not really a good step for the americans.

Why? I'm sure he looked at his options and decided this was his best one.

[Tigers33]

Or his last one...

[puckbreath]

Who knows what the future will hold for these kids. They aren't mine, so no skin off my back.

At the same time, I've never seen it said, "If only Johnny hadn't stayed for his senior year in hs.
He coulda been a contenda if he'd left early instead......."

[scorekeeper]

How does USHL play stack up against WHL? I realize these leagues wont schedule against each other but isn't really just a lateral move?

It's not a lateral move by any stretch. The WHL is a tougher league.

That said, it's not because the USHL doesn't attract talent. They do. I would say the USHL does a VERY good job of attracting talent. I would say the talent that comes to the USHL may even be just as good as the talent that lands in the WHL.

The big difference between the two leagues and the reason the WHL is a better league, is the WHL holds on to their top talent for longer. There is two basic reasons for this;

1.) The WHL holds onto it's elite talent through their 19 year old seasons, whereas most elite USHL 19 year olds go to college. Some even go to college at younger ages, thus depriving the league of it's truly elite 18 and 19 year olds.

2.) You can sign an NHL contract and still play in the WHL, but you cannot sign an NHL contract and hold on to your Division 1 scholarship. So the WHL is littered with players who have been drafted and signed by NHL teams. There are even WHL players that began their seasons in the NHL, like Heinrich's new team mate, Matt Dumba, who started the year with the Minnesota Wild.

So it's not a talent thing. I think the USHL 16 and 17 year olds compare really well with the CHL 16 and 17 year olds. But the USHL begins to lose the talent game in the 18 year old age group and cannot compete at all talent-wise with the WHL in 19 year old age group, as they get cannibalized by the NCAA. Even at the 20 year old age group, it's not uncommon for WHL 20 year who get cut (max is 3 on a team) to land on a USHL team. I can't recall of a single instance where it went the other way.

So it's not a lateral move at all. It's a clear step up.

[northwoods oldtimer]

How does USHL play stack up against WHL? I realize these leagues wont schedule against each other but isn't really just a lateral move?

It's not a lateral move by any stretch. The WHL is a tougher league.

That said, it's not because the USHL doesn't attract talent. They do. I would say the USHL does a VERY good job of attracting talent. I would say the talent that comes to the USHL may even be just as good as the talent that lands in the WHL.

The big difference between the two leagues and the reason the WHL is a better league, is the WHL holds on to their top talent for longer. There is two basic reasons for this;

1.) The WHL holds onto it's elite talent through their 19 year old seasons, whereas most elite USHL 19 year olds go to college. Some even go to college at younger ages, thus depriving the league of it's truly elite 18 and 19 year olds.

2.) You can sign an NHL contract and still play in the WHL, but you cannot sign an NHL contract and hold on to your Division 1 scholarship. So the WHL is littered with players who have been drafted and signed by NHL teams. There are even WHL players that began their seasons in the NHL, like Heinrich's new team mate, Matt Dumba, who started the year with the Minnesota Wild.

So it's not a talent thing. I think the USHL 16 and 17 year olds compare really well with the CHL 16 and 17 year olds. But the USHL begins to lose the talent game in the 18 year old age group and cannot compete at all talent-wise with the WHL in 19 year old age group, as they get cannibalized by the NCAA. Even at the 20 year old age group, it's not uncommon for WHL 20 year who get cut (max is 3 on a team) to land on a USHL team. I can't recall of a single instance where it went the other way.

So it's not a lateral move at all. It's a clear step up.

USHL is a puss league! WHL you man up!

[Stick Save]

The Wild seem to like Portland as well. But not over the USHL, over the NCAA.

"The fact that the Wild actually encouraged Olofsson to leave the NCAA for the WHL shows just how highly the Minnesota brass thinks of this kid."

http://gonepuckwild.com/2014/01/12/repo ... -ncaa-whl/

[puckbreath]

The Wild seem to like Portland as well. But not over the USHL, over the NCAA.

"The fact that the Wild actually encouraged Olofsson to leave the NCAA for the WHL shows just how highly the Minnesota brass thinks of this kid."

http://gonepuckwild.com/2014/01/12/repo ... -ncaa-whl/

Yeah, well, with their track record regarding drafts, picks, etc., let alone team results year after year, I wouldn't be using them to much as an example.

[Stick Save]

I'm calling BS over this repetitive damage control that takes place anytime someone changes their mind on playing for the U. Cue Gopher Blog, who arrives to subtlety insinuate that they weren't smart enough. The players are changing their minds, not the schools.

Could it be as simple as they want to play somewhere else? The Bulldogs will be fine. And best of success to Blake wherever he ends up.

[keepyourheadup]

Not so sure about the damage control angle, the last kid to decommit from the "U" is lighting up to the tune of 12gp, 0G, 2A, -6. Does the wild brass feel he should head to the WHL too?

[spectatorfun]

No, and neither does he's grampa. He should just head to college and get a degree.

[dlow]

[quote="dlow"How does USHL play stack up against WHL? I realize these leagues wont schedule against each other but isn't really just a lateral move?

It's not a lateral move by any stretch. The WHL is a tougher league.

That said, it's not because the USHL doesn't attract talent. They do. I would say the USHL does a VERY good job of attracting talent. I would say the talent that comes to the USHL may even be just as good as the talent that lands in the WHL.

The big difference between the two leagues and the reason the WHL is a better league, is the WHL holds on to their top talent for longer. There is two basic reasons for this;

1.) The WHL holds onto it's elite talent through their 19 year old seasons, whereas most elite USHL 19 year olds go to college. Some even go to college at younger ages, thus depriving the league of it's truly elite 18 and 19 year olds.

2.) You can sign an NHL contract and still play in the WHL, but you cannot sign an NHL contract and hold on to your Division 1 scholarship. So the WHL is littered with players who have been drafted and signed by NHL teams. There are even WHL players that began their seasons in the NHL, like Heinrich's new team mate, Matt Dumba, who started the year with the Minnesota Wild.

So it's not a talent thing. I think the USHL 16 and 17 year olds compare really well with the CHL 16 and 17 year olds. But the USHL begins to lose the talent game in the 18 year old age group and cannot compete at all talent-wise with the WHL in 19 year old age group, as they get cannibalized by the NCAA. Even at the 20 year old age group, it's not uncommon for WHL 20 year who get cut (max is 3 on a team) to land on a USHL team. I can't recall of a single instance where it went the other way.

So it's not a lateral move at all. It's a clear step up.[/quote]

Based on what you are saying, about 75% of the talent is equal in both leagues and the whl/chl have some older kids that are better based on being older that make up the other 25% or so. That being the case I'd think the league best for a player would be based on their potential role with a team, ie minutes, pk and pp time, etc.

Going to Portland mid season when they have dumba, ice time might be an issue.

Good luck kid.

[Tigers33]

There are a lot of agents/advisors in this state. I know they play a big part in the decision process and try to steer these kids certain direction.

I am curious to hear what the hankinsons (agents) in this state think and octagon sports (pjodein/advisors) of the world think. Was pjodein a umd guy? I might be completely wrong. Is he still heavily involved with octagon sports.

These kids are getting advisors at a very young age...

[mulefarm]

I believe Ben Hankinson runs the Octagon office here and Pojden, McApline and others I'm not aware of work for him. The other group is run by Sheehy. I know Paul Ostby worked for him at one time. Not sure of any other groups in the state. Also I did hear that Trent Klatt is an agent/advisor, but not sure who he is affiliated with. Seems kids around 15 yrs old are now getting advisors. I believe agents get about 5% of players salary and more for securing endosrements.

[scorekeeper]

Based on what you are saying, about 75% of the talent is equal in both leagues and the whl/chl have some older kids that are better based on being older that make up the other 25% or so.

No. That's not at all what I am saying. The USHL loses it's best 18 and 19 year olds to the NCAA. That automatically waters down their 20 year olds as well. You could make a good argument that the leagues are fairly even at the 16 & 17 year age group. I think the WHL has a small advantage, simply because all elite 16 & 17 year olds who are using the CHL as a path are going to play in the CHL, while some elite 16 & 17 year olds with an eye on D1 hockey will put the USHL on hold and stay in school. However, the depth and quality of the NTDP cannot be overlooked and since they play in the USHL, I believe that evens the scale at those age groups. Still, Junior teams are not typically dominated by 16 & 17 year olds. At least to start the year. Those kids are usually in developmental/depth roles and may or may not progress as the season moves along. Most junior teams are built around their 18-20 year olds, which will account for over 60% of the team and over 80% of the ice time. In those age groups the WHL dominates the USHL.

That being the case I'd think the league best for a player would be based on their potential role with a team, ie minutes, pk and pp time, etc.

If that were the case, then half the kids on every high school team in the state - and most bantam teams - are playing in the wrong league.

[puckbreath]

There are a lot of agents/advisors in this state. I know they play a big part in the decision process and try to steer these kids certain direction.

I am curious to hear what the hankinsons (agents) in this state think and octagon sports (pjodein/advisors) of the world think. Was pjodein a umd guy? I might be completely wrong. Is he still heavily involved with octagon sports.

These kids are getting advisors at a very young age...

An agent/advisor is always going to do what is in their best interest.

The player is just a means to an end.

[scorekeeper]

That being the case I'd think the league best for a player would be based on their potential role with a team, ie minutes, pk and pp time, etc.

If that were the case, then half the kids on every high school team in the state - and most bantam teams - are playing in the wrong league.

It can't be ignored that the worst ice time deficits occur on D1 teams. Of course, the trade off is you are getting an education. I suppose that's another reason for a young player to choose the WHL over the USHL, getting a year of college in your back pocket for every year played in the WHL and getting squat for playing in the USHL. (unless you are with the NTDP)

[MrBoDangles]

That being the case I'd think the league best for a player would be based on their potential role with a team, ie minutes, pk and pp time, etc.

If that were the case, then half the kids on every high school team in the state - and most bantam teams - are playing in the wrong league.

It can't be ignored that the worst ice time deficits occur on D1 teams. Of course, the trade off is you are getting an education. I suppose that's another reason for a young player to choose the WHL over the USHL, getting a year of college in your back pocket for every year played in the WHL and getting squat for playing in the USHL. (unless you are with the NTDP)

http://m.collegehockeyinc.com/node/493

Hope your son is one of the few that get a college education from the CHL.

[dlow]

Based on what you are saying, about 75% of the talent is equal in both leagues and the whl/chl have some older kids that are better based on being older that make up the other 25% or so.

No. That's not at all what I am saying. The USHL loses it's best 18 and 19 year olds to the NCAA. That automatically waters down their 20 year olds as well. You could make a good argument that the leagues are fairly even at the 16 & 17 year age group. I think the WHL has a small advantage, simply because all elite 16 & 17 year olds who are using the CHL as a path are going to play in the CHL, while some elite 16 & 17 year olds with an eye on D1 hockey will put the USHL on hold and stay in school. However, the depth and quality of the NTDP cannot be overlooked and since they play in the USHL, I believe that evens the scale at those age groups. Still, Junior teams are not typically dominated by 16 & 17 year olds. At least to start the year. Those kids are usually in developmental/depth roles and may or may not progress as the season moves along. Most junior teams are built around their 18-20 year olds, which will account for over 60% of the team and over 80% of the ice time. In those age groups the WHL dominates the USHL.

That being the case I'd think the league best for a player would be based on their potential role with a team, ie minutes, pk and pp time, etc.

If that were the case, then half the kids on every high school team in the state - and most bantam teams - are playing in the wrong league.

Why would you want to play on team and not get much ice time? Your logic is hard to follow. You are also contradicting yourself about the two leagues' skill levels. The chl has a long history but the college path has really come along too. I'm not a fan of in season team changes that seem to be increasing at different levels. Team loyalty and dedication is underrated, and often speak to an individual's character, but of course every situation is unique.

[scorekeeper]

Why would you want to play on team and not get much ice time? Your logic is hard to follow.

I found it the other way around actually. If you are advocating high school hockey where half the kids on any given high school team don't see any significant ice time, and NCAA hockey, where up to 30 roster players have to share ice time in a short season, it's no wonder so many players leave. The situation is only exacerbated by shortened games and short seasons.

How are you one hand suggesting that ice time is the determining factor, and on the other hand recommend leagues (High School & D1) where shortage of ice time is the biggest problem?

Even a 4th liner who plays every other game in the WHL will recieve more ice than most high school and D1 players.

[dlow]

How are you one hand suggesting that ice time is the determining factor, and on the other hand recommend leagues (High School & D1) where shortage of ice time is the biggest problem?

I think you are confused. Did not mention high school or D1. Am discussing a players move to CHL from USHL and possible benefits and drawbacks. Playing time and opportunities on specialty units would seem to obviously be an important factor when looking at a such move.

Hopefully it works out well for this Minnesota kid.

Both paths, high schools/us juniors/ncaa and chl have clearly proven they both consistently produce good pros so there is not a better choice, what matters is what that individual player wants.