Select 15 National Camp New York

[JSR]

4 lines +1 and 3 lines +1

Most winter association teams go 3 and 3 lines.

Few are getting it..

( Different subject) I remember quite a few years with the Wild having hurt defensemen and the Wild struggling to fill those roles. Why would a pro team shoot themselves in the foot with only nine D, but then have six lines of forwards?

There seems to be a lack of recognition for the D position at all levels.

energy efficient light bulbs to boot..

And most Tier 1 AAA programs (which are where most of the rest of the elite talent in the country come from) for Bantam ages and higher generally roster 4 lines of forwards and three lines of defense and two goalies (which not so coinicidentally matches teh 20 man roster that USA Hockey allows for national tournament competition).... Also, taking fewer defense is not a slight, it's because at the higher levels defense can generally play longer shifts and more frequent shifts as forwards tend to be alot more "active", especially at the offensive end, and usually need more rest that is the primary driver of 4 lines of forwards and three lines of d for higher levels of hockey. I think these camps just try to match higher levels of hockey in their mentality....

[MrBoDangles]

Winter association teams run 3 lines of forwards and 3 lines of D.

Outside of that it leans heavy towards carrying more forward lines at many levels... As some have pointed out. (Including the 15's)

Agree?

I see it as an obviously tougher path..

[MrBoDangles]

While this is an enjoyable argument, the group of Minnesota kids that are selected at 15s, 16s and 17s do not play together as a team. They are split up at the camp in NY. The teams at the camp play with 10F, 6D and 2G. At 15s, there are 12 teams (x18 per team = 216 kids in camp).

The numbers are generally based on participation and talent--Minnesota is its own USA Hockey "District" (and if we send 21 kids it represents 10% of the camp). The other USA hockey Districts send kids based on talent and lobbying as well. The Central District, for example includes WI, IL, IA, MO, NE, KS, would also send a fair number of kids (IL and WI primarily). The Southeast would include FLA up to Washington DC--it would be alot harder to find large numbers of elite kids in the SE.

At 16s and 17s, there are only 10 teams at the camps (180 kids total), so you see less Minny kids sent because they narrow the pool.

USA Hockey can also select kids to attend that are not selected by thier home district (see famous last name category...).

And 40+% (possibly a little exaggeration )of the team usually comes from 10% of the camp.. Who else thinks a few more kids from Sota should be getting sent out there? It only makes sense to me...

Different topic...

[hockeygoof1]

Exiled....?

There are 4 lines +1 of forwards and 3 lines + 1 of D.

A kid playing what position in this state has better odds of making the team?




What association teams carry four lines of forwards?

I don't really care how one sided other teams have been....

By high level, I mean juniors, college, and pros.

I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post. But still, the point of the national camp is to identify top players FOR higher levels of hockey. So it's still an appropriate ratio for that purpose.

Sounds like avoiding playing the D position is a good idea from reading your posts...

Hence, my post.. "Why the emphasis on forwards"? They're just better and more important?

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

[Bluewhitefan]

By high level, I mean juniors, college, and pros.

I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post. But still, the point of the national camp is to identify top players FOR higher levels of hockey. So it's still an appropriate ratio for that purpose.

Sounds like avoiding playing the D position is a good idea from reading your posts...

Hence, my post.. "Why the emphasis on forwards"? They're just better and more important?

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

You posted 89 times and you don't know the answer to that?? You're not paying attention.

[MrBoDangles]

By high level, I mean juniors, college, and pros.

I guess I misunderstood the intent of your post. But still, the point of the national camp is to identify top players FOR higher levels of hockey. So it's still an appropriate ratio for that purpose.

Sounds like avoiding playing the D position is a good idea from reading your posts...

Hence, my post.. "Why the emphasis on forwards"? They're just better and more important?

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

My kids are actually forwards.

Just a question that seems to agitate you and a few other forward dads out there.

Just looking for an answer on the way of thinking...

- harder to keep good forwards rostered?
- defense doesn't use as much energy so don't need as many?
- good, talented defensemen are hard to come by?
There has to be an obvious answer, right?

The reebok selection process is not in favor of a defensemen. "But hey, look up , kid, the odds stay closer after that".

You should of named yourself even more derogatory than "hockeyGOOF".

[hockeygoof1]

Sounds like avoiding playing the D position is a good idea from reading your posts...

Hence, my post.. "Why the emphasis on forwards"? They're just better and more important?

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

You posted 89 times and you don't know the answer to that?? You're not paying attention.

You're right. I don't know the secret handshake. When I go to work, I don't spend the day online. I don't know everyone and their nicknames.

[Bluewhitefan]

You're right. I don't know the secret handshake. When I go to work, I don't spend the day online. I don't know everyone and their nicknames.

The point was, if you read the board at all, you'd know that Bo's #1 goal on the board is agitation. BTW, I'm writing this from work.

[MrBoDangles]

You're right. I don't know the secret handshake. When I go to work, I don't spend the day online. I don't know everyone and their nicknames.

The point was, if you read the board at all, you'd know that Bo's #1 goal on the board is agitation. BTW, I'm writing this from work.

I only agitate slow fellers that can't follow sound logic.

Hint, hint..

[JSR]

Sounds like avoiding playing the D position is a good idea from reading your posts...

Hence, my post.. "Why the emphasis on forwards"? They're just better and more important?

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

My kids are actually forwards.

Just a question that seems to agitate you and a few other forward dads out there.

Just looking for an answer on the way of thinking...

- harder to keep good forwards rostered?
- defense doesn't use as much energy so don't need as many?
- good, talented defensemen are hard to come by?
There has to be an obvious answer, right?

The reebok selection process is not in favor of a defensemen. "But hey, look up , kid, the odds stay closer after that".

You should of named yourself even more derogatory than "hockeyGOOF".

If you based on pure statistical numbers that I have seen (though I have not seen them all) I think you'd probably actually find that the process technically favors defenseman, not forwards (ie the number of defenseman taken versus the nuber of total defenseman, the percentage is much higher than forwards)....

[MrBoDangles]

Is your kid a defenseman and got left off, or are you just being an agitator? Who really gives a crap? Most people read this stuff because they have a kid that plays. If you don't, who cares what they do?

My kids are actually forwards.

Just a question that seems to agitate you and a few other forward dads out there.

Just looking for an answer on the way of thinking...

- harder to keep good forwards rostered?
- defense doesn't use as much energy so don't need as many?
- good, talented defensemen are hard to come by?
There has to be an obvious answer, right?

The reebok selection process is not in favor of a defensemen. "But hey, look up , kid, the odds stay closer after that".

You should of named yourself even more derogatory than "hockeyGOOF".

If you based on pure statistical numbers that I have seen (though I have not seen them all) I think you'd probably actually find that the process technically favors defenseman, not forwards (ie the number of defenseman taken versus the nuber of total defenseman, the percentage is much higher than forwards)....

Please explain......

[JSR]

My kids are actually forwards.

Just a question that seems to agitate you and a few other forward dads out there.

Just looking for an answer on the way of thinking...

- harder to keep good forwards rostered?
- defense doesn't use as much energy so don't need as many?
- good, talented defensemen are hard to come by?
There has to be an obvious answer, right?

The reebok selection process is not in favor of a defensemen. "But hey, look up , kid, the odds stay closer after that".

You should of named yourself even more derogatory than "hockeyGOOF".

If you based on pure statistical numbers that I have seen (though I have not seen them all) I think you'd probably actually find that the process technically favors defenseman, not forwards (ie the number of defenseman taken versus the nuber of total defenseman, the percentage is much higher than forwards)....

Please explain......

For instance the high level tryouts I have been associated with you HAVE to tryout by position, so you have to tryout either as a defenseman or as a forward, can't do both. So things like Bantam festival, or Midget festvial or other WAHA tryout things make you tryout for a position of eitehr D or F, so here are some examples of those (not all but here are a couple recent ones to illustrate the point), ignoring goalie positions in this:

1) Tryout had 51 pee wee aged skaters total at it. We were taking 9 forwards, 6 defenseman for this particular tryout. Had 17 defenseman tryout for 6 spots but 34 forwards tryout for 9 spots..... If you tried out as a defenseman your odds of making it clearly favored the defenseman over the forwards

2) Tryout had 116 bantam aged skaters trying out total. We were taking 36 forwards and 24 defenseman in this scenario. 73 forwards trying out for 36 spots and 43 defenseman trying out for 24 spots. Again the "odds" of making it favored the kids who were trying out as defenseman.

I've seen these types of ratios in most all of the tryouts I have ever been a part of as an evaluator. Again I have not seen them all obviously and I am sure there are some that buck the trend but I have been part of and I have been part of somewhere north of 60 tryout processes as an evaluator. Just saying when you see a definitive trend like that you can make an educated guess that it might occur like that in most areas of the country, maybe I am wrong....

That said, you want to see a roster that apparently really values defenseman check this out, this might be more to your liking Bo :

http://www.teamwisconsin.com/index.php? ... eam_no=230

[MrBoDangles]

If you based on pure statistical numbers that I have seen (though I have not seen them all) I think you'd probably actually find that the process technically favors defenseman, not forwards (ie the number of defenseman taken versus the nuber of total defenseman, the percentage is much higher than forwards)....

Please explain......

For instance the high level tryouts I have been associated with you HAVE to tryout by position, so you have to tryout either as a defenseman or as a forward, can't do both. So things like Bantam festival, or Midget festvial or other WAHA tryout things make you tryout for a position of eitehr D or F, so here are some examples of those (not all but here are a couple recent ones to illustrate the point), ignoring goalie positions in this:

1) Tryout had 51 pee wee aged skaters total at it. We were taking 9 forwards, 6 defenseman for this particular tryout. Had 17 defenseman tryout for 6 spots but 34 forwards tryout for 9 spots..... If you tried out as a defenseman your odds of making it clearly favored the defenseman over the forwards

2) Tryout had 116 bantam aged skaters trying out total. We were taking 36 forwards and 24 defenseman in this scenario. 73 forwards trying out for 36 spots and 43 defenseman trying out for 24 spots. Again the "odds" of making it favored the kids who were trying out as defenseman.

I've seen these types of ratios in most all of the tryouts I have ever been a part of as an evaluator. Again I have not seen them all obviously and I am sure there are some that buck the trend but I have been part of and I have been part of somewhere north of 60 tryout processes as an evaluator. Just saying when you see a definitive trend like that you can make an educated guess that it might occur like that in most areas of the country, maybe I am wrong....

That said, you want to see a roster that apparently really values defenseman check this out, this might be more to your liking Bo :

http://www.teamwisconsin.com/index.php? ... eam_no=230

Thanks. Good info.