Although I'm not sure this is up to date, (I don't believe it is actually) here it is nevertheless:
http://www.maxpreps.com/FanPages/Group. ... /Minnesota
Perhaps getting started a little late, I thought a SEC thread could serve as a place to discuss play of the SEC teams in conference or NC games.
I've been to a relative few games thus far this season and would enjoy reading observations of others regarding the teams & games.
I've watched Stillwater play a few times, including vs. Mounds View yesterday. The Ponies won but I didn't think they played as well as I thought they had in their previous games to date. Wasn't real pretty...the PK wasn't real sharp. Their schedule gets very challenging now with conference foes CDH, Roseville & Forest Lake, as well as Edina. I think they'll need to be sharper and play a stronger 51 minutes to come out on top in each of these games. The SEC is a very competitive conference.
Also not sure the MaxPreps conference scoring leaders list is accurate. These multiple team / player stats -- records tracking sites with sporadic cooperation from the teams is a bit frustrating.
Suburban East Conference
Moderators: Mitch Hawker, east hockey, karl(east)
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
AAccording to Minnesota-Scores.net, here is how the conference is looking as of now:
......................Conference...Overall...GF....GA...
..........................W L T ......W L T....AVG..AVG...Streak
Stillwater Area....5 0 0.......10 0 0....4.1...1.2....Won 10
Roseville.............5 0 0........7 1 0......3.9...1.6....Won 5
Forest Lake.........3 1 1........7 1 1.....2.8...1.2.....Tie
Hastings..............3 2 0.........6 3 0.....3.4...1.7....Won 2
CDH.....................1 1 2.........4 1 3.....3.4...1.5.....Lost 1
White Bear Lake..1 2 2.........2 5 2.....2.2...2.8.....Tie
Mounds View.......0 4 2.........2 5 2.....2.6...3.3.....Lost 1
Park of CG...........0 4 1.........3 4 1.....2.1...3.5.....Lost 1
Woodbury...........0 4 0..........2 6 0....1.9....2.6....Lost 6
Would like to see the Roseville-Stillwater matchup, which could determine the Conference Champion. Forest Lake and CDH should give the Ponies everything they want. Tough league!
......................Conference...Overall...GF....GA...
..........................W L T ......W L T....AVG..AVG...Streak
Stillwater Area....5 0 0.......10 0 0....4.1...1.2....Won 10
Roseville.............5 0 0........7 1 0......3.9...1.6....Won 5
Forest Lake.........3 1 1........7 1 1.....2.8...1.2.....Tie
Hastings..............3 2 0.........6 3 0.....3.4...1.7....Won 2
CDH.....................1 1 2.........4 1 3.....3.4...1.5.....Lost 1
White Bear Lake..1 2 2.........2 5 2.....2.2...2.8.....Tie
Mounds View.......0 4 2.........2 5 2.....2.6...3.3.....Lost 1
Park of CG...........0 4 1.........3 4 1.....2.1...3.5.....Lost 1
Woodbury...........0 4 0..........2 6 0....1.9....2.6....Lost 6
Would like to see the Roseville-Stillwater matchup, which could determine the Conference Champion. Forest Lake and CDH should give the Ponies everything they want. Tough league!
-
MNHockeyFan
- Posts: 7260
- Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 10:28 pm
The StarTribune box score had two Hastings' players scoring - I checked the rosters, just to be sure, before updating the Scores thread here.brookyone wrote:I believe Hastings was the winner. With the inaccurate scores I've come across tho, I can't be 100% sure about that.Whatthe wrote:did hastings beat cretin or vice versa? I've seen the score posted both ways.
Hastings won in overtime. Funny that of three websites I looked at afterward, 2 had Cretin winning. Very disgruntling, considering we can't really believe what we see on these sites.
Edit:
By the way, early Ms. Hockey favorite: Danielle Welch. Looking at stats doesn't do her justice. You really have to see Hastings play to appreciate her.
2nd Edit:
Not that you should ever judge any kid by stats! Please go see HS games as often as possible--they need the support. My point is that on this team in this conference there's no way Welch is going to put up big numbers, and she's not a 'numbers' type of player anyway, I don't think. This is a very tight-checking defensive-minded league in my opinion, possibly due to the success of Stillwater (not saying the other teams are copy-catting, but just taking a hint). There will be plenty of 2-1 games. The exception is high-flying Roseville of course, which is why the Roseville-Stillwater matchups are must-see games.
Edit:
By the way, early Ms. Hockey favorite: Danielle Welch. Looking at stats doesn't do her justice. You really have to see Hastings play to appreciate her.
2nd Edit:
Not that you should ever judge any kid by stats! Please go see HS games as often as possible--they need the support. My point is that on this team in this conference there's no way Welch is going to put up big numbers, and she's not a 'numbers' type of player anyway, I don't think. This is a very tight-checking defensive-minded league in my opinion, possibly due to the success of Stillwater (not saying the other teams are copy-catting, but just taking a hint). There will be plenty of 2-1 games. The exception is high-flying Roseville of course, which is why the Roseville-Stillwater matchups are must-see games.
Pretty darned entertaining game to watch, with the score not indicative of the battle it was. Those two future Buckeyes are very impressive...as is Miss Keys.[/quote]
I'm sorry, what game were you watching, Stillwater dominated that game. Granted, less than spectacular goaltending by Cretin, but 75% of that game was spent in Cretin's zone. Had Stillwater not gotten sloppy on their power play, twice, this game was a sleeper.
I'm sorry, what game were you watching, Stillwater dominated that game. Granted, less than spectacular goaltending by Cretin, but 75% of that game was spent in Cretin's zone. Had Stillwater not gotten sloppy on their power play, twice, this game was a sleeper.
Pretty darned entertaining game to watch, with the score not indicative of the battle it was. Those two future Buckeyes are very impressive...as is Miss Keys.[/quote]
I'm sorry, what game were you watching, Stillwater dominated that game. Granted, less than spectacular goaltending by Cretin, but 75% of that game was spent in Cretin's zone. Had Stillwater not gotten sloppy on their power play, twice, this game was a sleeper.
I'm sorry, what game were you watching, Stillwater dominated that game. Granted, less than spectacular goaltending by Cretin, but 75% of that game was spent in Cretin's zone. Had Stillwater not gotten sloppy on their power play, twice, this game was a sleeper.
Is there an echo in here? I watched the game played at Highland. CDH generated / had enough quality scoring chances to make it a much closer game than the score indicates. What was the score after two? CDH was in this game without any doubt.
I always get a chuckle when people say if this, if that. "If Stillwater hadn't gotten sloppy on their power play" yeah, but they did...cost them two goals. That's part of the game isn't it?
Stillwater had a bunch of good scoring chances they didn't convert...also part of the game, that kept the game close thru two. Because of these factors, a sleeper it was not.
I always get a chuckle when people say if this, if that. "If Stillwater hadn't gotten sloppy on their power play" yeah, but they did...cost them two goals. That's part of the game isn't it?
Stillwater had a bunch of good scoring chances they didn't convert...also part of the game, that kept the game close thru two. Because of these factors, a sleeper it was not.
Me too, I was happy to see it go in. Fluky or not, they all count the same. It looked for a moment the CDH staff was contesting the goal, or asking for a review...thinking it did hit the rafters. I don't believe it actually did but it had a pretty good hang time.Bensonmum wrote:I liked it when the puck seemed to drop from the rafters.
Brookeone made the comment in an earlier post that StillH2O was going to need 51 minutes to finish off some of their upcoming challengers. That's what they did Tuesday. They played most of the game in CDH zone as they have done with most of their opponants all year. They haven't been capitalizing on their scoring chances, a lot of shots directly at the goalie (all Year); not an excuse, but a fact and it's on them to get it in the net and put goals on the board. If they don't they lose! No comments regarding how the losing team lost, etc. Just how week StillH2O looked or how week they played. Bottom line- A "W" is a "W" and a "L" is an "L"... You can win PRETTY or WIN UGLY, either way it's a WIN......What I don't understand is that regardless of the team be it StillH2O, EP, Roseville, Warroad, etc. comments are made about how weak they played, didn't look too sharp..etc...if that's the case why aren't any of their opponents stepping up and putting the "W" in their own column.
Maybe you'd like to ask Scheid, his comments after the game:goalzilla wrote:What I don't understand is that regardless of the team be it StillH2O, EP, Roseville, Warroad, etc. comments are made about how weak they played, didn't look too sharp..etc...if that's the case why aren't any of their opponents stepping up and putting the "W" in their own column.
Seems like he also feels his Ponies weren't in top form...but what does he know, he's just the head coach and can't be expected to know as much as you about how his team played, or why his teams play on a given night doesn't result in a loss. Coach Scheid also publicly mentioned his teams trouble on the PK in the game vs. Mounds View (as did I in another post). Perhaps those that are apparently so offended by every off hand critical observation should send Mr. Sheid an email and question him for publicly voicing his honest thoughts on his teams performance."It's definitely a sign of a good team when you don't play your best game and don't make all the right decisions and still find a way to win. It wasn't for a lack of effort. It's a matter of trying to learn from our mistakes. That was probably one of the toughest opponents we've played all year so it's a big win for us. We split with them last year and it's always a tough game."
I've seen Stillwater enough to know they are quite capable of playing better than they did vs. CDH and Mounds View, and I stand behind my comment they'll need to play better vs. Roseville, Edina, Forest Lake and EP if they meet in the Kaposia.
If you are unaware that a team...any team can play below their ultimate capabilities and still win, you haven't been watching hockey very long.
I'd also like you to show me the post where I said Stillwater played "weak."
Is this just a case where no critical observations are permitted?
Are you yelling...upset? I'm not anyone's mom. I don't quite see how anything I posted would indicate I was someone's mom. Rather, I get the feeling it was meant as an insult. Either way, a somewhat strange assumption...and you're pretty far off. For me to be anyone's mom would truly be a biological miracle.goalzilla wrote:My point was no matter how it gets done a win is a win ....you were the game analyst (Sheid JR) reference your own post.
SORRY MOM didnt mean to upset you
This reads more like your point was no one can / should make any comments or observations regarding particular aspects of a teams play, or a game in general:
Such discussion is a large component of, or purpose of this forum IMO. I guess if reading those comments is so bothersome to you, or anyone, they might want to forego logging in and reading them. As opposed to posting a condemnation of anyone making those observations.What I don't understand is that regardless of the team be it StillH2O, EP, Roseville, Warroad, etc. comments are made about how weak they played, didn't look too sharp..etc...if that's the case why aren't any of their opponents stepping up and putting the "W" in their own column.
I'm not related to coach Sheid either...but that was just another comment intended as an insult wasn't it. Nevertheless, I will continue to post game comments or observations...or not. Whichever I see fit to do. At times, posters may want to go a little more in depth than "a win is a win."
I do agree that some comments / criticisms made, at times wreak of poor sportsmanship. There's a difference. Comments of that nature are a different matter altogether.
CDH Stillwater
Hey Brooky, I saw the game too and believed that the score was very indicative of the game. I understand that anything can happen in any game, hot goaltending, poor officiating and the list goes on. But when 75 percent of a game is played in one end, chances are, goals are going to be scored and it does become indicative of the strength of one team over the other. With that being said, I do believe Stillwater is at least 3 goals better than CDH.
Comments by coaches after hockey games are always the same:" our team played poorly in this or that part of the game." It seems that you rarely hear a coach saying the winning team is better and that's why they won. In Stillwater's case, for some reason they are expected to win their games by a wide margin every game. So, instead of mentioning the fact that there is another team on the ice that once in a while does something right, the coaches just chalk the result up to a subpar performance by their team. This is totally not a knock on Stillwater; just an observation about comments by hockey coaches in general.
Should be a good one this week with Stillwater's size and strength v Roseville's speed and great forecheck. I think the regular season series will be split. Both are great teams.
Should be a good one this week with Stillwater's size and strength v Roseville's speed and great forecheck. I think the regular season series will be split. Both are great teams.
