HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

http://www.startribune.com/sports/preps/15750782.html

Good story, great player!

allhoc11 wrote:http://www.startribune.com/sports/preps/15750782.html

Good story, great player!

She was the best I saw this year, and is very deserving. Best of luck to her in her college carrer at OSU!

Who are the other 5 joining Smith on First Team All-Metro?

Wild, Seeler, Fest, Bacon, and goalie?

Goalie is Grogan (Eagan). All players obviously top players. However, somewhat surprised that Brittany Carlson (CDH) was not among the top three Metro teams. No one is tougher in the corners and she possesses one of the hardest shots in the state. Also, she logged around forty minutes of ice time, including the last six minutes of the third period against Stillwater in the section finals.

Here are the second and third All Metro teams:

Second Team
Forwards
Monique Weber, Elk River
Danielle Welch, Hastings
Sally Komarek, Blake

Defense
Ashley Duffy, Benilde-St. Margaret's
Kelsey Romatoski, Holy Angels

Goalie
Maddie Burke, Eden Prairie

Third Team
Forwards
Kacy Ambroz, New Prague
Becky Kortum, Hopkins
Lauren Zrust, Blaine
Callie Dahl, Stillwater

Defense
Janessa Haller, Anoka
Jessica Laurinaitis, Wayzata
Lisa Berreman, Eagan

Goalie
Kari Hunter, Bloomington Kennedy

(nice to see Miss Hunter get some recognition)

Funny how the "All Metro Teams" list differs from the "LPH Awards" of Ms. Hockey and Ms. Goalie Lists

Absent from all 3 "All Metro Teams" but made the "LPH Awards":

Alli Altmann

Absent from "LPH Awards" but made First Team "All Metro Team":

Kate Bacon

Why do suppose that is?

Altmann is always a tough one because of Grogan. Although she is a solid goalie, All-Metro had to pick three goalies and to pick two from the same team would be questionable. Not to say both aren't worthy. Instead, they decided to spread the wealth.

As for Bacon, I believe the LPH Awards are based not only on hockey ability, but also academics, community service, involvement, etc. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's based on a lot more that just what we see on the ice.

JustAGuy wrote:Funny how the "All Metro Teams" list differs from the "LPH Awards" of Ms. Hockey and Ms. Goalie Lists

Absent from all 3 "All Metro Teams" but made the "LPH Awards":

Alli Altmann

Absent from "LPH Awards" but made First Team "All Metro Team":

Kate Bacon

Why do suppose that is?

Because they're cidiots.

State Champ 97 wrote: Because they're cidiots.

What the ???? What is that suppose to mean?

JustAGuy wrote:

State Champ 97 wrote: Because they're cidiots.

What the ???? What is that suppose to mean?

"All-Metro" = cidiot
LPH "Metro" = cidiot
Star-Trib "metro" = citdiot

Is it 3 cidiots and you're out

Not sure I follow either.

xwildfan wrote:Goalie is Grogan (Eagan). All players obviously top players. However, somewhat surprised that Brittany Carlson (CDH) was not among the top three Metro teams. No one is tougher in the corners and she possesses one of the hardest shots in the state. Also, she logged around forty minutes of ice time, including the last six minutes of the third period against Stillwater in the section finals.

The picks are interesting. Roseville and Edina, two of the top teams in the State did not have any players in the top 3 teams. 2 from AHA, 3 from EP, 2 from Eagan, 2 from Benilde. Edina, Roseville, Breck, Centennial and WBL were all shut out. Is it because these teams' stars are relatively young or do you think that they don't have any elite players?

"CIDIOT"

1.) A city dweller while visiting the country. Usually a bark sucking granola eating hippy wanabe, that left what little brain they did have in the city .

2.) A term that residents of The Hamptons on Long Island have for ill-behaved Manhattanites who visit their town during the summer.

3.) A person who behaves without consideration for local custom or rules. Having an over-inflated sense of self importance; a megalomaniac.

Us "City Slickers" just don't belong (or mean much to him) I guess...........

OntheEdge wrote:The picks are interesting. Roseville and Edina, two of the top teams in the State did not have any players in the top 3 teams. 2 from AHA, 3 from EP, 2 from Eagan, 2 from Benilde. Edina, Roseville, Breck, Centennial and WBL were all shut out. Is it because these teams' stars are relatively young or do you think that they don't have any elite players?

Obviously all of these teams have excellent players, otherwise they wouldn't have been as good as they were. But I think their real strength came from having so many good players (team depth) and no weak links whatsoever. When all of your players are strong skaters who can move the puck and create scoring chances - plus do all of the little things that help prevent goals going the other way - you are going to do very well as a team even if you are missing one or two of the "superstars" that other teams may have. I think if they had an "honorable mention" you would see quite a few players from these teams on the list.

MNHockeyFan wrote:

OntheEdge wrote:The picks are interesting. Roseville and Edina, two of the top teams in the State did not have any players in the top 3 teams. 2 from AHA, 3 from EP, 2 from Eagan, 2 from Benilde. Edina, Roseville, Breck, Centennial and WBL were all shut out. Is it because these teams' stars are relatively young or do you think that they don't have any elite players?

Obviously all of these teams have excellent players, otherwise they wouldn't have been as good as they were. But I think their real strength came from having so many good players (team depth) and no weak links whatsoever. When all of your players are strong skaters who can move the puck and create scoring chances - plus do all of the little things that help prevent goals going the other way - you are going to do very well as a team even if you are missing one or two of the "superstars" that other teams may have. I think if they had an "honorable mention" you would see quite a few players from these teams on the list.

In summary you don't think the teams mentioned have any elite players, just a lot of good players.

JustAGuy wrote:"CIDIOT"

1.) A city dweller while visiting the country. Usually a bark sucking granola eating hippy wanabe, that left what little brain they did have in the city .

2.) A term that residents of The Hamptons on Long Island have for ill-behaved Manhattanites who visit their town during the summer.

3.) A person who behaves without consideration for local custom or rules. Having an over-inflated sense of self importance; a megalomaniac.

Us "City Slickers" just don't belong (or mean much to him) I guess...........

The bold is what I mean. The problem I have with this is there is all metro this and that and the other thing. So what? Why exclude people for not wanting or needing to live in a certain area due to profession, desire, or priorities.

OntheEdge wrote:In summary you don't think the teams mentioned have any elite players, just a lot of good players.

I think you are seriously missing the point. These top players are the most dominating players around, that is it, and idividual award is all. On all of the teams mentioned there are very good players, but tell me one "Dominant" player from those you mention?

State Champ 97 wrote:So what? Why exclude people for not wanting or needing to live in a certain area due to profession, desire, or priorities.

It's the Star Tribune who names this team for the Twin Cities girls. No need to minimize it becasue you don't like it.

Start a thread called the "All Northern Team" for your girls if. Name your 1st team, 2nd team and 3rd team. I most of us would find it interesting.

hockeyrube7 wrote:

OntheEdge wrote:In summary you don't think the teams mentioned have any elite players, just a lot of good players.

I think you are seriously missing the point. These top players are the most dominating players around, that is it, and idividual award is all. On all of the teams mentioned there are very good players, but tell me one "Dominant" player from those you mention?

I don't think I'm missing any point. I believe MNHockeyFan's opinion is that the teams I mentioned don't have any elite players, just a lot of depth of good players. I'm not sure I totally agree but I understand his/her point. I can't comment on who would be a better pick than some of the picks for the 3 Metro teams since I didn't see quite a few of them play.

I do think that some of the teams I mentioned (without a pick) have some young players that are very close to gaining the elusive elite status but one of the problems with having lots of depth is that there isn't any need to have a go-to player in tough games (e.g. Lauren Smith). I think when there is less depth, then there is more need for a go-to player on a team. Being a go-to player gets the player noticed more and additionally might develop her more because she is required to produce for the team. Being a go-to player also leads to more production from a points standpoint. In other words depth may inhibit individual development or at the very least it reduces the exposure of the top players on the team. I'm not sure.

I don't have any axe to grind. I'm just trying to understand if it is possible for some elite teams to not have elite players. I also think that younger players aren't given as much consideration (e.g. Meghan Lorence, Taylor Kuehl, Rachel Ramsey, etc.) as older players which may explain why some of the teams I mentioned were shut out.

I understand what you are trying to get at, and meant no offense, but to me this is kind of a null point with this thread. I agree with MNh for the most part, yet I agree with you also on some. I have to say though that while those two players you mentioned may be future stars some day, and are great players now, at this point haven't proven they can take a game over like the ones that got the awards, or even change the game in that direction. I've seen every one of these players play, both all Metro and those you have mentioned, and at this day in time, would agree with all the picks they have. As far as the teams you mention, I agree with MNh, they are deep teams, and have no stand outs that match the ones on the all metro teams. Just my opinion.

OntheEdge,

Please note that I did use the term "excellent" which I really do think fits the description of many players who did not make the Strib's list. I do not think that being a part of a team that has many other excellent players hurt them in any way - look at EP who got two named to the first team. They have other excellent players as well.

You named just a few of the other excellent players that deserved consideration. I can think of many more who did not make it either. But for any of these awards they do have to draw the line somewhere, and in this case it was 3 units of six (plus a couple extra) who got named. I have seen all but a couple and believe all are deserving of the recognition they received here. I never like to get into a conversation of "Player A is better than Player B" because this serves no purpose and just offends.

I also think that the Strib DOES give a little extra consideration to upperclassmen - and seniors in particular - everything else being equal. We all know there are many "elite" sophomores and even some freshmen out there, yet none were named. And for that matter not very many juniors made it either. Since it's their paper I guess we have to accept that it's their perogative how they decide things and who they choose. We can complain and argue all we want, but it's not going to change anything.

MNHockeyFan wrote:OntheEdge,

Please note that I did use the term "excellent" which I really do think fits the description of many players who did not make the Strib's list. I do not think that being a part of a team that has many other excellent players hurt them in any way - look at EP who got two named to the first team. They have other excellent players as well.

You named just a few of the other excellent players that deserved consideration. I can think of many more who did not make it either. But for any of these awards they do have to draw the line somewhere, and in this case it was 3 units of six (plus a couple extra) who got named. I have seen all but a couple and believe all are deserving of the recognition they received here. I never like to get into a conversation of "Player A is better than Player B" because this serves no purpose and just offends.

I also think that the Strib DOES give a little extra consideration to upperclassmen - and seniors in particular - everything else being equal. We all know there are many "elite" sophomores and even some freshmen out there, yet none were named. And for that matter not very many juniors made it either. Since it's their paper I guess we have to accept that it's their perogative how they decide things and who they choose. We can complain and argue all we want, but it's not going to change anything.

I agree and as long as it gives girls hockey space in the papers its a good thing.

State Champ 97 wrote:

JustAGuy wrote:"CIDIOT"

1.) A city dweller while visiting the country. Usually a bark sucking granola eating hippy wanabe, that left what little brain they did have in the city .

2.) A term that residents of The Hamptons on Long Island have for ill-behaved Manhattanites who visit their town during the summer.

3.) A person who behaves without consideration for local custom or rules. Having an over-inflated sense of self importance; a megalomaniac.

Us "City Slickers" just don't belong (or mean much to him) I guess...........

The bold is what I mean. The problem I have with this is there is all metro this and that and the other thing. So what? Why exclude people for not wanting or needing to live in a certain area due to profession, desire, or priorities.

Why you ask? Because it's a metro news paper naming an all metro team. Sheeeeesh. Or maybe it's because the Star Tribune wants to get goofy reactions from outstaters.

I thought you meant "Sidiot" which as we all know is a term which refers to moronic dribble Sid Hartman writes about.

wow what a difference the U18 team title makes