HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

I posted a poll a few days ago that asked what is the factor that would show that a team is looking at a great season upcoming. Lets turn the question around a bit and try it this way. What factor would ensure that a team would not have a good season. The reason I ask is because i am trying to have some fun with the 157 team list i created and am trying to pick one team to root for out of 15 10 team groupings based on strength of schedule. So you hockey rubes have any thoughts on this one.

Pretty sure you need all of the above because any one of them could lead to a "bad season". What the heck kind of question is this? Are you the new "mouthrunner" or whatever his name was from back in the day???

Come on man!

Sports statistics do a very good job of explaining what has happened. They really don't work so well as a predictor.

Bantam strength is a good 2-3 year predictor of HS team strength.

If I had to chose an answer to this twisted question, I would chose losing most of your defensemen. If a team lost 4 or more of their defensemen and there weren't any solid players to take those spots, the forwards on that team wouldn't be confident. They wouldn't be able to make things happen in the neutral and offensive zones. Not to mention how difficult it would be for them to break the puck out. It would require very good coaching and practice to fix a team with this issue...

southernmnscout wrote:Pretty sure you need all of the above because any one of them could lead to a "bad season". What the heck kind of question is this? Are you the new "mouthrunner" or whatever his name was from back in the day???

Come on man!

Way to elaborate for someone trying to understand. I am just looking to understand which one you would most not want on a team that you were taking over or watching as a fan. Please help a hockey fan with the need to understand.

starmvp wrote:If I had to chose an answer to this twisted question, I would chose losing most of your defensemen. If a team lost 4 or more of their defensemen and there weren't any solid players to take those spots, the forwards on that team wouldn't be confident. They wouldn't be able to make things happen in the neutral and offensive zones. Not to mention how difficult it would be for them to break the puck out. It would require very good coaching and practice to fix a team with this issue...

I could see losing defensemen as a real problem. Is four a good number to say that it is the sign of a real problem on defense then. There are some teams from last year that had four or five defensemen graduate and had a great opponents shot on goal average and I was curious as to how much that loss of defensemen would effect things.

grandmeadowhockeyfan wrote:

starmvp wrote:If I had to chose an answer to this twisted question, I would chose losing most of your defensemen. If a team lost 4 or more of their defensemen and there weren't any solid players to take those spots, the forwards on that team wouldn't be confident. They wouldn't be able to make things happen in the neutral and offensive zones. Not to mention how difficult it would be for them to break the puck out. It would require very good coaching and practice to fix a team with this issue...

I could see losing defensemen as a real problem. Is four a good number to say that it is the sign of a real problem on defense then. There are some teams from last year that had four or five defensemen graduate and had a great opponents shot on goal average and I was curious as to how much that loss of defensemen would effect things.

Duluth East lost 4 defensemen off its 08-09 team (one of which just went in the first round of the NHL draft, another of which will be playing D1), yet still had a very strong year this past year. Granted, DE is not your normal program since they are one of the deepest in the state and have a lot of resources with which to fill the holes, but they did pull it off.

I voted for "losing over half the team," but again, so much depends on what the incoming bantam crop looks like. Deep programs can fill those holes and still be very competitive--just look at Edina this past year.

starmvp wrote:If I had to chose an answer to this twisted question, I would chose losing most of your defensemen. If a team lost 4 or more of their defensemen and there weren't any solid players to take those spots, the forwards on that team wouldn't be confident. They wouldn't be able to make things happen in the neutral and offensive zones. Not to mention how difficult it would be for them to break the puck out. It would require very good coaching and practice to fix a team with this issue...

That's the scenerio that Brainerd will be facing after their record 23-4 season. They lost their starting goalie and all 4 D. They return some talented forwards who can put the puck in the net. We'll see how Archie fills the holes at the blue line!

The leader is losing over half your team. The example of that happening this year is Faribault. They lost half or more of their team. We will have to see what happens to them this year. It looks like single a section 1 goes to Rochester Lourdes again this year. With New Praque being the closest competion

Lets look at what all of your examples have in common. They were cities teams with a large number of kids to draw from. If you have great feeder systems or always have great jv, bantams, etc coming up it does not matter so much who you lose. It must be nice to have such a big pool of players to draw from in the metro cities.