The Brick team for "Team Minnesota"

jg2112 · Post by **jg2112** » Fri May 15, 2015 7:55 am

has two kids from Florida:

http://www.youthhockeyhub.com/news_arti ... _id=967187

I understand other teams have done this for years. But really, "Team Minnesota" only carries 13 skaters, and two of them are from Florida? There are plenty of Minnesota 05s with the quality to make that team. Shamone.

MWS coach · Post by **MWS coach** » Fri May 15, 2015 9:34 am

Not saying it is right or wrong, but if you plan on running a short bench, is it better to bring additional players to Edmonton and not play them, or have a short roster which excludes players that wouldn't play much anyway? Keep in mind, the games are 60 minutes, not 3 stop time periods, which is makes running a short bench a more viable option.

jg2112 · Post by **jg2112** » Fri May 15, 2015 10:03 am

MWS coach wrote:Not saying it is right or wrong, but if you plan on running a short bench, is it better to bring additional players to Edmonton and not play them, or have a short roster which excludes players that wouldn't play much anyway? Keep in mind, the games are 60 minutes, not 3 stop time periods, which is makes running a short bench a more viable option.

Oh, I completely agree. In youth hockey I think the optimal roster size is 13 skaters plus goalies.

If it were me, I would bring 15 just in case of injury. 1-2 injuries and that team is going to be logging serious time.

Also, if it were me, and I was going to bring 13 skaters, I'd find them in MN. I realize there may be gamesmanship in taking 2 kids from Florida and keeping them from the opposition, but it is "Team Minnesota." There are enough local kids to fill that team.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri May 15, 2015 11:22 am

I saw this team, well 13 of the 15 players, down in the ChiTown Shuffle. It's hard to say how good or not good they are/were. They split with the Chicago Brick team (makes me wonder what type of second game MN had with them because MN really outplayed them in the first game) and my son's team played the Chicago Brick team in the championship game of the Shuffle. The Brick goalie was phenomenal in the championship game, our team outshot and outplayed the ChiTown team but couldn't break the seal on the goalie. Chicago scored one goal on our goalie (their second goal was an empty netter with under 30 seconds left in the game). Our team had the best player on the ice and he isn't even on a Brick team. If Chicago ends up doing really well up there then I would predict MN will as well but again hard to say what the squads are bringing. That said I agree with the OP, unless there is some odd direct connection in MN with these two FL kids seems unnecessary for you guys to go outside your boarders for talent.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » Fri May 15, 2015 2:18 pm

check the coaches history, the connection to FL is there.

thefatcat · Post by **thefatcat** » Fri May 15, 2015 5:55 pm

Over / under on how many games before #18's dad is asked to leave the arena?

BenDangle · Post by **BenDangle** » Tue May 19, 2015 4:12 pm

"Over / under on how many games before #18's dad is asked to leave the arena?"

1

4on5again · Post by **4on5again** » Wed May 20, 2015 4:42 pm

Great skill set for #18. Unfortunately, have been embarrassed by the #!$% show between father and player. International tournaments are no exception. Actually watched him argue with his son before face-offs between whistles at games. The referee stood waiting to drop the puck. I'm sure that there are some strong personalities every year, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near this one. Good luck to Team MinneFlorida.

Coach seems legit, and is doing nothing unusual by bringing in a couple extras. It was interesting watching this team evolve, and the extent that some will go to land a spot on the Brick team. Some pretty heavy greasing by the shameless. The "I'll invite your son to play free tournaments with our team, and hope you invite mine back to the Brick" kind of thing. I think the coach accepted the invites and then stiffed a few. Fun stuff.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Thu May 21, 2015 2:10 pm

These kid are 9-10 years old. Lets see how many of them are still "elite" by 14-15. People take this way too serious.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Thu May 21, 2015 4:24 pm

Sats81 wrote:These kid are 9-10 years old. Lets see how many of them are still "elite" by 14-15. People take this way too serious.

Actually quite a few. There are some that "think" they are elite that really aren't but are on elite level teams but don't quite understand the distinction and while I do think it's silly to call a squirt "elite" the reality is if we use the term just define a player who is literally amongst the very best in their age group both physically and mentally then the reality is the TRULY "elite" squirts are more often than not the truly elite pee wees, and the truly elite Bantams and even the midgets etc... etc... I'm not saying some don't drop out and I am not saying others don't rise up and eventually everyone, even the "elite" finds their watermark whether it be in high school, or juniors or college or the pros. It definitely whittles down eventually. But your question is how many are still elite by 14 to 15 years old, well of the "truly elite" I'd say based on anecdotal evidence that of the truly elite 10 year olds that atleast 75% of them are still considered elite when they are 14 or 15. Let's use the 2000s as an example since they are in high school now and we can use some names without scorn. I won't go through them all but to my knowledge K'Andre Miller, Devlin McCabe, Brady Ziemer, Andy Beran, Jett Jungels, Jack Lagerstrom, Jordan Randall, Payton Matsui, Jack Olsen and a bunch of others were considered elite when they were 10 years old and I'd argue that they are all pretty much considered that still within their age group to this day. I get that some don't continue on that path and others rise up but the reality is ALOT more kids whoa re elite at 10 years old stay that way than kids who aren't elite at 10 years old rise up. My theory on that is two parts, #1 I truly believe hockey sense is something that is learned at a very very early age and while you can "improve it" with practice the ones who just "have it" at a young age never lose it, the other reason is the ones who are really good at a young age get more opportunities and are able to continue their development at a higher level and it's easier to maintain than catch up... anyway sorry for the soap box but I see this stated a lot but I don't think reality matches up with what is purported on this site sometimes

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Thu May 21, 2015 4:51 pm

JSR wrote:
Sats81 wrote:These kid are 9-10 years old. Lets see how many of them are still "elite" by 14-15. People take this way too serious.
Actually quite a few. There are some that "think" they are elite that really aren't but are on elite level teams but don't quite understand the distinction and while I do think it's silly to call a squirt "elite" the reality is if we use the term just define a player who is literally amongst the very best in their age group both physically and mentally then the reality is the TRULY "elite" squirts are more often than not the truly elite pee wees, and the truly elite Bantams and even the midgets etc... etc... I'm not saying some don't drop out and I am not saying others don't rise up and eventually everyone, even the "elite" finds their watermark whether it be in high school, or juniors or college or the pros. It definitely whittles down eventually. But your question is how many are still elite by 14 to 15 years old, well of the "truly elite" I'd say based on anecdotal evidence that of the truly elite 10 year olds that atleast 75% of them are still considered elite when they are 14 or 15. Let's use the 2000s as an example since they are in high school now and we can use some names without scorn. I won't go through them all but to my knowledge K'Andre Miller, Devlin McCabe, Brady Ziemer, Andy Beran, Jett Jungels, Jack Lagerstrom, Jordan Randall, Payton Matsui, Jack Olsen and a bunch of others were considered elite when they were 10 years old and I'd argue that they are all pretty much considered that still within their age group to this day. I get that some don't continue on that path and others rise up but the reality is ALOT more kids whoa re elite at 10 years old stay that way than kids who aren't elite at 10 years old rise up. My theory on that is two parts, #1 I truly believe hockey sense is something that is learned at a very very early age and while you can "improve it" with practice the ones who just "have it" at a young age never lose it, the other reason is the ones who are really good at a young age get more opportunities and are able to continue their development at a higher level and it's easier to maintain than catch up... anyway sorry for the soap box but I see this stated a lot but I don't think reality matches up with what is purported on this site sometimes

A high hockey IQ supercedes all. You won't get an argument from me there. I just feel like too many parents put WAY too much PRESSURE on kids at an age before most have even come close to starting puberty. Would much rather have my kid be a late bloomer then peaking early.

4on5again · Post by **4on5again** » Thu May 21, 2015 6:52 pm

A child that peaks early has instant pressure to stay on top. Later to be caught by a player showing growth and skill development throughout puberty has to have psychological toll on the early elite. In today's competition, hockey sense is key -but not enough.
I agree it is better to be the one applying the pressure at Bantam and high school ages, than to be the one being caught. You still see the anointed ones put to the front of the lines, but they are less and less every year. We all get caught and nobody cares who the Peewee all-american was.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri May 22, 2015 12:35 pm

Sats81 wrote:
JSR wrote:
Sats81 wrote:These kid are 9-10 years old. Lets see how many of them are still "elite" by 14-15. People take this way too serious.
Actually quite a few. There are some that "think" they are elite that really aren't but are on elite level teams but don't quite understand the distinction and while I do think it's silly to call a squirt "elite" the reality is if we use the term just define a player who is literally amongst the very best in their age group both physically and mentally then the reality is the TRULY "elite" squirts are more often than not the truly elite pee wees, and the truly elite Bantams and even the midgets etc... etc... I'm not saying some don't drop out and I am not saying others don't rise up and eventually everyone, even the "elite" finds their watermark whether it be in high school, or juniors or college or the pros. It definitely whittles down eventually. But your question is how many are still elite by 14 to 15 years old, well of the "truly elite" I'd say based on anecdotal evidence that of the truly elite 10 year olds that atleast 75% of them are still considered elite when they are 14 or 15. Let's use the 2000s as an example since they are in high school now and we can use some names without scorn. I won't go through them all but to my knowledge K'Andre Miller, Devlin McCabe, Brady Ziemer, Andy Beran, Jett Jungels, Jack Lagerstrom, Jordan Randall, Payton Matsui, Jack Olsen and a bunch of others were considered elite when they were 10 years old and I'd argue that they are all pretty much considered that still within their age group to this day. I get that some don't continue on that path and others rise up but the reality is ALOT more kids whoa re elite at 10 years old stay that way than kids who aren't elite at 10 years old rise up. My theory on that is two parts, #1 I truly believe hockey sense is something that is learned at a very very early age and while you can "improve it" with practice the ones who just "have it" at a young age never lose it, the other reason is the ones who are really good at a young age get more opportunities and are able to continue their development at a higher level and it's easier to maintain than catch up... anyway sorry for the soap box but I see this stated a lot but I don't think reality matches up with what is purported on this site sometimes
A high hockey IQ supercedes all. You won't get an argument from me there. I just feel like too many parents put WAY too much PRESSURE on kids at an age before most have even come close to starting puberty. Would much rather have my kid be a late bloomer then peaking early.

I don't disagree with you at all on either point. I actually think the late bloomers are often the tiny few who do make it all the way, perhaps a inner tenacity built from always have to scrap for everything they get so they never get complacent... and I'd rather see kids be multi sport, multi play "kids" when they are 10 years old. But regardless of the "why" and regardless of whether it's right or wrong the elite 10 year olds do tend to be the majority of the elite 14 to 15 year olds for better or worse.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Fri May 22, 2015 2:01 pm

JSR wrote:
Sats81 wrote:
JSR wrote: Actually quite a few. There are some that "think" they are elite that really aren't but are on elite level teams but don't quite understand the distinction and while I do think it's silly to call a squirt "elite" the reality is if we use the term just define a player who is literally amongst the very best in their age group both physically and mentally then the reality is the TRULY "elite" squirts are more often than not the truly elite pee wees, and the truly elite Bantams and even the midgets etc... etc... I'm not saying some don't drop out and I am not saying others don't rise up and eventually everyone, even the "elite" finds their watermark whether it be in high school, or juniors or college or the pros. It definitely whittles down eventually. But your question is how many are still elite by 14 to 15 years old, well of the "truly elite" I'd say based on anecdotal evidence that of the truly elite 10 year olds that atleast 75% of them are still considered elite when they are 14 or 15. Let's use the 2000s as an example since they are in high school now and we can use some names without scorn. I won't go through them all but to my knowledge K'Andre Miller, Devlin McCabe, Brady Ziemer, Andy Beran, Jett Jungels, Jack Lagerstrom, Jordan Randall, Payton Matsui, Jack Olsen and a bunch of others were considered elite when they were 10 years old and I'd argue that they are all pretty much considered that still within their age group to this day. I get that some don't continue on that path and others rise up but the reality is ALOT more kids whoa re elite at 10 years old stay that way than kids who aren't elite at 10 years old rise up. My theory on that is two parts, #1 I truly believe hockey sense is something that is learned at a very very early age and while you can "improve it" with practice the ones who just "have it" at a young age never lose it, the other reason is the ones who are really good at a young age get more opportunities and are able to continue their development at a higher level and it's easier to maintain than catch up... anyway sorry for the soap box but I see this stated a lot but I don't think reality matches up with what is purported on this site sometimes
A high hockey IQ supercedes all. You won't get an argument from me there. I just feel like too many parents put WAY too much PRESSURE on kids at an age before most have even come close to starting puberty. Would much rather have my kid be a late bloomer then peaking early.
I don't disagree with you at all on either point. I actually think the late bloomers are often the tiny few who do make it all the way, perhaps a inner tenacity built from always have to scrap for everything they get so they never get complacent... and I'd rather see kids be multi sport, multi play "kids" when they are 10 years old. But regardless of the "why" and regardless of whether it's right or wrong the elite 10 year olds do tend to be the majority of the elite 14 to 15 year olds for better or worse.

I think the "inner tenacity" built from always having to scrap for a spot is a HUGE advantage for kids who are "forced" to play with that. Agree on multi sport 110% too.

terrymoore1717 · Post by **terrymoore1717** » Mon May 25, 2015 9:12 am

Here is some anecdotal evidence about later success.

Going by memory, this where the 2005 Brick team is ten years later (1995 DOB). There are 10 (58%) in D1 (or committed); 3 in the NA (18%) and 4 retired (24%).

Cammaratta-U of M
Reno-RPI
Fasching-U of M
Moore-Holy Cross
Lettieri-U of M
Raskob-UMD (was on team, did not travel to Brick)
Kucera-Air Force
MCarty-retired
Kleven-NAHL
Munson-Vermont
Ketola-NAHL
Austin-UConn
Dincau-?
Lindquist-retired
Brauer-Notre Dame
Johnson--retired
MIller-retired
Scheid-NAHL

Section 8 guy · Post by **Section 8 guy** » Mon May 25, 2015 11:33 pm

In looking at that list I think one could debate if that truly represents the elite remaining elite. Sure, you have the three Gophers and a Bulldog......but the rest of the schools listed are fairly uninspiring to me for a group that was at one time viewed as the cream of the crop.

Don't get me wrong..... Any kid going D1 is very impressive. No question about that. That said, if you put that list in front of the current crop of Brick bound Blades parents and said this is where your crew is going to end up playing.....my $ says they would be more disappointed than thrilled.

Just my two cents.

BP · Post by BP » Tue May 26, 2015 10:36 am

Section 8 guy wrote:In looking at that list I think one could debate if that truly represents the elite remaining elite. Sure, you have the three Gophers and a Bulldog......but the rest of the schools listed are fairly uninspiring to me for a group that was at one time viewed as the cream of the crop.

Don't get me wrong..... Any kid going D1 is very impressive. No question about that. That said, if you put that list in front of the current crop of Brick bound Blades parents and said this is where your crew is going to end up playing.....my $ says they would be more disappointed than thrilled.

Just my two cents.

They wouldn't be disappointed because they all would think their kid is one of the 3 Gophers!!!

Froggy Richards · Post by **Froggy Richards** » Tue May 26, 2015 10:57 am

Section 8 guy wrote:In looking at that list I think one could debate if that truly represents the elite remaining elite. Sure, you have the three Gophers and a Bulldog......but the rest of the schools listed are fairly uninspiring to me for a group that was at one time viewed as the cream of the crop.

Don't get me wrong..... Any kid going D1 is very impressive. No question about that. That said, if you put that list in front of the current crop of Brick bound Blades parents and said this is where your crew is going to end up playing.....my $ says they would be more disappointed than thrilled.

Just my two cents.

I agree. I think looking at the MN 95's that weren't on 2005 Team Minnesota tells the story. Most of the following turned out to be better prospects than the vast majority on that team:

Gage Ausmus, Hunter Miska, Steven Spinner, Luc Snuggerud, Connor Hurley, Teemu Kivihalme, Tommy Vannelli, Karson Kuhlman, Spencer Naas, Hunter Warner, Jack Ramsey, Mike Brodzinski, Zach Yon, Dan Labosky, Jordan Gross, Clint Lewis, Luke Voltin.

I'm sure there are more that I'm missing, but I think this shows that the "Elite" players at 10 are mostly not the "Elite" later on.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Tue May 26, 2015 11:28 am

terrymoore1717 wrote:Here is some anecdotal evidence about later success.

Going by memory, this where the 2005 Brick team is ten years later (1995 DOB). There are 10 (58%) in D1 (or committed); 3 in the NA (18%) and 4 retired (24%).

Cammaratta-U of M
Reno-RPI
Fasching-U of M
Moore-Holy Cross
Lettieri-U of M
Raskob-UMD (was on team, did not travel to Brick)
Kucera-Air Force
MCarty-retired
Kleven-NAHL
Munson-Vermont
Ketola-NAHL
Austin-UConn
Dincau-?
Lindquist-retired
Brauer-Notre Dame
Johnson--retired
MIller-retired
Scheid-NAHL

Thanks for posting this. Very interesting.

Sats81 · Post by **Sats81** » Tue May 26, 2015 11:29 am

Froggy Richards wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:In looking at that list I think one could debate if that truly represents the elite remaining elite. Sure, you have the three Gophers and a Bulldog......but the rest of the schools listed are fairly uninspiring to me for a group that was at one time viewed as the cream of the crop.

Don't get me wrong..... Any kid going D1 is very impressive. No question about that. That said, if you put that list in front of the current crop of Brick bound Blades parents and said this is where your crew is going to end up playing.....my $ says they would be more disappointed than thrilled.

Just my two cents.
I agree. I think looking at the MN 95's that weren't on 2005 Team Minnesota tells the story. Most of the following turned out to be better prospects than the vast majority on that team:

Gage Ausmus, Hunter Miska, Steven Spinner, Luc Snuggerud, Connor Hurley, Teemu Kivihalme, Tommy Vannelli, Karson Kuhlman, Spencer Naas, Hunter Warner, Jack Ramsey, Mike Brodzinski, Zach Yon, Dan Labosky, Jordan Gross, Clint Lewis, Luke Voltin.

I'm sure there are more that I'm missing, but I think this shows that the "Elite" players at 10 are mostly not the "Elite" later on.

Very true.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Tue May 26, 2015 11:55 am

Froggy Richards wrote:
Section 8 guy wrote:In looking at that list I think one could debate if that truly represents the elite remaining elite. Sure, you have the three Gophers and a Bulldog......but the rest of the schools listed are fairly uninspiring to me for a group that was at one time viewed as the cream of the crop.

Don't get me wrong..... Any kid going D1 is very impressive. No question about that. That said, if you put that list in front of the current crop of Brick bound Blades parents and said this is where your crew is going to end up playing.....my $ says they would be more disappointed than thrilled.

Just my two cents.
I agree. I think looking at the MN 95's that weren't on 2005 Team Minnesota tells the story. Most of the following turned out to be better prospects than the vast majority on that team:

Gage Ausmus, Hunter Miska, Steven Spinner, Luc Snuggerud, Connor Hurley, Teemu Kivihalme, Tommy Vannelli, Karson Kuhlman, Spencer Naas, Hunter Warner, Jack Ramsey, Mike Brodzinski, Zach Yon, Dan Labosky, Jordan Gross, Clint Lewis, Luke Voltin.

I'm sure there are more that I'm missing, but I think this shows that the "Elite" players at 10 are mostly not the "Elite" later on.

I'd completely disagree. First of all ANY kid who goes D1 at ANY school is still amongst the elite in their age group no matter what school it is. But second just because a kid did not play on the Brick team does not mean they were not considered elite, especially in MN. There are more than 15 elite skaters in n MN in any given birth year. I'd bet a bunch of those players you listed were also considered elite at 10 years old, doesn't matter that they played in the Brick or not, in fact I actually remember a few of those names when they were squirts and as I recall they were thought of as amongst the best squirts around.... Anyway there are a lot of reasons to not play in the Brick and frankly a handful of kids who do play in the Brick are not actually elite. That said I think the numbers and percentages still show the majority of elites at 10 years old are still elite at 15 years old which is what the OP was about

4on5again · Post by **4on5again** » Tue May 26, 2015 4:38 pm

I think one could say there are 2 or 3 special stand outs among the "Elites." On a Brick team there could be 10 others that can be interchanged with many other Minnesota 10 year olds, and the team would be no worse off. The 2 or 3 standouts tend not to make such a big deal about the tournament, while the 10 others cling to this as a life changing event. I base this on folks we knew/know in each camp.

Worrying about the 10 other supporting players is no bigger deal than looking at the 30 to 40 others staying home with equal skill sets.

In the end, I'm sure that you could double the cost of the trip and still have a similar list of decent players, but I bet you lose a stand out or two.

yesiplayedhockey · Post by **yesiplayedhockey** » Tue May 26, 2015 8:18 pm

So why are the Blades only bringing up 13 skaters? Is it because only 9 will see ice on regular basis?

Why did the Blades take kids from Florida?

Why aren't more Minnesota kids trying out for the team?

Yes I will still be rooting for Team Minnesota but was it like this back in 1995?

O-townClown · Post by **O-townClown** » Tue May 26, 2015 8:34 pm

Yes, a little perspective on that.

The Brick organizers want the best players in North America in their tournament. Not all of these kids live in places where a team is formed. For example, Colorado does not field a team.

The #1 team in the 2004 group the past two season is ours, a part-time all-star tournament team gathered from all of Florida. They also have shown very well in Spring tournaments in Toronto and other places. Wherever they've gone there has been interest in these players as imports for Brick teams, and last year at least 7 played. Minnesota had 3, Montreal had 1, Connecticut had 1 or 2, Detroit had 1, Alberta 1...you get the picture.

Deals were brokered for these kids to join Brick teams, or if that language is too strong we can say agreements were made. So a bridge was formed as a relationship between the Minnesota org and some individuals in Florida. I assume that left a door open for a discussion this year.

FWIW, a Florida player (from Jacksonville of all places) led the tournament in scoring when the 2000 kids played.

Feedback last year was that the Florida kids were definitely able to handle the level of play. From those that have attended, I'm told parents from many areas question that their area's Brick team actually captures all of the top players from their region.

yesiplayedhockey · Post by **yesiplayedhockey** » Tue May 26, 2015 9:00 pm

I think that's important for a lot of parents to know. Sometimes life is more about politics and who you know versus what is fair. Just another reason why everyone needs to step back and not put to much emphasis on this whole brick issue. It's just another silly hockey tournament.