Wasn't impressed by the effort against Arlington. Came out flat and stayed flat outside of a few spurts. With perhaps the biggest team in the Super 8 one would think they would bring a little more physicality to the game. And especially since it appears they have something that vaguely resembles a penalty kill for the first time in forever.
Disappointing showing overall. Giving up 3 goals on 18 shots doesn't help.
Arlington's goalie stole a game. Next one might be different. Rumor was the Hingham team went to the gym before the game? What's that about? Gearing up for next season? A little 'dry land training' before the next one maybe?
Talk among the Hingham parents is the 'smaller ice' will help Hingham's physical style of play tonight. Problem is they've never coached a dependable penalty kill so if they bring it they better not end-up in the penalty box or it will be a shooting gallery.
Good luck wit dat.
I'd have to say the coaching staff was exposed on this one. Totally out coached and from top to bottom. They sent those boys in there unprepared with nothing of a game plan and very little changes from game to game. Felt bad as we watched the kids limp out of there afterwards knowing they stood no real chance by design.
Sure just making the dance saves them (the coaches) but the disappointing showing from a coaching perspective won't keep the locals happy.
Not sure what happened to the physical play they exhibited throughout the season and they looked tired. Funny the 2015 team was actually better than this team and they got snubbed by the Super 8 committee. It seems high school hockey is heading south in a hurry. Coaches will have a loooong time to think about these two games. Going down without much of a fight with all of those seniors on the team. Outcoached is an understatement.
Awful hockey at best!!! Coaches have no idea what they are doing. They wonder why kids leave to ply real hockey!!! Next year will be fun. I heard there is over 15 seniors on that team. At least the kids that never had a shot at varsity hockey will get a chance nextbyear
Coach was quoted in the paper after the first game 'I think we played pretty good in the first period and got our butts kicked for the last two pretty bad.'
What? You have players puck-watching and chasing the puck all over the ice; out of position all day; defensemen rushing the puck and getting trapped deep in the offensive zone; a goalie who looks rattled; kids that can't hit the net; bigger physical players getting limited shifts; stupid penalties... and you talk about the players not playing well? This one is on you guys.
After 3 games against Arlington in the last month, it is clear that they are not a good matchup. The are a well disciplined, fast skating team. They move the puck well and goaltending is solid. Hingham had a solid season playing everyone and doing well. It is what it is. After 9 periods of play you got 11-2. Tip your hat and move on.
Dump and chase hockey. Thats all it is. Kids are not taught to play the game ... Shame on the coaches. Anybody can " Bang" the puck off the glass and skate after it
Defensively the kids have way too long of a leash to roam all over the ice. When they had success they had big responsible defensemen that played their positions. Freelancing should have be coached out of these kids after 2-3 years of varsity....ya think?
Sorry Butch, this is high school hockey and here shutdown defensemen win games & championships. And there is a reason Torey Krug would be a a bottom pairing D-man on most average teams....
I saw that and I about spit out my coffee and I wasn't even drinking any. Proof that many kids can play college hockey provided they pick their parents correctly!
"Kid was best player on ice as a sophomore at HHS."
You know zero about hockey. That was a train wreck and the little guy (much like now) got ran over repeatedly. It's hard to argue if the kid was the worst in ten years but of the kids who have skated a regular shift there he has to be near the bottom couple. 'The best player on the ice'? Whoa, that's a complete joke.
You must go to the games, you have eyes, you tell me. There have been a couple way better since and others before I do know that.
His 'talent' gave TM his worst season as a head coach. Go look at the W/L record, can't argue with the facts. And the big Dman they had a couple years ago could skate circles around the little guy. Imagine that, over 6 feet and a better skater.
This is the same guy who has been griping for several years at LM while at Hingham, Dexter, and now BC. he has an ax to grind because his kid was sitting while LM was playing. get over it
Or is this is the same guy who has been griping for several years at LM while at Hingham, Dexter, and now BC. he has an ax to grind because his kid was out there busting his butt while LM was getting trucked, taking stupid penalties, turning the puck over while the coaches gave the kid free reign on the ice while the team had a losing season?
Every year they have 4-5 kids that can play D-3 at least who chose to move on to better schools, college education and a career rather than play-out their dream (or their dad's dream) of playing college hockey. So what if a kid or two chose to keep going? Who cares if a kid makes a team because his dad makes it happen? There seems to be very little envy among the kids or parents in town for those who chose to keep playing. Similarly I think there is little envy of the kids who chose to keep playing towards the kids who have moved on in life and they all know who could have kept playing. Just get over it.
The TRUTH is when the marginal player (yes the worst defensemen in the past decade to get a regular shift - numbers don't lie), disruptive locker room kid, primadonna decided to leave the program every kid on that team said 'wow, I really think we are going to be pretty good next year because he is leaving.' No more freelancing all over the ice, no more multiple stupid penalties per period, no more 3 minute shifts, no more hammering off angle shots that fly out of the zone, no more high glass from the point or all the other squirt hockey plays and guess what? THEY WERE BETTER - again, numbers don't lie. Going from a stumbling dysfunctional sub-500 team to winning the state D-I title all through removing one favored, sub-par, selfish player.
Sorry mom, someone had to say it.
Love it, you guys sure eat your young. Yeah I stop out a few times a year to see games and the kid wasn't very good. He had (and still has) potential and the first question I would have is why the kid hasn't been moved to forward - skates well enough to play center but needs to distribute the puck more. The position would fit his game and his size better but hey, I'm sure the people in Chestnut Hill have given it thought. While there I talked to others that were there to look at players and we all had the same conclusion that the high risk plays are not rewarded for defensemen. Year over year that you are speaking about the defense improved considerably with maybe one of the top pairings in high school hockey, the forwards got a year older and the goaltending improved considerably. Hey, the jury is still out.