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.