Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
-star Rating Rate It!  Login/Join 
Posted Hide Post
Garnet did a great job this season and their strong offense compensated for their lack of defense.
That being said, if you look at the overall odds. Garnet is much better then a lot of those A teams selected and would have a much better chance of creating and upset.

On the other hand, in years past and for years ahead there will always be some valid argument as to why a team was selected or not. Its the nature of the beast.

This may be the problem when you have so many teams jammed into one league? When the ICSHL teams were picked perhaps there was not enough room left for Garnet? There is only so many slots per league and when they are all used up what do you do?
I'm only assuming this was a contributing factor.

Prediction- Garnet 6 Sun Valley 2. With record breaking penalties!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: oldschool,
 
Posts: 64 | Location: Philly | Registered: 05 September 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
I would have to agree with what everything is said. Yes Gv was put in at a bottom seed last year but they came and beat Marple, Shawnee who was a 3 seed and lost to the eventual state champions in Henderson. Not saying that Gv didnt take care of business like they should have eirlier in the season but I think that they would have had a better shoot at pulling off an upset. Sv is still a decent team and tonite will tell a lot. GV SV 830 at iceworks it will be interesting.
 
Posts: 32 | Registered: 11 January 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Moderator
Posted Hide Post
I'll agree that GV is as good or better than some of the A teams selected, and might even be able to pull off an upset. With that said, I myself have higher standards for teams like GV, Penncrest and Radnor and expect better things from them in the regular season. A team like Sun Valley, I had no expectations of them having any success this year, they had a nice season and should be rewarded for it.

Garnet, Penncrest and Radnor were all well below .500....if the tournament was 16 teams LIKE IT SHOULD BE.....then we wouldn't even be having this conversation :-)
 
Posts: 959 | Location: Philly | Registered: 11 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
who do you guys think are some sleeper teams?
 
Posts: 14 | Registered: 03 December 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Sacks:
I'll agree that GV is as good or better than some of the A teams selected, and might even be able to pull off an upset. With that said, I myself have higher standards for teams like GV, Penncrest and Radnor and expect better things from them in the regular season. A team like Sun Valley, I had no expectations of them having any success this year, they had a nice season and should be rewarded for it.

Garnet, Penncrest and Radnor were all well below .500....if the tournament was 16 teams LIKE IT SHOULD BE.....then we wouldn't even be having this conversation :-)



Amen to all the above Matt. (except the Sun Valley part)

Garnet Valley 8-12-1
Penncrest & Radnor 6-12-3

Garnet beats Radnor, Radnor beats Penncrest and Penncrest beats Garnet. None of them deserve it with those records. I don't care what league your in. This should be a lesson for all teams that places a direct importance on focussing and playing every regular season game as if it could impact your place in the Flyers Cup. They all had stretches of the regular season where they slumped and it cost them in the end. These three teams learned that lesson the hard way!!
 
Posts: 46 | Registered: 27 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Gv beats Sv 7 to 6 in by far one of the best come backs ever. They scored 3 short handed goals in the last 2 min and the game winner with 19 seconds left. This may have not been the best win but GV goes up 2-0 in the series with Sv this year. Not coming on and saying that this means GV should be in but i dont think Sv should be either. If the selections were a week later then maybe this game make the flyers cup seeding a little different, but hey thyats how things work. Over all it was a well played game by both teams and Sv just couldnt shut the door.
 
Posts: 32 | Registered: 11 January 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Boraske33
Posted Hide Post
Let's be realistic, and I really don't want to offend anyone but everybody knows it. If Garnet had a high caliber, club/Junior goaltender, with that first line, they would be winning most games 7-2. No more of these 8-5 losses and so on.

If they had a Sutherland, McCullough, Hazelton, Tinkoff, etc.. they would be top ten Flyers Cup, maybe top five. It's just a shame that they completely missed the tournament this year because of (for the most part) one reason.
 
Posts: 300 | Location: Ridley Park | Registered: 26 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Moderator
Posted Hide Post
You're right....If we selected tomorrow instead of yesterday, Garnet Valley would probably be in.
 
Posts: 959 | Location: Philly | Registered: 11 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by cicvi17:
I think a smart thing to do would be for the leagues to finish their postseason/playoffs BEFORE the committee seeds everyone.


Like I said...
 
Posts: 30 | Registered: 02 March 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Moderator
Posted Hide Post
then they need to finish a week before the Flyers Cup starts, or someone else is making the Program :-)
 
Posts: 959 | Location: Philly | Registered: 11 September 2006Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Picture of Boraske33
Posted Hide Post
Pez, I wasn't sure whether to respond because you deleted your post but my dad actually did see it, told me about it, and before I had a chance to get on and respond, it was gone.

Let me make it clear though that I was in no way including you in my above post. I never even saw you and Sun Valley play this year, nor have I talked to any of your teammates. My post was strictly in regards to Garnet Valley, based mostly on some of the game stories I've heard from Hawks teammates (Orlando and Conti), Ridley's game versus Garnet Valley, and other games I've seen them play.

Sorry for the confusion - didn't mean to offend you.
 
Posts: 300 | Location: Ridley Park | Registered: 26 February 2007Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boraske33:
Let's be realistic, and I really don't want to offend anyone but everybody knows it. If Garnet had a high caliber, club/Junior goaltender, with that first line, they would be winning most games 7-2. No more of these 8-5 losses and so on.

If they had a Sutherland, McCullough, Hazelton, Tinkoff, etc.. they would be top ten Flyers Cup, maybe top five. It's just a shame that they completely missed the tournament this year because of (for the most part) one reason.


That's why you play with who goes to your school. If other teams had more offense, or more defense, etc. You could say it about a lot of teams, but the bottom line is you've got who you've got. At least for 99% of the teams it's that way.
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: 16 January 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
Haha unless your Perk and you import a goalie.
 
Posts: 190 | Registered: 19 January 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
I have to respond to rahal on this one. It's been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere on this forum. The Sutherland kid came to Pa. from Ct. to play Junior Hockey and that's the only reason he came. I know the story directly from his parents. As a high school junior last season, he had led his team to the Ct. State Div. 11 Championship. The school had 400 students...boys and girls. He wanted to play Junior this year, but would have been ineligable to continue to play for his school if he had done so, under Ct. rules. So, he left Ct. for Pa., having just turned 17, to spend his senior year in Pa., play Junior Hockey, and play for his new high school, whatever school that turned out to be. He had never heard of PV until a week before the first day of school. All he knew was that he would be going to a school that had a hockey team. It could have been WC East, Methacton, Conestoga, or any other school that has or doesn't have other Junior players.
Finally, we're talking about a 17 year old kid here. Granted, he's 6' 1" and about 190 and very good. But, there was no conspiracy. He could have ended up anywhere.
 
Posts: 257 | Registered: 07 February 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
Posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by hhfan:
I have to respond to rahal on this one. It's been addressed ad nauseum elsewhere on this forum. The Sutherland kid came to Pa. from Ct. to play Junior Hockey and that's the only reason he came. I know the story directly from his parents. As a high school junior last season, he had led his team to the Ct. State Div. 11 Championship. The school had 400 students...boys and girls. He wanted to play Junior this year, but would have been ineligable to continue to play for his school if he had done so, under Ct. rules. So, he left Ct. for Pa., having just turned 17, to spend his senior year in Pa., play Junior Hockey, and play for his new high school, whatever school that turned out to be. He had never heard of PV until a week before the first day of school. All he knew was that he would be going to a school that had a hockey team. It could have been WC East, Methacton, Conestoga, or any other school that has or doesn't have other Junior players.
Finally, we're talking about a 17 year old kid here. Granted, he's 6' 1" and about 190 and very good. But, there was no conspiracy. He could have ended up anywhere.


All that's true, but it just seems like there's always a question about PV's roster.
 
Posts: 12 | Registered: 16 January 2008Reply With QuoteEdit or Delete MessageReport This Post
 Previous Topic | Next Topic powered by eve community Page 1 2 3 4 5 6