|
|
Post by SteveUL on Sept 6, 2007 7:33:15 GMT -4
I'm surprised that nobody has posted it yet ... but your Rocket are ranked in the CHL Top 10 ... 5th I think it was ... Halifax ranked 3rd ... RN down around 10th ... I read it in the Moncton paper this morning. I'll find a link. Edit: OK ... my mistake ... its the Hockey News' Top 10 ranking ... The Hockey News has compiled its Canadian Hockey League top 10 rankings for this season: 1. London Knights (OHL); 2. Everett Silvertips (WHL); 3. Halifax Mooseheads (QMJHL); 4. Niagara Ice Dogs (OHL); 5. Prince Edward Island Rocket (QMJHL); 6. Sarnia Sting (OHL); 7. Calgary Hitmen (WHL); 8. Oshawa Generals (OHL); 9. Rouyn-Noranda Huskies (QMJHL); 10. Vancouver Giants (WHL) timestranscript.canadaeast.com/sports/article/66970at the bottom of the article |
|
|
|
Post by Stuck in a Loop... on Sept 6, 2007 7:53:50 GMT -4
Holy Jumping Kitty Cats Bayman, what shall we do??
|
|
|
|
Post by Krang7 on Sept 6, 2007 7:57:30 GMT -4
|
|
|
|
Post by Stuck in a Loop... on Sept 6, 2007 7:58:05 GMT -4
lol whoops
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Sept 6, 2007 8:30:01 GMT -4
I'm surprised that nobody has posted it yet ... but your Rocket are ranked in the CHL Top 10 ... 5th I think it was ... Halifax ranked 3rd ... RN down around 10th ... I read it in the Moncton paper this morning. I'll find a link. Edit: OK ... my mistake ... its the Hockey News' Top 10 ranking ... The Hockey News has compiled its Canadian Hockey League top 10 rankings for this season: 1. London Knights (OHL); 2. Everett Silvertips (WHL); 3. Halifax Mooseheads (QMJHL); 4. Niagara Ice Dogs (OHL); 5. Prince Edward Island Rocket (QMJHL); 6. Sarnia Sting (OHL); 7. Calgary Hitmen (WHL); 8. Oshawa Generals (OHL); 9. Rouyn-Noranda Huskies (QMJHL); 10. Vancouver Giants (WHL) timestranscript.canadaeast.com/sports/article/66970at the bottom of the article That was mentioned to me last night at the game...... How they figure "rankings" out like that so early is beyond me... |
|
|
|
Post by nolman29 on Sept 6, 2007 13:25:53 GMT -4
Good to see us in 5th.
|
|
|
|
Post by catnut on Sept 6, 2007 13:27:48 GMT -4
However, you are tied with the team that's in 58th place. |
|
|
|
Post by thedarcy on Sept 6, 2007 20:20:50 GMT -4
that's a pretty sweet stat...i'm sure they bank it on how many returning players they have, how many draftees they have (of course people drafted generally house a higher level of skill the non-drafted players) and how we stack up with new players to the team as far as where they were ranked....we shouldn't have a bad team this year and the ranking doesn't really surprise me at all...based on the talent and experience on the team, (we may not appear to have the best team in the league on paper), things really do look promising for this season. A lot of good young talent that should mature adequately, a solid core on defense anchored in net by a high draft pick in Lafleur...i'm sure these things all play a part in our great ranking!
side note: The London Knights are always ranked, in the last 5 years anyways that i can recall...is it good staff? or just luck? or what in the heck is it? cuz that's bloody amazing that they can ice such a good team consistently
|
|
|
|
Post by wingman on Sept 6, 2007 20:43:48 GMT -4
I felt that The Hockey News had been slipping the past few years but I think someone dropped the ball having the Rocket #5 in the country, they would be lucky to be ranked in the top 5 in the QMJHL.
As far as to why London is always ranked is because they have good management, good coaching and are run well from top to bottom. They know how to build a team and do what it takes to win. You don't be a top team for 5 years in the CHL just because of luck.
|
|
|
|
Post by Score on Sept 6, 2007 20:47:39 GMT -4
As far as to why London is always ranked is because they have good management, good coaching and are run well from top to bottom. They know how to build a team and do what it takes to win. You don't be a top team for 5 years in the CHL just because of luck. I agree on all accounts....... and by them knowing what it takes to win also means them willing to open the bank account. |
|
