jloos Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hensick, who led all freshmen nationally in scoring this season with 46 points, was named the USCHO.com Rookie of the Year. A native of Howell, Mich., Hensick led the Wolverines in scoring and was also a unanimous pick to the All-USCHO Rookie Team. SCORING LEADERS Rk Name GP G A Pts. Pt./GM GW PP SH 13 Brady Murray, Fr, F, UND 37 19 27 46 1.24 6 6 0 T.J. Hensick, Fr, F, UM 43 12 34 46 1.07 1 6 0 Hensick scoring game by game Hensick Very streaky player that faded out towards the end of the year, as many freshman do. Murray scoring game by game Murray Very consistent scorer that game on strong at the end of the year. Murray tied Hensick for Freshman scoring, but played in 6 less games! Murray had 6 game winning goals compared to Hensick's 1. Murray was selected to the WJ team Hensick was not. The only thing Hensick has Murray didn't was leading his team in scoring. But he was the unanimous pick for ROY? PCM - didn't you get a vote? INCH's even picked Murray for ROY and those guys are from Michigan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. I am hoping Murray can get 5-6 more goals next year to help ease the loss of ZP. He is a very talented player but needs a good centerman to dish the puck and there was none better than ZP at the college level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Brady centered his own line in Salmon Arm before coming to UND. He put up a 42-59-101 line in 59 games and was the BCHL runner-up for both ROY and MVP. He'll be OK without Zach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cardinal Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I would guess there logic was that he got that many points as a defensemen playing on a team with about 1/2 the talent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 PCM - didn't you get a vote? When USCHO wants my opinion, they'll give it to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I agree that Murray will be OK without Zach, however there is no doubt that his rookie numbers were heavily boosted by playing all year with Parise. Teams will be giving much more attention to Murray with Zach off of that line and it will be a BIG challenge to match this year's numbers next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 What impressed me the most about Brady Murray was that he got better as the season went on. He also scored 19 goals on 80 shots to lead the team with a .237 shooting percentage. The coaches encouraged him to shoot more. Next season, I think he will. I'll be very surprised if he doesn't put up better numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Another award, another clown crying about it...how many times have you watched Hensick play, anyone?? anyone??? PCM - (insert stats here) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCM Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 PCM - (insert facts here) Fixed your post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dagies Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 What impressed me the most about Brady Murray was that he got better as the season went on. He also scored 19 goals on 80 shots to lead the team with a .237 shooting percentage. The coaches encouraged him to shoot more. Next season, I think he will. I'll be very surprised if he doesn't put up better numbers. I agree with PCM. It was great to see him get better as the year went on. I saw the team play a handful of times through the season. You could tell Brady was a very very good player, but he always seemed 1/2 step, 1/2 stick away from making an "outstanding" play, though he was trying. By the time I saw him in GF in the Denver series and in the FF it seemed to me Brady had closed that gap and was making some of those plays. He's an excellent player and I am very much looking forward to watching him again next year. He's got more speed and IMO more "flash" than Zach had. Zach had more strength I thought, and could use his body to position himself better than the opponent. Brady might be as good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schmidtdoggydog Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Teams will be giving much more attention to Murray with Zach off of that line and it will be a BIG challenge to match this year's numbers next year. He will likely be much stronger and one of the fastest, if not the fastest, player in the league. Teams may focus on him, but with his combination of speed and skill, they will have a real difficult time slowing him down. As for the topic of this thread, I don't know what is a bigger farce, Murray not winning rookie of the year or Vanek being a second team forward? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sicatoka Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 I just realized something: Brady Murray, Salmon Arm, 2002-2003: 42-59-101 line in 59 games BCHL runner-up for both ROY and MVP. Travis Zajac, Salmon Arm, 2003-2004: 43-69-112 line in 59 games BCHL MVP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DAR Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Hopefully that means that Zajac will put up similar numbers to Murray in his freshman season, which would mean the team will be potent once again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jloos Posted April 7, 2004 Author Share Posted April 7, 2004 I would guess there logic was that he got that many points as a defensemen playing on a team with about 1/2 the talent. 1. I saw Hensick play 4 times this year. 2. He is a Defenseman? He played forward every game I saw, and was listed as a forward on the roster. 3. MI did not have the talent - but they played a much softer schedule (through no fault of their own the CCHA was soft this year)- note his scoring - very few points against top 10 teams. 4. I have never complained about any of the other awards - BB not on first team, no respect for the D-men. 5. The ROY award should be a no brainer this year, I'm not seeing this as a Sioux homer, but as a college hockey fan in general. USCHO has always had the best reporting, but INCH is pulling closer and closer. 6. Murray being an ok player on a great line is bunch of BS. Many times this year I thought he was the best player on the ice. He started slow but finished very strong. 7. I think Stafford was screwed for not being on the all rookie team, but I can see why they don't put two players from the same team on it. 8. In my opinion Porter should also be on the all rookie team. Ok I may be looking through green glasses now, but it is just my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 1. I saw Hensick play 4 times this year. 2. He is a Defenseman? He played forward every game I saw, and was listed as a forward on the roster. 3. MI did not have the talent - but they played a much softer schedule (through no fault of their own the CCHA was soft this year)- note his scoring - very few points against top 10 teams. 4. I have never complained about any of the other awards - BB not on first team, no respect for the D-men. 5. The ROY award should be a no brainer this year, I'm not seeing this as a Sioux homer, but as a college hockey fan in general. USCHO has always had the best reporting, but INCH is pulling closer and closer. 6. Murray being an ok player on a great line is bunch of BS. Many times this year I thought he was the best player on the ice. He started slow but finished very strong. 7. I think Stafford was screwed for not being on the all rookie team, but I can see why they don't put two players from the same team on it. 8. In my opinion Porter should also be on the all rookie team. Ok I may be looking through green glasses now, but it is just my opinion. 1. Didn't see Hensick play. He didn't make the WJ team but he is slated to be on next year's WJ team with Stafford. 2. He is a forward. From his stats, I'd say he has a keen eye for smart offensive hockey. Not especially an offensive power, but very good at setting someone up to bury the puck. Not a goalscorer like Murray. 3. I disagree. Michigan does have talent, but I felt they spent the majority of the year feeling overconfident based on how poor the CCHA is. Miami, MSU, UNO, ND, et. al. are decent quality teams that just didnt play up to par this season. They don't have a flashy player like UMD, UND, BC, and Minnesota have, which is a big difference. 4. Nothing new here. Offensive Dmen run the world, which is why I was not surprised to see Ballard and Pock on the list. They are (and in the case of Pock, were) the best offensive dmen in NCAA hockey. 5. Maybe it was an "equalizer." So far this year, USCHO has mainly covered Hockey East and WCHA stories and spoke very little about the CCHA. Perhaps Hensick's performance out of a poor conference this year was more noteworthy than an excellent performance from a player who happens to be surrounded by incredible talent. This notwithstanding, put Murray in any other jersey and I bet he would be ROTY with these numbers because he probably would have been most any other team's primary offensive forward. 6. I agree. Look at the UW series. Wasn't he the only shining star on the ice next to ZPar both games? 7. As far as the All Rookie Team, this year was rough for the likes of Porter and Stafford. This is because of the immense quantity of quality rookie talent in college hockey. Porter is the best roleplaying forward in the NCAA, IMO, at least among freshmen. Stafford is solid as a power forward can get and should get better, but the others simply had too great of a year to pass over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WPoS Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 INCH's even picked Murray for ROY and those guys are from Michigan. actually, most of the INCH guys don't even LIKE UMich.... WPoS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 actually, most of the INCH guys don't even LIKE UMich.... WPoS Does anyone outside of Ann Arbor really like UMich? Zajac's numbers look quite promising. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigmrg74 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Does anyone outside of Ann Arbor really like UMich? Zajac's numbers look quite promising. as long as you're not in the Lansing Area, or south of Toledo, you can find plenty of people outside of Ann Arbor that like UMich. You just might get a few blank stares if you mention "Hockey Team". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 as long as you're not in the Lansing Area, or south of Toledo, you can find plenty of people outside of Ann Arbor that like UMich. You just might get a few blank stares if you mention "Hockey Team". Precisely. I am a big UMich football fan. Never knew they had a hockey team until I came to UND Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Precisely. I am a big UMich football fan. Never knew they had a hockey team until I came to UND Did you know UND had a hockey team before you went to UND? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwing77 Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 Did you know UND had a hockey team before you went to UND? Yes, I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goon Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Hensick, who led all freshmen nationally in scoring this season with 46 points, was named the USCHO.com Rookie of the Year. A native of Howell, Mich., Hensick led the Wolverines in scoring and was also a unanimous pick to the All-USCHO Rookie Team. SCORING LEADERS Rk Name GP G A Pts. Pt./GM GW PP SH 13 Brady Murray, Fr, F, UND 37 19 27 46 1.24 6 6 0 T.J. Hensick, Fr, F, UM 43 12 34 46 1.07 1 6 0 Hensick scoring game by game Hensick Very streaky player that faded out towards the end of the year, as many freshman do. Murray scoring game by game Murray Very consistent scorer that game on strong at the end of the year. Murray tied Hensick for Freshman scoring, but played in 6 less games! Murray had 6 game winning goals compared to Hensick's 1. Murray was selected to the WJ team Hensick was not. The only thing Hensick has Murray didn't was leading his team in scoring. But he was the unanimous pick for ROY? PCM - didn't you get a vote? INCH's even picked Murray for ROY and those guys are from Michigan. Sounds like an east coast bias. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Back to Back Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Murray did not deserve rookie of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinnesotaNorthStar Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Murray did not deserve rookie of the year. I have never seen Hensick play, so I will not say he didn't deserve it...but do you have any facts to back this up....or are you just speaking on a "gut" feeling? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A.B.T.G. Posted April 8, 2004 Share Posted April 8, 2004 Murray did not deserve rookie of the year. Shut up and go back to PUKES ON ICE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.