Rangers Prospect Camp Roster announced

http://www.newyorkrangers.com/pressbox/pressreleases.asp?id=1285


I like this Robin Big Snake kid. He played with Dubinsky. I like his penalty minutes. And Pat Bateman played with Darin Olver. I hope both are signed for depth. :yo:

The Camp will be led by Rangers Head Coach and VP of Player Development Tom Renney (right), who will be joined by Perry Pearn, Ryan McGill, Nick Fotiu and members of the Blueshirt strength and conditioning staff in an effort to provide the attending players with a solid training program and a vision of the Rangers' future.

Is Allaire not going to be there?

Is Allaire not going to be there?

he is at his own goalie camp...in the press release about blackburn signing it said that blackburn would be attending allaire's goalie camp starting july 31st (allaire probably will join the rangers camp later on)...

big question is why they didn't send montoya to that camp too

Profile for Big Snake http://carbon.winterhawks.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=70

I presume that the absence of Lundqvist, Korpikoski, Prucha, and Immonen has to do with the conflict of the European league training camps. :dunno:

BTW, if he ever makes it to the NHL, I absolutely MUST get a Big Snake jersey.

The girls must love him.

BTW, if he ever makes it to the NHL, I absolutely MUST get a Big Snake jersey.[/QUOTE]
i agree 100%, sounds like a real good prospect , brings toughness and can play hockey, would probably be a good fit in ny....if he did make nyr i agree would get a jersey my self not because i like him but his last name

just wondering is that his last name something lkike bruno st jaques he is just robin big snake????


that cant be his last name, that seems like he changed his last name cause i mean , i dont its just pretty wierd to me

He's a "full status" Native Indian. He was raised on a reservation. Robin Big Snake is his real name.

He's a "full status" Native Indian. He was raised on a reservation. Robin Big Snake is his real name.

Yep.

And a damn good fighter/grinder.

He plays like a Darcy Tucker. Always agitating. But he will drop the gloves with anyone and everyone.

Thing is, he doesn't have the offensive instincts or the great speed Darcy does. He's a decent player, and I honestly think he CAN make the NHL. But he won't be more than a 3rd/4th line fighter/agitator.

But with the name of Big Snake. Common. SIGN HIM.

Yep.

And a damn good fighter/grinder.

Yea I heard that. I hope Sather tries to sign both Big Snake, Pat Bateman and Joe Tallari. :yo: Come on Sather please sign them.

But with the name of Big Snake. Common. SIGN HIM.


If for no other reason that to have that name on the back of a NYR jersey.

He's a "full status" Native Indian. He was raised on a reservation. Robin Big Snake is his real name.


Not to be picky or anything, but I believe that you meant "Native American". :D

Not to be picky or anything, but I believe that you meant "Native American". :D

How about "Native North American" or Native Canadian (don't know how much that's used way up yonder). Don't want to upset our neighbors. :D

He's a "full status" Native Indian. He was raised on a reservation. Robin Big Snake is his real name.

Awesome. Just awesome.

http://www.winterhawks.com/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=49&Itemid=70

http://carbon.winterhawks.com/images/stories/bigsnake.jpg

Adjectives that describe your playing style: In-your-face hockey player. I like to play hard, willing to finish checks and willing to fight for my teammates. I want to play more hockey this season because I was able to score some in bantam and I think I can score here.Hometown: Siksika. It is the second largest Land Nation in all of Canada, about 6,000 people. I am half-Cree, half-Blackfoot

I think Sather needs to be a little more selective with his signings than you. It appears as if Sather signed all you wanted to be signed this Summer, There would be twice as many signed professional players as there are roster spots. I don't think that's the right thing to do. You need to evaluate and develop a plan [unfortunately Sather's plans have not worked to date]

NYR...perhaps Montoya's not there because the Rangers can't 'send' him there, now that he's committed to going back to college. It would likely have to be on his own volition and on his own dime.

NYR...perhaps Montoya's not there because the Rangers can't 'send' him there, now that he's committed to going back to college. It would likely have to be on his own volition and on his own dime.

true but he is at the calgary camp on his own dime too...so if the rangers had said to him 'we went you to go to allaire's camp instead' i doubt montoya would have objected and cost-wise it would be no more than the calgary trip

Actually it might be more, because I get the feeling that Allaire's camp is actually a commercial camp that he is running, and Montoya would have to pay the fee to attend.

Not to be picky or anything, but I believe that you meant "Native American". :D


When they start grading our posts, I'll start concerning myself with minor detail. I was just quoting the article. It said "full status native" I figure I'd toss Indian in there so you people would figure it out. Moreover, since there isn't a soul on this board thrown off by my comments, you've wasted both our times. Yours by "picking" with the intentions of "not being picky", and me by feeling the need to explain myself. But...such is the way with HFBOARDS lately.

:D

Yea I heard that. I hope Sather tries to sign both Big Snake, Pat Bateman and Joe Tallari. :yo: Come on Sather please sign them.

Please don't take offense to this, but have you really seen them play all that much?I don't know, just seems hard to believe... Especially because they weren't even drafted. How good could they be? - And don't give me the St. Louis story! ;)

Kids try out every training camp, and usually don't make the cut... last guy I can remember to get a contract out of a try-out was Rawlyk.

Not to be picky or anything, but I believe that you meant "Native American". :D

As a matter of fact, what most people don't know is that the oldest human bones found in what is now North America were of caucasian people.

So it would be inadvertantly "politically incorrect" to call him a "native" anything. Inuits and native-Americans are really of Manchurian, Mongol, Chinese, and Asian-Russian descent.

Not at all justifying the imperialistic massacre of these people... I'm just pointing out a fact that is not widely known. Probably because it's hidden...

Please don't take offense to this, but have you really seen them play all that much?I don't know, just seems hard to believe... Especially because they weren't even drafted. How good could they be? - And don't give me the St. Louis story! ;)

Kids try out every training camp, and usually don't make the cut... last guy I can remember to get a contract out of a try-out was Rawlyk.
Ortmeyer always blindly roots and advocates signings of garbage players with very limited upside (role players.................... in the AHL)

So it's a joke, yeah? If it isn't a joke, it's even funnier after you explained it that way!

As a matter of fact, what most people don't know is that the oldest human bones found in what is now North America were of caucasian people.

So it would be inadvertantly "politically incorrect" to call him a "native" anything. Inuits and native-Americans are really of Manchurian, Mongol, Chinese, and Asian-Russian descent.

Not at all justifying the imperialistic massacre of these people... I'm just pointing out a fact that is not widely known. Probably because it's hidden...

Actually, when and who first came to North America is very much under debate. I doubt that anyone in the field would be willing to go as far as you just have. And in any case, there is increasing evidence that lots of different people "discovered" the Americas.

Of course it's in debate! Just as is the conflict of 'who was a better hockey player, Lemieux or Wayne-o?' Facts point to Gretzky, but some maintain it was Super Mario...

But to get back to the OT subject in question, yes it is debated... however, I've studied evolution and cultural history for a good six years now, and in the last 2-3 years, the general belief is that it was caucasian who initially settled the continent. They don't know who... theories include viking explorers and maybe even indigenous peoples. There were certainly numerous other explorers who DISCOVERED the land first, IMO (seems like a hockey acronym!). But it is widely believed there were settlers long before the "native" Americans.

Not saying you're wrong at all, this is just what my studies have semi-concluded. I say that they "hide" these theories, because many people are far too ignorantly pride-oriented, and they miss the point. This is no dis to the tribal peoples of the Americas. I think it's ****ed up, what the Europeans did to them, and I'm all for expanding reservations!

Of course it's in debate! Just as is the conflict of 'who was a better hockey player, Lemieux or Wayne-o?' Facts point to Gretzky, but some maintain it was Super Mario...

But to get back to the OT subject in question, yes it is debated... however, I've studied evolution and cultural history for a good six years now, and in the last 2-3 years, the general belief is that it was caucasian who initially settled the continent. They don't know who... theories include viking explorers and maybe even indigenous peoples. There were certainly numerous other explorers who DISCOVERED the land first, IMO (seems like a hockey acronym!). But it is widely believed there were settlers long before the "native" Americans.

Not saying you're wrong at all, this is just what my studies have semi-concluded. I say that they "hide" these theories, because many people are far too ignorantly pride-oriented, and they miss the point. This is no dis to the tribal peoples of the Americas. I think it's ****ed up, what the Europeans did to them, and I'm all for expanding reservations!

Viking Explorers? I thought you were talking about a time of more than 12,500 years ago--for many years, the dominant theory of how and when people first came to North America was that they came from Asia via the "land bridge" that appeared around 12,000-13,000 years ago. This theory has been increasingly questioned and it now appears that the Americas were peopled much earlier than that. There is some evidence that people did travel by boat from Europe much earlier (as in thousands of years) than Columbus or the Vikings (and indeed it is recognized that the Vikings made it at least as far as Newfoundland and probably much further down the east coast around 1000AD), but so far the vast majority of evidence points to various people coming from different parts of Asia and the Pacific Rim, perhaps as early as 40,000 years ago (I just did a google seach and found an article, linked below about a documentary that ran on the BBC about how Australians came to South America 40,000 years ago), although, most physical evidence dates back only about 15,000 years.

This area of study is fairly young and has advanced greatly over the last 25 years. There are much more advanced scientific tools that help archaelogists find better information and sites but "the answer" is not yet been found. Plus, there is a good chance that we will never really know the answer because sea levels have changed greatly over the last 50,000 years and the answer may very well be under hundreds of feet of sea water.

Edit: forgot the link--turns out I read the date wrong and the documentary is from 1999.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/430944.stm

All this because one person decided to be picky. :shakehead

Alright man... I shouldn't have posted that long explanation (grounded on three years of study). Doesn't seem like you paid much attention...

Vikings existed as long ago as ancient Greece.

Alright man... I shouldn't have posted that long explanation (grounded on three years of study). Doesn't seem like you paid much attention...

Vikings existed as long ago as ancient Greece.

But robots will destroy them all!

Alright man... I shouldn't have posted that long explanation (grounded on three years of study). Doesn't seem like you paid much attention...

Vikings existed as long ago as ancient Greece.

Whatever. Although I was talking about the people who came to the Americas before the ancient Greeks. North American (both Americas actually) culture dates back at least as far and is completely unrelated culturally. But, of course, I completely missed your point (and am not worth your time to explain what that point actually is) and should bow to your superior knowledge--even though you are hardly the first person to develop an interest and follow it over a period of time (in my case for several decades).

I thought you wanted to discuss something. I realize now that isn't your interest here.

All this because one person decided to be picky. :shakehead


Sorry. :(

Alright man... I shouldn't have posted that long explanation (grounded on three years of study). Doesn't seem like you paid much attention...

Vikings existed as long ago as ancient Greece.

Vikings? My understanding is that Germannic tribes inhabited Scandinavia during the height of ancient Greece before migrating to central Europe during the time of the Roman Empire becoming the Goths/Barbarians. The term "Viking" is usually not applied until we're at least talking about the 8th century. Even if its the same people it's important to make the appropriate distinction i.e. Vikings from Normans.

The real question, however is who really are "Native" Vikings?

:dunno:




:D

Whatever. Although I was talking about the people who came to the Americas before the ancient Greeks. North American (both Americas actually) culture dates back at least as far and is completely unrelated culturally. But, of course, I completely missed your point (and am not worth your time to explain what that point actually is) and should bow to your superior knowledge--even though you are hardly the first person to develop an interest and follow it over a period of time (in my case for several decades).

I thought you wanted to discuss something. I realize now that isn't your interest here.

Whatever. Although I was talking about the people who came to the Americas before the ancient Greeks. North American (both Americas actually) culture dates back at least as far and is completely unrelated culturally. But, of course, I completely missed your point (and am not worth your time to explain what that point actually is) and should bow to your superior knowledge--even though you are hardly the first person to develop an interest and follow it over a period of time (in my case for several decades).

I thought you wanted to discuss something. I realize now that isn't your interest here.

I am very sorry for this misunderstanding. I need to learn to pick and choose my words better. :banghead: I did want to discuss this, and I really appreciated your input. I can see how you were misled. At that point, I was talking about the vikings only. I left out a big piece of information. Please don't think I was being know-it-all, even though it may have sounded like that. I actually have very low self-esteem, for the record, and I don't feel superior (often not even worthy). :( I try really to be part of the discussions, but I tend to only complicate them.

Unfortunately, when you're communicating electronically, it is not possible to hear one's inflection, or see body language. That makes it more difficult to understand all the time, yeah?

Hey, once again, I'm really sorry that I sounded so bad and arrogant. Please do not take the things I say seriously, as I often don't know what I'm saying. :dunno:

Ah, it does sound like you know what you're saying--you just have to learn not to skip the good parts when you're outlining your position. There's no question the Vikings got here first (and most Nordic historians will argue they spent about 10 years here exploring), but they really didn't leave much--either physically or culturally. Ultimately, they were visitors, not settlers. There is evidence going back several thousand years, of various settlements related to various European groups, but again whatever evidence that has been found is very sketchy. Traveling such long distances in such relatively small boats meant that not very many people made the journey successfully. Certainly, it was possible, but not in large enough numbers to change the established culture. Or whatever there was here got wiped out when the Europeans came after 1492. It's a fun subject and one where a lot of new information is becoming available. Chances are we are going to have plenty of time to come back to it--especially if there's a long lockout.

But robots will destroy them all!

who will inturn be destroyed by ninjas.......ninjas with lasers!!!!

who will inturn be destroyed by ninjas.......ninjas with lasers!!!!

Then they will be destroyed by fury alien creatures from Melmac with an appetite for our cats. Thus ringing in the dawn of a new age on earth.

Vikings existed as long ago as ancient Greece.
Technically speaking, you have to seperate Vikings from the ancient Celts. There is plenty of evidence that it was the ancient Celts that did most of the seafaring.

Technically speaking, you have to seperate Vikings from the ancient Celts. There is plenty of evidence that it was the ancient Celts that did most of the seafaring.

Vikings, Celt(ic)s...I thought this was a hockey forum?!!! :joker: :banana:

Technically speaking, you have to seperate Vikings from the ancient Celts. There is plenty of evidence that it was the ancient Celts that did most of the seafaring.

And during the ancient Greek period the Celts largely inhabited Central Europe, sometimes in close proximity to the Greeks, and were only pushed westward to the British Isles around the time of the Roman Empire by the new wave of Germanic tribes.

Holy hockey. And here I come to read about the Rangers' camp and there's an age-old history debate waiting for me.

Anyone want to debate what killed the dinosaurs? ;)

Holy hockey. And here I come to read about the Rangers' camp and there's an age-old history debate waiting for me.

Anyone want to debate what killed the dinosaurs? ;)

well the Rangers might have a dinosaur on the team named Mark Messier. But seriously, say if we had a lockout, and we played 05-06 season, would Messier come back and play since he had a full year off. I think he would still produce and help our youth.

were from Minnesota.

Anyone want to debate what killed the dinosaurs? ;)

OJ Simpson! And this time the glove indeed fits... :amazed:

were from Minnesota.
They were. They had to move on account of the Purple People Eaters.

Since we're already off topic anyways, I figured I'd share some of the greatest Mike Tyson quotes of all time:

"I may have smoked too much weed, but I wasn't taking drugs or anything."

"I guess you can never domesticate them. Like I'm not domesticated, I'm never gonna be a domesticated person" --Tyson on Montecore the tiger

"I ain't the same person I was when I bit that guy's ear off."