Ice Hockey DBoard

The Official New England Ice Hockey DBoard 

Visit The DBoard Online Store - https://www.cafepress.com/icehockeydboard


email: icehockeydboard@yahoo.com

Return to Website  > Index  > Youth Hockey  > Youth Hockey  > Re: Games vs practices
Recent Posts
 
Youth Hockey
Start a New Topic 
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:08AM
Re: Games vs practices

Wow, first two posts drinking the kool aid. What do you think those teams were doing on the weekends they did not play games? Not just this year, but in prior years as well. Could it possibly be something other than another game, and could it possibly have played a role in the development of the players?

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:14AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Wow, first two posts drinking the kool aid. What do you think those teams were doing on the weekends they did not play games? Not just this year, but in prior years as well. Could it possibly be something other than another game, and could it possibly have played a role in the development of the players?


Agreed. Parents in New England think the kids need to play more and more games. But the best thing for development is more, well run practices and clinics. Not just daddy coaches doing breakout drills and shootouts on the goalies. Working on passing, stick handling and skating is much more important at younger ages (like Pee-wee major age) than more and more games.

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:27AM
Re: Games vs practices

Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:59AM
Re: Games vs practices

Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 1:17PM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


But it has to be the right kind of practice. A good coach is key to this. If the coach can't organize a decent practice, then players should do some type of clinic instead. Like I said, if the coach's idea of practice is 10 minutes of warmups, breakout drills for 20 minutes followed by another 20 minutes of 1-0 against the goalie, then this is not going to do anything for the kids no matter how much time they spend in practice.

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 1:54PM
Re: Games vs practices

Anon
anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


But it has to be the right kind of practice. A good coach is key to this. If the coach can't organize a decent practice, then players should do some type of clinic instead. Like I said, if the coach's idea of practice is 10 minutes of warmups, breakout drills for 20 minutes followed by another 20 minutes of 1-0 against the goalie, then this is not going to do anything for the kids no matter how much time they spend in practice.


yes.

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 2:21PM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


But it has to be the right kind of practice. A good coach is key to this. If the coach can't organize a decent practice, then players should do some type of clinic instead. Like I said, if the coach's idea of practice is 10 minutes of warmups, breakout drills for 20 minutes followed by another 20 minutes of 1-0 against the goalie, then this is not going to do anything for the kids no matter how much time they spend in practice.


yes.
If your kid truly aspires to play at a high HS level, or beyond, and if you think that his athleticism, size, drive, etc. support that, you need to do work outside of the team, probably before the start of his Pee Wee years. Small group clinics, 1:1 lessons, the development equation goes up exponentially versus team practices with 17 kids on a sheet or worse, half a sheet.

a
Anon
Dec 15, 2016 - 12:58AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


What are you even saying ? Are you suggesting that USA hockey emphasizes games over practice, because you could not be more wrong. That is the exact opposite of what USA Hockey is trying to do. You must have not been paying attention at your level 2 Cert class !

USA hockey wants 1:3 game:practice ratio, and are trying to model thier youth programs after the swedes and finns who don't even play games until pee wee age !

a
anon
Dec 15, 2016 - 8:04AM
Re: Games vs practices

Anon
anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


What are you even saying ? Are you suggesting that USA hockey emphasizes games over practice, because you could not be more wrong. That is the exact opposite of what USA Hockey is trying to do. You must have not been paying attention at your level 2 Cert class !

USA hockey wants 1:3 game:practice ratio, and are trying to model thier youth programs after the swedes and finns who don't even play games until pee wee age !


Sorry that went over your head. I only said I don't agree with everything USA Hockey puts out these days. And then I said I agree with that the practice is more important. That's all I said. Sorry if it was complicated.

a
Anon
Dec 15, 2016 - 8:59AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.


What are you even saying ? Are you suggesting that USA hockey emphasizes games over practice, because you could not be more wrong. That is the exact opposite of what USA Hockey is trying to do. You must have not been paying attention at your level 2 Cert class !

USA hockey wants 1:3 game:practice ratio, and are trying to model thier youth programs after the swedes and finns who don't even play games until pee wee age !


Sorry that went over your head. I only said I don't agree with everything USA Hockey puts out these days. And then I said I agree with that the practice is more important. That's all I said. Sorry if it was complicated.
Haha, I got what you were saying, even thought here were a few misplaced words in there. Everyone's a critic here. Why build upon or refute a point being made when I can criticize your grammar or spelling?

a
anon
Dec 15, 2016 - 9:06AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
Herb brooks
Game play is the best growth of a player and a team hands down.
This is absolutely false. It is a belief unique to the U.S. Kids spend the majority of game time off of the ice, even less time on their edges, and a minimscule amount of time with the puck on their sticks. Games are a critical part, but a minor part, of the development equation. I'd put it at 10%. Even USA Hockey suggests a minimum of 2:1 and preferably 3:1.

My guess is that the reason you may believe games matter that much are inefficiently/ineffectively run practices, with too many kids on the ice, too few knowledgeable coaches, and not enough stations being run simultaneously.


although I don't agree with USA Hockey a lot, I agree with to disagree that game times is where the development is. In my opinion it is not. You need games, true, but the bulk of the development comes in practice. The thing though is, I don't see a lot of practices at game speed.

Also, the fact that they seem to have played less games does not mean they have practiced more. So only if you have the data on practices would you pull off your theory. Unless your theory is that simple playing less games while practicing the same amount makes you a better team. in that case I would say. Nonsense.

Why would I suggest fewer games and the same amount of practice would be a net positive? Clearly I'm suggesting these teams practice more than the local teams. Taking a quick look at MFJR 2004, first week in January they practice Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday, Sunday. They could find a game, but they opt to practice, likely because they couldn't find a competitive game. That same weekend, the Islanders play the Caps and Terriers and the Kings play the Terriers and Bandits. Just for that weekend, which team do you think is getting better? So again, is it possible that the youth hockey model in New England hurts the development of our players?

a
Anon
Dec 15, 2016 - 9:16AM
Re: Games vs practices

The Florida Alliance team is a regional all-star team that plays in tournaments every few weeks. All of the players on the team play for other teams so they are playing the same amount if not more games than the teams you mentioned.

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:11AM
Re: Games vs practices

Anon
anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Just because they only show that many games doesn't mean that's all they played. Not everyone is as diligent about putting their scores in MHR as the Islanders' and Kings' parents.

You may be right, but spot-checking the Honeybaked team, it looks like all of their games are reported on MHR.

http://www.honeybakedhockey.com/schedule/team_instance/1137324?subseason=206701

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:19AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Just because they only show that many games doesn't mean that's all they played. Not everyone is as diligent about putting their scores in MHR as the Islanders' and Kings' parents.

You may be right, but spot-checking the Honeybaked team, it looks like all of their games are reported on MHR.

http://www.honeybakedhockey.com/schedule/team_instance/1137324?subseason=206701


Lets not be ignorant here and look at the facts - Honeybaked 04 team played 73 games last year. Look it up on MHR if you want. They went 63-7-3. Florida Alliance played 22 games last year - probably a travel tournament team only.

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 2:09PM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
anon
Anon
anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Just because they only show that many games doesn't mean that's all they played. Not everyone is as diligent about putting their scores in MHR as the Islanders' and Kings' parents.

You may be right, but spot-checking the Honeybaked team, it looks like all of their games are reported on MHR.

http://www.honeybakedhockey.com/schedule/team_instance/1137324?subseason=206701


Lets not be ignorant here and look at the facts - Honeybaked 04 team played 73 games last year. Look it up on MHR if you want. They went 63-7-3. Florida Alliance played 22 games last year - probably a travel tournament team only.

Maybe Honeybaked had the courage to try something different. Did they not change coaches this year?

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:55AM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Hi dummy - FA is pretty much a tournament team bc they are limited on competition due to their location. They would smacked any EHF team and the EHF parents run around and say it's an all star team from the whole state of FL which isn't true

The reason FA is so successful is bc of the programs development model. FA is one of the most expensive programs due to all the travel. The people who run the program are smart and there are several former legit NHL players involved.

Has ZERO to do with the number of games they play.

a
anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 1:41PM
Re: Games vs practices

Anon
anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Hi dummy - FA is pretty much a tournament team bc they are limited on competition due to their location. They would smacked any EHF team and the EHF parents run around and say it's an all star team from the whole state of FL which isn't true

The reason FA is so successful is bc of the programs development model. FA is one of the most expensive programs due to all the travel. The people who run the program are smart and there are several former legit NHL players involved.

Has ZERO to do with the number of games they play.

You call me a dummy, but ultimately agree with my point. Why would a Florida Alliance model not work in New England? A team like the Islanders only has a few teams nearby that can regularly give them a good game. So why fill up weekends with non-competitive games. EHF is why, but does it have to be that way?

I'm only questioning whether there is a better way. Isn't that what this forum is about?

a
Anon
Dec 14, 2016 - 11:56PM
Re: Games vs practices

anon
Anon
anon
Taking a look at the 2004 rankings this morning, noticed something about the top three:

1. Honeybaked 34 games played
2. Mid-Fairfield 29 games played
3. Florida Alliance 22 games played

Top 20 teams from EHF (only two, by the way):

10. Islanders 46 games played
13. Kings 41 games played

Think there's a correlation? Parents love games, parents love tournaments (especially in Canada!), parents pay bills. Practice develops players. Which organization has the courage to change the model in New England?


Hi dummy - FA is pretty much a tournament team bc they are limited on competition due to their location. They would smacked any EHF team and the EHF parents run around and say it's an all star team from the whole state of FL which isn't true

The reason FA is so successful is bc of the programs development model. FA is one of the most expensive programs due to all the travel. The people who run the program are smart and there are several former legit NHL players involved.

Has ZERO to do with the number of games they play.

You call me a dummy, but ultimately agree with my point. Why would a Florida Alliance model not work in New England? A team like the Islanders only has a few teams nearby that can regularly give them a good game. So why fill up weekends with non-competitive games. EHF is why, but does it have to be that way?

I'm only questioning whether there is a better way. Isn't that what this forum is about?


FA doesn't play the number of games b/c they want to they do it b/c thats all they can get. There are not many teams within driving distance and as a result they have to play several tournaments but with the tournaments the costs go up exponentially. If the costs were not so high with tourneys they would play more games. The teams only practice twice per week.

Return to Website  > Index  > Youth Hockey  > Youth Hockey  > Re: Games vs practices