Top Squirt A Teams and Scores

offside14 · Post by **offside14** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:13 am

Your right No Excuses, there is no way a 9 or 10 yr old should ever be upset after losing a game, I guess they shouldn't be happy when they win a championship either. Common how ridiculous is that. Yes these kids are young but they have the same passion and desire we all do when we play the game. Very strong emotions for young kids to control hence the hog piles on the goalie after the big victory, or the tears in line while shaking the other teams hand after losing that championship game. These are great things it means the game means something to them as players and peolpe. These same kids will be dads one day and will continue to grow the game for these very reasons and emotions, good and bad. No one likes to see a kid upset but they learn to deal with losing as well as winning. They become stronger individuals in life, not just hockey, for it. I don't know what hockey background you have or where this father ripping his childs game apart for 15 min comes from, but I have not known a single kid that was scared of his dad ridicule to the point of tears in all the years I've been around the game.

offside14 · Post by **offside14** » Thu Dec 24, 2009 3:45 am

Panthersin2011, In point of fact all 3 of the 4 were on the bench and the 4th was in the penalty box for all but about 40 sec of the last 5 min of game and overtime. Now as far as comparing apples and apples, they say Derek Boogaard can play in the NHL, I don't know of a single coach that would have him on the ice in the last 5 min of a tie game nor would they send Pierre Marc Bouchard to settle a score. Some kids are ready for the pressure that come with the last 5min and OT where some are still growing and learning and acquiring a level comfort at this level. Isn't this why we call these years of hockey developmental? Decisions are made by coaches in an effort to help the team succeed in its endeavors whatever they may be. Take the comparison for what it is.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Fri Dec 25, 2009 3:48 pm

Interesting analogy...A higher level of specialization might be needed at the squirt level. A coach could send out that 3rd line early in the game to send a message to the other teams top line. That way they would have a role on the team. Then they could learn by watching the top line play the last 5 minutes of the game.

By the end of the year... that 3rd line will be ready for a regular shift and think about the room they will get on the ice after 4 month's of "gooning it up." It all about developement.

blueblood · Post by **blueblood** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:57 pm

ok for all you tonka bashers out there, here's the deal-

For the past several seasons, the tonka hockey board uses the philosophy that less is more for the mite, squirt and girls programs.

At the squirt level, by having 13 skaters for ALL squirt teams (not just A's), the kids get more ice time, and more touches of the puck with the goal that all players will get better. It must be working, look at the rankings of LPH on Dec 23rd:

Boys HS "AA" - 1st
JR Gold A - 2nd
Boys U16 - 1st
Bantam A - 2nd
Bantam B1 - 15th
Peewee A - 15th

The same thing can be said for the girls program, where tonka offers U-6, U-8 and U-10 girls-only hockey and was one of the first associations in the state to do so:

Girls HS "AA" - 2nd
14U A - 3rd
14U B - 7th
12U A - 10th

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:36 pm

sounds like something forest lake should look at. The squrirts\U10-U8's are the future and building-blocks of the program. Smart leadership in Tonka.

iwearmysunglassesatnight · Sat Dec 26, 2009 8:57 pm

It must be working, look at the rankings of LPH on Dec 23rd:

Boys HS "AA" - 1st
JR Gold A - 2nd
Boys U16 - 1st
Bantam A - 2nd
Bantam B1 - 15th
Peewee A - 15th

so it is about travelling results rankings?

blueblood · Post by **blueblood** » Sat Dec 26, 2009 10:54 pm

The travel hockey program's of any association are the primary feeder for the local high school of that community. One way to interpret the results of the tonka program is the steady improvement in the form of rankings of their girls AND boys teams as they get nearer to high school.

Another measure of the local program are the players playing at the next level past high school. Tonka has several players playing (or will play) D1 hockey at UMD, Wisconsin, Mankato, Minnesota (next year) and the USHL just to name a few.

Flyer79 · Post by **Flyer79** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 10:22 am

Does everyone think it's the program and not the kids that creates success?

In my opinion, the skill level of the kids determine whether your area is good or not.

If you have 6 or 7 kids that are great at the bantam level and thus have a great team, more than likely they have brothers at squirts that are outstanding as well.

All programs run the same practices.

The current kids in the Tonka association and community are good.

Tonka is not having success because the association is skating 13.

That is B.S. and a cop out reason for not including more kids.

Pens4 · Post by **Pens4** » Sun Dec 27, 2009 2:26 pm

Flyer79 wrote:Does everyone think it's the program and not the kids that creates success?

In my opinion, the skill level of the kids determine whether your area is good or not.

If you have 6 or 7 kids that are great at the bantam level and thus have a great team, more than likely they have brothers at squirts that are outstanding as well.

All programs run the same practices.

The current kids in the Tonka association and community are good.

Tonka is not having success because the association is skating 13.

That is B.S. and a cop out reason for not including more kids.

Flyer...I half agree....The great players will help you win at the older ages but to attach greatness to a 9 year old is pretty far fetched.

Those so-called great HS players are usually developed by the A team coaches of the organization. Without those quality coaches those kids will eventually reach a point of failure. A quality coach needs to move them to the next level.

I also agree that it is a cop out to run a short roster in a large organization. Those large organizations that shorten the roster on A teams... do not have the confidence in their coaches to pull up those 14th & 15th players to a higher level and still be a powerhouse.

You supposedly have your best coaches on the A teams....how does reducing the number of kids exposed to that hockey knowledge promote developement?

buzzsaw · Post by **buzzsaw** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:49 pm

Good explanation Blueblood. I think that makes complete sense. Tonka also must have confidence in their Squirt B coaches. Having fewing kids on each team allows for more touches in games and practices. Let the 14th and 15th player have a great year at the B level. Good job Skippers.

Flyer79 · Post by **Flyer79** » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:12 pm

Why not then have 10 or 11 on each team for "more touches"?

Is 13 the number because you need the two extra during the majority of the game so as to sufficiently rest the 10 or 11 for the end of a tight game?

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:54 am

Flyer79 wrote:Why not then have 10 or 11 on each team for "more touches"?

Is 13 the number because you need the two extra during the majority of the game so as to sufficiently rest the 10 or 11 for the end of a tight game?

AMEN to that. If Tonka has 13 kids and only one a team that isn't saying much about development of the association. If they can't pull two A caliber teams out of that many kids they are not in my opionon developing a winning tradition. I understand that there are waves of talent that run through each association and that keeping a group of good kids together sometimes works. But Joey or Jonny B player that develops late would be much Better off playing a year of Squirt A and getting better coaching. If they have been doing this for a few years why are their Peewees and B1 teams in the lower part of the rankings? Good luck in Fargo Tonka. Maybe you can be like Edina last year and win the coveted prize in Fargo. We will all be ripping you when you lose your first game to ruin your undefeated season like we did Edina last year for going A and A1.... High price to pay to win a trophy when your program suffers at the upper levels.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:14 am

How many kids are on the B's, and the C's ? If all teams have 13 then it sounds like a good plan. If only the A's have 13 and every other team has 15 plus two goalies that seems wrong [to me at least].

coleburns · Post by **coleburns** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:28 am

Just for clarification, Minnetonka's Squirt A Team is not undefeated. According to the District 6 Website, Jefferson beat them 2 to 0 on December 14th.

buzzsaw · Post by **buzzsaw** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:17 pm

Skippers did pretty well last year in Fargo playing in the Championship game against Edina.
There is no perfect formula but we can have opinions.

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:01 pm

buzzsaw wrote:Skippers did pretty well last year in Fargo playing in the Championship game against Edina.
There is no perfect formula but we can have opinions.

I agree on having different opinions but look at Peewees now Edina still at the top and Skippy is out of the running at d6? What happened to your super squirts from last year ? PwA 6th place in d6 pwB1 7th and 8th? Are your super 13 from the last couple of years on those teams? I might think of retooling your perspective.

Puck Whisperer · Post by **Puck Whisperer** » Tue Dec 29, 2009 9:15 pm

dogeatdog1 wrote:
buzzsaw wrote:Skippers did pretty well last year in Fargo playing in the Championship game against Edina.
There is no perfect formula but we can have opinions.
I agree on having different opinions but look at Peewees now Edina still at the top and Skippy is out of the running at d6? What happened to your super squirts from last year ? PwA 6th place in d6 pwB1 7th and 8th? Are your super 13 from the last couple of years on those teams? I might think of retooling your perspective.

I have a little insight. The Tonka SQA last year - 6 of the 13 are first year PWA this year which is rare. Two deserving kids missed the cut on last years SQA and it did not sit well with parents (shock - faces changed on the board)

This year....5 first year squirts made the B1 team last year (shhhh - they don't have a B1 Squirt team, they are all equal

) and 2 made the A team this year.

The extra two spots on SQA will learn and benefit - even though coach thinks they would have lost severe time in 3 of 5 games at the EP tourney(warped). I just don't buy the drop off level Offside14 talks about - in needing more touches - especially with an organization like Minnetonka. I also caught some B games at EP. I play in D6 - and we play these teams and you always see a couple A potential kids playing on a B team.

I guess you could say that about several D6 youth teams but I think they should carry 15 - whether they play in the last 5 mins or not!

trippedovertheblueline · Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:59 pm

tonka

what if your 14th and 15th ranked skaters are A level squirts? Cut them to B?

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:39 am

trippedovertheblueline wrote:tonka

what if your 14th and 15th ranked skaters are A level squirts? Cut them to B?

Sounds like that is what happened.

Whisper. Where are the 14 and 15 from last year? Did they move up to Peewees? Did they gain from all their touches last year and jump over the 12 and 13 kid from the SQ A team last year? If they didn't then the plan is not working. I agree that 5-6 first year PWA's is unusual. How many of them are former Squirt B second year players? I am very curious to see if the plan is working. If it is you would think that some of those kids would be leapfrogging.

Puck Whisperer · Post by **Puck Whisperer** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 9:43 am

dogeatdog1 wrote:
trippedovertheblueline wrote:tonka

what if your 14th and 15th ranked skaters are A level squirts? Cut them to B?
Sounds like that is what happened.

Whisper. Where are the 14 and 15 from last year? Did they move up to Peewees? Did they gain from all their touches last year and jump over the 12 and 13 kid from the SQ A team last year? If they didn't then the plan is not working. I agree that 5-6 first year PWA's is unusual. How many of them are former Squirt B second year players? I am very curious to see if the plan is working. If it is you would think that some of those kids would be leapfrogging.

The 14 & 15 from last year did move to Pee Wee's and are both on a B2 team, so no they did not leapfrog anyone from that SQA team. All 6 players that made the PWA the first year were SQA players last year- no second year B players.

The fact that a B player does not leapfrog an A the following year does not mean it is a failure - BUT - I think your leaving two deserving kids out of the classroom from a development standpoint. Anyways, it's Squirts.

yeahyeahyeah · Post by **yeahyeahyeah** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:12 am

[/quote]Anyways, it's Squirts.[/quote]

This statement carries water when it comes to game outcomes and standings (at least in MN Hockeys current squirt system) but not when it comes to fine motor skill development of young athletes. The squirt age is the ideal time shape players stride and puck handling mechanics. The sad truth is that after Sqts most association Peewee coaches jump on systems and neglect skill development. So it will become nearly impossible for those kids that are "bumped' to catch up.

Regarding limited rosters at the squirt level. Shorter rosters at squirts means less depth at Bantams and High school. About 5 years ago our association had several girls make the Sqt A team (not arguing for or against this one by the way but we have girls hockey for a reason). The boys side of our association has suffered tremendously as a result. That age group has not had any success while the girls have been very successful. Our association refocused its effort on recruiting girls hockey players and we have not had any crossovers since. Boys play boys girls play girls and we put 15 on every team (at least when possible we are a small association). The result, for a small association we are successful at every level. including the B level. What seems to be forgotten in this argument is that every time you bump a kid off the A team you also bump kids from B1 to B2 or B to C. Bumping 2 impacts many many kids in associations the size of Tonka.

Minnetonka will do what they do and that is their right (unfortunately for the kids) I will sleep good at night.

dogeatdog1 · Post by **dogeatdog1** » Wed Dec 30, 2009 10:30 am

Puck Whisperer wrote:
dogeatdog1 wrote:
trippedovertheblueline wrote:tonka

what if your 14th and 15th ranked skaters are A level squirts? Cut them to B?
Sounds like that is what happened.

Whisper. Where are the 14 and 15 from last year? Did they move up to Peewees? Did they gain from all their touches last year and jump over the 12 and 13 kid from the SQ A team last year? If they didn't then the plan is not working. I agree that 5-6 first year PWA's is unusual. How many of them are former Squirt B second year players? I am very curious to see if the plan is working. If it is you would think that some of those kids would be leapfrogging.
The 14 & 15 from last year did move to Pee Wee's and are both on a B2 team, so no they did not leapfrog anyone from that SQA team. All 6 players that made the PWA the first year were SQA players last year- no second year B players.

The fact that a B player does not leapfrog an A the following year does not mean it is a failure - BUT - I think your leaving two deserving kids out of the classroom from a development standpoint. Anyways, it's Squirts.

B2? I think the fact that they are both at b2 would point to the fact that the touches didn't help them as much as they thought it would. I just think that when you limit the amount to 13 in squirts at the A level in my experience you have a couple of over the top parents that have decent players worried about winning and not development. They are afraid that little super Johnny will be dragged down by # 14 and#15 and they won't rise to super stardom in peewees and Bantams.... Happens in every association. If as blueblood says is true "the travel hockey programs job is to feed the highschool" you would want as many A caliber players to pick from at the top of the Pyramid therefore you should be developing two A teams if you have the #'s at squirts. I think Edina would have served themselves much better by two A's last year instead of the A and A1 team concept. trouble with that is some of the A players would have been leapfrogged by some A one players if they would have had the same opportunities. Egos Prevented that in Edina and I assume that the same is happenening on a smaller scale in Tonka. Hats off to Duluth East taking 18 skaters at the Peewee A level and competing!!! now that is a model to follow. And I would bet the #17 and 18 are getting Better up there.

blueblood · Post by **blueblood** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

what works for one assocaiation might not be what people like or what works for another association.

Regarding the supposed #14 and #15 squirt players from tonka from last season. No one, and I mean no one, except the squirt level tryout cooridinator knows who those payers are.

So unless puck whisperer is that person, it would be nearly impossible to know if they are indeed on a PWB2 team this year.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:55 pm

Minnetonka must be different than most other associations. First, I find it hard to believe there is only one guy that knows the scores from the tryouts. Second, I find it hard to believe that anyone involved with association hockey can keep a secret.

InigoMontoya · Post by **InigoMontoya** » Thu Dec 31, 2009 2:14 pm

I agree with dog. If the worry is the number of shifts the kid gets, then play a couple more games or add a few "shared ice practices". All other things being equal, the drop off in opportunity from A to B is huge - and it goes on and on for 5 months as the gap continues to widen. Dog is correct, telling a kid (or parent) he is #14 and a tenth of a percentage point from #13 and that he is better off on the B team is a rationalization made up by A team parents - they know it's bull, or they would have petitioned to keep their own kid on the B team.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Top Squirt A Teams and Scores

tonka squirts

Re: tonka squirts

tonka program

Re: tonka program

Re: tonka program

A

squirts