HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 4:38 pm**

At 9yrs old aren't they all lower end players in the grand scheme of things?

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 5:21 pm**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
tomASS wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:Practice is for development - games are for doing what it takes to win.
Love to hear other opinions . . .

If you can't take what you learned in practice and transfer that into game situations where is the development?

You have to have game development to make the practice development worthwhile or else you are not developing the complete player. Especially at the Squirt and Pee Wee level.
True - but you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk - if kids can't properly skate, pass, shoot or catch the puck no sense in putting them out there on the PK or PP. If they don't have the baseline skills of the top players they will just be going backwards if you try to play them in specialty situations. Plenty of time for them to learn that on a regular shift. That's more what I was thinking about - everything SHOULD NOT be equal until the lower end kids put in their time and catch up skill wise.

Couldn't have said it better TA. The other thing a coach needs to consider is the kids confidence levels. A kid who knows he's going to get playing time will take chances and succeed more times than not, making them an even better player. A kid who "knows" he's not good enough for special teams, or the third period, or an entire game for that matter, is not going to take chances with the puck, he knows if he turns it over he's going to be sitting on the bench, so he passes it instead of taking advantage of open ice. Kids need the time and space to learn and they need to learn to do it under pressure, not to learn to do it in practice and than get yanked out of games the first time they turn the puck over.

How much satisfaction is there for a coach to win with his "good" players and how much satisfaction is there in knowing you are the one that made that player capable of handling game situations.? Do we have so many A and AAA teams that so are flush with talent and they really don't need all of the kids on the team?

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:02 pm**

" Maybe we need a rule for our "A" teams that require AAA participation or a minimum number of summer development hours before being considered for the "A" team"

What if the player that didn't do AAA hockey is better than one that did?
Should they still see less ice, then a kid whom signed up for a AAA league?

Furthermore, you may have less than enough players on the ice. As very few association A team players are actually playing true AAA hockey, unless AAA hockey is becoming more water downed.

Perhaps there is a reason why MN Hockey and Showcase Hockey are joining forces in some capacity. Hopefully it is best for all players.

Posted: **Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:06 pm**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote: True - but you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk - if kids can't properly skate, pass, shoot or catch the puck no sense in putting them out there on the PK or PP. If they don't have the baseline skills of the top players they will just be going backwards if you try to play them in specialty situations. Plenty of time for them to learn that on a regular shift. That's more what I was thinking about - everything SHOULD NOT be equal until the lower end kids put in their time and catch up skill wise.

The topic was squirt A the difference between top and bottom should not be as significant as you described.

attitude and effort, and as Dmom states, confidence does play such a large part especially at this age in how their minds absorb and utilize experiences at this time frame of growth (no formal training but I did just see an episode of Fraser. )

It would be like learning and practicing a foreign language but never being put into a real-life situation to use it because you might butcher it so you better not say anything until you have it right.

Ciao !

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:45 pm**

tomASS wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
The topic was squirt A the difference between top and bottom should not be as significant as you described.

attitude and effort, and as Dmom states, confidence does play such a large part especially at this age in how their minds absorb and utilize experiences at this time frame of growth (no formal training but I did just see an episode of Fraser. )

It would be like learning and practicing a foreign language but never being put into a real-life situation to use it because you might butcher it so you better not say anything until you have it right.

Ciao !
To respond -

#1 You may be in an association that doesn't have such a big discrepancy in your "A" talent but mine does and I would be willing to bet there are more associations with this problem than not.

#2 I never said the "lower end" kids shouldn't get any game time - I merely said that the "higher end" kids should get the nod when it comes to critical situations. That being said, those kids aren't going to get ALL of the PP, PK and end of game time - they should just be the first option. If you give kids of ALL abilities the same amount of playing time you aren't giving the lower end kids any motivation to become better because they'll soon figure out that they are going to get the same amount of playing time regardless of their skill level or performance. You may also "de" motivate your top end kids because they aren't being rewarded for their higer skill level or play. You reference a TV show - I'll reference a movie for my example - Gaylord Focker from Meet the Parents - let's just start handing out the participation or 8th place awards - it just breeds mediocrity because you are coaching to the lowest common denominator. In my opinion that is no way to get the most out of a team. The "A" teams should be pushing competition within their roster - heck, didn't the kids have to try out for the "A" team anyway? If they aren't going to compete with each other how the heck are they supposed to compete successfully against other teams? If this isn't going to happen then they (we) should just forget about the tryouts and make a bunch of "A" teams and play everyone equally if that is going to be the attitude.

Like I said, this may not be a problem in some associations (reference any association that is looking to put two "A" teams on the ice) but I think more teams have this problem that not.

"C" teams are the old "in house" equivalent and that's where playing time should all be equal. Kids can get all the ice time they want and develop game experience there. That approach (in my opinion) doesn't belong on the "A" teams.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:52 pm**

trippedovertheblueline wrote:" Maybe we need a rule for our "A" teams that require AAA participation or a minimum number of summer development hours before being considered for the "A" team"

What if the player that didn't do AAA hockey is better than one that did?
Should they still see less ice, then a kid whom signed up for a AAA league?

Furthermore, you may have less than enough players on the ice. As very few association A team players are actually playing true AAA hockey, unless AAA hockey is becoming more water downed.

Perhaps there is a reason why MN Hockey and Showcase Hockey are joining forces in some capacity. Hopefully it is best for all players.

Just a suggestion and I see your point. Of course if there is a more talented kid without AAA experience or whatever - then that kid should get the nod. There are ALWAYS going to be exceptions but moving into the near future I really don't think this situation is going to happen to often as more and more kids are training year round. I didn't intend for this suggestion to be a constitutional amendment - merely a guideline. That is the purpose of the tryouts anyway.

Regards!

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:32 pm**

DMom wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
tomASS wrote:
If you can't take what you learned in practice and transfer that into game situations where is the development?

You have to have game development to make the practice development worthwhile or else you are not developing the complete player. Especially at the Squirt and Pee Wee level.
True - but you have to learn how to crawl before you can walk - if kids can't properly skate, pass, shoot or catch the puck no sense in putting them out there on the PK or PP. If they don't have the baseline skills of the top players they will just be going backwards if you try to play them in specialty situations. Plenty of time for them to learn that on a regular shift. That's more what I was thinking about - everything SHOULD NOT be equal until the lower end kids put in their time and catch up skill wise.
Couldn't have said it better TA. The other thing a coach needs to consider is the kids confidence levels. A kid who knows he's going to get playing time will take chances and succeed more times than not, making them an even better player. A kid who "knows" he's not good enough for special teams, or the third period, or an entire game for that matter, is not going to take chances with the puck, he knows if he turns it over he's going to be sitting on the bench, so he passes it instead of taking advantage of open ice. Kids need the time and space to learn and they need to learn to do it under pressure, not to learn to do it in practice and than get yanked out of games the first time they turn the puck over.

How much satisfaction is there for a coach to win with his "good" players and how much satisfaction is there in knowing you are the one that made that player capable of handling game situations.? Do we have so many A and AAA teams that so are flush with talent and they really don't need all of the kids on the team?

You are mistaking my comments as "all or nothing". Sure all the kids deserve the chance to be in at critical game situations BUT you can't just throw them in there until they are at least somewhat prepared for those situations and that comes in the PRACTICES (anyone ever hear of a scrimmage either?). You don't hire a carpenter to bake a cake! So why would you throw a kid out there just because it was his turn in the rotation regardless of his skill or experience level?

You write about developing the kids' confidence levels. Well, what happens to their confidence level if one of the "less talented" kids gets thrown out on the power play to get the "game experience" that TA talks about only to give up two shorthanded goals because they didn't have the skills necessary to handle the situation? (as it will eventually happen if you play all kids an equal amount of time like I believe you are in favor of) I think you can draw your own conclusions on what happens to the kid not to mention how it is probably going to effect his team mates - I just don't see it as a good situation. The topic of the thread is fair play at the "A" level and like I said, it is my opinion that this approach doesn't belong in "A" level - it belongs at the "C" or in house level.

Hey, I'm not saying we have so much talent that we don't need the other kids - just the opposite but the kids have to be managed properly according to their skill and experience level. Everyone has their spot and TIME in a game. Bottom line is that you shouldn't put the kids in a situation that they are not capable of handling and that is what the coach is there for.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 5:58 pm**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
tomASS wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
The topic was squirt A the difference between top and bottom should not be as significant as you described.

attitude and effort, and as Dmom states, confidence does play such a large part especially at this age in how their minds absorb and utilize experiences at this time frame of growth (no formal training but I did just see an episode of Fraser. )

It would be like learning and practicing a foreign language but never being put into a real-life situation to use it because you might butcher it so you better not say anything until you have it right.

Ciao !
To respond -

#1 You may be in an association that doesn't have such a big discrepancy in your "A" talent but mine does and I would be willing to bet there are more associations with this problem than not.

#2 I never said the "lower end" kids shouldn't get any game time - I merely said that the "higher end" kids should get the nod when it comes to critical situations. That being said, those kids aren't going to get ALL of the PP, PK and end of game time - they should just be the first option. If you give kids of ALL abilities the same amount of playing time you aren't giving the lower end kids any motivation to become better because they'll soon figure out that they are going to get the same amount of playing time regardless of their skill level or performance. You may also "de" motivate your top end kids because they aren't being rewarded for their higer skill level or play. You reference a TV show - I'll reference a movie for my example - Gaylord Focker from Meet the Parents - let's just start handing out the participation or 8th place awards - it just breeds mediocrity because you are coaching to the lowest common denominator. In my opinion that is no way to get the most out of a team. The "A" teams should be pushing competition within their roster - heck, didn't the kids have to try out for the "A" team anyway? If they aren't going to compete with each other how the heck are they supposed to compete successfully against other teams? If this isn't going to happen then they (we) should just forget about the tryouts and make a bunch of "A" teams and play everyone equally if that is going to be the attitude.

Like I said, this may not be a problem in some associations (reference any association that is looking to put two "A" teams on the ice) but I think more teams have this problem that not.

"C" teams are the old "in house" equivalent and that's where playing time should all be equal. Kids can get all the ice time they want and develop game experience there. That approach (in my opinion) doesn't belong on the "A" teams.
I agree - when it comes to critical situations everyone should understand that skill, effort and attitude will be rewarded.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:20 pm**

You write about developing the kids' confidence levels. Well, what happens to their confidence level if one of the "less talented" kids gets thrown out on the power play to get the "game experience" that TA talks about only to give up two shorthanded goals because they didn't have the skills necessary to handle the situation? (as it will eventually happen if you play all kids an equal amount of time like I believe you are in favor of) I think you can draw your own conclusions on what happens to the kid not to mention how it is probably going to effect his team mates - I just don't see it as a good situation. .[/quote]

I think if you ride home after the game and sit quietly in the car, you will find (even if you have three teammates together) that the topic of one kid letting in the goals will not come up amongst the kids. I have learned to treat the car ride home quite differently than I did in the beginning of my kid's hockey careers. We never critique another child's performance, nor do we talk about a coach's decisions. We are teaching our kids to respect the authority of the volunteer who is giving their time. We sometimes have to take a long drive and talk about who has the authority to make decisions and what we can do to effect those decisions. Because of that we are installing a pullup bar in my oldest's bedroom. He has requested that so that he can begin to build a little more muscle mass.

I don't really mean to be combative about it. Someone has told my son that hockey is a marathon, not a sprint. He has recently told me that he is determined to be in the race at the end of the marathon. The other two, who knows, but I do know that now that all we discuss on the way home from games are who is sleeping over--the feedback from coaches is that they are all extremely coachable. If I vent about coaches (possibly about putting a kid in a game who gives up two short handed goals) in front of my kids that gives them a pass to be disrespectful to their volunteer coach.

I am not saying that the kids don't know, but the kids I overhear don't really dwell on it. They'd rather debate Subway or Dairy Queen

[/quote]

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 7:27 pm**

hsticks - you are missing a big point. You said, "The topic of the thread is fair play at the "A" level" - wrong, the poster was talking about SQUIRTs. That is the difference. The experienced coaches recognizes that it is not as dire for the 9 and 10 year old, as you seem to think. You're not Jacques Lemaire.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 9:03 pm**

cutanddrive wrote:hsticks - you are missing a big point. You said, "The topic of the thread is fair play at the "A" level" - wrong, the poster was talking about SQUIRTs. That is the difference. The experienced coaches recognizes that it is not as dire for the 9 and 10 year old, as you seem to think. You're not Jacques Lemaire.

Hey CnD - check the original post of the thread -

"2.) If you are a coach or have been a coach at the A Squirt Level, how did you handle fair play... did you have a power play line, penalty kill line or shorten the bench in the last minutes of a close game? When answering this; Image an association playing A with 36 TOTAL Squirts.... 3 teams"

This is what I was responding to - notice "A Squirt Level".

Just posting my opinion on the subject. I would disagree COMPLETELY with you about the fact that it is "not that dire for the 9 and 10 year olds" (referring to playing time) as I have already stated in my posts on the subject. Maybe "dire" is the the wrong word but it is still very important to teach and motivate kids to do their best especially when it pertains to the "A" level - heck, for ALL levels. Is it ever too early to prepare kids for competition in any aspect if they are willing? When do you start to teach your kids to be serious about school? Is that any less competitive? Does how they learn to form study habits at an early age make any difference when they get to HS and start preparing for SATs and ACTs that will determine what type of school they will get into or are you just going to hope that "they mature and pick it up on their own or grow into their own when they get older". Why should the expectations be any different for sports they are participating in? Check out the age of the Olympic gymnasts or the other athletes - when do you think they got serious about competition and training? Hey, I don't want to over blow this and turn it into something it isn't because it isn't my intention to build an NHLer or Olympian - that would be my kid's choice. My point is that "A" teams are supposedly the highest level of association hockey and there are TRYOUTS for these teams. Tryouts are an option - if you or your kid would just like to PARTICIPATE then they don't have to tryout and they will be placed on the "C" team where all the other "participation type players" reside. The "A" team in my opinion should be competitive in all aspects - within the team and against other teams. If YOU think that isn't how you would like to see it then you should have your kid forgo tryouts and play on the "C" team if that's what you want for him or her and breathe a BIG sigh of relief because their 529 will go a lot further at Vo-tech, cosmetology school or Community College.

Regards,

Jacques

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:02 pm**

You, coach Jaques, seem to think one should apply the same coaching strategies at the A squirt level that the A bantam coach applies in the state tournament. Most of us see that as silly thinking.

Go Wild.

Posted: **Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:29 pm**

CnD - in Bantams you will typically find the third line spotted based upon the situation of the game...very common to see 1-2-1-2-3-1-2-1-2-3. What I believe he is saying is that at the end of a crucial game or at a crucial moment in the game should SqA coaches have the right to manage the game according to the situation using skill, attitude and effort as a means for determining who gets the opportunity.

Personally, I don't see anything wrong with that -

Also, don't tell me the parents don't want to WIN either and the whole "whatever is best for the kids" BS...push comes to shove after a long weekend tournament or a game against a district rival, right or wrong and not one person is going to change the nature of this, the parents and the kids want to win. If you are a coach and you don't WIN you are going to hear and read in emails about your coaching ineptitude.

So, I find it funny that everyone has the best intentions and a heart-of-gold in September but in December, January and February a lot of parents could go postal on the concession stand attendant for not giving them enough butter on their popcorn.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:54 am**

cutanddrive wrote:You, coach Jaques, seem to think one should apply the same coaching strategies at the A squirt level that the A bantam coach applies in the state tournament. Most of us see that as silly thinking.

Go Wild.

What's "silly" about preparing kids for the real world and how it's going to be down the line? Remember we are talking about the "A" level here. Consider the "A" levels in the same mind frame as an Honors English or an accelerated math course in school. They are definitely not for everyone and you need to meet a certain criteria to participate.

All of you who think that is "silly" please respond.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:05 am**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
cutanddrive wrote:You, coach Jaques, seem to think one should apply the same coaching strategies at the A squirt level that the A bantam coach applies in the state tournament. Most of us see that as silly thinking.

Go Wild.
What's "silly" about preparing kids for the real world and how it's going to be down the line? Remember we are talking about the "A" level here. Consider the "A" levels in the same mind frame as an Honors English or an accelerated math course in school. They are definitely not for everyone and you need to meet a certain criteria to participate.

All of you who think that is "silly" please respond.

How many 9 yr olds are taking accelerated math and English?

Also believe me....
There is plenty of time to prepare for the real world after 3rd grade.

however; PWA and all bantams can be coached with more of the reward for effort approach. IMO.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:27 am**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
cutanddrive wrote:You, coach Jaques, seem to think one should apply the same coaching strategies at the A squirt level that the A bantam coach applies in the state tournament. Most of us see that as silly thinking.

Go Wild.
What's "silly" about preparing kids for the real world and how it's going to be down the line? Remember we are talking about the "A" level here. Consider the "A" levels in the same mind frame as an Honors English or an accelerated math course in school. They are definitely not for everyone and you need to meet a certain criteria to participate.

All of you who think that is "silly" please respond.
How many 9 yr olds are taking accelerated math and English?

Also believe me....
There is plenty of time to prepare for the real world after 3rd grade.

however; PWA and all bantams can be coached with more of the reward for effort approach. IMO.

I respect your view! I would agree that there aren't many accelerated courses for kids that age but instead they have whole schools that cater to parents and kids that would like an overall higher level of education that I would liken to "A" levels (otherwise why would people send kids to private grade schools?). I guess that would be getting back to my point of the "A" level in the first place. If it's not gong to be "advanced" and "competitive" or at least a different option than the "all play an even amount" approach then why have it in the first place? I'm not arguing that other methods don't do a good job developing kids in sports or school for that matter, I'm just saying that it should be different at the "A" level.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:30 am**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote: What's "silly" about preparing kids for the real world and how it's going to be down the line? Remember we are talking about the "A" level here. Consider the "A" levels in the same mind frame as an Honors English or an accelerated math course in school. They are definitely not for everyone and you need to meet a certain criteria to participate.

All of you who think that is "silly" please respond.
How many 9 yr olds are taking accelerated math and English?

Also believe me....
There is plenty of time to prepare for the real world after 3rd grade.

however; PWA and all bantams can be coached with more of the reward for effort approach. IMO.
I respect your view! I would agree that there aren't many accelerated courses for kids that age but instead they have whole schools that cater to parents and kids that would like an overall higher level of education that I would liken to "A" levels (otherwise why would people send kids to private grade schools?). I guess that would be getting back to my point of the "A" level in the first place. If it's not gong to be "advanced" and "competitive" or at least a different option than the "all play an even amount" approach then why have it in the first place? I'm not arguing that other methods don't do a good job developing kids in sports or school for that matter, I'm just saying that it should be different at the "A" level.

If they don't do well in the private school do they send them back to the public school? or do they spend extra time to bring that child up to the standard?

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 10:54 am**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote: How many 9 yr olds are taking accelerated math and English?

Also believe me....
There is plenty of time to prepare for the real world after 3rd grade.

however; PWA and all bantams can be coached with more of the reward for effort approach. IMO.
I respect your view! I would agree that there aren't many accelerated courses for kids that age but instead they have whole schools that cater to parents and kids that would like an overall higher level of education that I would liken to "A" levels (otherwise why would people send kids to private grade schools?). I guess that would be getting back to my point of the "A" level in the first place. If it's not gong to be "advanced" and "competitive" or at least a different option than the "all play an even amount" approach then why have it in the first place? I'm not arguing that other methods don't do a good job developing kids in sports or school for that matter, I'm just saying that it should be different at the "A" level.
If they don't do well in the private school do they send them back to the public school? or do they spend extra time to bring that child up to the standard?

They do what everyone else in the real world would do - stay late, come in early, extra time one on one with the teacher, study longer etc. . . you can liken it to taking a skating clinic, stick handling class, shooting clinic or more time at the local outdoor rink. The lower end isn't brought up at the expense of the progress of the top end. Once again, we are talking about "A" programs.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:38 am**

I think the problem when you start coaching 10 year old first lines is that you forget to develop the 3rd liners. When you take kids at that age and have them set up in a penalty kill while the 1st liners practice the PP, eventually a few years down the road you have 13 year olds that have never been on the PP and don't know what to do because Jimmy's dad was the coach and only wanted the best players on the ice in that moment.

Yes, we all want to win and we all know that PP's are a MAJOR part of the game, but you have to develop every player equally. With that caveat, the same goes for the end of the game. If you're down a goal and want to shorten the bench at the end of the game, sure, do it, but remember what statement that you're sending to kid watching next to you..."you're not good enough to put out".

I can tell you that my squirt aged son's coach last year took our whole team half way into the season and changed everyones postion. The team was in chaos when the forwards couldn't play D because they never have and the D had no clue what to do in the offensive zone because they never played F, we even lost a game to a team we beat 7-1 2 weeks prior, but after a month of practices and a few more games we had 15 skaters that could play anywhere on the ice.

Point = development over winning even though winning is nice

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 11:59 am**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote: I respect your view! I would agree that there aren't many accelerated courses for kids that age but instead they have whole schools that cater to parents and kids that would like an overall higher level of education that I would liken to "A" levels (otherwise why would people send kids to private grade schools?). I guess that would be getting back to my point of the "A" level in the first place. If it's not gong to be "advanced" and "competitive" or at least a different option than the "all play an even amount" approach then why have it in the first place? I'm not arguing that other methods don't do a good job developing kids in sports or school for that matter, I'm just saying that it should be different at the "A" level.
If they don't do well in the private school do they send them back to the public school? or do they spend extra time to bring that child up to the standard?
They do what everyone else in the real world would do - stay late, come in early, extra time one on one with the teacher, study longer etc. . . you can liken it to taking a skating clinic, stick handling class, shooting clinic or more time at the local outdoor rink. The lower end isn't brought up at the expense of the progress of the top end. Once again, we are talking about "A" programs.

You will have your view, that's clear to me. and that's fine!

Here's mine, and I have a more then a few yrs of experience coaching hockey to support it

, and my own kids that have been through the mites to HS program.

I believe, and IMO the time to start introducing the short bench and special teams to selected players only comes at the PWA and above levels' here's why.
# 1
They are ready for it!

# 2
Your entire program (USA hockey) is like a pyramid the larger the base is = the greater potential you have to reach higher limits...albeit for the select few, but that is how it ends up.

I really don't care what level it is A B C whatever, what I do care about is the fact that it does no good to the overall picture to play this 9 yr old more then that one, just so you can win a SQ hockey game.
(And if you've been a coach and you've been faced with the choice you know 9 year olds don't handle it well)

I also never really cared if someone called me up because I didn't do this or that...I told them get your skates on, spend the time getting some education, and take over.

I also have delighted in the fact that over those yrs a few of the players I had the pleasure to coach or know from other teams, have gone on to Jr's, D3 and D1 schools to play, we still run into each other once in a while, and their parents are still friends. (No pros yet

)
Not all these kids were the best at SQ or even PW's.

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:45 pm**

It seems like everyone likes to look at past history to support their view. The problem is that it is just that - past history! Times have changed, kids are developing earlier, kids are GROWING UP earlier. 20 years ago kids didn't even skate in the summer. 10 years ago AAA programs were just getting going. Now, kids skate year round. If you don't want to think progressively, that's fine with me - it's your opinion. I just happen to support a different side. Mind you I'm not a hockey only "nut" - my kids play other organized sports that include lacrosse, baseball, football, golf and tennis just to name the ones that I can recently remember cutting a check for. I believe kids need other sports to make them better athletes in their main sport of choice but I also believe they need specialized training in their sport of choice if they are going to have a chance to compete at the highest level and I would expect that to also include a competitive environment within their own team. I really think people are too "touchy-feely" about how they treat kids nowadays. What really makes it okay to teach it to an 8th grader at the "A" bantam level and not a 5th grader at the "A" squirt level? People are too afraid to say the wrong thing to a kid or send the wrong message because they think they will turn them off to a sport or activity. The thing is people don't give kids enough credit - kids are extremely resilient and bounce back much quicker than most adults in my view. Sure we should do our best to help all the kids along but "A" teams should be survival of the fittest because it is the TOP LEVEL of association hockey. If it's the consensus that this isn't what people (associations) want then we should do away with the "A" level at squirts and pewees because that type of environment is only reserved for kids at the Bantam level (after all 15 years ago that is how we use to do it and it worked then).

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:11 pm**

The wise man was not born wise, he became wise by being foolish first, and then listening to those who had wisdom.
Do you know why they teach our children history in school and not future?
I'll let you answer that yourself!
Have a great day !

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:25 pm**

Can't Never Tried wrote:The wise man was not born wise, he became wise by being foolish first, and then listening to those who had wisdom.
Do you know why they teach our children history in school and not future?
I'll let you answer that yourself!
Have a great day !

They teach history so they can learn from it, adapt for the times and make their OWN way. They don't teach them to repeat it.

"Those that have failed to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"

Winston Churchill

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:02 pm**

H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote:The wise man was not born wise, he became wise by being foolish first, and then listening to those who had wisdom.
Do you know why they teach our children history in school and not future?
I'll let you answer that yourself!
Have a great day !
They teach history so they can learn from it, adapt for the times and make their OWN way. They don't teach them to repeat it.

"Those that have failed to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"

Winston Churchill

I made my saying up today! You repeated one from old history!

Ironic !

Posted: **Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:32 pm**

Can't Never Tried wrote:
H-E-doublehockeysticks wrote:
Can't Never Tried wrote:The wise man was not born wise, he became wise by being foolish first, and then listening to those who had wisdom.
Do you know why they teach our children history in school and not future?
I'll let you answer that yourself!
Have a great day !
They teach history so they can learn from it, adapt for the times and make their OWN way. They don't teach them to repeat it.

"Those that have failed to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it"

Winston Churchill
I made my saying up today! You repeated one from old history!

Ironic !

I prefer the original.

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
George Santayana

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Fair Play at A Squirts...

Re: Fair play!

he hockeysticks

Re: Fair play!

Re: Fair play!

Re: he hockeysticks

Re: Fair play!

Re: Fair play!

Re: Fair play!

Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts

10 year old first lines

Re: Fair Play at A Squirts