HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

The 96 Velocity kind of walks with one foot on each side of this issue. Sure a bunch of those kids have been together for a long time, but they used to wear a different color sweater. Would the 95 Breakaway be considered a long-lived team?

InigoMontoya wrote:

Here's a question to ponder: Just how big can the average NHLer get? Have we hit the limit?

have averaged the last 15 years or so.

I think you may answer your own question. I saw that, as well, and I believe all the growth they speak of is prior to the rule enforcement change. That said, I'd still hope my kid would be 6'2" rather than 5'8" - plenty of studies in the business world that show pay scales trend with height. With that said...you don't have to leave the backyard to see Clutterbuck lead the NHL in hits at 5'10" - you can't hit what you can't catch.

what is this rule enforcement you speak of? haven't kept up with the NHL much, i would rather watch college..

InigoMontoya wrote:The 96 Velocity kind of walks with one foot on each side of this issue. Sure a bunch of those kids have been together for a long time, but they used to wear a different color sweater. Would the 95 Breakaway be considered a long-lived team?

I kinda think so. Same coach, most of the same players who just switched the color of their jerseys....doesn't really matter who they wrote their checks out to, still basically the same group of players for the past 6-7 years with some minor changes.

DMom wrote: NHL players have gone from an average of 5-foot-9 and 172 pounds in 1920 to 5-foot-11, 180 by 1955, 6-foot and 190 in 1980 and then, finally, up to the 6-foot-1, 205 pounds hockey players have averaged the last 15 years or so.

Here's a question to ponder: Just how big can the average NHLer get? Have we hit the limit?

I wonder how accurate that list is. I'm willing to bet there is no way hockey players averaged 172 pounds in 1920 and 180 in 1955. I'll believe the 1980 number. Adult males did not weigh that much sixty years ago.

You ask a great question. I have done a lot of studies on size in sport and my usual conclusion is that people grossly overstate the importance of size. Yes, in most sports it is an advantage to be big. But it also is an advantage to be good, and many more average size guys are good just because of sheer numbers. (Example - there are a lot of 6 foot guys in the NBA. There are many more 6'8" guys that aren't.)

It is common that people see a trend and extrapolate it way too far. While the mile record went below 4 minutes in the 1950s, we're at 3:45-3:50 as a good time in a world-class race today. Recently pro golfers increased their average drives, only to plateau over the last few years. We aren't on the way to 400 yard drives.

Size of hockey players? One reason they have gotten bigger is that people are bigger in general. While "average" for males used to be 5'8" +/- 2", today it is probably more like 5'10" +/- 2".

I think professional hockey players 10-15 years from now will be the same size they are now. Yes, coaches still will try real hard to develop every 6'3" kid in hopes they become the next Lindros or Lemieux. That said, there are just so many more guys that are 5'10". It is inevitable that some become players like St. Louis, Kane, Kariya, and Lafontaine.

Before the Hatchers, hockey people didn't really know what to do with super-tall guys. Now we see several that are counted on to be more than just enforcers. While I envision many kids of average stature become stars, I think you'll still see just as many of these behemoths in the NHL because they will be give so many chances to make it.

Time will tell how close my predictions are to what eventually happens.

Can someone change the thread title? "AAA staying power" sounds so dirty.

Only Dirty to those who have a Warped Mind

My kids play for Reebok Nationals, but the program that seems very strong and professional is called the ICEMEN. I have been very happy with nationals,but at this point I don't think they have the talent that the Blades, Icemen, Machine have. The thing about the Icemen is that they are willing to play any team the other two won't return call.[from what I heard]

muckandgrind wrote:

DMom wrote:
One kudo to the Blades, they post their rosters. For so many teams, it's top secret and no one knows until the first practice which kids are really going to be there.

The Icemen post their rosters as well.

Just looked at the Icemen web site. No rosters for 99, 00, or 01.

[quote="old goalie85"]My kids play for Reebok Nationals, but the program that seems very strong and professional is called the ICEMEN. I have been very happy with nationals,but at this point I don't think they have the talent that the Blades, Icemen, Machine have. The thing about the Icemen is that they are willing to play any team the other two won't return call.[from what I heard][/quote]

As they are, the program is 2 years old. The 94 and 95 team had nothing to do with the current. Is the current allowing someone to make a buck?

hockeyover40 wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

DMom wrote:
One kudo to the Blades, they post their rosters. For so many teams, it's top secret and no one knows until the first practice which kids are really going to be there.

The Icemen post their rosters as well.

Just looked at the Icemen web site. No rosters for 99, 00, or 01.

Two top-notch teams!

I thought it was the same.[Icemen] I remember the 94 group from my oldest.