The Merits of Dump and Chase

[wannagototherink]

What coaches need to work on is having teams advance the puck through the neutral zone instead of throwing it into the corners and chasing it down. Teams that dump and chase will ring up the penalty minutes and lose a lot of games. We might actually see passing and stick handling in boys hockey. What a treat!

All talk of penalties aside...You are an idiot if you think dumping the puck in is a bad play. No matter what level of hockey, if you actually watch the game, it is a tremendously better play to dump the puck in rather than turn it over from the red line in. Sorry I know this is off topic but sometimes idiots drive me crazy.

[Section 8 guy]

All talk of penalties aside...You are an idiot if you think dumping the puck in is a bad play. No matter what level of hockey, if you actually watch the game, it is a tremendously better play to dump the puck in rather than turn it over from the red line in. Sorry I know this is off topic but sometimes idiots drive me crazy.

WGTTR, There's actually a fairly strong case to be made that dumping the puck in youth hockey is usually a bad play, and the points have mostly to do with skill development and not as much to do with penalties.

I guess it matters whether your objective is long term development or to win a youth hockey game on that day. In either case, it's likely not as clear cut as its made out to be above.

[wannagototherink]

All talk of penalties aside...You are an idiot if you think dumping the puck in is a bad play. No matter what level of hockey, if you actually watch the game, it is a tremendously better play to dump the puck in rather than turn it over from the red line in. Sorry I know this is off topic but sometimes idiots drive me crazy.

WGTTR, There's actually a fairly strong case to be made that dumping the puck in youth hockey is usually a bad play, and the points have mostly to do with skill development and not as much to do with penalties.

I guess it matters whether your objective is long term development or to win a youth hockey game on that day. In either case, it's likely not as clear cut as its made out to be

I love when the phrase " Long Term Development" gets thrown around. How long term are we talking? I don't know many jr, college or even high school coaches looking for guys who can turn the puck over in the neutral zone? Dumping the puck is a must know skill to advance in hockey. There are far too many kids trying to beat guys 1 on 1 now a days and it all falls under the guise of "skill development". What about teaching kids to play the game CORRECTLY? Listen, do I think that every time down the rink a player should just indiscriminately dump the puck in and chase it? Of course not, but it should happen more often than it does. To me it is the same as all the BS about puck touches in a game...well if you only have the puck on your stick for 15 seconds then why don't we spend more time teaching the game away from the puck? It's all about goals & points and who can score "bar down". It is a disservice to our players. I dont care what level, teach (develope) the kids the correct way so they LEARN to THINK the game. If you are telling your player to try and beat 2 guys in the neutral instead of dumping and chasing than you are teaching that player to make the Wrong play.

[SCBlueLiner]

I like WGTTR. Spot on about learning when to make the correct play whether it be to carry the puck in or dump it. Also correct about playing off the puck. Learning how to position and play while off the puck is just as, if not more important than, skills learned handling the puck. There is one puck and 10 skaters on the ice, not everyone can carry it at the same time. So if you don't have the puck are you in position to give offensive or defensive puck support? Are you moving to open ice and a good passing lane to receive a pass? Are you in position around the net for a rebound or tip? Or are you that kid floating on the other side of the blue line banging your stick on the ice while your D-man has two forecheckers hanging on him, then complain why nobody passes you the puck because you were "open"?

Would also add that hockey is a physical sport. I don't know anyone that is a proponent of dirty play, dangerous hits, or using physical play to injure others. Checking is about seperating the player from the puck in order to gain possession, but make no mistake checking is also about intimidation. Teams that can dominate physically (legally) and intimidate will force their opponents into making bad decisions and bad hockey plays. The opponent will fear the repurcussions of holding the puck and that can result in dumping it or being forced into a bad pass. I'm not talking "Slapshot " here, I'm talking about good, clean, hard nosed play.

[redtundra]

This thread has drifted WAY off topic at this point. Of course hockey is a physical game. Should be and always will be. The QUESTION however was about the major penalty calls. Being physical up and down the ice is NEVER frowned upon and should be encouraged. The issue is the major penalty. The new rules put the onus on the player delivering the check to be aware of two or three key points when checking: 1) If you are looking at a player's back before you hit them, then don't hit them. I would agree that being along the boards is when this matters, and I would adjust the rule to ONLY have the automatic major against the boards (in football you often get hit in the back - the boards are what make a hit in the back dangerous); 2) If a player is a few feet away from the boards and is off-balance or otherwise in a vulnerable position, the checker needs to be aware that "blowing them up" in that scenario will most likely "launch" them into the boards. Seems pretty obvious this is a particularly dangerous situation that can be avoided in most cases. AGAIN, if the person being checked is against the boards or very close to the boards and a huge board rattling hit is delivered, that is NOT boarding. If a ref calls that as boarding, they are simply wrong. A player must be a few feeet away from the boards and thrown violently into the boards to call boarding. You could call charging, elbowing, etc. as appropriate, but not boarding; 3) the head contact call needs to be re-evaluated as a major. Most every elbow and high stick involves head contact. They are not invariably dangerous. Unless the boards are involved in particular I PERSONALLY feel head contact should rarely be a major. However we are required to call it a major (which really makes no sense in high school seeing as it wasn't even a separate penalty until a few years ago). The long and short is that no one who gets it wants to make the game less physical. But if you can prevent (some cases of)extensive injury by making a few adjustments as outlined above, why wouldn't you? You have an NFL that is facing SERIOUS issues in the coming years regarding head injuries that could affect a billion dollar industry. They better find ways to adjust or they will be in serious trouble. Hockey is on a similar path and should be pro-active. Lots of room for critcism in enforcement and training of officials. But this isn't the end of hockey as we know it...

[JSR]

All talk of penalties aside...You are an idiot if you think dumping the puck in is a bad play. No matter what level of hockey, if you actually watch the game, it is a tremendously better play to dump the puck in rather than turn it over from the red line in. Sorry I know this is off topic but sometimes idiots drive me crazy.

WGTTR, There's actually a fairly strong case to be made that dumping the puck in youth hockey is usually a bad play, and the points have mostly to do with skill development and not as much to do with penalties.

I guess it matters whether your objective is long term development or to win a youth hockey game on that day. In either case, it's likely not as clear cut as its made out to be

I love when the phrase " Long Term Development" gets thrown around. How long term are we talking? I don't know many jr, college or even high school coaches looking for guys who can turn the puck over in the neutral zone? Dumping the puck is a must know skill to advance in hockey. There are far too many kids trying to beat guys 1 on 1 now a days and it all falls under the guise of "skill development". What about teaching kids to play the game CORRECTLY? Listen, do I think that every time down the rink a player should just indiscriminately dump the puck in and chase it? Of course not, but it should happen more often than it does. To me it is the same as all the BS about puck touches in a game...well if you only have the puck on your stick for 15 seconds then why don't we spend more time teaching the game away from the puck? It's all about goals & points and who can score "bar down". It is a disservice to our players. I dont care what level, teach (develope) the kids the correct way so they LEARN to THINK the game. If you are telling your player to try and beat 2 guys in the neutral instead of dumping and chasing than you are teaching that player to make the Wrong play.

Couldn't disagree with you more but it's clear you are set in your ways of thinking so why bother arguing

[wannagototherink]

WGTTR, There's actually a fairly strong case to be made that dumping the puck in youth hockey is usually a bad play, and the points have mostly to do with skill development and not as much to do with penalties.

I guess it matters whether your objective is long term development or to win a youth hockey game on that day. In either case, it's likely not as clear cut as its made out to be

I love when the phrase " Long Term Development" gets thrown around. How long term are we talking? I don't know many jr, college or even high school coaches looking for guys who can turn the puck over in the neutral zone? Dumping the puck is a must know skill to advance in hockey. There are far too many kids trying to beat guys 1 on 1 now a days and it all falls under the guise of "skill development". What about teaching kids to play the game CORRECTLY? Listen, do I think that every time down the rink a player should just indiscriminately dump the puck in and chase it? Of course not, but it should happen more often than it does. To me it is the same as all the BS about puck touches in a game...well if you only have the puck on your stick for 15 seconds then why don't we spend more time teaching the game away from the puck? It's all about goals & points and who can score "bar down". It is a disservice to our players. I dont care what level, teach (develope) the kids the correct way so they LEARN to THINK the game. If you are telling your player to try and beat 2 guys in the neutral instead of dumping and chasing than you are teaching that player to make the Wrong play.

Couldn't disagree with you more but it's clear you are set in your ways of thinking so why bother arguing

You may disagree but for what it is worth,as someone who scouts for 3 different levels of jr hockey and a college program. I can assure you that my opinion on this is not the exception amongst my colleagues. Bottom line is, "great skilled" players are not a product of their squirt, peewee or bantam coach. Those players develope those skills on their own by spending time at the rink in unstructured situations or in their garage stick handling or shooting pucks. Now where those coaches do make a difference is by first and foremost fostering the kids passion for the game that makes them want to put in the extra time away from the rink. That inspiration is clearly the most important thing a coach can offer. Make it fun, the kids want to get better. The other is teaching them how to be a complete player, most importantly thinking the game. Knowing situations, ie when it's appropriate to dump & chase.

[JSR]

Couldn't disagree with you more but it's clear you are set in your ways of thinking so why bother arguing

You may disagree but for what it is worth,as someone who scouts for 3 different levels of jr hockey and a college program. I can assure you that my opinion on this is not the exception amongst my colleagues. Bottom line is, "great skilled" players are not a product of their squirt, peewee or bantam coach. Those players develope those skills on their own by spending time at the rink in unstructured situations or in their garage stick handling or shooting pucks. Now where those coaches do make a difference is by first and foremost fostering the kids passion for the game that makes them want to put in the extra time away from the rink. That inspiration is clearly the most important thing a coach can offer. Make it fun, the kids want to get better. The other is teaching them how to be a complete player, most importantly thinking the game. Knowing situations, ie when it's appropriate to dump & chase.

I agree great players develop as much away from the rink on their own. I disagree with the idea that you should teach a squirt to dump and chase, it's pointless and serves ZERO purpose for the team or for the individual players and if you think your are "teaching them to think the game" by teaching dump and chase at the squirt level then you should stop scouting for those teams because they can find someone better..... Also, it is near to impossble to teach dump and chase properly at any of the youth levels with the automatic offsides rule, as long as that rule is in place then dump and chase literally can't be taught in the proper context and is best left to the high school and above levels. So with the rules we have in place now teaching F1 to to carry the puck in deep and wide with F2 charging hard to the net is the best way to approach it at the youth levels unless you are changing lines when entering the zone and you need to focus on neutral zone regrouping and pssing the puck laterally and south before going nroth when the puck comes out of the zone, I guess you forgot about that rule when making your assertions.

[SCBlueLiner]

So you are a forward going down the left wing with the puck, an opposing forward is angling you off into the boards and you have a defenseman in front of you. You have a winger coming down ice with you on the far side. A cross ice pass won't work because that is blocked off by another opposing forward in the middle of the ice.

You want little Johnny Super Squirt stickhandling through two defenders while trying to cross the blue line? Or is the more appropriate play a cross ice dump to the far corner which allows the streaking winger on the far side an opportunity to pick that puck up as it rebounds off the boards almost right in front of the net?

One is a smart hockey play which could result in a scoring opportunity. The other is a turnover at the blue line waiting to happen which results in an odd man counter attack.

Teach the kids to play the game smart. Work on the skills at practice and at home.

Gretzky wasn't the fastest or strongest. He didn't have the hardest shot and he wasn't the best stickhandler in the league. He was an extremely smart hockey player, always in the right place, at the right time, making the right play.

[wannagototherink]

You may disagree but for what it is worth,as someone who scouts for 3 different levels of jr hockey and a college program. I can assure you that my opinion on this is not the exception amongst my colleagues. Bottom line is, "great skilled" players are not a product of their squirt, peewee or bantam coach. Those players develope those skills on their own by spending time at the rink in unstructured situations or in their garage stick handling or shooting pucks. Now where those coaches do make a difference is by first and foremost fostering the kids passion for the game that makes them want to put in the extra time away from the rink. That inspiration is clearly the most important thing a coach can offer. Make it fun, the kids want to get better. The other is teaching them how to be a complete player, most importantly thinking the game. Knowing situations, ie when it's appropriate to dump & chase.

I agree great players develop as much away from the rink on their own. I disagree with the idea that you should teach a squirt to dump and chase, it's pointless and serves ZERO purpose for the team or for the individual players and if you think your are "teaching them to think the game" by teaching dump and chase at the squirt level then you should stop scouting for those teams because they can find someone better..... Also, it is near to impossble to teach dump and chase properly at any of the youth levels with the automatic offsides rule, as long as that rule is in place then dump and chase literally can't be taught in the proper context and is best left to the high school and above levels. So with the rules we have in place now teaching F1 to to carry the puck in deep and wide with F2 charging hard to the net is the best way to approach it at the youth levels unless you are changing lines when entering the zone and you need to focus on neutral zone regrouping and pssing the puck laterally and south before going nroth when the puck comes out of the zone, I guess you forgot about that rule when making your assertions.

I will give you credit on your squirt take, and I will fully admit the squirt level is not my area of expertise and peewee's is a bit of a different animal too but I certainly believe the concepts need to start being taught. However, by the bantam and high school level (both of which have tag up offsides) there is no question in my mind and the vast majority of guys in my business that there is a serious problem with the amount 1 on 1 play that is out there. Too many turnovers happen in the neutral zone and near the blue lines at these levels and the argument always is skill development. You can attack my opinions on it all you want but like I said it is not my opinion that is the anomaly here. I guess unfortunately for you, the coaches at the upper levels are listening to the guys like me.

[C-dad]

I agree great players develop as much away from the rink on their own. I disagree with the idea that you should teach a squirt to dump and chase, it's pointless and serves ZERO purpose for the team or for the individual players and if you think your are "teaching them to think the game" by teaching dump and chase at the squirt level then you should stop scouting for those teams because they can find someone better..... Also, it is near to impossble to teach dump and chase properly at any of the youth levels with the automatic offsides rule, as long as that rule is in place then dump and chase literally can't be taught in the proper context and is best left to the high school and above levels. So with the rules we have in place now teaching F1 to to carry the puck in deep and wide with F2 charging hard to the net is the best way to approach it at the youth levels unless you are changing lines when entering the zone and you need to focus on neutral zone regrouping and pssing the puck laterally and south before going nroth when the puck comes out of the zone, I guess you forgot about that rule when making your assertions.

I will give you credit on your squirt take, and I will fully admit the squirt level is not my area of expertise and peewee's is a bit of a different animal too but I certainly believe the concepts need to start being taught. However, by the bantam and high school level (both of which have tag up offsides) there is no question in my mind and the vast majority of guys in my business that there is a serious problem with the amount 1 on 1 play that is out there. Too many turnovers happen in the neutral zone and near the blue lines at these levels and the argument always is skill development. You can attack my opinions on it all you want but like I said it is not my opinion that is the anomaly here. I guess unfortunately for you, the coaches at the upper levels are listening to the guys like me.

Wow. I wonder how badly Brooks could have beaten those Soviets if only he'd had his team dump and chase, instead of circle and regroup.

[JSR]

So you are a forward going down the left wing with the puck, an opposing forward is angling you off into the boards and you have a defenseman in front of you. You have a winger coming down ice with you on the far side. A cross ice pass won't work because that is blocked off by another opposing forward in the middle of the ice.

You want little Johnny Super Squirt stickhandling through two defenders while trying to cross the blue line? Or is the more appropriate play a cross ice dump to the far corner which allows the streaking winger on the far side an opportunity to pick that puck up as it rebounds off the boards almost right in front of the net?

One is a smart hockey play which could result in a scoring opportunity. The other is a turnover at the blue line waiting to happen which results in an odd man counter attack.

Teach the kids to play the game smart. Work on the skills at practice and at home.

Gretzky wasn't the fastest or strongest. He didn't have the hardest shot and he wasn't the best stickhandler in the league. He was an extremely smart hockey player, always in the right place, at the right time, making the right play.

LOL.... your scenario is appropriate for older players but I have yet to see a squirt team even at teh highest level consistantly do defensively what you just described. I'll take the the super squirt stickhandling through them at the squirt level 9 out of ten timees because he'll pull it off 9 out of ten times, the turn over will happen maybe 1 out of ten times.... seriously have you seen a squirt game lately..... trust me, you doing more harm than good than telling him to dump the puck at that age

[JSR]

I agree great players develop as much away from the rink on their own. I disagree with the idea that you should teach a squirt to dump and chase, it's pointless and serves ZERO purpose for the team or for the individual players and if you think your are "teaching them to think the game" by teaching dump and chase at the squirt level then you should stop scouting for those teams because they can find someone better..... Also, it is near to impossble to teach dump and chase properly at any of the youth levels with the automatic offsides rule, as long as that rule is in place then dump and chase literally can't be taught in the proper context and is best left to the high school and above levels. So with the rules we have in place now teaching F1 to to carry the puck in deep and wide with F2 charging hard to the net is the best way to approach it at the youth levels unless you are changing lines when entering the zone and you need to focus on neutral zone regrouping and pssing the puck laterally and south before going nroth when the puck comes out of the zone, I guess you forgot about that rule when making your assertions.

I will give you credit on your squirt take, and I will fully admit the squirt level is not my area of expertise and peewee's is a bit of a different animal too but I certainly believe the concepts need to start being taught. However, by the bantam and high school level (both of which have tag up offsides) there is no question in my mind and the vast majority of guys in my business that there is a serious problem with the amount 1 on 1 play that is out there. Too many turnovers happen in the neutral zone and near the blue lines at these levels and the argument always is skill development. You can attack my opinions on it all you want but like I said it is not my opinion that is the anomaly here. I guess unfortunately for you, the coaches at the upper levels are listening to the guys like me.

I don't disagree that at the Bantam and High School levels IF you have tag up offsides that those are appropriate ages but the younger ages of youth hockey, just isn't going to happen mainly because of the rules and the because of what the ADM is pushing. As for Bantams specifically, you haave tag up for them in MN, many parts of the country still have automatic offsides even at the bantam level so that is a tough one, for instance WI is still automatic offsides even at the Bantam level so it is even tough to each them with consistancy in WI, in MN it could work. But I will leave you with this, this quote was to me personally and itcame from arguably one off the best active D1 college coaches out there and he said this "....by the time a kid gets to high school he better have the skillsets necessary or it will be too late. If the kid has the skill set, a good attitude and is coachable I can teach them any system they need to be taught and can get them to play any system I want them to play but if they don't have the skills by then, then forget about it, the system won't matter....." (and by skills he specifically meant in the context of our conversation stick handling, skating, and giving and receiving passes) he then said specifically to me "dump and chase should never be taught to squirt and younger kids and should only be taught with constraint to pee wees" , so he'd agree with bantams and older but was pretty admant about the younger kids (his own son was a first year squirt at the time and was on my sons team, that is how/why we were discussing this stuff)

[SCBlueLiner]

So you are a forward going down the left wing with the puck, an opposing forward is angling you off into the boards and you have a defenseman in front of you. You have a winger coming down ice with you on the far side. A cross ice pass won't work because that is blocked off by another opposing forward in the middle of the ice.

You want little Johnny Super Squirt stickhandling through two defenders while trying to cross the blue line? Or is the more appropriate play a cross ice dump to the far corner which allows the streaking winger on the far side an opportunity to pick that puck up as it rebounds off the boards almost right in front of the net?

One is a smart hockey play which could result in a scoring opportunity. The other is a turnover at the blue line waiting to happen which results in an odd man counter attack.

Teach the kids to play the game smart. Work on the skills at practice and at home.

Gretzky wasn't the fastest or strongest. He didn't have the hardest shot and he wasn't the best stickhandler in the league. He was an extremely smart hockey player, always in the right place, at the right time, making the right play.

LOL.... your scenario is appropriate for older players but I have yet to see a squirt team even at teh highest level consistantly do defensively what you just described. I'll take the the super squirt stickhandling through them at the squirt level 9 out of ten timees because he'll pull it off 9 out of ten times, the turn over will happen maybe 1 out of ten times.... seriously have you seen a squirt game lately..... trust me, you doing more harm than good than telling him to dump the puck at that age

Probably over 70 in the last year alone.

Pretty sure I know what I'm doing, but thanks for your opinion.

[redtundra]

Wow is this off-topic... Read above: This thread is about major penalties - NOT the merits of dump and chase!

[karl(east)]

Wow is this off-topic... Read above: This thread is about major penalties - NOT the merits of dump and chase!

Good idea.

[BadgerBob82]

There is a big difference between "gaining zones" "advancing the puck" or "area passing" and "Dump and Chase". But we have all seen Dump and Chase taught as a breakout system with the coach saying, "I'd rather have a few icings than turn the puck over in the D-zone" The same ones scream "DUUUUMP" as a player approaches the red line. Use practice time to teach kids how to "use the glass".

Coaches that teach "hot potato" hockey are the same ones that want full ice Mite games so they can teach offside.

I will say tag-up offside saves whistle delays in the HS game. But, way too many HS teams will not regroup in the neutral zone instead just ram it back in and tag-up while the other team gets a free breakout. Good coaches will continue to teach regroup and attack the zone.

Is dumping the puck a tool in the box? Yes. Should it be taught as the #1 option? No.

[JSR]

So you are a forward going down the left wing with the puck, an opposing forward is angling you off into the boards and you have a defenseman in front of you. You have a winger coming down ice with you on the far side. A cross ice pass won't work because that is blocked off by another opposing forward in the middle of the ice.

You want little Johnny Super Squirt stickhandling through two defenders while trying to cross the blue line? Or is the more appropriate play a cross ice dump to the far corner which allows the streaking winger on the far side an opportunity to pick that puck up as it rebounds off the boards almost right in front of the net?

One is a smart hockey play which could result in a scoring opportunity. The other is a turnover at the blue line waiting to happen which results in an odd man counter attack.

Teach the kids to play the game smart. Work on the skills at practice and at home.

Gretzky wasn't the fastest or strongest. He didn't have the hardest shot and he wasn't the best stickhandler in the league. He was an extremely smart hockey player, always in the right place, at the right time, making the right play.

LOL.... your scenario is appropriate for older players but I have yet to see a squirt team even at teh highest level consistantly do defensively what you just described. I'll take the the super squirt stickhandling through them at the squirt level 9 out of ten timees because he'll pull it off 9 out of ten times, the turn over will happen maybe 1 out of ten times.... seriously have you seen a squirt game lately..... trust me, you doing more harm than good than telling him to dump the puck at that age

Probably over 70 in the last year alone.

Pretty sure I know what I'm doing, but thanks for your opinion.

If you think so....

[SCBlueLiner]

JSR, do you even bother reading any other posts on this board or are you so set in your ways that your way is right and that everyone else is wrong? BadgerBob just pointed out that Dump and Chase done correctly is a tool in the box. I described a play that I do see quite often ( I really don't know what Squirt games you are watching but what I described does happen) and I used it as an example of teaching kids how to "think" the game.

I never once said skills aren't important, but, you know, if you are the most skilled player on the team and are constantly out of position, not making the right plays, etc than what good are you? Sure, upper level coaches want skilled kids, and they say they'll teach them the rest, but I'm pretty sure they also want kids who are coachable, that have an understanding of the game, and who can make the correct play. Especially when kids get older, the game gets faster, kids get more skilled, and then throw in checking, players have split seconds to make the correct decision with the puck. Some base knowledge of the game learned from a young age the correct way to play is a good thing. It doesn't take but two seconds on the bench to recap the play with the player, ask them if they saw the same thing, then tell them what the correct play should be. It's called coaching, not just opening the gate and rolling lines.

/rant

[SnowedIn]

I like the puck possession game but the scenario Blue describes does happen alot at any level of hockey. Sure JSR, a squirt defense rarely would execute that trap. But change the scenario to 1F vs 3D or similar scenarios where the probabilities are way against the F, and the dump and chase makes all the sense in the world. If the F has no other advancing option other than to take on 3 D and does not have any ice to work with then that is a good play.

Any other scenario, I don't personally like the dump and chase. If you can carry the puck wide or to any open ice and drive the net or behind the net or set up a supporting player, dumping doesn't seem to me to be the best option.

[old goalie85]

If my kid trys to stickhandle through 3 or 4 defenders he/she rides home on top of the van !!!!! You bet squirts should dump the puck. Both weekside dump and or ring the boards dump to the off wing what the heck are we arguing about here it's a no-brainer. No offense !!

[Section 8 guy]

If my kid trys to stickhandle through 3 or 4 defenders he/she rides home on top of the van !!!!! You bet squirts should dump the puck. Both weekside dump and or ring the boards dump to the off wing what the heck are we arguing about here it's a no-brainer. No offense !!

It all depends on what your end goal is OG. If your goal is to win a squirt game today, then play dump and chase all day long. It will probably be effective for today. But don't be surprised when teams that emphasized skating and skills in their younger years are skating around your guys with little problem and beating you handily when you are in bantams and high school.

Let me ask a question. How long do you guys think it takes to teach an average intelligence 16 yo to play dump and chase?

[goldy313]

Let me ask a question. How long do you guys think it takes to teach an average intelligence 16 yo to play dump and chase?

A long time because many have never done it and many don't have the work ethic to forecheck effectively.

I used it because I could nearly always gain an advantage or turnover because the opposing defensemen weren't able to to deal with it, while it doesn't take much skill at all to play a neutral zone trap against a team that won't dump and chase.

I'll also say this, not every kid will have the ability to skate with the puck or make the quick pass no matter how long and hard you work with them, it doesn't mean that they aren't good hockey players or have a meaningful role on the team. Using dump and chase might very well be what you need them do and the way they can suceed.

[Section 8 guy]

Let me ask a question. How long do you guys think it takes to teach an average intelligence 16 yo to play dump and chase?

A long time because many have never done it and many don't have the work ethic to forecheck effectively..

Goldy,

Work ethic and battling for pucks aren't skills that can only be taught within the context of a team that plays a dump and chase style. You can teach players to play hard and battle within a skill based/puck possession concept so I'm not sure that point is all that relevant to this discussion.

I'd also point out that the kid who doesn't skate as well or make the quick pass is the one who will benefit as much or more than any player on your team from having to use/develop puck possession skills to navigate the neutral zone. Besides, even if a few kids on your team have difficulty with skating and stick handling skills, are you going to implement a lower skill development dump and chase system to benefit them and sacrifice developmental opportunities for the rest of your team because of it? That doesn't make sense does it?

[old goalie85]

I guess I'm talking about situations. No way should you tell a kid/team to always dump the puck. No way you should always try to deke your way in. My point is if you need a change/3 or 4 kids are on you dump it. It is a good hockey play. Last year my oldest was a senior. The same kids that held the puck to long at Bantam/Pee-wee/squirt were the same ones holding it to long during their last section game in Duluth. Theres more to the game then " one on ones". My opinion.