2004 Big Defense movement

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Mon Jan 02, 2017 12:31 am



Seen a lot of small kids get hit this year and they got ultimate very slowly
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Mon Jan 02, 2017 9:31 am

There are so many variables that make a good hockey player. Size is more an advantage in minor hockey as opposed to the pro level.

I wouldn't say its a requirement to be an elite player. I think its more of a detriment to be small as opposed to being a requirement to be big.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Mon Jan 02, 2017 8:10 pm

Guest wrote:^^ hate to wreck your rant but, you know that the US team that 'cleaned our clock' was significantly smaller than us? 1/3 of team under 6 ft. And a D that is 5ft7. Get your facts right.


All that's happening in hockey is that big no longer guarantees you a spot. Gone are the days when stiffs got drafted in the first round simply because they were 6ft3 220lbs. Now you need to be able to skate fast and think the game more so than ever. And larger, average and smaller sized D all have a chance. It's a myth that big D can't think or skate quickly. Just like it's a myth that smaller players aren't strong. Ray Bourque was 5ft10 and won the vast majority of puck battles. Core strength is what matters. Ask Crosby.


Big never guaranteed anybody a spot. It sometimes is the deciding factor when you have 2 D for example both equally skilled in all aspects, but one is 5'8" and the other is 6'4". When all else is equal, size wins. The 5'8" D would have to be considerably better to beat out the big guy.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:49 am

True
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 7:54 am

Big no longer means slow...
They may not be as fast as some forwards but where size comes into effect are corner battles and not being knocked off puck....

If kid is small and slow or big and slow....Which do u take.....Neither

But big players learn to skate faster...Small kids tend not to learn how to grow
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:19 am

Guest wrote:
Guest wrote:^^ hate to wreck your rant but, you know that the US team that 'cleaned our clock' was significantly smaller than us? 1/3 of team under 6 ft. And a D that is 5ft7. Get your facts right.


All that's happening in hockey is that big no longer guarantees you a spot. Gone are the days when stiffs got drafted in the first round simply because they were 6ft3 220lbs. Now you need to be able to skate fast and think the game more so than ever. And larger, average and smaller sized D all have a chance. It's a myth that big D can't think or skate quickly. Just like it's a myth that smaller players aren't strong. Ray Bourque was 5ft10 and won the vast majority of puck battles. Core strength is what matters. Ask Crosby.


Big never guaranteed anybody a spot. It sometimes is the deciding factor when you have 2 D for example both equally skilled in all aspects, but one is 5'8" and the other is 6'4". When all else is equal, size wins. The 5'8" D would have to be considerably better to beat out the big guy.


Agree that the smaller D has to be better to take the spot. Considerably better? I'm not sure. If the big D is a 6/10 and the smaller D is a 7/10 thats enough. Always take the best player available.

Also, I agree with previous poster, big did used to guarantee a spot. For those of us who played in MTHL we would've seen how many times great kids got cut just due to size. I played with tons of guys who were big like me and couldn't play at all. Drove me crazy. I never took my size for granted and busted my butt to get better and yet, ended up paired with guys who were big and horrible. Glad things have improved and skill is now more important.
2 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:32 am

We were fortunate enough to have our 13 year old skate with Ryan Ellis of Nashville last summer a few times to get some additional development from a pro player. The funny part is that my 13 year old kid was the same height as Ryan then and probably taller now. Great instruction and advice from the guy and it proves you don't need to be big to make it in the show
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:36 am

speed, skill and hockey iq

that is the only requirement to be an Elite Player

if you have 2 of the 3, you might be on your way to Elite status

having said this, Spring Hockey Elite Teams do not always have Elite Players
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:40 am

Calling pretty much any 2004 kid "Elite" is a bit presumptuous and arrogant.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:50 am

I don't understand the obsession with singling out a singular trait about a player to assess them. Coaches are notorious for this foolish level of assessment, but taking a player because he is big is just as foolish as taking a player just because he has a good slap shot. To have success you need a blend of skills. Lack of size can be overcome with an advanced skill set.

Denying that having size is an advantage is just as foolish. If both players have the exact skill set and one is bigger and stronger, the bigger stronger kid will be selected every time. There is a reason why there isn't 10 first round misses on small and skilled, but there are continuous misses on large and skilled. Teams reach for the large and skilled because they are the unicorns of the sport.

Plenty of parents can't wait for hitting because they think the physical aspect of the game will improve their child's game, but if you can't skate it is irrelevant. The game of hockey requires you to learn a whole skillset before you can even begin the game and plenty of parents ignore this. If you can't skate, your future in the game is limited and you spent 50k for 4-5 years to try to win minor league trophies, instead of spending it on power skating.

Add in the early puberty size advantage and the clueless don't understand that the size advantage will not last forever. Focus on building skills and forget about size because one is controllable, the other is not.
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:51 am

TM captain leaving is a big surprise.
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 10:59 am

Guest wrote:I don't understand the obsession with singling out a singular trait about a player to assess them. Coaches are notorious for this foolish level of assessment, but taking a player because he is big is just as foolish as taking a player just because he has a good slap shot. To have success you need a blend of skills. Lack of size can be overcome with an advanced skill set.

Denying that having size is an advantage is just as foolish. If both players have the exact skill set and one is bigger and stronger, the bigger stronger kid will be selected every time. There is a reason why there isn't 10 first round misses on small and skilled, but there are continuous misses on large and skilled. Teams reach for the large and skilled because they are the unicorns of the sport.

Plenty of parents can't wait for hitting because they think the physical aspect of the game will improve their child's game, but if you can't skate it is irrelevant. The game of hockey requires you to learn a whole skillset before you can even begin the game and plenty of parents ignore this. If you can't skate, your future in the game is limited and you spent 50k for 4-5 years to try to win minor league trophies, instead of spending it on power skating.

Add in the early puberty size advantage and the clueless don't understand that the size advantage will not last forever. Focus on building skills and forget about size because one is controllable, the other is not.

Lets hear who you think are players that will be in the elite category moving forward?
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 11:13 am

"Add in the early puberty size advantage and the clueless don't understand that the size advantage will not last forever. Focus on building skills and forget about size because one is controllable, the other is not."

Here come the smurf dads with their frustration and baseless comments about how their ankle biter could suddenly shoot up in size and that size doesn't matter.

My son is an 04 and already taller than most dads on our team. Do you really think that "the size advantage will not last forever", when he's already taller than you are??

Our team has a mix of smurfs, average and a few very tall kids. You need a combination. The smaller kids on our team get owned down low and on the boards, when the play gets physical (and this is before checking starts).

From the games I've watched at the AAA level for 03, 02, there IS indeed a role for highly skilled small players. But no team has more than a maximum of 3 of them of 15 skaters that are below average height for their age and max only one of them plays D. And there are 4-5 skaters that are easily 4-6" above normal, with the rest of the roster avg to slightly taller.

If you're kid is an 04 and is under 5' and less than 100-110 lbs now, do yourself a favor and either switch to F, or play at lower levels to avoid contact hockey. Some 03's are over 6' and 150+. Anyone who has played the game knows a small D is at risk of receiving lots of headshots, as avg kids shoulder lines up directly with their head.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:12 pm

size helps...certainly after speed, skill and iq

If you have speed, skill, iq and size....you have a unicorn.

As you are building a team, what might one's first criteria/characteristic be?
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:34 pm

Its what some people think is more important that matters here. You might have a big D who can skate and have a good shot but lack the great hands. Then you might have a kid who lacks the size but can skate and handle the puck. Question will this small kid get beat up in the corners or lose most battles in front of the net due to his size and be a liability to his team versus being a great addition to the PP if he can handle a puck. Coach may think its better to win battles in the corners and out front of the net! You can work on a big kids puck handling skills but you cant work on a kids size if he isn't going to grow!
0 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:39 pm

Pick the best players with the most desire and develop them. Winning should be secondary.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:47 pm

Also, save a few spots for kids who you can see have potential. Maybe they are lacking in certain areas but have a high ceiling.

I've seen coaches do this, but usually its a kid with size. Sometimes they should look beyond size and look for other things as well - IQ, skating, etc.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 1:31 pm

Forget all these hockey Gods and listen to what I'm saying, Any D regardless fast or slow? Needs the size hockey smarts and strength. A coach wasting his time on a gamble with a small D is not worth it in the stretch. Any coach building MBANTAM onwards knows the importance of big versus small and will try his outmost best to stay away from small players on D. Small speedy D have always been short lived and passed by the bigger kids. Only inexperienced coaches will bank on small D. You're already starting to see the effect of the bigger D in Pewee just imagine every year after that. Most small D will be playing AA eventually.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:29 pm

Guest wrote:Forget all these hockey Gods and listen to what I'm saying, Any D regardless fast or slow? Needs the size hockey smarts and strength. A coach wasting his time on a gamble with a small D is not worth it in the stretch. Any coach building MBANTAM onwards knows the importance of big versus small and will try his outmost best to stay away from small players on D. Small speedy D have always been short lived and passed by the bigger kids. Only inexperienced coaches will bank on small D. You're already starting to see the effect of the bigger D in Pewee just imagine every year after that. Most small D will be playing AA eventually.


Are you you dinosaur? Is the earth flat in your world? This is mentality that causes teams to lose..

Glad you were never the minor hockey coach for Phil Housley, Brian Rafalski, Brian Leetch, Sylvain Cote, Kimmo timmonnen, Ray Bourque etc...


What you fail to realize I that what the majority o teams a doing now isn't what the future will be. You want to look at outliers.

As a dad of a bigger 04, if a coach picked him primarily for his size, I'd run for the hills.
1 x

Guest

Re: 2004 Big Defense movement

Postby Guest » Wed Jan 11, 2017 3:39 pm

If your a right handed D than you would have an advantage not many in the loop.
0 x


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “2003 and Younger”



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 98 guests