Jump to content

U16 Vengance coming to Alpha?


Recommended Posts

It's also unfortunately in the way many coaches treat practices and then you see kids 12-14 over carrying the puck, head down, full steam ahead until they run into a kid twice their size with a full beard who really doesn't know how to check because he was never allowed until he went through puberty who knocks little johnny into a different world, but not in a good way. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is hard to coach IQ. 

There are lots of coaches who can run drills out of the Coaching Manual.  There are fewer coaches who can actually coach proper skills.  There are fewer that can coach IQ.

If you want to increase IQ, play other sports.  Basketball, soccer and lacrosse.

Even with great coaching, many kids will never develop IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, nemesis8679 said:

Too much emphasis on skills drills. Everyone can be Pavel Barber with an empty net and some practice. 

Once there's opposition, less space, and someone in your face everytime you touch the puck, then it's a different story. 

Knowing what to do in tight space and when you have pressure is still a skill.  You teach it using small area games.  If they are not doing small area games at your practices, then there is a problem.   Doing these types of drills will also help with IQ, or what I think Denis was referencing as the IQ that coaches want to see.  But, it is more than space and opposition.  It is awareness, pattern recognition, seeing the ice, knowing where the play is going.  That is much harder and many/most can't get there.

Edited by carroll81
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, carroll81 said:

It is hard to coach IQ. 

There are lots of coaches who can run drills out of the Coaching Manual.  There are fewer coaches who can actually coach proper skills.  There are fewer that can coach IQ.

If you want to increase IQ, play other sports.  Basketball, soccer and lacrosse.

Even with great coaching, many kids will never develop IQ.

I guess that's part of the question - if I can teach you IQ as a lacrosse or a basketball coach why can't a hockey coach?   Serious question too - I don't have the answer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, aaaahockey said:

I guess that's part of the question - if I can teach you IQ as a lacrosse or a basketball coach why can't a hockey coach?   Serious question too - I don't have the answer. 

Because hockey is a much harder sport. Just the speed that it moves at, it's hard to process information that quickly. Look at McDavid. He's fast, but there's probably at least a dozen players that are faster. Difference is, they can't process everything else at top speed like he does. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, fafa fohi said:

Anyone know how the Vengeance selects their coaches?  Do they rotate and coach different age groups every couple of years in the same way PPP does?

I believe they keep the same coach year after year.  Apparently you have to be an ex nhl player to coach squirt or peewee ?

  • Fist Bump 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, aaaahockey said:

I guess that's part of the question - if I can teach you IQ as a lacrosse or a basketball coach why can't a hockey coach?   Serious question too - I don't have the answer. 

That is a great question.  My thoughts on it are that the movement of lacrosse, basketball and even soccer are similar - move to space, setting picks, set plays, fast breaks, slow breaks, etc.  These are all concepts that are taught in those sports that directly contribute to on ice awareness.  You get to see those things in different spaces, with different numbers of players, taught by different coaches. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is nothing that teaches hockey IQ like small area games, even just something as simple as cross-ice 3 vs 3 hockey. When I was coaching, we'd run a variation of 3 v 3 cross-ice to end almost every practice. Small-area games are basically what is played on the ponds many winter weekends across Northern Canada and Minnesota, and that is where kids develop and hone their creativity and instincts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Loach said:

There is nothing that teaches hockey IQ like small area games, even just something as simple as cross-ice 3 vs 3 hockey. When I was coaching, we'd run a variation of 3 v 3 cross-ice to end almost every practice. Small-area games are basically what is played on the ponds many winter weekends across Northern Canada and Minnesota, and that is where kids develop and hone their creativity and instincts.

That's interesting. We don't have the ice to provide a lot of that free play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Saucey said:

That's interesting. We don't have the ice to provide a lot of that free play.

I'm not sure I understand this comment but maybe I'm missing something. You just use your half of the ice and set up two nets cross ice (mite style) and let the kids play a short 10 minute game at the end of practice. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, aaaahockey said:

I'm not sure I understand this comment but maybe I'm missing something. You just use your half of the ice and set up two nets cross ice (mite style) and let the kids play a short 10 minute game at the end of practice. 

Yeah, I have to agree with @aaaahockey. Virtually every team I know does something like this at the end of at least some of their practices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned the small area games as the best way to increase hockey IQ, and it's true that many teams follow the same model (and they should!) and employ these during practices.

An inference of my post above, which Saucey picked up on, is that kids in northern areas of the continent have the advantage of just so much more time to participate in these small area games on an unorganized level. Whereas kids in WPA/OH, etc may get 15 minutes of this every practice, there's kids up north that might spend hours a week playing these games on outdoor rinks. I grew up in Northern Ontario, lived on a river and myself and the neighborhood kids probably met on the shared rink we had at least 5 times a week, playing shinny hockey from when we got home from school until late at night. You can't replicate that here.

I guess when I hear people complain about the ADM model as to why the kids in this area don't develop hockey IQ, I don't really agree. I personally think the ADM is good and maximizes development with respect to the amount of icetime that is available. I think the bigger difference is that kids here don't have access to near unlimited free outdoor ice where they can try whatever moves they want, with little adult instruction, and figure out for themselves what works and what doesn't. Just my opinion as a Canadian now living in the US

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not the ADM model. Actually I was against it at first but it have come all the way around. I saw way too many full ice games played by 10U guys, Complete waste of time and energy. One kid would skate around the others and hopefully his/her teammates knew enough to get on sides. Kids are having fun and they have pucks on sticks. And nothing other than introducing them to the game and letting them have fun before the U12 level is going to improve their chances of a post HS career.

The biggest issue to me is kids at the youngest age are being taught by people who don't "know" the game. The USA modules are at best less than adequate. The principles of time and space and puck support is rarely mentioned and doesn't show how to teach those things.  Go to U14  and even U16 AA games and see how many times a team actually has any sustained offensive zone play.  Even man breaks are just one on one play. Cycling happens but the no idea what to do. And on and on. They get these bad habits and are never corrected because they are winning games. In hockey areas the first coaches of kids as well as their parents played at high levels and know the game as compared to our guys who are dads pulled out of the stands, watched 20 modules not understanding what they mean or are missing, and attend a coaching clinic or two. (Side note. Went for my level 4 and sat next to an assistant coach from the Chicago Steel U-16 team). One subject was practice planning, He whispered to me that he has 6 ex players playing D1 and and will have 2 or 3 more in a couple of years. He knows how to plan a practice or better have known to coach at his level). That's what USA Clinics waste time on.

Second is the game to practice ratio. Pros have a 3-1 game to practice ratio if you factor in game day skates. U14s - U12s are playing 40 - 50 games. Are you telling me they are on the ice 120 times for practices. Or don't U14s and below need as much practice as the pros? And the off ice stuff doesn't cut and is a joke. One HS team I know had 2 sessions a week over summer but didn't provide a plan for the other 4 days (one rest day). So what they were doing was a waste of time but it made the parents happy.

Which gets me to point 3. Parents really have no clue what they should be paying for. Too many BS artists or people who think they know. Organizations preach player development. Maybe if they really believe it they would guarantee a spot for two years unless the player/family has a discipline problem. If they are so good at development no need to bring in other players or have tryouts. Practice ratios. Real off ice training. Etc.

That's just a start.

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/12/2021 at 9:15 PM, sadday4hockey said:

Not at all. At 8U, the model is spot on but the model does not only involve 8U. The ADM itself spans the whole life of an amateur player from 4 or 5 year olds to 18 year olds. The flaws are in the over-emphasis of skills and lack of emphasis on mental training for game play at 10U-14U. You end up with a lot of 16 year olds who have no clue how to play in a team unit type of scenario.

USAH HAS addressed the mental side..... you are supposed to buy "IntelliGym" from them. I am only halfway joking on this...... Looks like it may be useful albeit IMHO too expensive.

Edited by GrumpyOldPucker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I coached off and on over the last 37 years, USAH L4 for about 25 years but never bothered to make the time to earn my L5 Masters. I know what you mean about the clinics being cookie cutter useless these days. Way back when, I seem to remember them being a lot less cookie cutter... more like a day long round table. Before 2000 every coach that I worked with had played, could skate, could demonstrate drills and techniques, and could explain game situations in a way the players understood. After 2000 I always had at least one coach (or more) that had never played and could not skate. Frankly I was concerned that they would hurt themself or a player. At the younger levels I always encouraged these coaches to participate in the skating and skills drills with the kids, Hell, if I was teaching power skating to the kids, why not teach them too.... most declined and at least one confided that he didn't want to embarrass himself in front of the kids. I even offered to teach them to skate privately ... no takers. FWIW I was running ADM style drills and modular station type practices in 80's and 90's...... I believe that the kids were easier to teach the skills and hockey sense 20+ years ago. The kids back then seemed to be more students of the game..... then again, I am getting old and grumpy and the older I get the better I was......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Denis Lemiuex said:

It's not the ADM model. Actually I was against it at first but it have come all the way around. I saw way too many full ice games played by 10U guys, Complete waste of time and energy. One kid would skate around the others and hopefully his/her teammates knew enough to get on sides. Kids are having fun and they have pucks on sticks. And nothing other than introducing them to the game and letting them have fun before the U12 level is going to improve their chances of a post HS career.

The biggest issue to me is kids at the youngest age are being taught by people who don't "know" the game. The USA modules are at best less than adequate. The principles of time and space and puck support is rarely mentioned and doesn't show how to teach those things.  Go to U14  and even U16 AA games and see how many times a team actually has any sustained offensive zone play.  Even man breaks are just one on one play. Cycling happens but the no idea what to do. And on and on. They get these bad habits and are never corrected because they are winning games. In hockey areas the first coaches of kids as well as their parents played at high levels and know the game as compared to our guys who are dads pulled out of the stands, watched 20 modules not understanding what they mean or are missing, and attend a coaching clinic or two. (Side note. Went for my level 4 and sat next to an assistant coach from the Chicago Steel U-16 team). One subject was practice planning, He whispered to me that he has 6 ex players playing D1 and and will have 2 or 3 more in a couple of years. He knows how to plan a practice or better have known to coach at his level). That's what USA Clinics waste time on.

Second is the game to practice ratio. Pros have a 3-1 game to practice ratio if you factor in game day skates. U14s - U12s are playing 40 - 50 games. Are you telling me they are on the ice 120 times for practices. Or don't U14s and below need as much practice as the pros? And the off ice stuff doesn't cut and is a joke. One HS team I know had 2 sessions a week over summer but didn't provide a plan for the other 4 days (one rest day). So what they were doing was a waste of time but it made the parents happy.

Which gets me to point 3. Parents really have no clue what they should be paying for. Too many BS artists or people who think they know. Organizations preach player development. Maybe if they really believe it they would guarantee a spot for two years unless the player/family has a discipline problem. If they are so good at development no need to bring in other players or have tryouts. Practice ratios. Real off ice training. Etc.

That's just a start.

 

Wow. This is a ton of wisdom in one post. I don't see much to disagree with here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Denis Lemiuex said:

The biggest issue to me is kids at the youngest age are being taught by people who don't "know" the game. The USA modules are at best less than adequate.

 

10 hours ago, Denis Lemiuex said:

In hockey areas the first coaches of kids as well as their parents played at high levels and know the game as compared to our guys who are dads pulled out of the stands, watched 20 modules not understanding what they mean or are missing, and attend a coaching clinic or two.

 

This is so incredibly true, and EXACTLY why a lot of people are moving towards the 'AAA" model at the squirt and peewee level. They don't want the parent coaches anymore. My oldest kids first year squirt coach couldn't even skate. A true "bender" in every sense of the word. He apparently played football growing up, but got his USA hockey coaching certs and was a decent guy they decided to make him the head coach. The drills at practices were atrocious. It was a terrible experience all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Denis Lemiuex said:

 


Which gets me to point 3. Parents really have no clue what they should be paying for. Too many BS artists or people who think they know. Organizations preach player development. Maybe if they really believe it they would guarantee a spot for two years unless the player/family has a discipline problem. If they are so good at development no need to bring in other players or have tryouts. 

 

 

This is a great point and I love the idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue to look at beyond the "parent coaches" is how the organization implements ADM.  There has to be some room for flexibility based on the skill level of the skaters.  While it is fine to have all the players refine and practice the basic skills, if a player has moved well beyond the basic and needs more complex skills and drills to be challenged, then that flexibility should be built in, instead of simply rolling out the USA Hockey drills for "Week 5 - 10U", or whatever age level is being worked with.  The other issue with ADM is how it builds the game awareness, it is great to have the players used to playing in tight spaces and being forced to make quick decisions, but if players are not being taught how to make themselves either options for the puck carrier or the correct way to defend the puck carrier then all you are going to see are 10 kids surrounding the puck and the players that do know what to do getting frustrated because the other players are not doing it the "right way".  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, forbin said:

 

 

This is so incredibly true, and EXACTLY why a lot of people are moving towards the 'AAA" model at the squirt and peewee level. They don't want the parent coaches anymore. My oldest kids first year squirt coach couldn't even skate. A true "bender" in every sense of the word. He apparently played football growing up, but got his USA hockey coaching certs and was a decent guy they decided to make him the head coach. The drills at practices were atrocious. It was a terrible experience all around.

The 'AAA' coaching is not superior as a rule. There are some good coaches. There are some good parent coaches. Playing at a high level does not necessarily mean you can coach kids. And if the kid isn't a natural athlete, that child comes out of their AAA experience playing at the same level before they went in. We see it all the time.

We are a small hockey market. We do not have multiple generations who have played. We don't have access to lots of free ice. We don't have all the best athletes in the area playing ice hockey because it is not the top sport around here. So we aren't going to develop like the big markets.

I've had that complaint about the hockey modules offered by USA hockey...that they really aren't that great for people who do not know the sport. That is our area. But if your coach plays somewhere and is paired with someone who does know what they are doing, you can develop some coaches.We need to think about things like that, because we are a small hockey market. Grow the game, and maybe you can start having more high level talent. I'm tired of the AAA sales pitch. That's not growing our game around here. Too many organizations are only focusing on that top team. The rest of the kids twist in the wind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of the points made here, definitely a lot of good ones.

I think the problem mentioned a few times was bad coaching by dad coaches. That's not just limited to hockey, by the way, other youth sports will take anyone they can because there are just so many teams to find coaches for. Hockey is probably a little worse, because a much higher percentage of kids who play hockey have parents who never played. And on the other hand, as the kids get older, the better coaches generally (not always, but generally) also are the dads of the better players. So more and more of the good dad coaches are concentrated on the same teams and it makes the scarcity problem a little worse.

Let's put it this way, how many of the current rinks were build in 1992 or later? Most of them, really. So coaches born before about 1985 would have grown up in an era with very limited ice available. And I agree that when you see some clown on the ice in jeans and possibly not even wearing skates running a terrible practice, you hope the kids are learning just from getting to be on the ice. However, it could very well be the case that the organization had no other choice for coaching that team.

I'm not sure there is anything you can do to solve the problem of bad coaches other than time. As more and more of those 1985 and later people get into coaching, I am sure the general pool of coaches will improve, but as others pointed out, the USA Hockey Coaching Education is really not very helpful for people who didn't grow up with the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...