Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

section 8 onlooker · Post by **section 8 onlooker** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:03 pm

<a href="http://www.minnesotahockey.org/coaches/ ...  Some good ideas there. Discuss.

slapshot 69 · Post by **slapshot 69** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:40 pm

I am not a coach and never will pretend to be. I agree with Mr Lucia's comments. I have always believed my son gets more from playing shinny hockey than a weeks worth of structered practices. I also believe that the kids no more of how to win or who should be on any team. Parents let thier egos and emotions get in the way. I also agree that skating is the key. They shouldnt touch a puck till they can skate forwards backwards cross overs etc. I don't agree with the olympic thing thou. More politics involved in that argument.

PAMESH · Post by **PAMESH** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 4:29 pm

Why is it that so many of the great hockey minds of Minnesota talk this talk but nobody listens? Jack Blatherwick has been preaching this stuff for decades. Still no changes are made. The brain trust of MN hockey is failing our elite players and allowing them to slip into mediocrity and they refuse to change it.

kpete · Post by **kpete** » Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:20 pm

I agree, this is nothing new. Parents have to put pressure on those making the decisions in their association. It really is a no brainer but people just don't like to work for change.(even if it is for the better) To watch the half ice games for the younger player, one can easily see the benefits for both the skilled and the unskilled. Association by association should start making some changes.

greybeard58 · Post by **greybeard58** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 7:36 am

I hope this will open a few minds. Keep moving this to the top.

troll21 · Post by **troll21** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 8:40 am

Some MNHOCKEY board members are afraid of Jack! <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif ALT=":lol"> Jack for New President of MNHOCKEY. As with all business, it starts at the top.

hockeyhelp30 · Post by **hockeyhelp30** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 9:08 am

Parents don't like this cause the don't get to see Billy and Mikey and Suzy out with there over priced sweaters on playing a team from another city so they can blame the refs when they lose. They like to see there kids in $100 warmup jackets. The biggest problem is that to many people beleive that skills are learned in games and not practices. No one teaches parents the differnce so they all think there kid is getting better having the puck on there stick for 45 seconds a game.

goldy313 · Post by **goldy313** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:07 pm

Great make kids do drills all the time, watch how many quit because the Play Station is a better way to spend an hour. The more skills we develop the worse hockey seems to get, basics like clearing your own zone are a foriegn concept because lord knows we have to stickhandle the puck not throw it out even if that means a turnover. Name one other sport where the majority of practice is not game focused? Do we need more games, no but spending hours circling cones is not a good thing either. Williard Ikola was on FSN the other night talking about why his Edina teams were so good; amazingly it had nothing to do with practice or skill development as a youngster. His kids were good because they played shinny hockey, even more sacreligous, often times they were on boots not skates!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Trying to pass, shoot, or stickhandle a bouncing tennis ball through 20 other kids takes amazing coordination, no one does this any more because we have to have so many "structured" practices that hockey becomes a job, not fun.

kpete · Post by **kpete** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:09 pm

You can't blame the parents, they don't know the difference. Most parents of new hockey players are not aware of the hierachy of learning these skills. It's up to those who have been trained and are most knowledgeable about the game that should be making the decisions for the kids (in both the best interest of the player and the future of the game)

hockeyhelp30 · Post by **hockeyhelp30** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:11 pm

you don't have to have cones out at practice. I think that 30-45 minutes of all practices should be spent competing (racing 2v3, 3v3 and so on). Kids get more out of it and become better players. Coaches have this idea that they have to continue to develop a system and go over it again and again. Kids don't care about systems. They want to pass, shoot and score. You can teach positioning to kids on a white board and show them on the ice in 5 minutes. I have a great stack of cones that I got at the begining of the year from the Assoc. The look really good on the self in my garage. I can't figure out what to do with them. Maybe if I re-tar my driveway I can use them. Any other ideas for cones?

quantummekanic · Post by **quantummekanic** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 1:25 pm

I think most associations do a pretty good job with the youngest kids and follow these guidelines pretty well. While I strongly agree with what Lucia says, I still believe that there is no magic method. Success of the player mostly falls on the player, regardless of age. I think the most important thing that we must do is to make sure that the kids continue to have FUN. If a kid enjoys hockey, then he'll realize a higher potential. If a young stud is not having fun, then he'll probably not reach full potential. If hockey is a positive experience for kids, then it is all OK (albeit a very expensive OK). Now Mr Lucia should find those two hours to get his Gophers to play better positioning - especially on the forecheck.

MR DANGLES 1 · Post by **MR DANGLES 1** » Fri Feb 24, 2006 6:35 pm

most of the kids are 6,7 and maybe some 8ts dont know but they just want to play

section 8 onlooker · Post by **section 8 onlooker** » Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:58 pm

Rumor in our association is that they are dumping the Lucia/Blatherwick approach and are going the "travelling mites" route. Seems the board thinks the only way the mites (including the mighty-mites) will get better is to hit the road and play more games. Yeah, take the show on the road. Play the so-called "better kids" the majority of the game time, then let the younger ones do the mop up time after the game is out of hand, as they'll get a lot better just by "being there". Can't wait to hear the "reasoning" behind this rumored move. <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

Sudden Death · Post by **Sudden Death** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:37 pm

This post is worth looking at again. Now that we have a post talking about the top 2000's. It makes you wounder?

hockeygod · Post by **hockeygod** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 1:16 pm

The fact remains that as parents we are allowed very little input into what is best for the hockey development of our children, if our area hockey association wants to go with a traveling mite program we have to live with that decision. If you don't put your kid in the program from the beginning, then he or she has virtually no chance of ever being in a traveling program because little johnny has been traveling for the last 4 years and they can't justify having him step down so your kid has a chance. It seems the more I follow youth hockey the more disallusioned I become, and wish that every team would just put a group of players on the ice and let them go at it. It's sad that something that should be so much fun for the kids has evolved into such a petty, politically motivated, backstabbing mess. It's sad when who the parents are counts more than who, or how good the kids are.

theref · Post by **theref** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:05 pm

Seems to me that Coach Lucia is one smart cookie.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:06 pm

Sudden Death wrote:This post is worth looking at again. Now that we have a post talking about the top 2000's. It makes you wounder?

yep just shaking my head

Sudden Death · Post by **Sudden Death** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 2:10 pm

Hockeygod, Are you all right? It's a concern yes, but it is not the end of the world. Take your meds or something.

Northland · Post by **Northland** » Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:03 pm

Times change...

As kids we played boot hockey after shool, went to practice or game, and played boot hockey in the alley under the street light until our parents made us come in.

Times change... most kids don't hang out at the rink any more. As parents we think we know what's best for our childs hockey development. This usually means padding the pockets of someone else.

Anyway, as was stated above, you need to follow your associations developmental plans if you want your child to play there. Otherwise get involved and take part in the decision making process.

I do have to say I'm glad my kids are in HS.

.

tomASS · Post by **tomASS** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 12:49 am

Northland wrote:
Otherwise get involved and take part in the decision making process.

I do have to say I'm glad my kids are in HS.
.

Amen to that!

justletemplay · Post by **justletemplay** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 1:57 pm

As a district board member, we've been trying for the past 3 years to get to the Lucia/Blatherwick.... approach to the younger age levels. Most of what I see are the parents forcing their local associations to do the opposite. I think I've seen/heard it all and then another season starts with too many kids at the wrong levels (b2 teams lossing all but one or two games in their league) they can't play C hockey! My gosh how could I face my co-workers monday morning.... . Mite practices run like a HS team...... Someone needs to find the balls to change this and I believe it needs to start at the top. MN Hockey needs to help the districts enforce standards to eliminate these problems. Districts need to do the same for their associations and the parents just need to shut up and live with it. When the parents see their kids graduate, they'll realize how foolish they acted (well most of them) and when they ask their kids what was the best experience they had playing, well you all know the answer to that.
If anyone has any ideas, please post them.

hiptzech · Post by **hiptzech** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 3:08 pm

justletemplay wrote:As a district board member, we've been trying for the past 3 years to get to the Lucia/Blatherwick.... approach to the younger age levels. Most of what I see are the parents forcing their local associations to do the opposite. I think I've seen/heard it all and then another season starts with too many kids at the wrong levels (b2 teams lossing all but one or two games in their league) they can't play C hockey! My gosh how could I face my co-workers monday morning.... . Mite practices run like a HS team...... Someone needs to find the balls to change this and I believe it needs to start at the top. MN Hockey needs to help the districts enforce standards to eliminate these problems. Districts need to do the same for their associations and the parents just need to shut up and live with it. When the parents see their kids graduate, they'll realize how foolish they acted (well most of them) and when they ask their kids what was the best experience they had playing, well you all know the answer to that.
If anyone has any ideas, please post them.

I believe one of the positions that is the must under-utilized by associations is the ACE Coordinator. Take a look at your board and commissioners. You will most likely see this role completely void. Check the minutes from your board meetings and look for any comments made around this role. Below are a couple of links for consideration.

http://www.usahockey.com/LinkedDocs/5/2 ... af9cc3.pdf
http://www.usahockey.com/Template_Usaho ... 2&id=19640

Good Luck to all.

stplhockey · Post by **stplhockey** » Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:29 pm

The only accurate statement in Lucia's U8 development is - We should not put the kids out there based on age it should be ability. I have two boys that play mite hockey - One is a second year A-mite and one is a second year C-mite. I think the cross ice games are great for develping the younger or less talented players, which is why all our c-mites play cross ice games. However it does the Better or Older players no good. All the arguments for cross ice hockey are for developing our weaker players, what about the better kids - why should they suffer. We share all our ice and in our practice do alot of small ice games in practice. So I understand the concept, but this year we were forced by our district to try the cross ice games for the A mites. So far the better kids dominate even more - it is easier to go cost to cost on a quarter sheet with only three or four players to get around. There is less puck movement, the kids complain more because they want to play on the full rink not to mention the head ache it creates for arenas. Every time someone talks about the benefits COST always seems to come up. I beleive the people heading this charge should be honest and tell people that is really the only benefit at the higher levels of mites. I really hope they don't force the higher levels of mites to go to cross ice games because they will just play into the hands of programs like Minnesota Made. Associations will lose there best players which will eventually ruin them. I can't believe they would even consider this at the squirt level. Like I said we were forced to try it and based on what I have heard from the kids and seen in the games all the arguments for it are not true.

murraychadwick · Post by **murraychadwick** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 12:17 am

In a perfect world we could throw a puck out for a bunch of young players with parents who only want the best experience for their child (or orphans)regardless of ability, let them play, and watch them develop into Hockey players. Most of us however live in the real world, and this is where Don and Jacks ideas fall off the map.
In order to play this game there are several skill sets we need to develop,that we unfortunately are not born with. Children naturally develop the ability to run, and jump wich can provide them with the basics for many other sports. Hockey however is the exception. Skating, passing, stickhandling and shooting are all motor skills that have to be learned. If we really want to develop hockey players, these are the skills we HAVE TO TEACH!
I'm all for the basics, but lets keep in mind kids want to play hockey and not go to skating lessons.
Therin lies the problem. How can we give younger kids the skills needed to play the game, while still playing the game? Seems to me we've had a pretty successful go at it for quite a few decades. Isn't our state leading the nation in participation, and elite players?

Dazed&Confused · Post by **Dazed&Confused** » Thu Nov 22, 2007 7:53 am

Skating should be the first priority. Age at these young levels should not be a factor. The ability to skate without thinking is key. these young kids need to get on the ice as much as possible open skating rink rat hockey whatever. Flood the back yard. If parents want little Jonnie to be a star he will need to get on the Ice as much as possible, But Little Jonnie will decide how well he does.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

Re: Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

Re: Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

more of the same

Re: Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

Jack

I blame all parents

Re: I blame all parents

Don't blame parents

Don't need cones

Lucia

Re: Lucia

Re: Don Lucia's U-8 development philosophy

Lucia