Does a great skater not have potential

[Can_you_skate]

When my children started playing hockey I was a novice about what needed to be done to help them develop and eventually play high school hockey. So I read alot I talked to a lot of people (so called hockey guys) and the common thread was teach them to skate. Get them out on the pond skating. So I did, the result my kids can skate. Arguably the best pure skaters in their age group.

When I talk to evaluators about what they are looking for in a player the common thread seems to be potential. This seems to translate into size. The result is I see a lot of big guys who are terrible skaters. slow in transition from back to forward or can't get up to speed going backward or unable to move laterally going backward. Getting picked to play on special teams. Now answer this is there not as much potential in a well developed skill as there is in size? Am I wrong but if a kid is a great skater at 12 is he not going to be a great skater at 16 and continue to be a great skater at 22 and so on.

So does it not seems that the hockey guys are talking out of both sides of their mouths saying learn to skate and we will take you if your big.

[elliott70]

Take you where?

[elliott70]

Take you where?

This si one way to get alot of posts, right Lee.

[suntzu]

When my children started playing hockey I was a novice about what needed to be done to help them develop and eventually play high school hockey. So I read alot I talked to a lot of people (so called hockey guys) and the common thread was teach them to skate. Get them out on the pond skating. So I did, the result my kids can skate. Arguably the best pure skaters in their age group.

When I talk to evaluators about what they are looking for in a player the common thread seems to be potential. This seems to translate into size. The result is I see a lot of big guys who are terrible skaters. slow in transition from back to forward or can't get up to speed going backward or unable to move laterally going backward. Getting picked to play on special teams. Now answer this is there not as much potential in a well developed skill as there is in size? Am I wrong but if a kid is a great skater at 12 is he not going to be a great skater at 16 and continue to be a great skater at 22 and so on.

So does it not seems that the hockey guys are talking out of both sides of their mouths saying learn to skate and we will take you if your big.

How old are your kids? And what "evaluators" are you talking to? Local guys that help pick the local teams? College or junior coaches? Advanced 15, 16, 17 selection staff?

[watchdog]

skating and skill are taking over in this depatment. look at the junior league stats and last years nhl draft.

[The Exiled One]

Now answer this is there not as much potential in a well developed skill as there is in size?

You didn't provide enough information for anybody to answer this quesion for your kids specifically.

In general, skill is more important than size. IMHO, it's really a cumulation of all the hockey skills, even the intangibles like "vision" and "hockey sense". When it comes down to it, good is good... period. Stop trying to find excuses for why your kids are failing and start focusing on what they can actually do to improve their game (but only if the kids really want to). Finally, let me leave you with these words... Pat Kane, Paul Kariya, Brian Gionta, Daniel Briere, Steve Yzerman, Ziggy Palffy, Chris Drury, Martin St. Louis, shall I continue?

[Charliedog]

Can_you _skate,

There are many ways to respond to your question, but I think I will go this way:

Being a great skater will get you 2/3 of the way to your goal and it will certainly get you noticed. But at times getting noticed means that the coaches will take a "real hard" look at you and you had better have the other 1/3 of what they are looking for. Besides the obvious they want to see the right attitude, strong character, respect for others and coachability, etc. They are looking for the kid who wants to be the first one on the ice (not for brownie points, but just for those few extra minutes of ice time). I know a coach who said that the day before his final picks that he wanders into the locker room to observe the off ice dynamics. Says he can tell a lot about each just from being in there a few seconds.

The only thing being a good skater at 12 guarantees you is that you will be at least at the same skill level at 16.

I was watching a summer camp session one day and the coach asked the kids to skate as hard as they could. After they went around a couple times the coach started pulling kids out of the group and asked them to leave the ice and come back the next day with a better work ethic. His reason and I quote " I asked you guys to skate as hard as you COULD, you six only skated as hard as you HAD to"

Being a parent can be difficult especially when you see your kids get heart broken. All you can do is give him the encouragement and the tools to be his best. The rest is out of your control.

[sicknasty7722]

With the new "rules" to the game, hockey is moving in a new direction. You can't use your stick to hook a player all the way down the ice anymore to keep up, so skating is now the most important aspect of the game. You should check out the latest USA Hockey; Kevin Hartzell (coach of the Sioux Falls Stampede) wrote a great article on how if he were to start any type of camp now-a-days with the rule changes, he would start a skating camp.
Also, getting picked to play on select teams at squirts, peewees, and even bantams (take Tyler Barnes from Burnsville as an example) does not mean you will be great in high school and so on. It's a big transition between bantams and varsity high school hockey, a faster pace of play, you're up a foot at guys that have more hair on your face than you do on your head, and you're not playing 60 games a season, you play around 25, so you have to make every shift count.
Have you're kids work on their skating fundamentals, make sure they practice stick handling and shooting (good hands are critical between a good player and a bad), and most importantly make sure they're having fun. Know their limits, and don't push them too hard, as it might drive them away from the game.
Realize that they can only put out their best, and that may not make the standards for an "A" team. But then again, that doesn't really matter, after all, its about the LOVE for the game.

[kickinwing]

what would brian boitano do?

[larsey]

OK, you guys all have great perspectives about this question. The real answer is in the dad and the skater. Usually, dad and the kid are SO in-tune with eachother it's unmistakable how far the kid can go.

Dad, if he really wants it, support him in every way you possibly can. Who cares what the critiqes say

[Can_you_skate]

Take you where?

To the next level that the player asipres to.

I was talking to a guy who is part of the Elite league he tells me one of the reasons two players made the team is becasue they are 6"4. His exact words "They are 6'4" we need to give them a chance" When I saw them playing in the league I cringed I was like what the hell is that kid doing here he is such a bad skater? Turns out he struggled the whole season.

I talked to a scout from the USHL I say what is the excitement about this kid. He is not a good skater in transition. The scout tells me he is Tall and ranging and we look for what he will be like in a few years, potential.

So back my question. If a kid is a great skater and even though he is short doesn't that carry more potential then a player who is big and can't skate. Like I said if you can skate now you will be able to skate 10 years from now. You can't take that away from them. On the flip side if you can't skate now there is no gaurantee that you will be able to skate in a few years. Wouldn't it be easier to build up a short players strength then to teach a kid to skate. Blake Wheeler was a poor skater in High School poor skater now. But he is 6"4" His U career I would describe in a word is underachieved. I am not the only one who thinks this about Wheeler I have seen interviews with Gretzky where he has to defend his decision to take him so high in the draft. So something is wrong.

Who ever said my kids are failing you need to stop assuming. My kids are not failing they are accomplished players in their age groups. This is not just about my kids it happens to be about a lot of kids who can play but don't get rocketed to through the system based on size. My kids happen to be a good example. I know that HS is not the end all and that if they continue to work they can achieve. You are preaching to the choir.

You people do need to learn the value of a good debate. I posed this question to see what types of responses I would get. This is a polemic issue in hockey that can and should be debated. Especially since the rule change. Mike Ramsey ( yes the coach for the wild) told me last year that the worst thing that will happen to hockey is if Anaheim wins the Cup. His reason was the teams will start going back to the bigger players again and overlooking the smaller faster better skilled skaters. I think that would be ashame. If that is what we want at the top level why don't we start paying more attention to that at the lowerlevels?

Why do some of you make this personal? I tried to write my post as impersonal as possible I used my kids so you would understand that I am in touch with what is going on. I tried to leave levels out because I want it to be debated for all levels. I didn't want my post to get into the politics off a league or he is better then him debates. I was hoping for an intellligent debate. I was not trying to make it sound like I was complaining. I am quite happy with were my kids are at. I am just trying to understand the system a little better. Seems the more I try the more convoluted it becomes.

[O-townClown]

Seems pretty simple to me. If you are small you have to prove you can play, if you are big you have to prove you can't.

Don't overthink this.

There are lots of skilled small players, but few skilled big players. "Potential" is a euphemism for "he has a chance to become a big, skilled player".

A small player does not have a chance to become a big, skilled player. At best they can be a small, skilled player.

Is it fair that big players are given more chances? Life isn't fair.

There is a lot of precedent for small guys that moved up a level and became ineffective. It isn't like this mindset is baseless.

[suntzu]

Seems pretty simple to me. If you are small you have to prove you can play, if you are big you have to prove you can't.

Don't overthink this.

There are lots of skilled small players, but few skilled big players. "Potential" is a euphemism for "he has a chance to become a big, skilled player".

A small player does not have a chance to become a big, skilled player. At best they can be a small, skilled player.

Is it fair that big players are given more chances? Life isn't fair.

There is a lot of precedent for small guys that moved up a level and became ineffective. It isn't like this mindset is baseless.

Well stated, O-town. It isn't fair and bigger kids will always get an extra look while smaller players will be forced to prove themselves. With that said, there are quite a few "smaller" guys that are getting a look from the college guys. These guys are all 5'10" or smaller.

Aaron Ness-D Roseau 5'9 165 MINNESOTA

Joe Gleason-D Edina 5'10 170 NORTH DAKOTA

Jake Johnson-F Duluth Denfeld 5'7 160 2005 USA U-17 Team

Adam Mueller-F Roseville 5'9 155 MINNESOTA STATE

Joey Frazer-F Brainerd 5'7 155 NEBRASKA-OMAHA

John O'Neill-F Anoka 5'10 155 4-4-90 MINNESOTA DULUTH

Chris Student-D Benilde St.Margaret 5'9 160 NORTHEASTERN

Jake Hendrickson-F Burnsville 5'10 175 MINNESOTA-DULUTH
Bryce Ravndalen-F Warroad 5'8 170 ST. CLOUD STATE

[kickinwing]

when i was a kid i was cut from a baseball team in favor of this big goon who i had clearly out played in tryouts. i was plenty mad. my older brother made the team so i still went to the games. it didnt take long for that kid to find his stroke and find the fences. guess coach made the right choice.oh well, good luck shorty.

[Can_you_skate]

If you are small you have to prove you can play, if you are big you have to prove you can't.

I agree with this statement but is it the correct way to be looking at future players if you want to change the game? Telling big guys they can be less skilled because they are big is sending a message that we are still playing a goon style game. The rules of the game were changed to allow for more skill but we are not always rewarding players based on skill. My point is it seems the old time hockey guys are stuck in this paradigm. They like the skill that Boby Orr brought to the rink but they still feel they need to stop it with force instead of finese.

What do you think the game would look like if we told the bigger guys develop your skills and started evaluating based on what skills you already have not what you might have because of your size. Do you think we would have more Neidermeyers play defense and would we see more open ice hockey.

Now I don't know if your coach did make the right choice because I would like to know how many times did he strike out before he found the fences. Could he play defense? Was he able to pitch if needed. These are the things that win and lose baseball games not homeruns. They help but it is the little things that matter.

[kickinwing]

david ortiz wins ballgames

[dipsydoodle]

To get back to the original question regarding skating....If you are looking for a scholarship, the first thing that will get you noticed is your skating. However, if you do not possess rink sense and puck skills you will be crossed off the scholarship list pretty quickly. Learn to skate first, then learn how to use the puck, then you can learn the systems. Many, if not all, D1 coaches will tell you that if you cannot do something technically, you will not be able to do it tactically (sound familiar???)

[Hockeyguy_27]

To get back to the original question regarding skating....If you are looking for a scholarship, the first thing that will get you noticed is your skating. However, if you do not possess rink sense and puck skills you will be crossed off the scholarship list pretty quickly. Learn to skate first, then learn how to use the puck, then you can learn the systems. Many, if not all, D1 coaches will tell you that if you cannot do something technically, you will not be able to do it tactically (sound familiar???)

This is an interesting question and difficult to answer specifically. Here are my thoughts. As a high school player I was very fast and possessed good puck skills. Growing up in the US I was taught, perhaps over-taught how to skate. At each subsequent higher level I played, I was amazed how technically poor the skaters-mostly Canadians-were. They could play however and were very good with their hands and had a greater understanding of the game, and were ultimately better game players than I was as had longer careers. My feeling is you need to be able to skate to play hockey--obviously but it is equally important to compete and even more important to have instinct which I believe you get from playing more games where you have less time and space to react. Keep teaching your kids how to use their edges and to be quick and agile but don't neglect teaching them how the game is played.

No championship I have ever known of is decided by one's ability to skate around cones!

[O-townClown]

I agree with this statement but is it the correct way to be looking at future players if you want to change the game? Telling big guys they can be less skilled because they are big is sending a message that we are still playing a goon style game. The rules of the game were changed to allow for more skill but we are not always rewarding players based on skill. My point is it seems the old time hockey guys are stuck in this paradigm. They like the skill that Boby Orr brought to the rink but they still feel they need to stop it with force instead of finese.

Did you ever play hockey? The reason it is good to be big is that you can cover spots faster. A 5'9" player that needs to get to a spot will probably get there after a 6'3" player, IF that larger player is a rarity - really good and quick.

I'm not sure what you are arguing. You asked why a person scouting was interested in size and were given the answer. Considering that scouts still look for size, there really isn't anything you could say that will cause others to say, "y'know! He's right! Hockey scouting is misguided."

The good news is that several smaller players do get through the funnel, and that number may be increasing.

I was very small and weak and got to Bantam tryouts and couldn't believe how strong some kids were. They had a much easier time getting from Point A to Point B and could body me off the puck. When I was about 19 I went through a period where my speed increased dramatically. It was then that I realized what happened at age 14. It was just an age where others matured physically and I didn't.

Some kids grow early and never improve, others grow early and later get their skills to catch up with their body. Ceteris paribus, it is better to grow early than late or never at all.

[O-townClown]

When my children started playing hockey I was a novice about what needed to be done to help them develop and eventually play high school hockey. So I read alot I talked to a lot of people (so called hockey guys) and the common thread was teach them to skate. Get them out on the pond skating. So I did, the result my kids can skate. Arguably the best pure skaters in their age group.

When I talk to evaluators about what they are looking for in a player the common thread seems to be potential. This seems to translate into size.

Good advice, considering you can control how much emphasis you put on skating and can't control your size.

[Dazed&Confused]

First and foremost skating is extremley important.
A hockey player must be able to skate.
With this they need to control the puck. Stickhandling, shooting, and passing the puck while skating are essential skills. Performing the skills without thinking. I.E. Keeping there head up all the time and seeing the ice while skating and controling the puck.
( Hockey sense or Vision) In my opionion this can not be taught. Kids either pick up on it or they dont.
Lastly they need to be competitive. Agressive unwilling to loose at any time small battels in the corner or a game or just some silly drill.
In the end this is what Scouts look for. If a prospect has all these attributes size isnt even considered.
Let me add that all these things need to be done at high speed.

[PuckTime]

Can_you _skate,

There are many ways to respond to your question, but I think I will go this way:

Being a great skater will get you 2/3 of the way to your goal and it will certainly get you noticed. But at times getting noticed means that the coaches will take a "real hard" look at you and you had better have the other 1/3 of what they are looking for. Besides the obvious they want to see the right attitude, strong character, respect for others and coachability, etc. They are looking for the kid who wants to be the first one on the ice (not for brownie points, but just for those few extra minutes of ice time). I know a coach who said that the day before his final picks that he wanders into the locker room to observe the off ice dynamics. Says he can tell a lot about each just from being in there a few seconds.

The only thing being a good skater at 12 guarantees you is that you will be at least at the same skill level at 16.

I was watching a summer camp session one day and the coach asked the kids to skate as hard as they could. After they went around a couple times the coach started pulling kids out of the group and asked them to leave the ice and come back the next day with a better work ethic. His reason and I quote " I asked you guys to skate as hard as you COULD, you six only skated as hard as you HAD to"

Being a parent can be difficult especially when you see your kids get heart broken. All you can do is give him the encouragement and the tools to be his best. The rest is out of your control.

I think the same can be said about the kid with size. He may get noticed because he's big, but he better be able to back it up with some speed and skill.

[tomASS]

First and foremost skating is extremley important.
A hockey player must be able to skate.
With this they need to control the puck. Stickhandling, shooting, and passing the puck while skating are essential skills. Performing the skills without thinking. I.E. Keeping there head up all the time and seeing the ice while skating and controling the puck.
( Hockey sense or Vision) In my opionion this can not be taught. Kids either pick up on it or they dont.
Lastly they need to be competitive. Agressive unwilling to loose at any time small battels in the corner or a game or just some silly drill.
In the end this is what Scouts look for. If a prospect has all these attributes size isnt even considered.
Let me add that all these things need to be done at high speed.

Like the though process;
Bigger is not Better; Better is Better.
Take all the ingrediants you describe and you have the recipe for success. If you can add an extra dash of size to those other ingredients ......BAM.....it kicks the finish product up a notch.
Is it lunch time yet?

[Soulforged]

It seems to me that the author of this thread is looking to have people validate his son's abilities, and already knows all the answer's everyone is trying to provide. I'm sure he means well, but let's be realistic.