new 02/03 league

observer · Post by **observer** » Fri Feb 26, 2016 4:13 am

No way JSR. Players are born with natural athletic ability. Ultimately, top player have that natural athletic ability. I can look at Squirt parents and can tell you which players have a chance to develop and which likely don't. Very few to zero made players in my opinion.

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:09 am

observer wrote:No way JSR. Players are born with natural athletic ability. Ultimately, top player have that natural athletic ability. I can look at Squirt parents and can tell you which players have a chance to develop and which likely don't. Very few to zero made players in my opinion.

It's a very subjective topic and you are entitled to your opinion but I completely disagree. Again I am not saying genetics are part of the equation, I merely dispute how much of the equation they make up. You seem to think it's a huge portion, I disagree. You say you can look at squirt parents and can tell which ones will develop and which ones won't.... I dispute that. I know a kid who's dad is 5' 4" and the mom is 5' 1" and both are not exactly athletic specimens. When their kids was a squirt he was average size, a horrible skater and had hands of stone. I GUARANTEE you would have tabbed him in the "no chance" category.... the kid is now one of the top midgets in the country..... I'll also take my youngest son as an example, alot of people call him "a natural". They tag him as such because he's been very good from an extremely young age, very smart player above all else but he's also smooth with his skates and stick. To me the term "natural" is almost an insult though, as it claims that he was just "born that way", but that is BS, the kid had an older brother whom he idolized and still does, at 1.5 years old he was strapping on his olders brothers oversized rollerblades and teaching himself how to rollerblade and stick handle in our basement. My wife tells me (as I was always at work) that when the older two kids were at school my youngest would literally spend upwards of four consecutive hours or more in the basement stickhandling, rollerblading, shooting, making up pretend hockey games where he was Sydney Crosby playing against the Caps (his older brother favorite team). He started on ice skates at age three, nothing hardcore just pond hockey or this little once a week 10 times total over the winter learn to play program, stuff like that.... But because of his own stuff he was doing just for fun and enjoyment by the time he entered kindergarten I figure conservatively he probably already had about 5,000 hours of concerted practice under his belt. That isn't "natural", that isn't "born with it", that is practice and hard work, disguised as fun and play. The deal is this, genetics is part of the equation, and I already said you have to have atleast a modicum of certain genetic traits. For instance I agree that there probably is not any amount of hardwork and practice you can do to get to the NHL if you are literally 5'0'' tall and a 120 lbs. You can work til you are blue in the face but it just isn't going to happen. But I believe 100% there is a continuum of sorts where hard work and practice intersect with genetics. A kid who is 6"4', 220 lbs and genetically has the perfect physique and some genetically endowed gifts does not have to work or practice as hard to get the attention of top programs and teams, and will likely be given chance upon chance to succeed or fail. Whereas the guy who is 5'8" and 170lbs is going to have to work a lot harder, practice a lot more and show some extraordinary ability but he can still make it (see St Louis).... Or go outside the sport. Are you telling me that Steve Largent was blessed with great natural athletic ability? Don't even try and say yes, I will laugh you off the page. Whereas Randy Moss was blessed with unimaginable gifts athletically. But guess what, Steve Largent is right there with Randy Moss as one of the greatest WRs of all time in the NFL... the NFL where size and athleticism mean the most of any sport since (outside of QB) there really is very little honed "skill" involved. Largent got there through hard work, practice and being vey smart. Don't get me wrong, I think Moss probably worked pretty hard but I think Largent worked harder.... in otherwords "Hard work beats talent, if talent doesn't work hard"

JSR · Post by **JSR** » Fri Feb 26, 2016 5:11 am

yesiplayedhockey wrote:Maybe..Who knows. It's a great discussion

Repetition is very effective especially at a young age but I think to some degree it really only gives a lot of these kids a "head start" over the rest of the pack. At the end of the day if you are 5'7" and have perfect form going around those cones or 6'2" and shoot the puck hard but can't win a battle, that may not be enough to get you past a high school locker room.

When I talk to scouts, aside from being a great skater, many of the things they look for aren't necessary taught at some hockey school or from a private instructor or at another summer hockey league..It comes from within

I agree in general what you are saying JSR. I just worry that some parents focus to much on quantity and not enough on quality.

That's fair and I agree.... but Patrick Kane.... LOL

SCBlueLiner · Post by **SCBlueLiner** » Fri Feb 26, 2016 3:07 pm

Couple of thoughts. We're discussing nature versus nurture. I had this discussion with my Bantam age player the other night on the ride home after practice. A person could be born with the DNA to be the greatest player of all time, but if he is born in Cuba and never picks up a hockey stick it will do no good. Conversely, you could put a player in the perfect situation with all the best coaching, training, and ice time but if they don't have the ability they will only go so far, even if they want it badly and will do anything to achieve their goals. The conversation stemmed from my boy's frustration with some teammates who mess around in practice too much and don't appear as committed as him. I took it as a good sign that he's starting to feel that burn inside.

Section 8 guy · Post by **Section 8 guy** » Fri Feb 26, 2016 8:13 pm

the 10,000 hour psychosis is the worst thing ever to hit youth sports. 97% or more of hockey players have 0% chance of making it to the NHL no matter how hard they work. None. That many people believe otherwise is a huge problem.

I will use myself as an example. Decent high school athlete. Lettered in two sports at a large high school. Was pretty good at both. I was never going to play professionally in either of them. Ever. No matter how hard I worked. No matter how many hours I put in. Wasn't going to happen. No chance. If more parents realized this youth sports.....and kids......would be way better off.

thefatcat · Post by **thefatcat** » Sun Apr 03, 2016 2:22 pm

LPH has cancelled the '04 tryout on 4/17 as the league is full. The 02/03 tryout is still taking place 4/17 at Vadnais.

I suspect there is only a small number of seats to fill for the 02/03's.

old goalie85 · Post by **old goalie85** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:58 am

I can't believe many top 02's are going to be involved. Between HP/Tier1!/B elite/02 blades, most of the top 02's should be busy.

nobody · Post by **nobody** » Thu Apr 07, 2016 3:27 am

Not to mention out of state hockey, lacrosse, high level baseball, invite/elite hockey tournaments , going to the cabin, and competitive trap shooting.