Peewee question

Huckleberry · Post by **Huckleberry** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:02 am

I know this isn't about H.S. hockey but bear with me. How small of rosters have you seen at the peewee level? How small would you dare go? 10 skaters and a goalie? Thanks

wild77 · Post by **wild77** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:37 am

I have seen those numbers for a B team, but it may be a little light for an A team with a competitve schedule. Edited by: <A HREF=http://p074.ezboard.com/bmnhs.showUserP ... >wild77</A> at: 9/22/04 10:21 am

GR80 · Post by **GR80** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:37 am

If you are an "A" team and play a competitive schedule you should have at least 9 forwards and 4 or 5 defensemen. At the "A" level they play three 12 to 15 minute stop time periods. If you only have two lines I can't see how you could compete for 3 periods. It would also be ideal to have 2 goalies. If kids are playing 35 - 60 games a season your goalie will tire. Not to mention it is always nice to have 2 goalies so they have someone to talk to. It is also beneficial for a goalie to sit on the bench during a game and get a feel for what is said and what goes on during the course of a game. They can learn a lot by observing a game from the bench. 2 goalies also makes them push each other to improve.

All The Heat · Post by **All The Heat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 10:34 am

I agree that the higher numbers work well with a competitive schedule. However, if given the choice of having to carry a large team or splitting that team into two smaller ones, I would always go the route of two smaller ones. I know that injuries, missed practices, and family gatherings create a coaching nightmare, it is still a better option than standing around during practice and warming the pine at the game! Let the kids skate. Let them have fun.

JLS 81 · Post by **JLS 81** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 11:13 am

9 forwards, 4 or 5 defensemen and 2 goalies is by far the way to go for A level hockey. The kids do not ride the pine they actually play harder on each shift, do not tire thus forcing bad habits as an end result. It does no team any good to get to that type of fatigue level which diminishes performance. Watch summer tournaments as a result where teams will carry 6 forwards, 4 defense, 1 goalie. 15 to 16 kids on the ice at practice is highly manageable for any coach to handle. Anyway most practice is combined with a "B" level team in many an instance, with ice cost being what they are. GR80 hit it straight that is the ideal amount of kids for Pee Wee A, Bantam A and Squirt A level of play.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:10 pm

I dont agree that you need 14-15 players on a Peewee team. My oldest played on a District 8 Bantam A team that had 12 guys and also played a VFW scedule. 15 is a maximum not a minimum requirement at the youth level in my opinion. The games, except tournaments, are an ice hour long,no matter how they divide up the periods. If you only have 10 kids who are "A players" then go with that number. Again, I think we get locked into that 15 number and consider it necessary and I think most associatons use that number only as a maximum roster size. I have seen many successfu teams at the A level with less than 14 kids. Actually, in my opinion, the best number is 13 (9 F and 4 D). But you can get by with less. If you have 2 goalies who can play at the A level, great but that is an issue in the smaller programs.

wacc88 · Post by **wacc88** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 2:39 pm

By the way, the last boys youth team from Prior Lake to make a State Tournament was their 1998-1999 PeeWee A team, which included only 10 players!. It was coached by Mark Thelen, who received a lot of criticism for having only 10 players. But, had he taken 12 or 13 or 14 players, the team probably would not have made it to the State Tournament. And of course, the team included his son, A.J., who was taken in the first round of the NHL draft this year by the MN WILD.

All The Heat · Post by **All The Heat** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:35 pm

The ideal world, and the hockey world. Now what is wrong with that picture????? Actually packerboy is correct, go with the correct skill appropriate level, and base your number decision on that. If you do indeed have ten, then skate there. Don't force a skater of a lower level to make a big jump if he/she is not capable of contributing. Everyone learns when they skate toe to toe, not struggling to keep up. A smaller number is easier to motivate, and keep focused. They need to learn right from the beginning that they need EVERYONE on the team to be at EVERY practice and game.

puckswerestones · Post by **puckswerestones** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 5:46 pm

The wadena pee wee a team 5 years ago made it to the state and won a game there with 10 skaters and a goalie.They lost to centenial and white bear lake by one each.Our Bantam teams rarely have more then 13 skaters. No complaints on ice time i guess.

wild77 · Post by **wild77** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 7:45 pm

Did Peluso play for Wadena then?

upucker · Post by **upucker** » Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:38 pm

If your goals are short term (win as many games as possible) then go with the 10 and 1 goalie, but if your goals are long term (player development) you better try to take 15 skaters and 2 goalies. Coaching would be easy if every player was skilled in skating,stick handling and puck control. If you only take 10 how many will be around for bantams and High School? I would bet that a couple will quit or wont be eligible for high school hockey or move so take 15 your going to need the numbers and those 5 players will improve with the better competition and the increased ice time that the A teams get.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 9:37 am

upucker, If you are talking about Jefferson, Centennial, WBL, etc., I would agree that generally you should take 15. In those programs there probably isnt much of a drop off from #10 to #20. But in smaller programs just blindly putting 15 kids on an A team doesnt do anybody any good. Remember, the 11th ranked player on those 10 player squads isnt cut. He plays on a B team that will have good coaching and plenty of ice time and development for the future. If he is a first year player, he plays on the A team next year. The decision to go with "less" is often times motivated by the desire to win but regardless of motivation, it often times is the right thing to do for every one. I have seen parents and players all gushy because they made the A team and then have a bad year because they arent productive and are in over their heads. That is not conducive to development nor keeping kids around.

rams1981 · Post by **rams1981** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:12 am

In most cases up here the B coach is a dad of a B player who may not have much hockey background but steps forward so the team has a coach period. So the 11th thru 15th players are usually better served on the A team where quality coaches are emphasized and they have a better learning experience. As for roster size I like 3 lines and 5 D, the fifth D can be used as a motivator for both himself and the other four. If one is not performing or just gets nicked up there's somebody to take his place. I also like to shy away from setting defensive pairs but try to rotate all five and have them play the side the d coming off the ice left to give a more defensive UNIT mentality, instead of I only can play well on the strong side and only with little Jonny. I also disagree with the statement someone made of less is better when it comes to practice, if you are organized 14-15 players and 2 goalies are a very good number for practice. It isn't a bad deal to have a 3rd goalie, the top B goalie practice both if you have that luxury. The third line also plays an important role of keeping players fresh for a full three periods. Yes, there are times when you shorten a bench to go for the win if thats what the situation calls for but at this stage we are still trying to work on player development....<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/im ... smokin.gif ALT=":smokin">

puckswerestones · Post by **puckswerestones** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 12:04 pm

puluso was here then, they took a small team , thats all they had in the program, easy tryouts.

JLS 81 · Post by **JLS 81** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:16 pm

rams1981 totally agree with you and GR80 you need to develop 9 forwards. any program in the state is better served by developing as many kids as they can. 3 lines with 5 defense teaches kids a lot about team play and each and everyones purpose is defined with experience of the ups and downs of a season hopefully that translates in success to that team in the overall big picture. I guess it boils down to this question. Are coaches and various associations in it for the wins or are they concerned with developing players. I personally prefer the later of the two as I think it helps all kids. So that said you should field 3 lines, 5 defense, 2 goalies in any association as the coaching is generally superb. B hockey is great if you have the numbers as in the bigger programs the kids do well and some associations have very great coaching at that level. At squirt and pee wee level it is way to early to tell if any of these kids will be the best high school level kids. If you were to pick a Bantam A roster from 2 years/3 years ago and match that with this seasons high school team you would be very surprised. I will point out this season as proof on the Grand Rapids team which takes the ice this winter will have had many kids who played Bantam B hockey. This is good news for all you "young guns" out there trying to make that A team. If you make it great, if you do not make it do not worry just keep working hard, good things will happen. Enjoy the season.

packerboy · Post by **packerboy** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 2:43 pm

Gentlemen, putting kids at a level where they are overmatched does not develop them. I hear all of this " if they play up they will be challenged more" and "the kid will just have to step it up" stuff way too much. It sounds good but it doesnt work that way, not in my experience. I have seen programs play politics and numbers games to get 15 kids on an A team with bad results for players and parents who would have been much better off at the B level. Kids need to be pushed and to work hard to get better but they dont need to be put at a level where they dont have a chance to succeed and gain confidence. They dont do that to professionals, in any sport. They wait till they are ready(See the Twins for example) As far as the B team not having good coaching or enough ice time, thats a seperate issue that needs to be addressed. Its up to program to see to it that all teams have the best coaching possible and as much ice time is available for development. If programs are just developing the top 15 players in their age groups, they wont do very well.

All The Heat · Post by **All The Heat** » Thu Sep 23, 2004 3:31 pm

You do not develop players by putting them in situations where they cannot keep up, where they cannot see little victories or successes. In fact, it is just the opposite, a young skater will "dumb down" in order to establish an excuse or a reason for what is taking place. Unfortunately, the true A players does the same. We are actually doing a tremendous dis-service to those true A players, by strapping them down with someone that doesn't belong there. All in the name of development??? We don't force our talented and gifted students to slow down. Nor do we force someone to participate at that level, just to keep our numbers up there. Forget the number requirement; place the skater at a true skill appropriate level, and couple that with a motivated coach, and you will see true development.

Lfhockeyfan99 · Post by **Lfhockeyfan99** » Mon Nov 08, 2004 9:21 pm

Wadena has only 13 skaters at there bantamn level every year is because nobodys going out cause there assiotian is goin down the whole cause they suck every year

hockeydad · Post by **hockeydad** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 12:40 am

One year our board (New Prague) wanted to go with two teams of 17 and 18, but parents talked them into going three teams of 12, 12 and 11. The result: A team was district runner-up, B team was district and region champion and C team was also above .500. The kids learned the importance of commitment and being in shape and at every game. It also kept kids interested in hockey. Many of these kids are seniors this year, and we have 13 seniors out for the high school team.

upucker · Post by **upucker** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:23 am

Hockeydad sounds like New Prague made the correct move. Each association has to evaluate the player situation and the skill level of the players every year and make decisions. Its not easy and not everyone will like the out come. In the end if the kids are having fun, developing skills and they all come back to play the following year then you had a successful year.

puckswerestones · Post by **puckswerestones** » Tue Nov 09, 2004 6:34 am

lfhockey to up date you about the hole, in wadena we have 70 mites and mighty mites this year and 25 squirt aged. largest numbers ever. High school made state, peewees have made state. I understand you being use to not liking wadena hockey maybe losing so often to them, but if your name implies little falls fan your winning teams are on the horizon be patient. hockey is alive and growing in the volunteer program in wadena

bigcurve961 · Post by **bigcurve961** » Thu Nov 11, 2004 4:05 pm

Echoed sentiments--Put the kids where they belong, and have a chance at success. I also don't believe in having a "number" to meet unless you have unlimited access in your program. The kids play hockey to have fun. If there are too many players on the team, or players with too wide of ability gap to bridge, no one feels good about it. In most cases, the lower level players are not able to step it up enough to compete at the upper level classification. In the end, they feel like failures and the rest of the team doesn't look at the experience as something great.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Peewee question

Peewee question

quantity

Peewee NUmbers

PeeWee Numbers

GR80 has the Facts

pee wee numbers

Re: pee wee numbers

FACTS?

Re: FACTS?

wadena

Re: FACTS?

just the facts

not in total agreement

Re: not in total agreement

Re: not in total agreement

Re: not in total agreement

Forcing Development

WADENA

numbers

Re: numbers

Re: numbers

Re: numbers