Easton CUP - Invite`

[muckandgrind]

2 best players on the Monopoly were renta players and they still lost to the Orange 10-0 in 2 games!!

Monopoly coach making fun of the Machine kids with his suit was a great move - nothing but class from the coach of the Monoply/Miracle/Lavurne combination!!

Renta player from Lavurne was fun to watch but ZERO points vs Machine??

Both games started with great intensity - neither was ever in doubt!!

I guess I couldn't resist chiming in on this one, as your facts are way off. I guess I won't hide behind a screen name. I am that coach for the Monopoly. I never at any point wore a suit to poke fun at any Machine players. They are kids. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason I wore a suit had nothing to do with The machine or that game. In fact I also coached a 99' team this weekend, and told the boys if they worked hard, I would gladly dust off the suit and wear it to the rink Sunday. It was a FUN way of motivating them,

As to the claim that 2 kids were "rental players" it's simply not true. One of the kids has been with the team for the last couple tournaments and will be next year. He attends practices and team functions like the other players. He also plays for another team.

The other kid lives out of town, and only plays for the Monopoly. He is doing development with us, and will continue to play with the team.

It intrigues me that it bothers you, as he was begged to play for the machine in this tournament and moving forward, as well as a # of other players from our team. Needless to say that won't happen. Also I was happy I was able to get all of our boys more than 30 seconds of ice time.

I was impressed with the young players on the machine! The goalie is clearly on a different level, and the kids played hard and with class.

As to the class of our program, we will be sure to try harder to gain your approval down at made!

Sounds like you're a stand up guy Monopolyman and I respect your post. I just want to correct you on one point - nobody begged the Luverne kid to play on the Machine this weekend - actually, quite the opposite. The parents from Lavurne (dad) initiated the contact with the MM program not the other way around. Maybe the parents told you something different but this is how it happened.

One other thing - IMO - you can't "play" for two teams in the same season without being a "rental player" for at least one of them.

Sure you can. I have a son who does just that.

[skilldevelopementguy]

and yes I do realize he's a 00'. Also was surprised to see a non blades team arguably out play the orange.

Hey ETS - not trying to jam your comment but you must not have seen the second period of that game (3 - 0 Machine). Monopoly may have had the overall edge in shots but 90% of them came from the board side of the face off dots. Not sure many HS players could score on the Machine goalie from there. Also, the Machine completely worked them with the puck control. They connected at least four times as many passes as the Monopoly and they know how to work the puck backwards which is something the Monopoly doesn't do at all. I'm guessing the red helmet kid accounted for nearly 90% of the shots and the Machine knew how to handle him by pushing his rushes to the outside and effectively so. Honestly I thought the Deuce and maybe even the Easton team gave them a better game on Saturday.

BTW - Championship Monopoly 0 - Machine 6 (with 2 more Machine goals that were called off). Not even close.

I am a little late to this as I haven't been around the board for a few days, but here are a couple of counterpoints to your rant. Some of them are facts to counter misrepresentations, others are just opinion differences. I saw both games and I admit bias toward the Monopoly (as my posts in the past reflect).

- The second period of the Friday night game between Monopoly and Machine was 1-0 Machine. The game went...

2 1 1
0 0 0

- Saying 90% of the shots came from the outside is a gross exaggeration. On the other hand, the Monopoly's strategy, as I have been told, was tips, screens, and rebounds to try to overcome the fact that the Machine's goalie is excellent. As a result, it made sense for them to throw the puck to the net from the outside a lot which would push the shot total from the outside up. That said, there were a bunch of times where the Monopoly players did get rebounds off of those shots and times where they worked the puck to the slot, so I would argue that maybe 65% (at the most) of the shots were from the outside.

- I would agree that the Machine outpassed the Monopoly (although I didn't see 4 to 1). They play a much more patient, more european style in the neutral zone and are more apt to set up a pass upon entering the offensive zone (the monopoly players will make a pass there, but don't yet look to set one up). The Monopoly is very linear and north american through neutral. Having a more european style is a luxury that this first year Monopoly team didn't have as they simply didn't have the ice hours to refine that stuff. This is especially true because the majority of their ice-time was focused on individual skill development. Against lesser teams however, they did regroup and work the puck backward (to use your words) fairly regularly. Against the Machine they did less of that and this is a result of simply not having the reps in place to do it against a very strong team.

- Again, I find one of your claims to be a serious exaggeration. The "red helmet kid" may have had 40% and possibly even 50% (not 90%) of the shots for the Monopoly, of course the two pipes he hit don't count as shots. In my opinion, the point of this claim on your part is simply to discredit the Monopoly team and paint it as a one man show. I find that absurd at the higher levels of an age-group. I think we have all seen the phenomenal player disappear in a game where the rest of his team is outclassed and be an absolute freak when the rest of his team is at a level that is reasonably competitive with the level of the other team.

- Plenty of other observers disagree with your comment that the Deuce and the Synergy may have given the Machine a better game. Speaking to this, the Monopoly is undefeated in something like 5 or 6 games (not sure if the Monopoly had one or two scrimmages against Synergy - and assuming you count scrimmages) against those two teams this year, including 7 0 at the Independent and 6 3 this weekend over the Deuce.

- With regard to the Championship game, it went like this...

1 2 3
0 0 0

With the two goals that were called off...

1 2 5
0 0 0

So it was close for about half the game. It was 3 0 after two and again, without the Machine goalie being as studly as he is, 3 1 or 3 2 is reasonable. The Machine did have a decided edge in the 2nd though and owned the 3rd. On the other hand, I do not think the Machine had a shot in the first 8 to 10 minutes of the game. The Monopoly came out flying and I would guess the Machine came out flat and then woke up. At the end of the game, the Machine may have benefited from sleeping in that morning and having the Championship be their only game that day, while it was the Monopoly's second game of the day and they definitely got worse as the game went on.

Have I over-analyzed the 2000 level enough yet?

[Doglover]

Yup

[H-E-doublehockeysticks]

and yes I do realize he's a 00'. Also was surprised to see a non blades team arguably out play the orange.

Hey ETS - not trying to jam your comment but you must not have seen the second period of that game (3 - 0 Machine). Monopoly may have had the overall edge in shots but 90% of them came from the board side of the face off dots. Not sure many HS players could score on the Machine goalie from there. Also, the Machine completely worked them with the puck control. They connected at least four times as many passes as the Monopoly and they know how to work the puck backwards which is something the Monopoly doesn't do at all. I'm guessing the red helmet kid accounted for nearly 90% of the shots and the Machine knew how to handle him by pushing his rushes to the outside and effectively so. Honestly I thought the Deuce and maybe even the Easton team gave them a better game on Saturday.

BTW - Championship Monopoly 0 - Machine 6 (with 2 more Machine goals that were called off). Not even close.

I am a little late to this as I haven't been around the board for a few days, but here are a couple of counterpoints to your rant. Some of them are facts to counter misrepresentations, others are just opinion differences. I saw both games and I admit bias toward the Monopoly (as my posts in the past reflect).

- The second period of the Friday night game between Monopoly and Machine was 1-0 Machine. The game went...

2 1 1
0 0 0

- Saying 90% of the shots came from the outside is a gross exaggeration. On the other hand, the Monopoly's strategy, as I have been told, was tips, screens, and rebounds to try to overcome the fact that the Machine's goalie is excellent. As a result, it made sense for them to throw the puck to the net from the outside a lot which would push the shot total from the outside up. That said, there were a bunch of times where the Monopoly players did get rebounds off of those shots and times where they worked the puck to the slot, so I would argue that maybe 65% (at the most) of the shots were from the outside.

- I would agree that the Machine outpassed the Monopoly (although I didn't see 4 to 1). They play a much more patient, more european style in the neutral zone and are more apt to set up a pass upon entering the offensive zone (the monopoly players will make a pass there, but don't yet look to set one up). The Monopoly is very linear and north american through neutral. Having a more european style is a luxury that this first year Monopoly team didn't have as they simply didn't have the ice hours to refine that stuff. This is especially true because the majority of their ice-time was focused on individual skill development. Against lesser teams however, they did regroup and work the puck backward (to use your words) fairly regularly. Against the Machine they did less of that and this is a result of simply not having the reps in place to do it against a very strong team.

- Again, I find one of your claims to be a serious exaggeration. The "red helmet kid" may have had 40% and possibly even 50% (not 90%) of the shots for the Monopoly, of course the two pipes he hit don't count as shots. In my opinion, the point of this claim on your part is simply to discredit the Monopoly team and paint it as a one man show. I find that absurd at the higher levels of an age-group. I think we have all seen the phenomenal player disappear in a game where the rest of his team is outclassed and be an absolute freak when the rest of his team is at a level that is reasonably competitive with the level of the other team.

- Plenty of other observers disagree with your comment that the Deuce and the Synergy may have given the Machine a better game. Speaking to this, the Monopoly is undefeated in something like 5 or 6 games (not sure if the Monopoly had one or two scrimmages against Synergy - and assuming you count scrimmages) against those two teams this year, including 7 0 at the Independent and 6 3 this weekend over the Deuce.

- With regard to the Championship game, it went like this...

1 2 3
0 0 0

With the two goals that were called off...

1 2 5
0 0 0

So it was close for about half the game. It was 3 0 after two and again, without the Machine goalie being as studly as he is, 3 1 or 3 2 is reasonable. The Machine did have a decided edge in the 2nd though and owned the 3rd. On the other hand, I do not think the Machine had a shot in the first 8 to 10 minutes of the game. The Monopoly came out flying and I would guess the Machine came out flat and then woke up. At the end of the game, the Machine may have benefited from sleeping in that morning and having the Championship be their only game that day, while it was the Monopoly's second game of the day and they definitely got worse as the game went on.

Have I over-analyzed the 2000 level enough yet?

Don't worry about the over-analyzing - that's what this forum is for!

Couple counterpoints -

Okay, so I may have over estimated the contribution from the Luverne kid. Fact still remains though that even if he was only 50% of the team's shots, puck time, etc. . . it still equaled zero (in two games). Actually half of zero (is that even possible?)!

As far as the passing goes - I still contend that is was at LEAST 4 - 1 on connected passes - no overestimation there.

As far as the observers that thought the Monopoly gave us a better game than the Deuce or Easton - they aren't parents of the Machine players - both of those games were closer on the scoreboard and and Duece passes it around better than the Monopoly (speaking to the games the Machine played against them).

Lastly, you can analyze all you want but there is a reason they keep score. The scoreboard doesn't know how many shots were taken, passes connected, who has the better goalie, who has a kid in a red helmet, who had to play a game in the morning, etc. . . If somebody that wasn't at the games saw the results they would say it wasn't even close.

And they would be correct.

[EnjoyTheShow]

[/quote]

As far as the observers that thought the Monopoly gave us a better game than the Deuce or Easton - they aren't parents of the Machine players - both of those games were closer on the scoreboard and and Duece passes it around better than the Monopoly (speaking to the games the Machine played against them).

Lastly, you can analyze all you want but there is a reason they keep score. The scoreboard doesn't know how many shots were taken, passes connected, who has the better goalie, who has a kid in a red helmet, who had to play a game in the morning, etc. . . If somebody that wasn't at the games saw the results they would say it wasn't even close.

And they would be correct.[/quote]


Not sure about that! the machine parents I sat with said the Monopoly team was the toughest they faced in MN.

As far as your final point, you seem clueless. All of the variables that didn't show up on the scoreboard is precisely why the scoreboard doesn't always mirror the game. I saw parts of the final, and there was no question towards the end the Machine took over the game. I also saw the entire second game and there is no question the Monopoly were the better team. Whether it being a 2nd game of the day or not seems like an excuse at that age. not sure conditioning is much of an issue for 8 and 9 year olds. I guess I'm just surprised by your complete lack of objectivity. I'm sure having a kid on the ice makes it harder.

[EnjoyTheShow]

Beyond all the Machine vs. Monopoly banter, did anyone see any of the 99 games at Plymouth? The final between the Deuce and Machine was a very good game. The team from wisconsin, that took third, was impressive. There was an 01 on that team that more than held his own. Also was there to see the Easton Synergy coach throw sticks over the boards after they went down 4 to 1 to the deuce. I hadn't seen that one before!

It was fun to see a good bunch of kids have a fun weekend playing a great game.

[H-E-doublehockeysticks]

As far as the observers that thought the Monopoly gave us a better game than the Deuce or Easton - they aren't parents of the Machine players - both of those games were closer on the scoreboard and and Duece passes it around better than the Monopoly (speaking to the games the Machine played against them).

Lastly, you can analyze all you want but there is a reason they keep score. The scoreboard doesn't know how many shots were taken, passes connected, who has the better goalie, who has a kid in a red helmet, who had to play a game in the morning, etc. . . If somebody that wasn't at the games saw the results they would say it wasn't even close.

And they would be correct.[/quote]


Not sure about that! the machine parents I sat with said the Monopoly team was the toughest they faced in MN.

As far as your final point, you seem clueless. All of the variables that didn't show up on the scoreboard is precisely why the scoreboard doesn't always mirror the game. I saw parts of the final, and there was no question towards the end the Machine took over the game. I also saw the entire second game and there is no question the Monopoly were the better team. Whether it being a 2nd game of the day or not seems like an excuse at that age. not sure conditioning is much of an issue for 8 and 9 year olds. I guess I'm just surprised by your complete lack of objectivity. I'm sure having a kid on the ice makes it harder.[/quote]


I'm clueless? Since when does a 4 - 0 and 6 - 0 loss equate into being the better team? I'm not saying and have never said the Monopoly is without merit - far from it - I think they are a solid squad. I just thought that the Deuce passed it around better on us and that the Easton team was flying around and had four guys on the puck and messed us up more. No lack of objectivity here, as a matter of fact I'm pretty pointed in the evaluation of the team my son plays for probably more than most but when someone comes bashing his team yeah, I'm here to defend them. It's okay to be an orange hater but drop the crazy talk.

I've got an idea. . .instead of keeping score from now on let's let impartial observers (like you) decide at the end of the game who wins. That way we don't have to worry about keeping track of how many times the puck crosses the goal line!

Problem solved

PS. It still wasn't close.

[EnjoyTheShow]

As far as the observers that thought the Monopoly gave us a better game than the Deuce or Easton - they aren't parents of the Machine players - both of those games were closer on the scoreboard and and Duece passes it around better than the Monopoly (speaking to the games the Machine played against them).

Lastly, you can analyze all you want but there is a reason they keep score. The scoreboard doesn't know how many shots were taken, passes connected, who has the better goalie, who has a kid in a red helmet, who had to play a game in the morning, etc. . . If somebody that wasn't at the games saw the results they would say it wasn't even close.

And they would be correct.

Not sure about that! the machine parents I sat with said the Monopoly team was the toughest they faced in MN.

As far as your final point, you seem clueless. All of the variables that didn't show up on the scoreboard is precisely why the scoreboard doesn't always mirror the game. I saw parts of the final, and there was no question towards the end the Machine took over the game. I also saw the entire second game and there is no question the Monopoly were the better team. Whether it being a 2nd game of the day or not seems like an excuse at that age. not sure conditioning is much of an issue for 8 and 9 year olds. I guess I'm just surprised by your complete lack of objectivity. I'm sure having a kid on the ice makes it harder.[/quote]


I'm clueless? Since when does a 4 - 0 and 6 - 0 loss equate into being the better team? I'm not saying and have never said the Monopoly is without merit - far from it - I think they are a solid squad. I just thought that the Deuce passed it around better on us and that the Easton team was flying around and had four guys on the puck and messed us up more. No lack of objectivity here, as a matter of fact I'm pretty pointed in the evaluation of the team my son plays for probably more than most but when someone comes bashing his team yeah, I'm here to defend them. It's okay to be an orange hater but drop the crazy talk.

I've got an idea. . .instead of keeping score from now on let's let impartial observers (like you) decide at the end of the game who wins. That way we don't have to worry about keeping track of how many times the puck crosses the goal line!

Problem solved

PS. It still wasn't close.[/quote]

WOW! Let me know where you see me, or anyone on this thread, "bashing the orange." Matters of fact, I believe my first post was pointing out how good your goalie was, and how good of a game the Friday game was. You seem a bit sensitive.

As far as the scoreboard idea, I haven't said the score doesn't generally tell the story. It is true though, that sometimes, the scoreboard, box score, etc. doesn't give an accurate summary of the game. As is, the score reflects what happened on the ice 95% of the time.

In looking at the scores, It seems Monopoly beat Easton and the Deuce. I watched Easton play the machine, and would agree they were all over the "orange." They may have even gave them more of a game. Does that mean the monopoly is better than easton just because the scoreboard said so. I don't know what team is better, as this was the first time I really had the opurtunity to watch kids at this age level. I just think you need to relax and enjoy the show.




Congrats to your boys team! I hope he had a fun weekend. I enjoyed watching his team play. It will be fun to see where all of these kids are in 5 or 6 years. I bet if you asked your son if the game was close, he would have a different story.

One question. As you are on the "inside" and are familiar with the make up of the team. Is it typical for 5 or 6 skaters to not see the ice in a game that isn't close?

[hockeydad11]

How stupid does the Monopoly coach feel? He wears a suite and a tie to make fun of the Machine players and is over heard in the lobby talking about telling his parents that is the reason for the suite and tie. Then after getting beat a second time, he has to walk out and shake hands after the game. The Machine parents were just laughing at this clown.

Some body get this guy a red nose, big red shoes and some make up.

[skilldevelopementguy]

I also saw the entire second game and there is no question the Monopoly were the better team.

Ummm, I am guessing that you mistyped here or something, because even given my bias toward the Monopoly there is no question that the Machine were better in 2nd game.

HD11,

You should get your facts straight before you attack someone.

[skilldevelopementguy]

Don't worry about the over-analyzing - that's what this forum is for!

Couple counterpoints -

Okay, so I may have over estimated the contribution from the Luverne kid. Fact still remains though that even if he was only 50% of the team's shots, puck time, etc. . . it still equaled zero (in two games). Actually half of zero (is that even possible?)!

As far as the passing goes - I still contend that is was at LEAST 4 - 1 on connected passes - no overestimation there.

As far as the observers that thought the Monopoly gave us a better game than the Deuce or Easton - they aren't parents of the Machine players - both of those games were closer on the scoreboard and and Duece passes it around better than the Monopoly (speaking to the games the Machine played against them).

Lastly, you can analyze all you want but there is a reason they keep score. The scoreboard doesn't know how many shots were taken, passes connected, who has the better goalie, who has a kid in a red helmet, who had to play a game in the morning, etc. . . If somebody that wasn't at the games saw the results they would say it wasn't even close.

And they would be correct.

To continue this all-important debate...

Only 50%? I still feel it was at most 50%. But, yes the Monopoly failed to score. That said, this whole discussion was sparked by the comment that the Machine goalie played unbelievably, which he did.

I think the impression that it was 4 to 1 (on passing) comes from the fact that the part of the two games that is best remembered is the 3rd period of the 2nd game... and I would agree with that figure for that period and maybe even the end of the 2nd.

I do agree the Deuce pass it around better than the Monopoly... again I think this is a result of the in-practice reps specific to offensive zone attack plays and neutral zone regroups that the Deuce had over the Monopoly this year. Yet the Monopoly outplayed and outscored the Deuce handily in both games this year.

Ultimately when all is said and done, you are right, the scoreboard tells the lasting story. But, the point of the post that started this was that for many who were at the first game, a major part of the story was the fantastic play of the Machine goalie in his shutouts.

As a whole though, there is today a gap between these two teams... especially because in hockey, the Goaltender is part of the team.

[Monopolyman]

How stupid does the Monopoly coach feel? He wears a suite and a tie to make fun of the Machine players and is over heard in the lobby talking about telling his parents that is the reason for the suite and tie. Then after getting beat a second time, he has to walk out and shake hands after the game. The Machine parents were just laughing at this clown.

Some body get this guy a red nose, big red shoes and some make up.

Maybe You missed this post


I guess I couldn't resist chiming in on this one, as your facts are way off. I guess I won't hide behind a screen name. I am that coach for the Monopoly. I never at any point wore a suit to poke fun at any Machine players. They are kids. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason I wore a suit had nothing to do with The machine or that game. In fact I also coached a 99' team this weekend, and told the boys if they worked hard, I would gladly dust off the suit and wear it to the rink Sunday. It was a FUN way of motivating them



I am sorry but you are way off base! As stated earlier, I wore a suit because I told my players I would. I did the very same thing in the international cup. The boys had a chuckle, as one said I looked like a bum the day before. My response was, If you guys work hard and have fun, I will wear a suit. I never thought my choice of wardrobe would cause such a stir. In fact one of the players on the 99 team wore a suit as well. As far as walking out and shaking hands after the game. I didn't feel the least bit stupid. I was proud of how my team played, and appreciated the hard work and class of the players on the team that beat us. I guess I'm happy that I could give some parents a good laugh, at my expense, if that's the case.

As far as the other topic you started. I have not said in any post that we were the better team. As a matter of fact you wouldn't find me on this forum talking about who the better team was. The machine team won 2 games. They took home the ship and They should be proud.

I highly doubt you will never see me on here talking about our teams on ice performance or other teams. the results of games speak for themselves and more importantly the improvement the players see over the next years will be the ultimate truth.

[EnjoyTheShow]

I also saw the entire second game and there is no question the Monopoly were the better team.

Ummm, I am guessing that you mistyped here or something, because even given my bias toward the Monopoly there is no question that the Machine were better in 2nd game.

HD11,

You should get your facts straight before you attack someone.

Correct SDG, I did mean the Friday game. Sorry for the confusion.

[Sk8 Str8]

The level of noise and the nastiness that comes from the 99 and 00 Parents on this Board is astounding.

We are talking about 9 and 10 year old kids...in some cases we are treated to hear about every shift, shot and pass of entire games...GET A GRIP!

Monopoly backers/parents/coaches/cheerleaders, we are sure you run a quality program with a focus on development...SO stop begging for respect by critiquing every minute of every game. Also, we dont care if your coach wears a clip-on to a game.

Machine Parents/MN Made backers, be proud of your kids commitment to development by skating year round. The program has proven to be excellent for development. But make sure you track down a 96 Machine/96 Deuce Parent before they leave the building to ask what it is like to be in the program for 5 years...and why the teams are calling it quits before thier AAA careers are over...and maybe ask if they would rather have those 5 summers back to have FUN.

[demongoed]

I am so thankful that my son is high school aged, and we were able to skip the era of being inundated with "Choices" and constantly agonizing over whether or not he's on the right team or in the right program. Sk8 is right. If your child plays hockey long enough, you'll realize that there are many, many, many kids who are great, and I mean great high school players who never drilled and drilled and drilled on edgework; or missed swimming at the local beach on a warm summer day to handle the puck for a total of 3 minutes in a weekend; or had to comtemplate at age 9 whether to play with their buddies or cross the border to play with strangers. Life is too short, and hockey too fun, to spend time like the posters above. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that perhaps perspective has been lost here.

[InigoMontoya]

Feel free to identify these often talked about, but never identified “great high school players who never drilled and drilled and drilled on edgework”.

In addition, does every single thread have to have someone accusing a parent of abusing his child by stripping him of his childhood, by not letting him go to the beach? Let’s assume that a kid is up by 8:00 and goes to bed by 9:00 – he is awake for 13 hours.

13 hours/day X 7 days/week X 13 weeks/summer = 1,183 hours.

If a kid is in a program that gives him 95 hours of ice, he still has 92% of his summer available to him to be a kid. On average he has about 12 hours a day to escape his abuse doing activities that include, but are not limited to playing baseball, fishing, not cleaning his room, hanging out in the neighborhood, going swimming, eating ice cream, texting girls, not mowing my lawn, riding his bike, and, by this time in August, complaining that there’s nothing to do.

[SECoach]

IM.....you consistently challenge the thought of time off and ask for examples of elite and successful players that didn't train 12 months per year. You are probably right that D1 and higher players trained for a large portion of the year. I have no disagreement that the time comes when a player has to decide if he/she is going to go for it or not. I think where we (and the ADM) differ is that this should not be done at 7,8,9,10 years old.

First off, all science would say that kids this age are not mentally able to make good decisions. When dad even asks let alone encourages a child to commit to these schedules they are certainly apt to do as dad wants. I mean who wants to be a loser that doesn't train year round. They will obviously be passed up and play C for the rest of their time. The adults need to make good decisions for their kids at that age.

With that said I will say again that at older ages it is certainly appropriate to commit to a sport as their primary to continue their development. That does not mean they should not play others, in fact just the opposite. Playing other sports will help them develop in their primary sport.

Lastly, even when a child is old enough to make their own decision to commit, it has been proven that they still need time off. Whether that is 3 months solid or only skating once per week for a period of time, either way they need time off. The most skilled players in the world go no where if their heart isnt in it. I love my career but 7 days a week is still too much. Balance is the key and i believe many have lost their perspective on balance.

I've coached for 22 years. I may not know much but I do know that the number of players that seem to be comatose and play without passion has increased. Virtually everytime I have one of these players they are the ones the are involved in every single high level development that dad can find. High skill level, low passion level. There are kids that this doesn't apply to. The problem is too many parents think they have that kid. Most of the time they are wrong.

[InigoMontoya]

I don't constantly challange the thought of time off. I do sometimes challenge those who allude to examples to prove a point, but cannot produce those examples. It just so happens that threads are often littered with those making the case for taking seven months off, citing all those who did so and have gone on to greatness. If that's true - great - let's hear all about them, however, as someone else stated, they are like bigfoot - a lot of people have seen them, but for some reason can't show them to anyone else.

If these kids are such a nuisance, as a coach, you should not pick these kids to be on your team. I would imagine the reality is that they're the better players. Don't feel bad, you're not alone; an article by HT included a quote by Boston University's coach which described players as you do, however, Boston University's roster is filled with those players.