HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2008 7:21 pm**

But could he do that against 2nd year bantams?

Posted: **Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:22 pm**

Who cares? If your player played up, then too bad. He's apparently not a PW, but a Bantam. I'm sure the benefits of playing up far outweighed bragging rights on this post. As far as I'm concerned, last year is over and all 2nd years have moved up to the next level.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 8:50 am**

hockeyman....No I am not kidding. The Fire is made up of some talented hockey players. That is the difference between Association hockey and Tier 1 hockey. You don't have all the talent on 1 team in the Association play where the Fire does. Willing to bet he had alot more scoring opportunities playing with the Fire vs. if he was a Association player. I am not knocking #12, but if he plays with Maple Grove again next year (if the Fire does not exist) he will be invisible just like his A Peewee year.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 9:11 am**

to judge good hockey players at younger ages dont look at points.. study how well they skate that will tell the tale for the future. its great to hear who is doing well but rediculous really to argue about it. alot of the best players in squirts will continue to be all the way through one of the biggest factors to change that rule is size. if your 5'9 with a beard as a peewee you better be the best the advantage is huge! you could compete two levels higher because your two years ahead in maturity. its not always greatness as much as it is physics.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:21 pm**

Nobodyonya wrote:hockeyman....No I am not kidding. The Fire is made up of some talented hockey players. That is the difference between Association hockey and Tier 1 hockey. You don't have all the talent on 1 team in the Association play where the Fire does. Willing to bet he had alot more scoring opportunities playing with the Fire vs. if he was a Association player. I am not knocking #12, but if he plays with Maple Grove again next year (if the Fire does not exist) he will be invisible just like his A Peewee year.

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:29 pm**

watchdog wrote:to judge good hockey players at younger ages dont look at points.. study how well they skate that will tell the tale for the future. its great to hear who is doing well but rediculous really to argue about it. alot of the best players in squirts will continue to be all the way through one of the biggest factors to change that rule is size. if your 5'9 with a beard as a peewee you better be the best the advantage is huge! you could compete two levels higher because your two years ahead in maturity. its not always greatness as much as it is physics.

I think you meant genetics, but it's been a long winter eh? I agree with you watchdog - points mean nothing at this age in this team sport. Gives Dad and Mom something to feel good about I suppose and annoy their co-workers with to boot

Posted: **Thu Apr 24, 2008 10:43 pm**

tomASS wrote:
watchdog wrote:to judge good hockey players at younger ages dont look at points.. study how well they skate that will tell the tale for the future. its great to hear who is doing well but rediculous really to argue about it. alot of the best players in squirts will continue to be all the way through one of the biggest factors to change that rule is size. if your 5'9 with a beard as a peewee you better be the best the advantage is huge! you could compete two levels higher because your two years ahead in maturity. its not always greatness as much as it is physics.
I think you meant genetics, but it's been a long winter eh? I agree with you watchdog - points mean nothing at this age in this team sport. Gives Dad and Mom something to feel good about I suppose and annoy their co-workers with to boot

Posted: **Fri Apr 25, 2008 7:31 am**

Watchdog you are right...forgive my ignorance to get caught up in a debate about a ridiculous statement. I started a thread about how do you determine if a 1st year A Peewee is having a good season and most comments were NOT based on points, but rather than the development of a player. Yes, size does matter for gifted players, but eventually the late bloomers will catch up, if not, then they will have to rely on there talent and skills of the game[/b]

Posted: **Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:44 pm**

Nobodyonya wrote:hockeyman....No I am not kidding. The Fire is made up of some talented hockey players. That is the difference between Association hockey and Tier 1 hockey. You don't have all the talent on 1 team in the Association play where the Fire does. Willing to bet he had alot more scoring opportunities playing with the Fire vs. if he was a Association player. I am not knocking #12, but if he plays with Maple Grove again next year (if the Fire does not exist) he will be invisible just like his A Peewee year.

alright how come every one else on that talented fire team scored about half the amount of points as him huh???? ya if they set him up all the time some ones getting just as many points as him which proves he is the most offensive player and I have seen him play and he could deke any one out of their jock strap in peewee a then go and score hes small but he's got some of the greatest talent i've seen for his age.

Posted: **Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:37 am**

i wasnt talking to anyone in paticular with my post. tomass i wasnt talking genetics this time. i was just saying how much the maturity level plays in at this age. you have kids from 170 pounds all the way to 70. i read on this board alot about these great players 9 times out of 10 when i get to see one of them play their 5'9 150 and sporting a 5 o'clock shadow. thats not the reason for every situation but its the majority that ive seen.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Best Pwa Player