HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2014 10:16 am**

Lets break a record with this thread! Good discussions though.

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2014 11:10 am**

JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote: Only coach I've met that has my total and complete respect without reservation is my daughters soccer coach. Best coach I have ever met in any sport ever, hands down. Has very high expectations of his players, explains his plan to the parents, explains what he does to his players and why he does it, gets the most out of every layer on his roster and stays with his teams for three consecutive years before he releases them to a new coach because he believes he cannot teach his teams and his players how to play the game in less time than that. He has the skills to show what he wants at the very highest level (former EPL player), he's only 30 but he has a passion for coaching and teaching liek nothing i have ever seen and the kids jsut love him and fall in love with the game because of him and every single team he has ever had, no matter how "bad" they were when he got them has grown to one of the very best teams in not just the state but the midwest, be it boys or girls, and they are all kids from our little tiny town, it's actually quite remarkable I'd say it is sort of like the soccer version of Roseau hockey if that makes sense.
Man, that explains just about everything.
I should clarify that I had great respect for some of my coaches growing up but they don't coach anymore to my knowledge. Hard finding that breed now a days

To me what that clarifies is that when you were a young player, you respected your coaches. Now that you are an adult/parent, you find that difficult to do. Pretty typical and still explains a lot.

Posted: **Thu Jan 09, 2014 12:16 pm**

To me what that clarifies is that when you were a young player, you respected your coaches. Now that you are an adult/parent, you find that difficult to do. Pretty typical and still explains a lot.

It starts young for parents and their young kids.

Back when I was on our board I had a parent approach my quite "vigorously" during one of the first mini mite practices of the year. She was quite angry that her player was not getting "individual attention". Keep in mind this was during the stage when the kids are just getting their feet under them. 30 or 40 4 year olds, I guess we need 40 coaches.

This set the stage for years of complaints.

Your youth board and HS athletic department deals with this small group of Perpetually Dissatisfied Families (PDFs) for their entire sports career.

PDF's exist in every group. They never offer to help. Everyone knows who they are and become deaf to their whining. That said, the drama can be interesting and at least there is something to talk about over beers.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:07 am**

SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote: Man, that explains just about everything.
I should clarify that I had great respect for some of my coaches growing up but they don't coach anymore to my knowledge. Hard finding that breed now a days
To me what that clarifies is that when you were a young player, you respected your coaches. Now that you are an adult/parent, you find that difficult to do. Pretty typical and still explains a lot.

It's hilarious what people infer from message boards. I don't find it difficult at all to show respect and teach my kids to do things the right way, my kids are not the 'best players but their coaches love how coachable they are and often tell me they appreciate how I go about things, but again it's because I am also a coach so I know how to deal with those things in the right manner. There is a difference between showing respect and teaching your kids to do things the right way and internally having outright unreserved respect for others. To me respect is earned not given, courtesy is given but not respect, that you have to earn

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 9:09 am**

They told the same thing to me!

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:03 am**

To me respect is earned not given, courtesy is given but not respect, that you have to earn

So you teach a kid to treat a coach/ref/player with courtesy but not respect?

Semantics?

As a board member dealing with player issues I was more than once told by a parent that their kids coach had not "earned" their 10 year old's respect.

The issue was the kids behavior, not some lofty heart felt respect.

I get what you are saying and agree. The nuance is lost on little johnny smart as*

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 10:54 am**

bestpopcorn wrote:
To me respect is earned not given, courtesy is given but not respect, that you have to earn
So you teach a kid to treat a coach/ref/player with courtesy but not respect?

Semantics?

As a board member dealing with player issues I was more than once told by a parent that their kids coach had not "earned" their 10 year old's respect.

The issue was the kids behavior, not some lofty heart felt respect.

I get what you are saying and agree. The nuance is lost on little johnny smart as*

When you raise your kids right the nuance is not lost, they may not be able to articulate it but instinctively they know the difference, if your scenario was the way you painted it, then it sounds like the kid is behaving the way he is being raised. I can tell you you would never find any of my kdis acting like that, it's not how they are raised but it doesn't mean I or they have always respected their coaches internally. How I act in front of the kids and how I interact with coaches doesn't mean I necessarily respect them, it just means I was raised right, or said another way and maybe this is a better way of saying it, I think there is a difference between showing other people respect versus having their respect, does that make sense?

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 12:04 pm**

JSR wrote:
bestpopcorn wrote:
To me respect is earned not given, courtesy is given but not respect, that you have to earn
So you teach a kid to treat a coach/ref/player with courtesy but not respect?

Semantics?

As a board member dealing with player issues I was more than once told by a parent that their kids coach had not "earned" their 10 year old's respect.

The issue was the kids behavior, not some lofty heart felt respect.

I get what you are saying and agree. The nuance is lost on little johnny smart as*
When you raise your kids right the nuance is not lost, they may not be able to articulate it but instinctively they know the difference, if your scenario was the way you painted it, then it sounds like the kid is behaving the way he is being raised. I can tell you you would never find any of my kdis acting like that, it's not how they are raised but it doesn't mean I or they have always respected their coaches internally. How I act in front of the kids and how I interact with coaches doesn't mean I necessarily respect them, it just means I was raised right, or said another way and maybe this is a better way of saying it, I think there is a difference between showing other people respect versus having their respect, does that make sense?

I'm hearing violins tuning up in the background as you drone on and on and on and on and on. Even bad coaches who short bench know when the lecture stops having any affect.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 1:01 pm**

blueliner2day wrote:
JSR wrote:
bestpopcorn wrote: So you teach a kid to treat a coach/ref/player with courtesy but not respect?

Semantics?

As a board member dealing with player issues I was more than once told by a parent that their kids coach had not "earned" their 10 year old's respect.

The issue was the kids behavior, not some lofty heart felt respect.

I get what you are saying and agree. The nuance is lost on little johnny smart as*
When you raise your kids right the nuance is not lost, they may not be able to articulate it but instinctively they know the difference, if your scenario was the way you painted it, then it sounds like the kid is behaving the way he is being raised. I can tell you you would never find any of my kdis acting like that, it's not how they are raised but it doesn't mean I or they have always respected their coaches internally. How I act in front of the kids and how I interact with coaches doesn't mean I necessarily respect them, it just means I was raised right, or said another way and maybe this is a better way of saying it, I think there is a difference between showing other people respect versus having their respect, does that make sense?
I'm hearing violins tuning up in the background as you drone on and on and on and on and on. Even bad coaches who short bench know when the lecture stops having any affect.

I didn't realize there was a gun to your head forcing you to read any of this

Here is an idea, don't want to read it, DON'T... others ahve chosen to engage in dialogue also their choice... See this is the type of person I am talking about, no one ever showed them how to outwardly respect others regardless of what their "inside voice" was telling them.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:19 pm**

JSR wrote:
blueliner2day wrote:
JSR wrote: When you raise your kids right the nuance is not lost, they may not be able to articulate it but instinctively they know the difference, if your scenario was the way you painted it, then it sounds like the kid is behaving the way he is being raised. I can tell you you would never find any of my kdis acting like that, it's not how they are raised but it doesn't mean I or they have always respected their coaches internally. How I act in front of the kids and how I interact with coaches doesn't mean I necessarily respect them, it just means I was raised right, or said another way and maybe this is a better way of saying it, I think there is a difference between showing other people respect versus having their respect, does that make sense?
I'm hearing violins tuning up in the background as you drone on and on and on and on and on. Even bad coaches who short bench know when the lecture stops having any affect.
I didn't realize there was a gun to your head forcing you to read any of this Here is an idea, don't want to read it, DON'T... others ahve chosen to engage in dialogue also their choice... See this is the type of person I am talking about, no one ever showed them how to outwardly respect others regardless of what their "inside voice" was telling them.

I always find this response interesting. "Don't like it, don't read it". I prefer, "Don't want critical responses, don't post"

It's right along side with posts that get the final word in, then call for the thread to be locked. I think the moderators do a nice job of making those decisions.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 2:24 pm**

I agree with SEcoach.
And now this thread should be locked immediately.

Posted: **Fri Jan 10, 2014 4:29 pm**

SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:
blueliner2day wrote: I'm hearing violins tuning up in the background as you drone on and on and on and on and on. Even bad coaches who short bench know when the lecture stops having any affect.
I didn't realize there was a gun to your head forcing you to read any of this Here is an idea, don't want to read it, DON'T... others ahve chosen to engage in dialogue also their choice... See this is the type of person I am talking about, no one ever showed them how to outwardly respect others regardless of what their "inside voice" was telling them.
I always find this response interesting. "Don't like it, don't read it". I prefer, "Don't want critical responses, don't post"

It's right along side with posts that get the final word in, then call for the thread to be locked. I think the moderators do a nice job of making those decisions.

I don't mind thoughtful critical responses who want to debate the subject, those are totally different than the buffoonery spewed by the above poster. If someone does not want to read that much on a topic then the answer is don't read it

....

But if you don't like what I am saying then discuss and debate but don't go all cowardly like that.....

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2014 9:29 am**

JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:
JSR wrote:

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2014 10:17 am**

Two things- as time goes on, PDF's tend to suffer. Word gets around about what a PITA they are, and coaches would rather take a player with lesser talent but good attitude.

Was In a Tourney recently with my fun, but under talented team. We ended up playing against a more talented team that had beat us already 6-1 earlier in the season. Somehow, we tied it up with 40 seconds left and went to 4 on 4 OT. I was REALLY tempted to go with my best guys, as 4 on 4 can be cruel, but instead made sure everyone played. Somehow made it through to Shootout. Went through my first 5 (top) players. My best goal scorer didn't score, my strongest shot missed the net. Tied at the end of 5, and went to the next 5. The first one didn't score, but all the rest did. We ended up winning. What was cool was that my lesser talented kids were the ones who came through. It was a true team win.

As a coach, you've got to believe in your players. I understand benching players for disciplinary reasons, but otherwise, they should all play. You picked me, you play em. You never know who's going to come through for you.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:49 am**

57special wrote:Two things- as time goes on, PDF's tend to suffer. Word gets around about what a PITA they are, and coaches would rather take a player with lesser talent but good attitude.

Was In a Tourney recently with my fun, but under talented team. We ended up playing against a more talented team that had beat us already 6-1 earlier in the season. Somehow, we tied it up with 40 seconds left and went to 4 on 4 OT. I was REALLY tempted to go with my best guys, as 4 on 4 can be cruel, but instead made sure everyone played. Somehow made it through to Shootout. Went through my first 5 (top) players. My best goal scorer didn't score, my strongest shot missed the net. Tied at the end of 5, and went to the next 5. The first one didn't score, but all the rest did. We ended up winning. What was cool was that my lesser talented kids were the ones who came through. It was a true team win.

As a coach, you've got to believe in your players. I understand benching players for disciplinary reasons, but otherwise, they should all play. You picked me, you play em. You never know who's going to come through for you.

Great example coach! And your end of the bench players will remember and cherish that W a lot longer than your "stars." They will remember how great it was playing for YOU. So congrats.

But plz explain your acronyms above.

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2014 4:00 pm**

PDF's - perpetually dissatisfied family's

PITA- pain in the ass

Posted: **Sat Jan 11, 2014 11:03 pm**

What age/level of hockey are we addressing here?...and congrats to 57s on mixing up game play. If that was association AA/A level good luck because the PDFPITA's are going to run you out of town for violation of the short bench.

def:

Pre Determined Family Placed Intentionally Through Association.

Posted: **Mon Jan 13, 2014 10:34 am**

blueliner2day wrote:
JSR wrote:
SECoach wrote:

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:22 pm**

To all you supposed ex-coaches, ex-refs, ex-players, I don't give a crap about your egos. The thread is about a short bench. I'd like to hear people's opinions about when it's appropriate and when it's not. I really don't want to scroll down page after page past your BS to find someone who is talking about the thread's topic.

For those of you that want to prove to the rest of us how smart you are, go on Craigslist under "rants" and bitch away. Otherwise please stay on topic. Thank you.

Posted: **Sun Jan 26, 2014 11:54 pm**

hockeygoof1 wrote:To all you supposed ex-coaches, ex-refs, ex-players, I don't give a crap about your egos. The thread is about a short bench. I'd like to hear people's opinions about when it's appropriate and when it's not. I really don't want to scroll down page after page past your BS to find someone who is talking about the thread's topic.

For those of you that want to prove to the rest of us how smart you are, go on Craigslist under "rants" and bitch away. Otherwise please stay on topic. Thank you.

You forgot ex-board members that can't deal with parents but you probably already realize that. The short bench is not necessary unless the coach feels it should be applied. Good or bad, you make the call.

Posted: **Mon Jan 27, 2014 3:21 pm**

Shortening your bench = not coaching. Anyone can win with the best players. Good coaches can be successful playing the whole team.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2014 8:40 am**

CommunityBased wrote:Shortening your bench = not coaching. Anyone can win with the best players. Good coaches can be successful playing the whole team.

well that is just simply not true. ever checked out the TOI stat in a D1 or NHL game...i think those coaches are pretty good...and are indeed coaching. And none of them win (be successful) playing the whole team equally.

could also be said not managing your personel to get the best efficiency (rolling lines) for you team is not coaching either....i mean why put your worst defensive group out to take D zone starts...thats crazy and no sane coach would do that, especially in a tight game.

not preparing your team whether though skill development and or team play = not good coaching.

being unfair in discipline = not good coaching.

not having a plan = not good coaching.

shortening the bench = shortening the bench

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2014 10:50 am**

To summarize 7 pages of back and forth as we are starting to repeat ourselves...

1) most association hockey programs state in writing that all players will receive (mostly) equal playing time. This often doesn't happen.
2) jv, high school, weekend only invite tourneys, and off season AAA programs by definition don't need to short bench regularly because the players are hand picked and therefore assumed to be good enough. This often doesn't happen.
3) younger teams in development years and older teams in blow out or inconsequential games should avoid shortening the bench while older teams in close games with something on the line should be assumed to sometimes not play the whole bench. This doesn't always happen.
4) coaches should be open about who plays when and why so players (and parents) aren't surprised by the minutes their kid does or doesnt get. This doesn't always happen.
5) most kids are at the top of the roster or the bottom of the roster at some point between mites and varsity. Most will continue to have a good attitude, work harder, love the game, and be an asset whether they are first line or fourth. Talent, ambition, work ethic, injuries, coaches, and line-ups are fluid. Your kids particular situation may suck or be unfair today, but hey, in this game it's practically a new season or team every few months. THIS ALWAYS HAPPENS. Good luck to all.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2014 11:00 am**

Well done.

Posted: **Tue Jan 28, 2014 3:05 pm**

Nailed it Nevertoomuch

In my Shortening bench = bad coaching post I should have been more specific. I assumed that given this is the Youth Hockey Forum we were talking youth hockey only. Yes in NHL, D1, and HS situational substitutions and riding your top 6F/4D is common and warranted when the goal is winning at all costs. But no sane coach would run a youth hockey team like it is an NHL/D1 team.

Yes, in the PW playoffs in the last minute sure...go with your top 5. Otherwise roll-em. If your ego is to big for that consider a job coaching NHL, D1, USHL, where winning is more important then long term development.

A Youth Hockey coaches work is done in practice not in games.

HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Short Bench

What?