HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

JSR wrote:

Eric1984 wrote:It reminds of the scene in Miracle where Mark Johnson (a MN NHL player who did have some scoring touch) who during practice scored on a beautiful end to end rush only to get ripped by Herb Brooks.

MN Hockey player??? I guess Mark was technically born in MN but he moved to Madison, WI when he was very young, he was, by all rights, raised in Madison, played H.S. hockey in Madison and played for the Badgers. I guess I would call him a WI hockey player not a MN hockey player based on where he played the overwhelming majority of his youth, high school, and college hockey. Seems arbitrary to claim him for MN just because he was born there.....

karl(east) wrote:While I do think there are merits to being a big fish in a small pond, I have seen players run into problems being in that situation. Sometimes coaches of such teams ask too much of their superstar, which ends up being no fun for the player or his teammates. Sometimes the player lapses into laziness or boredom, which is also a no-win situation. It can be hard to stay motivated if one isn't being challenged. Some manage it, some don't. Often it depends on the kid's personality, and his priorities.

Also, there's that constant problem of trying to balance winning with development. Of course they're not mutually exclusive, but there can sometimes be a trade-off. A lot of the top MN programs have a system they try to teach at all levels; that way their top-level teams are well-oiled machines that can go out and win state titles. It's hard to prove such things, but some people argue that this dulls player creativity. On the other side of the coin, a relentless focus on development without any obvious short-term goals will burn a lot of kids out very quickly.

Bottom line, it really depends on each individual kid, and each individual situation. There are a lot of different paths to greatness or achievement (and a lot of different ideas of what those words mean), and thankfully MN offers a lot of options that allow us to pick and choose what's best for each case.

MrBoDangles wrote:Eye opening post by BBB on the Juniors forum on here. It's in the MN players in the USHL topic.

Communism at it's finest...

Quasar wrote:

MrBoDangles wrote:Eye opening post by BBB on the Juniors forum on here. It's in the MN players in the USHL topic.

Communism at it's finest...

Hi Bo,
I would like to take a shot at this.

In my opinion, over the years Minnesota hockey has become a vehicle to feed the Minnesota high school Social program. 25 games per season leaves enough time for all the events needed by today’s hockey parents. like all the fund raising, pasta feeds and special family trips up to Duluth to get killed by some team out of Canada. But that’s ok, because it’s about the whole experience, of which, hockey is only one of the ingredients. Years ago we dropped Midget programs in favor of a watered down meaning less JV system for the kids that didn’t make the Varsity team. And .. We also set up a recreational league for the rest. Everybody is happy except for the one or two percent that want something more..

The problem is “It’s just too hard” read this excerpt from a book on the subject of success..

Neurologist Daniel Levitin has studied the formula for success extensively and shares this finding: "The emerging picture from such studies is that 10,000 hours of practice is required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert in anything. In study after study of composers, basketball players, fiction writers, ice skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals and what have you, the number comes up again and again. Of course, this doesn't address why some people get more out of their practice sessions than others do. But no one has yet found a case in which true world-class expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems it takes the brain this long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery."

Year around Tier 1 level hockey is the answer for the few that are willing to follow the 10,000 hour rule. I just don’t understand why Minnesota continues to hold these kids down.

There are not many parents, or kids, that will make the sacrifice needed to become exceptional. 4 hours a day every day for 10 years is a mighty mountain to climb. The ones that are willing to do the work are the 100 point scorers.

The hockey “Whackos” need to keep pushing for a place in Minnesota hockey for these few kids to excel!!.

greybeard58 wrote:Results from the draft:
60 MIN MARIO LUCIA LW US 6' 2" 187 HIGH-MN Minn. WAYZATA
72 NYR STEVEN FOGARTY C US 6' 2" 194 HIGH-MN Minn. EDINA HIGH
83 ANA ANDY WELINSKI D US 6' 1" 188 USHL Minn. GREEN BAY
91 FLA KYLE RAU C US 5' 8" 168 HIGH-MN Minn. EDEN PRAIRIE
98 CBJ MIKE REILLY D US 5' 11" 156 HIGH-MN Minn. SHAT.ST.MARY'S
101 VAN JOSEPH LABATE C US 6' 4" 190 HIGH-MN Minn. HOLY ANGELS
128 CBJ SETH AMBROZ RW US 6' 2" 209 USHL Minn. OMAHA
130 TOR TONY CAMERANESI C US 5' 9" 162 HIGH-MN Minn. WAYZATA
131 MIN NICK SEELER D US 6' 0" 170 HIGH-MN Minn. EDEN PRAIRIE
154 FLA EDWARD WITTCHOW D US 6' 3" 189 HIGH-MN Minn. BURNSVILLE
177 WSH TRAVIS BOYD C US 5' 11" 185 USHL Minn. USA U-18
178 TBL ADAM WILCOX G US 6' 0" 171 USHL Minn. GREEN BAY
189 NJD PATRICK DALY D US 6' 0" 178 HIGH-MN Minn. BENILDE-ST.MARGARET'S
203 TOR MAX EVERSON D US 6' 1" 184 HIGH-MN Minn. EDINA HIGH
174 PIT JOSH ARCHIBALD W US 5' 10" 161 HIGH-MN Minn. BRAINERD-HIGH

By states
STATE 2011 %
MINN. 15 22.73%
ILL. 7 10.61%
N.Y. 6 9.09%
CAL. 5 7.58%
CT 5 7.58%
OHIO 4 6.06%
MASS 3 4.55%
PA. 3 4.55%
TEX 3 4.55%
MO 3 4.55%
MICH 2 3.03%
ARIZ 2 3.03%
CO. 2 3.03%
WIS. 2 3.03%
FL 2 3.03%
N.J. 1 1.52%
ND 1 1.52%
TOTAL 66 100.00%

CANADA 78
EUROPE 66
27 players came from Sweden listed in Europe. Last years draft
Mn 17,Mich 10,Mass 7, New York 4, Calif 3,Ill 2,Conn 2,Wis 0 and Texas 0 total drafted last year from the US 57.Some not listed either gined 1 or stayed the same.

Quasar wrote:Year around Tier 1 level hockey is the answer for the few that are willing to follow the 10,000 hour rule. I just don’t understand why Minnesota continues to hold these kids down.

Quasar wrote:[Hi GB,
The discussion is not about numbers. It is about quality, or to be more precise high scorers in the USHL.

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:Year around Tier 1 level hockey is the answer for the few that are willing to follow the 10,000 hour rule. I just don’t understand why Minnesota continues to hold these kids down.

What does Tier I have to do with it?

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:[Hi GB,
The discussion is not about numbers. It is about quality, or to be more precise high scorers in the USHL.

???

What discussion?

The discussion that I quoted from the Juniors forum. Had nothing to do with the draft...

MrBoDangles wrote:Eye opening post by BBB on the Juniors forum on here. It's in the MN players in the USHL topic.

Communism at it's finest...

Quasar wrote:

greybeard58 wrote:Results from the draft:
60 MIN MARIO LUCIA LW US 6' 2" 187 HIGH-MN Minn. WAYZATA
72 NYR STEVEN FOGARTY C US 6' 2" 194 HIGH-MN Minn. EDINA HIGH
83 ANA ANDY WELINSKI D US 6' 1" 188 USHL Minn. GREEN BAY
91 FLA KYLE RAU C US 5' 8" 168 HIGH-MN Minn. EDEN PRAIRIE
98 CBJ MIKE REILLY D US 5' 11" 156 HIGH-MN Minn. SHAT.ST.MARY'S
101 VAN JOSEPH LABATE C US 6' 4" 190 HIGH-MN Minn. HOLY ANGELS
128 CBJ SETH AMBROZ RW US 6' 2" 209 USHL Minn. OMAHA
130 TOR TONY CAMERANESI C US 5' 9" 162 HIGH-MN Minn. WAYZATA
131 MIN NICK SEELER D US 6' 0" 170 HIGH-MN Minn. EDEN PRAIRIE
154 FLA EDWARD WITTCHOW D US 6' 3" 189 HIGH-MN Minn. BURNSVILLE
177 WSH TRAVIS BOYD C US 5' 11" 185 USHL Minn. USA U-18
178 TBL ADAM WILCOX G US 6' 0" 171 USHL Minn. GREEN BAY
189 NJD PATRICK DALY D US 6' 0" 178 HIGH-MN Minn. BENILDE-ST.MARGARET'S
203 TOR MAX EVERSON D US 6' 1" 184 HIGH-MN Minn. EDINA HIGH
174 PIT JOSH ARCHIBALD W US 5' 10" 161 HIGH-MN Minn. BRAINERD-HIGH

By states
STATE 2011 %
MINN. 15 22.73%
ILL. 7 10.61%
N.Y. 6 9.09%
CAL. 5 7.58%
CT 5 7.58%
OHIO 4 6.06%
MASS 3 4.55%
PA. 3 4.55%
TEX 3 4.55%
MO 3 4.55%
MICH 2 3.03%
ARIZ 2 3.03%
CO. 2 3.03%
WIS. 2 3.03%
FL 2 3.03%
N.J. 1 1.52%
ND 1 1.52%
TOTAL 66 100.00%

CANADA 78
EUROPE 66
27 players came from Sweden listed in Europe. Last years draft
Mn 17,Mich 10,Mass 7, New York 4, Calif 3,Ill 2,Conn 2,Wis 0 and Texas 0 total drafted last year from the US 57.Some not listed either gined 1 or stayed the same.

Hi GB,
The discussion is not about numbers. It is about quality, or to be more precise high scorers in the USHL. I have copied BBB's post from the Juniors forum. I think the question is why Minnesota doesn't produce more prolific scorers .

"Not that impressed considering there are a lot of big names on that list. A good number of Mr Hockey finalists a/o guys who put up huge numbers in high school. Its suprising to see how many of those guys were at the 5-7 goal range 45-50 games in as 19 year olds in a USHL that continues to bring in 16-17 yr old kids.
Not one point per game player from Minnesota yet guys from other states are putting up 60-70-80-and even 90 points. The scoring leader is from plano texas and the other big scorers are out of georgia, florida, and a 140 lb high school kid from new jersey? It's kind of embarrassing to me and it shows why players who play in tougher leagues in high school are much more prepared for college. Maybe thats why our big names out of high school like bjugstad and Brock Nelson took a full season to get used to the WCHA and a player out of Las Vegas wins the WCHA rookie of the year award while Minnesota trained players don't even get any consideration. Did I read that California had more kids invited to the World Jr tryout than Minnesota did? Well at least we had more than texas, but only by a few."

What's your take on this ?

hockey59 wrote:




I guess it comes down to how you define: players who have reached their full development potential - and what are the best ways to get there...

...because all the kids listed above have reached a very impressive development level...they were drafted by an NHL team at age 17-19.

I think the 10,000 hour theory has some merit when you apply it to hockey...but with caveats:

...first off a player must be an exceptional athlete with at least adequate size ...to ever reach the top...because an average athlete could put in a million hours of training and be a very good player, but never reach the top level. second, to put in 10,000 hours you really have to love whatever activity your doing...especially hockey..because putting in a great deal of practice time is very taxing on the player, both physically and emotionally, third...you have to have top notch coaches in the summer and winter who really care about your development as a player and a person...and are not just trying to make money off coaching summer hockey...or a name for themselves coaching winter hockey...and fourth...but far from last...the player in question must have tremendous drive and determination to be a top player and not be satisfied just because he is better than most of his peers at an early age ...and an attitude when faced with bumps in the road (which always happens eventuallyr) to prove your critics WRONG...a bit of a chip on the shoulder mentality ehen facing adversity...if yu have all these things going for you, then you might have a shot of developing into a D1 college and possibly a professional hockey player...just my opinion.

Toomuchtoosoon wrote:10 year and 10,000 hour starts at a later time for hockey players. None of these kids fall into that realm. Since you hit your peak in hockey around 26-28, the 10 year/ 10,000 starts at 16. Therefore, you need to be rather good before you start that journey.

It is a theory, however, you will never get 10,000 hours in unless you are extremely passionate and don't break down physically/mentally.

Quasar wrote:The question asked by the author of this thread was if Minnesota produces top players, or role players. The USHL stats seem to say role players...

I think that the Minnesota High School culture holds back a lot of kids, for a lot of reasons. There should be a choice for those that want it..

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:[Hi GB,
The discussion is not about numbers. It is about quality, or to be more precise high scorers in the USHL.

???

What discussion?

He listed the draft results. I don't see any discussion.

O-townClown wrote:Quasar:

Your comment would have the same impact even if you strike Tier I. I think your point is that the kids at high school age should play a ton of hockey. You even mention it when you cite the future if ADM gets to the HPC stage.

I was reading some ADM material the other day and the amount of hockey recommended for HS age kids is staggering.

Age 16-18 High Performance Track
10 month season
140-150 practices & 50-60 games
200+ ice touches

Age 13-16 High Performance Track
9 month season
120-130 practices & 40-50 games
140 ice touches

The problem seen by USA Hockey is that so many kids get the 150-200 ice touches at age 9 and as a result are way ahead of their peers. If the goal is to be the best Squirt, there is no question this is how to go about it.

As for Minnesota, the kids playing Elite League, a full HS schedule, and additional off-season hockey can replicate the amount of ice time suggested by the ADM.

I will point out that for much of the country, the Tier I model is to gather the best players for more than the number of suggested games. Unless the kids all live near each other they fall short on the number of practices.

Seems like USA Hockey wants to get control of Tier I by creating the HPC level of play. They have a pilot program this fall. We'll see how it goes.

karl(east) wrote:

Quasar wrote:The question asked by the author of this thread was if Minnesota produces top players, or role players. The USHL stats seem to say role players...

I think that the Minnesota High School culture holds back a lot of kids, for a lot of reasons. There should be a choice for those that want it..

This is related to a post I made on the junior forum, but I'll put it here, too.

You say the MN "high school culture" holds back a lot of kids, but if we look at the stats of MN kids who forgo the traditional MN HS model and leave early for juniors or the NTDP, they're not really any better than those who went through the high schools. There are a few who jump out, sure--players like Zach Parise and Derek Stepan--but you can probably count them on one hand. With that few cases, there isn't much evidence.

The point I'm trying to get at: I don't think the problem you've identified with the MN development model is specifically a "high school culture" problem. (Unless you're trying to argue that the high schools' control over youth programs stunts creativity, which is a possibility I mentioned in an earlier post. But either way, this suggests the problem lies at the pre-HS levels.)

MrBoDangles wrote:

O-townClown wrote:

Quasar wrote:[Hi GB,
The discussion is not about numbers. It is about quality, or to be more precise high scorers in the USHL.

???

What discussion?

He listed the draft results. I don't see any discussion.

The problem is that we don't have an option locally of having our kids play 70-80 games like a Honeybaked. We are stuck with a everything is equal commune style of Hockey playing 30-35 one hour games if you're lucky. We have freedom in the summer and then are behind the prison walls of our border in the winter.

Freedom to have an option should be a no brainer!

You might not want to believe it but kids in other states are more able to specialize in Hockey.

Kids in Tennessee, Alabama, California and Texas almost doubling our kids points in the USHL SHOULD be telling us something....

Is it better for development to play 35 one hour games compared to 70-80 AAA style games? Scoring 35 goals in a season compared to living the same thing 70-80 times in a season?

I have my answers