HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

how big of an advantage does it make to be a 6 foot plus 200 pound kid in youth hockey? thoughts please

Well it depends.
If size is the only quality the kid has, then no, it is not an advantage.
If he is a good skater, puck handler, and is smart. Then size is another + for him.

A 5 foot kid that can skate like the wind, play smart is a better asset than a 6 footer that can only stand in front of the net.

D6Rocks wrote:Well it depends.
If size is the only quality the kid has, then no, it is not an advantage.
If he is a good skater, puck handler, and is smart. Then size is another + for him.

A 5 foot kid that can skate like the wind, play smart is a better asset than a 6 footer that can only stand in front of the net.

Agreed - in my experience at Pee Wee level, I see way more 6ft 200lb kids playing B2 or C, than I do at the A level. Since the question is "youth hockey" I think being that size is not advantageous. . .you can't hit what you can't catch.

Not so much at the youth hockey level, but once you get to the bantams and high school players it can either help you or hurt you alot. I have seen many kids who were the speedy a player in squirts be passed up in high school and bantams because they cant check very well, and get hit alot.

The smaller guys tend to have much weaker shots in Bantams as well so those speedy little Squirts can't be as effective with the weaker shots once they hit Bantams. In peewees, size isn't as big of an issue. There are also great players who aren't huge - Jordan Schroeder has had great success and isn't a big guy and the Riley twins have been able to overcome some of their size challenges with speed and smarts. Still think size is a huge advantage overall though.

I would agree that the smaller kids can hide their size easier in squirts and pee wees. They can do this with being quicker and smarter.

However, hockey is a big mans game and it also a speed game. Kids who posses both, especially at the banatm level and above, have an enormous advantage.

I took a quick look at the MN Wild's roster and ran the numbers to see where the elite end up size-wise :

Avg height: 6 foot 1 1/2 inches
Avg weight: 204 pounds

Interstingly enough, I also looked at the Gophers roster and they are about the same height-wise but average out 15 pounds lighter.

Avg height: 6 foot 1/2 inch
Avg weight: 190

What is very interesting about the Gopher roster is out of the 27 rostered players, only 7 (25%) are under 6 foot. That number shrinks a bit for the Wild with 5 of 23 (21%) being under 6 foot.

Most Kids That Are Over Six Ft In Youth Hockey Are Usually Uncordinated...Not all just most!

it takes a lot more muscle to move a large body than it does a smaller one. another thing that makes people think that the smaller kid is more coordinated is that a lot of parents of smaller kids delay kindergarten. being the older kid on the ice, court or field is a huge advantage until about 15 to 16

in time the larger kids put on muscle get quicker and more coordinated. some smaller kids win a high school position squirts and the bigger kids never get a chance.

Size definitly matters. Especially as you get older and kids get stronger. Size will end up sepertaing the kids that are going somewhere and the kids that aren't. Unless your little and ripped and your center of gravity is unbelievable and everyone that trys to hit you falls over. Then your ok. But otherwise, size matters. Especially for goalies.

Just go to a High School game. Kids that were great are not doing anything if they are small. Even if you have great hands and can skate, you need size. Can't buy that!

o it dont matter if your big or small as long as your strong on you feet and you got spped you'll be fine and the little guys are the ones that are more aggressive anyway

All of this is true....however: A six foot 200 pounder is a lot harder to knock off the puck. If he has decent hands and feet, then he'll have better puck control than the average. All things equal the giant has a very large advantage. A problem: The six foot 200 pounder in bantam and peewee doesn't have to try as hard as smaller kids (all things equal again)..this is big detriment to him in his development if he has the wrong attitude, which if he is scoring and playing well, he probably sees no reason to get better......
All in all there are a lot more small kids who are great players than big kids...toughness is way more important especially if you go north....

very true "defence"

yes

sometimes being big at young age is an advantage, but if you are smaller you must learn how to be a smart player, not just bull your way through everyone. If a big kid is properly coached and taught to use his teammates he will be tough to stop and become a player later in his career. A small player who learns the game and plays it the right way may be at a huge advantage if he grows in his later years.

This is a very interesting debate. At the youth level size is not as critical in the ability to play the game. Even at bantam, high school and the collage level, heart and effort along with some skill can beat a bigger player. Look at the Hobey Baker finalists for last year.....Kevin Porter won, Nathan Gerbe, Ryan Lasch, TJ Oshie all small in size but very good hockey players.

But after college that it seems to change. The majority of the NHL players are 6 foot and up. Look at the Wilds latest addition to the team. Big John.....6.8 250 lbs monster. All the D are tall and wide wing spans. Even the forwards are all looking lanky (6 ft plus) with plenty of talent.
Interesting to know where the last few Hobey Baker winners and finalists are now. I know some are still playing because they were under classmen. But the smaller players that have graduated. Have they seen any success?

I asked my wife and she said "yes" size does matter.