Minor Hockey Talks - Hockey Forum

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:50 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:16 pm Heard the wh skate on the weekend was 10/10

Lots of kids showed up?

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 3:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:49 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:28 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:21 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:13 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 12:08 pm

What's wrong with VR coaches or parents? Their parents differ from others only by being slightly louder. But what else would you expect from a group that is 95% Italian? That said, unlike some other teams I won’t name, I haven’t seen drunk fathers or loud, offensive mothers yelling at referees or opposing teams.
Comparing VR to MNS (whose parents are also very nice), VR's players are stronger on average, while the top kids on both teams are of similar skill. MNS has the better goalie. Key difference is that VR gives all players ice time. I’ve never noticed them prioritizing anyone, whereas MNS plays to win, meaning some kids get significantly more ice time than others. This approach is good for the league in general, as it raises the level of competition, helps secure victories for MNS when top players are not absent, but isn’t great for overall development or team depth.
Despite being a skilled team, VR seems to lack a winning mentality or self-confidence. If the coaches address this issue or if it naturally corrects itself the team will rise higher in the standings.

VR is a good little team that has improved a lot. Respect for that.

They lack a true star either up front or on defence. All around they are strong but that’s why they play close to equal ice! There is nobody who really should play more because they aren’t high-end.

VR definately plays equal ice. Watch any game and you will see their weakest kids on both PP and PK as well. They may not have a 'true star' as you put it, but they do have kids who skill level is far below the average on the team on both F and D. Theyd win more if those kids sat more...

I respect that they dont emphasize winning at the cost of development.

This argument again that makes no sense every time but people keep saying it.

If you are “far below average” on a team that isn’t even a top 3 team you should probably be in A. It’s not just VR, MNS has 3-4 of these at least.

Coaches responsibility to cut them but parents responsibility to take them to play where they could realistically develop !

I fully agree, but we're at the end of the year. Some kids have not developed as well as others, which has left them behind. Coaches choose these kids to be part of team likely thinking they would improve more then they did. So until year is over they still deserve to play rather fairly, until the last 5 minutes or so. Then when season is over, yes get cut.

On our team all 3 of the kids on the bubble had their parents begging coach to stay next year, had friends on team and would be too hard to accept going down a level. Yes coaches have to get strong but let’s not pretend like these parents are all realistic

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:46 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 3:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:49 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:28 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:21 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 2:13 pm

VR is a good little team that has improved a lot. Respect for that.

They lack a true star either up front or on defence. All around they are strong but that’s why they play close to equal ice! There is nobody who really should play more because they aren’t high-end.

VR definately plays equal ice. Watch any game and you will see their weakest kids on both PP and PK as well. They may not have a 'true star' as you put it, but they do have kids who skill level is far below the average on the team on both F and D. Theyd win more if those kids sat more...

I respect that they dont emphasize winning at the cost of development.

This argument again that makes no sense every time but people keep saying it.

If you are “far below average” on a team that isn’t even a top 3 team you should probably be in A. It’s not just VR, MNS has 3-4 of these at least.

Coaches responsibility to cut them but parents responsibility to take them to play where they could realistically develop !

I fully agree, but we're at the end of the year. Some kids have not developed as well as others, which has left them behind. Coaches choose these kids to be part of team likely thinking they would improve more then they did. So until year is over they still deserve to play rather fairly, until the last 5 minutes or so. Then when season is over, yes get cut.

On our team all 3 of the kids on the bubble had their parents begging coach to stay next year, had friends on team and would be too hard to accept going down a level. Yes coaches have to get strong but let’s not pretend like these parents are all realistic

We have similar issues with parents not seeing what everyone else sees and pushing to keep them where they dont belong. Take the rose coloured glasses off and see your kids for what they are. If they're a F and cant produce offence, move down a level. If they're a D and cant keep up with players to stop them from scoring move down a level. Its not difficult to assess if youre honest with yourself...

If they love the game they'll work hard to move back up...

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 5:06 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

Well stated.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

There are a million other reasons why kids sit or are sitting on some teams ; MNS, FT, ST and TW all run short benches and have almost all season.

Some kids miss practices or don't show commitment. Some kids don't listen to the coach. Some kids create problems on bench by calling out teammates and being little asswipes. Some kids don't try hard and don't have competitive spirit, they won't backcheck ever, they won't battle on the boards. Some kids are puck hogs and don't play as part of a team. Some kids were early starters but have fizzled out. Some take stupid penalties or always retaliate with rage on the ice.

Coach recruited these kids over a year ago, some skates were happening in November and December 2023. It's been a year and a half, some kids didnt pan out. What kind of a fool is going to cost a team and all the other hard working kids success by insisting they all play equal time? That's the coach you run away from.

Nobody's hands are cuffed if you're #12-15 on your team now and you come back in September there is a problem . With you.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:42 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

There are a million other reasons why kids sit or are sitting on some teams ; MNS, FT, ST and TW all run short benches and have almost all season.

Some kids miss practices or don't show commitment. Some kids don't listen to the coach. Some kids create problems on bench by calling out teammates and being little asswipes. Some kids don't try hard and don't have competitive spirit, they won't backcheck ever, they won't battle on the boards. Some kids are puck hogs and don't play as part of a team. Some kids were early starters but have fizzled out. Some take stupid penalties or always retaliate with rage on the ice.

Coach recruited these kids over a year ago, some skates were happening in November and December 2023. It's been a year and a half, some kids didnt pan out. What kind of a fool is going to cost a team and all the other hard working kids success by insisting they all play equal time? That's the coach you run away from.

Nobody's hands are cuffed if you're #12-15 on your team now and you come back in September there is a problem . With you.

There are many rational reasons to bench a kid sure. For a short period of time to teach a lesson. Not every game in order to win some extra games. You’re forgetting they are 9. You can’t make changes midway through a season. So yes youre stuck.

There’s a reason hockey Canada has rules regarding equal and fair play. I don’t totally agree with them but, unless you signed on and were told at the beginning that your kid wouldn’t get his share of time on the ice then it shouldn’t happen at this point because the coach can’t pick good players.

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 10:35 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 9:42 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 8:03 pm

Guest wrote: ↑Mon Mar 03, 2025 4:55 pm The strength of a team and its coach is determined by the weakest players. Top players will continue to develop in almost any environment and will contribute to any team. It’s the third and fourth lines that ultimately decide the fate of the season.

Playtime is one of the most critical factors in a player’s development, and limiting it abruptly halts progress. Coaches are not fortune tellers—they can’t predict a player’s future. If a coach takes on a player but then stops playing them, it’s already a red flag. It suggests that the coach either lacks the ability to select the right players, doesn’t know how to develop them, or has recruited some simply to fill the budget while allowing his top players to rest a few times per game. In any case, I would avoid such a coach, regardless of my child’s role on the team. Make all roster cuts at the end of the season. Some kids lose interest in hockey and need the opportunity to explore other activities, while others would benefit from playing at a different level or in a different environment. Additionally, there may be stronger candidates available who, if not recruited, could end up strengthening the competition

There are a million other reasons why kids sit or are sitting on some teams ; MNS, FT, ST and TW all run short benches and have almost all season.

Some kids miss practices or don't show commitment. Some kids don't listen to the coach. Some kids create problems on bench by calling out teammates and being little asswipes. Some kids don't try hard and don't have competitive spirit, they won't backcheck ever, they won't battle on the boards. Some kids are puck hogs and don't play as part of a team. Some kids were early starters but have fizzled out. Some take stupid penalties or always retaliate with rage on the ice.

Coach recruited these kids over a year ago, some skates were happening in November and December 2023. It's been a year and a half, some kids didnt pan out. What kind of a fool is going to cost a team and all the other hard working kids success by insisting they all play equal time? That's the coach you run away from.

Nobody's hands are cuffed if you're #12-15 on your team now and you come back in September there is a problem . With you.

There are many rational reasons to bench a kid sure. For a short period of time to teach a lesson. Not every game in order to win some extra games. You’re forgetting they are 9. You can’t make changes midway through a season. So yes youre stuck.

There’s a reason hockey Canada has rules regarding equal and fair play. I don’t totally agree with them but, unless you signed on and were told at the beginning that your kid wouldn’t get his share of time on the ice then it shouldn’t happen at this point because the coach can’t pick good players.

We aren’t midway thru a season mate.

We’re in the thick of the playoffs.

You can go with a communist approach and explain to 12 kids why the other 4 are costing them a chance so that everyone can go home with a participation ribbon.

Or you can play who you need to at the end of the end of games.

There is no person with a brain who would do this.

Strive for excellence.
[/

Strive for excellence? They are playing AA they missed the excellence boat by not being on a top 5 AAA team.

Easy solution, if your coach is not going to play kids have a smaller roster cut the others to A and affiliate with that team.

The parents can then strive for excellence paying the extra coat of having players not sit.