thes5

Big boy who looks like he isn't allergic to the middle of the ice. 

On 4/20/2023 at 10:52 AM, Long live the King said:

 

Except Igor didn't have a bad season.  Had had some bad stretches, during which they were a .500 team.  Halak lost his first 7 or eight straight games.  When the goalies are on they win.  When the goalies are off they lose.  

Sounds like every other team in the NHL.

Meh, Helly was really good.  Rangers tried to make a big push in the second but it just wasn't happening tonight.

I'll give Hajek a shout out since we are quick to shit on him when he isn't good.

Tro better stop fumbling the puck continually.  Idk if he's still getting used to the team or feeling the pressure of NY and the contract, but he needs to tighten it up.

20 hours ago, lefty9 said:

My grandmother could skate faster with the puck

Speed isn't everything.  Joe Thornton, Anze Kopitar, Huberdeau, Benn, Stone.  None of these guys are fast.

Please just win!  I can't live with these Carolina fans and their inferiority complex.  The locals are still pissed off that they have been infiltrated!!

13 hours ago, Pete said:

So what? Who cares? Why are you assuming that there will be any chemistry at all between Panarin and Namestnikov? His career high is 48 points playing with Stamkos and Kucherov.

 

Stop hating Strome more than you like your own team. This "get rid of him at all costs" stuff is garbage. I'm all for moving on, but for an upgrade.

I don't see this amazing chemistry between him and Panarin. 

It comes down to what he would take to stay.  No way do you over pay that guy.

What do Laf and Kakko have in common?  Both are average skaters.  If you are picking at the top of the draft, you better damn well pick a guy who can skate.

i know Chytil has been shit this year, but I really think the kid can develop into a useful player based, primarily on the fact that he can skate. 

Look at Marty Necas.  He can outskate most NHLers.  He turns the puck over way too much, but he can make shit happen too.

I'm just not seeing it with Laf especially.  What is it that he does that leads you to think he will develop into a player who can dominate, at least a particular area of the game?

Had night's recap on NHLN this morning in the background and they started doing the CAR game and heard something like, "on the first goal, Brady Skjei couldn't control the puck." I thought yeah, that's him.

It wasn't Skjei's fault though. They had him on his off side and the pass was made to him along the wall in the corner. The puck jumped his stick. It was the rest of the team who weren't in position to recover.

Outside of that one play, he had a really good game. He showed more offense than I have seen out of him all season. Canes already have Slavin and Pesce as shutdown type D. Brady can be more aggressive with that team.

Deangelo's issues were mental. Maybe still are mental, but he's harnassed that this season.

 

Fox may have a better career, may be more consistent when all is said and done, but go look at their bodies of work. Nobody, not a single NA D man currently active has a resume that even comes close to Deangelo offensively. He was a .5 ppg Dman in the USHL when he went to camp at FOURTEEN.

 

He could go completely off the rails tomorrow for all I know, but right now he's indispensable.

He may go on to be a top 5 point producer for D and that carries a ton of weight, but he isn't a good defender. Certainly not as good as Fox. Overall, Fox is and will be the more valuable player. I could be wrong, but I think the organization feels the same way.

Agree to disagree here I guess. DeAngelo has improved from bad to decent defensively. Certainly not a liability like he was. I think it's an outdated view to say he is a defensive liability. Offensively DeAngelo has been clearly more productive.

 

Future wise, I would be surprised if Fox doesn't eventually pass him up. But it's not now.

Tony's point production has slowed.

He is getting an additional minute of PP time/game and his shooting % is twice that of Fox. That % will eventually even out. I think its splitting hairs as to who is better offensively, but its not really as close defensively. Fox is better and I don't see this kid reverting.

I've been on this kid since watching him at Canes rookie camp a few years ago. It was just obvious that he was the best player on the ice. If he didn't come in and play like he has, I would have been blown away.

Maybe defensively? Yes, definitely...by a good margin.

I can easily see Fox getting more points than Tony going forward. The guy has elite vision and passing skill. Tony has really good offensive instinct as well, but I'm not seeing it being much, or any, greater than Fox's.

Time will tell.

Good news is now Gorton can sign ADA and we will have two really good young D to argue over who is better.

I'm good with keeping Lindgren and Fox together. Don't follow the other statement. Love Fox but Tony D has been better this year.

I'm calling bullshit on that one. Fox has been better than ADA and I don't think its debatable.

Don't get me wrong, Fox has made some mistakes, but Tony is still a defensive liability. Love the guy, but his value lies solely in his offensive puck moving ability.

That broad on the afternoon show is fuckin brutal. It?s so obvious that some women get hired just because they?re women. She has a face for radio too, ooof.

No shit. How do they let a woman with the most annoying voice I've ever heard, on the radio. She makes Susan Waldman sound like Pavarotti!

Not that I disagree, but house league in Canada is not the same as the house leagues in the US.

Didn't consider that since I'm not familiar with their house leagues.

One similarity, at least down here in Raleigh, is that house leagues have abandoned body checking at all levels. It definitely has kept some kids in the game that otherwise would have stopped playing.

That's probably why we don't lose to Slovenia. hahahaha

 

But seriously, it's even worse than you think. Jack just turned 9, the rest of the league is pretty much 7 and 8 year olds. And, it's fuckin house league!

 

I don't generally agree with it, my dad (whose coached every level of hockey out there, and is heavily invested in Jack's hockey) thinks it's insane, and my wife is a woman so obviously she thinks it's dumb but I get it and it's one of the precious few avenues he'll learn this lesson as it sure as shit doesn't happen at school anymore where's it's everybody wins yayyyy, everybody is special yayyyy, you all passed yayyyyyyyy.

 

At the end of the day, I'm just not open to criticizing volounteer coaches (we're lucky to have the three we do, they're all hockey people).

It is absolutely insane to bench 8-9 year old kids in house league. The only reason to do it is to pump the coaches tires so he can walk around and take credit for a teams wins. Dumb, dumb and dumb.

What if he's not?

I can't speak for all clubs, but if we need to fill an A team and the kids available to fill need help, they usually get it.

I hear you, I just don't think those life lessons have to be learned so young, in something that's supposed to be fun.

 

I also don't need him in another environment where there's financial competition. It's bad enough with clothing and phones in school. I don't need him hearing that he's poor because we can't afford the top of the line stick or skates or weekly clinic everyone else is doing.

 

A lot of shit I hear from you and my neighbors has put me off.

 

The other day the guy across the street was telling me parents start their kids in school a year late hoping they'll be bigger than everyone else going out for football, rugby and LAX.

 

Insanity.

Don't the clubs up north have the funds to subsidize families who need help financially? I think the bottom line is if the kid is good, money will not be too much of an issue.

Even if it's just for the lower tiers? Maybe it's not a bad idea to have the less talented skaters not trying to kill each other. USA hockey took hitting out completely until bantam minor year, but they haven't put restrictions on any levels

I'm all for taking checking out at the house/B level. Most of these kids are just playing for fun anyway.

On a side note, my kid is an 02 and moving up to Bantam in the fall. He was invited to play in a spring tourney with a Bantam team, 02's, 01's and 00's were eligible. Our team had around four 02's and they were dwarfed by some of these kids. We played a team from South Florida (supposedly a hand selected team from the area) that were HUGE. They had a kid that was easily 6'2" 200 pounds. My kid is around 5'1" and 90 pounds after Sunday pasta. Our team ended up with one concussion and lost one of the goalies to a slash to the back of the neck.

TBH, my kid did fine, but he was definitely playing with "heightened awareness"...translation...scared shit. Just thinking that when we played as kids, and checked from the mite level, kids didn't have to make the jump to checking at a time where a one year age difference is a big deal. I think having the kids check at PW would be beneficial in making the leap to Bantam.

I agree with this, however, some organizations don't offer teams at every level. Imo, I'd rather my kid play squirt AA rather than pw-b. Older age doesn't equal better hockey. I don't think that's the case for Kevin, as I'm familiar with where his kid plays. They usually have AA or A. If ice time is equal, which it usually is at tier 2, playing a year up won't kill him. I'd like to see him play, see his size, when his bday, etc.

I agree, but I've never heard a kid moving up to play PW B. Clearly, Squirt AA is a better class of hockey than PW B.

Of course, there is always the option to move a kid to another club if his current program doesn't offer a level to meet the ability of the player. Plenty of options in NJ.

TBH, if a kid is good enough to play up, there are already other programs courting the kid to play with their program.

The question is what is the end game? Is it for the kid to have a great experience and have fun? That should be it, but too many parents have the idea that their kid is destined for D1. We know the reality.

So I guess everyone's seasons are winding down right about now. I know my son's team is gearing up for their final tourney in Maryland on March 6th and then it's basically getting ready for next season's tryouts. I'm not sure if we've already discussed this here but what are your guys thoughts on playing up? My son played up as an 8 y.o. on squirt last year and is now a second year squirt this season. He's had a real good year albeit on a not so succesful team. I'm considering having him tryout for pee-wee this season with the hopes that he plays pee-wee b this year as a 10 y.o. Thoughts?

Unless the kid is absolutely dominating the highest level of squirt, leave him where he is. Too many parents make the mistake of pushing their kid up when the kid is not ready. On top of that, a lot of kids, who were stars at their age level, get pushed up and are no longer the dominant player on the team. They lose confidence and, sometimes, interest in the game because its no longer as fun for them.

Puckhead told me if I have a kid who wants to play, keep him in rec and do a lot of clinics until he's older, 11 or 12.

Lots of power skating combined with puck handling. Can't skate, can't play.

The politics at age 4 and 5 have absolutely floored me, but the kids at that age have absolutely no clue so they're just out there doing their thing and building a good base to grow from without even knowing it. If you want your kid to play competitively at any level I think it's best to start early. Skating is everything, so that's really all you have to do. The rest at that age is kind of ridiculous. My kid spent his entire first year as a 4 YO playing Minecraft and Pokemon on the ice during practice.

 

Pragmatically, it gets the kid out of the house. They're much easier and pleasant to deal with when they've burned off energy.

Absolutely. At that age, its more socialization for the kids than anything else.

You see problems when you have parents who are riding their 5 year olds to excel. They are actually bribing kids to score goals with money, toys, ice cream....you name it. When some of these kids hit 13 and are no longer the star of the team, and are tired of hearing dad's after-game speeches, they either quit or regress.

I agree. But if you put a tier 1 squirt minor coach in the same position, you're going to get the same result 85% of the time. Jay, again this is another thing that makes hockey here different than there, it's not just April tryouts. Lol. And it's all for the same reason ... Keeping the families of the better kids happy. People want to win. People want their kids to win AND have top minutes. No one wants their top players to go to another, or rival organization. It sucks, and I hate to say it, but $$$ 70% - hockey 30%

Developing the kids to be better players and people should be the focus, regardless of age. Of course, Tier I families realize that they are playing the highest level of competition and that their kids are not guaranteed ice time. But, if a program can't field three lines of Tier I caliber players, then they should play AA, not AAA.

Sitting the third line for most of the game is ridiculous. Keep in mind that the other team has a third line as well. Either the team you field is good enough to compete or its not.

If you don't know how good your kid is, you're either blind, or stupid. Whether or not you believe this should happen in youth hockey, if you can't handle it then don't put him on a team where you know he's not a top 6 player.

Mikey, you know for a fact that there are plenty of blind parents out there!

Tier I, the coach is going to try to win. Our parents know that, in a tight game/3rd period, some lines might pick up extra ice/PP time. Typically, we will make up for that lost ice time during the next game. Otherwise, we roll lines.

Parents, yes even Tier I, have to realize that the odds of their kid getting an ice hockey scholarship are painfully slim. A little perspective makes for good hockey parents.