Junior teams are heating up for playoffs but they are also hot on the recruiting trail. Every junior team wants potential recruits to see the best side of its program. From touring the facility and locker room to skating in a practice or two, recruits are getting a chance to see the the coaches, staff and players in a typical day. Programs try to build a best case scenario for players and are willing to portray themselves a bit differently than reality.
Frankly, junior hockey programs are often criticized for over promising and under delivering. We are going to explore three items that are often promised when being recruited but turn out to be misrepresented or over exaggerated benefits. In some cases, the promised benefit simply does not exist.
Not all players can choose their junior team. If drafted into the USHL, a player has little option but to pursue the team that drafted him. However, those that have the freedom to choose a team can benefit from examining a team from the angles discussed below.
- Player Review
One promise made during recruiting is the player review. During recruiting a player is given the impression that there is constant player feedback and, in many cases, a weekly sit down with the coaches to review strengths and weaknesses. That impression may not turn out to be entirely accurate.
On many teams, from the USHL to the NA3HL, the player review process is either inconsistent or non existent. Many coaches do not establish a businesslike approach to their “business of coaching.” It is often only reactionary feedback that comes after a goal against or a loss. Good programs have a continuous and consistent feedback process that is catered to improving players. Good programs review players weekly.
One best practice is to provide immediate feedback after games via video and statistics. Software now makes it possible to send a player video footage of each and every shift skated during the game before the player even leaves the rink. A member of the coaching staff can highlight outstanding efforts and areas that need improvement. Another best practice is providing a quick game report card that is customized for an individual with specific goals for a game. The player and the coach review and grade the goals together.
It is almost impossible to have an effective player review process without first establishing a clear and defined team manifesto1. Without a player knowing exactly what is expected of him on the ice, he will never be playing with full enthusiasm and confidence. Without clear expectations, a player will never meet the team’s expectations.
I need to take a moment to discuss my choice of the word manifesto. First, it is not a commonly used word in the hockey community. It should be. A manifesto is much more than a vision statement commonly used in the corporate world. A manifesto is openly declaring your beliefs, goals and intentions.
There are red flags a player and parent should look for when discussing player review. First, if a coach claims that his team conducts weekly player reviews, does he mean that each player gets reviewed weekly or that the staff reviews a couple of players a week? If the latter is the case, a player may only be reviewed every second month. Many coaches set aside an hour a week for reviews. This is grossly inadequate. A great program divides the workload between all coaches. The staff meets weekly and reviews each player and then each coach is assigned a small, manageable, group of players. The smaller groups distributes the workload amongst the coaching staff and makes the task of player reviews manageable. It is rare to find a head coach that has the time and discipline to meet with each player individually on a weekly basis.
Another red flag should be statistics. If a staff attempts to use goals/Assists/Plus-Minus for their entire roster, it could signal potential problems. I’ll give you an example of how “statistics” bias could be a problem. When my daughter played, she was considered an offensive defender. She often joined the offensive rush and usually accumulated enough goals and assists to rival the better forwards on the team. Meanwhile, her partner was not offensive and rarely obtained points in the game. Based on a statistical review, one would assume that my daughter was superior. The reality was her defensive partner at U14 and U16 was a national team level player that went on to a wonderful NCAA Division I and professional career. My daughter was a good player, but no where near the level of her partner. In short, broad based statistics did not accurately reflect the total picture.
Statistics cannot be generic and used to compare groups of players. The measuring devices need to be customized to each player. A fourth line player that is physical, but rarely scores, should not be measured in the exact parameters of the team’s leading scorer. The fourth liner will most likely have more penalties, less shots on net, less puck possessions and, of course, less ice time than the first liner.
- Skill/System Progression
During the recruiting phase, recruits will often hear how good a coach is at development. They are told that a large percentage of time is devoted to individual skills and that the coaching staff has the ability to both teach and coach skill and system progression. It is easy to say that a program is good at development. However, stating you are “good at development” does not give a parent of player any quantifiable information to measure one program against another.
Regardless of the level of a particular junior team, it is rare to have a coach that has the time and abilities to break down a stride and rebuild/improve the biomechanics involved. Most can identify below average skills (skating, passing, shooting) but have no background as a professional skills coach. Often, this leads to one of two things done poorly.
First, a team will have a skills sessions that happens randomly throughout the season. The practice is set up in shooting and stick handling stations and players move from station to station with minimal or no input from the coaches.
Second, some teams will hire an outside skills coach to run practices from time to time. This sounds ideal. A professional skills coach can make a big difference, right?
Wrong!
Yes, professional skills coaches can be a very good thing. However, even if a skills coach has access to a team for 1.5 hours once a month, there are usually 25-30 skaters on the ice. Individual focus is lost to drills that accommodate the masses. Yes, players can improve with a professional skills coach, but only if it is consistent and at least weekly. Bringing in a professional skills coach looks good for recruiting and allows a program to “advertise” professional skill development. The reality is that the vast majority of junior teams spend little to no time on skill progression.
System play and the teaching of system play is wildly inconsistent from team to team. In a best case scenario, a player enters a team and is immediately immersed in the team’s manifesto of play. In other words, the program literally spells out each phase of play followed by a complete “who, what, when, where and why” explanation that leaves no ambiguity or room for confusion.
A team may actually distribute a written or video playbook breaking down each area of the ice (offensive zone, neutral zone and defensive zone) and laying out a philosophy backed by a specific execution plan. For example, the team philosophy may be to always want to frustrate a teams offense with relentless pressure. This is executed by implementing and teaching a structured man on man defensive zone system that continually pressures an opponents forwards.
The problem is that even at the highest level of junior hockey, few coaches have incorporated a complete game manifesto. Even rarer is the coach that can teach and communicate that message to both his assistants and players. There is a big difference from being able to understand a system and identify a certain system of play to actually teaching it properly. A team is in rarified air if its players master the manifesto and move into recognizing and understanding the opponent’s systems and strategies and have the ability to adjust accordingly.
I had a chance to attend a coaching seminar in Boston2 a few years back. In attendance were coaches from all over the world including NHL, college and Olympic level coaches. A well known NHL coach was doing a presentation on forechecking. During the presentation, he stated that he hated the trap and refused to ever implement the trap. If unfamiliar with the term “trap”, it is simply a passive approach to forechecking that allows a team to skate into the neutral zone where the defending team outnumbers the puck carrier taking away his options to skate or pass thus “trapping” the puck carrier.
The NHL coach said that the trap was bad for hockey. He said it slowed down the game, lowered the scoring and was bad for fans. He continued that he would never implement the trap.
This bothered me. During the question and answer period, I simply asked “If you don’t teach the trap and allow your players to fully understand that philosophy, how do you expect your players to overcome a trap when the opponent implements it against your team? Shouldn’t your players have to routinely practice against a trap to be able to beat a trap?”
In other words, the coach may not like or believe in an opponent’s style of play (systems). But if the teams are evenly matched in talent, it makes sense that the better prepared team has the best chance of winning. Thus, like it or not, a good coach must often teach opposite of his manifesto so he can help his players counter what his opponents execute.
After the presentation, that NHL coach approached me and thanked me for the question. He said that at first he was offended that I would challenge his coaching style. He continued by saying that upon a few minutes of reflection he realized he was only preparing his team for 1 dimensional play in a 3 dimensional game.
The level of a junior team does not indicate the level of professionalism or ability to teach the game and promote players. I have built a relationship with the Leamington Flyers of the Greater Ontario Junior Hockey League (GOJHL) over the past few years. Although the league is considered Canadian Junior B (a step below the CJHL), it has teams, like Leamington, that are operated with the same professionalism of any junior team in higher leagues. The team has a clearly defined system of play, along with clearly defined roles for coaches, management, staff and players. The level of play does not necessarily insure better coaching and team management.
- Video
One of the most underutilized tools at the junior level is video. When utilized, it is a powerful tool that can reinforce good play and allow for exact criticism of mistakes. It supports and reinforces a team manifesto. In many situations video is a critical component of the player review process. It is direct and clear as a teaching tool. Unfortunately, the majority of junior teams, have no consistent, formalized video program.
A powerful output of a strong video program is the removal of bias. The video does not lie. Coaches that embrace video have to be able to match their personal bias, positive or negative, towards players to the reality of video. Brett Woods is the Assistant Director of Sports Psychology at the University of Nebraska. When discussing coaching bias and video, he stated:
“Our emotions can sometimes override our prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for evaluating performances, more of the logistics of evaluation,” Woods said. “That can color your perception of the event and your memory, your recall is more shaded by your emotional evaluation of the performance rather than the actual event that took place.”
Many coaches build a hypothesis regarding a players performance and then seek information, like statistics, to defend their position. Video becomes a reality check and, in many cases, a player protection mechanism. What do I mean by player protection mechanism? Simply that a player that feels he deserves more playing time or a different level of responsibility on a team has video evidence to support his request. However, that is a double edge sword that can also provide evidence that a player should receive a lesser role on a team.
Fellow University of Nebraska Sports Psychologist, Brett Haskell states:
“Thanks to biases, stress, fatigue and the pressure of the moment, most athletes and coaches remember things differently from how they actually transpired.”
Matched with the team’s manifesto, video becomes a vital learning tool for the player and the coaching staff. The player, having a clear and defined set of goals, is able to get immediate feedback. A coach is able to adjust his teaching and coaching, depending on the success of the overall team and each individual.
Great teams use video daily. It is a consistent practice, not a random occurrence. They use video to review game performance. They use video to preview upcoming opponents including their systems, tendencies and players to watch. They also use video to prepare for practice. Keep in mind that the days of sitting down the entire team and watching an entire game, start to finish, are nearly gone. In today’s world, a coach or staff member may watch film for six or eight hours to provide 20 minute of instructional footage that is dispersed to the team over 4 or 5 days in small, 5 minute, pieces.
I observed the Dubuque Fighting Saints and their impressive use of video during their main camp last year. After each game, each player received an email containing each of the player’s shifts along with a statistical breakdown (hits, turnovers, shots…). To put this level of effort and attention to detail into feedback during a main camp is a gold standard practice.
Poor teams have no consistent video review process. The coaching staff may watch video from time to time. However, the practice is not habitual. Inconsistency is usually blamed on lack of money for software, lack of time and lack of budget to hire a video coordinator. Yet, some junior programs that have a strong emphasis of video utilize volunteers and free software available online. Small budget junior teams can still utilize video. In today’s game of hockey, there is no excuse for not have a fully established video process incorporated into daily team activities.
In many cases, the real underlying reason for not incorporating a strong video program centers around the inability to merge the team manifesto with video and player reviews. If a team has a poorly organized system of play, reviewing video is meaningless. If a player review does not match the reality of video, it is also meaningless.
How can a player or parent use this information?
Understanding that many teams overpromise in these three areas should help a parent or player look closer at the team and their day to day operations. Players and parents should be prompted to listen and observe everything a team presents, both verbally and in writing. Awareness of potential team weaknesses should lead to pointed and direct questions. However, questions should be non threatening and positioned to gather information and not to create a “gotcha” moment. A possible followup question in regards to player review could be “can you walk me through your player review process in detail?”
Of course a decision to play, or not to play, on a team should not be based solely on the three above items. Location, cost, competitive level, coaching style, needs, and goals all need to factor into the selection of the right team. Every player wants to be on the team that will get him to college hockey.
However, I would strongly urge parents and players to seek programs that can openly and enthusiastically discuss their overall philosophy, their manifesto. By exploring their manifesto, it is much easier identify if a team can satisfy a players particular needs including player review, video and skill/system progression.
Many times players and parents can sense good “hockey business practices” by merely observing the team in action. A couple of years ago, I was able to observe the Camrose Kodiaks (Alberta Junior Hockey League) throughout their entire recruiting process. From initial contact through the exit interviews, the team was transparent and thorough with a detailed itinerary for the recruits and parents. The team had a consistant schedule from week to week that included skill and system progression, player feedback and review and video being utilized in numerous ways. The professionalism and attention to detail went beyond expectations and included a published injury report listing status and recovery steps, a detailed report with projected returning veterans along with targeted prospects and also a detailed report listing all college contacts for each individual player. Players and coaches knew what is expected day to day.
While I observed Camrose, I would ask a question of the front office staff or the trainer and even the equipment manager. Everyone knew the plan of the day. Everyone was able to access the daily and weekly schedule. In other words, the team manifesto was clear to everyone and executed properly. Camrose regularly maintains a large number best practices.
Summary
There are three areas that junior teams tend to overpromise during the recruiting phase: 1) skill and system progression; 2) player review; and 3) frequent and consistent use of video as a teaching mechanism.
Is there a connection between the three areas? Yes! Teams that deliver on these three critical components tend to be well managed programs. Each of these areas requires forethought, planning, analysis of priorities and organization – hallmarks of successful businesses inside and out of the hockey industry.
Visual clues of a well managed junior program include plenty written documentation that provides evidence of competency. Is the web site up to date with useful information beyond statistics? Do they publish weekly schedules (for staff and players use) of meetings and events that include player specific player review times, team and individual film session and even possibly scheduled “chalk talks” to reinforce and teach system play. Do players have a schedule of their assigned community service events?
None of this is possible without clearly defined roles for both players and coaches coupled with excellent communication coach to coach, coach to player and player to player.
Can a team be successful without these three component in place? It depends on the definition of success. Yes, a team can win by just putting superior talent on the ice. Usually those junior programs tend to fluctuate year to year in the standings. When they have superior talent, they win. When they have average talent, they fall low in the standings.
Teams with all of the components in place will tend to stay in the top third of the standings year in and year out. The amount of players traded is at a minimum. Why, because a team with a clearly defined manifesto can teach and reinforce that manifesto from the day recruiting begins. They also tend to retain players because it is easier to continue to teach and improve a recruited player than to start fresh with a traded player. Further, players tend to perform better and want to return season after season because they see personal growth and success in meeting well defined expectations.
Finally, teams that are well managed are extremely happy to show you how they operate. There are many programs that have established these best practices. Other are working towards this goal. Well managed teams operate at all levels. Tier 1, Tier 2 or Tier 3, it does not matter. Keep in mind that the opposite is also true. Just because a team is in the USHL does not mean that it has a working manifesto and keeps its recruiting promises.
