Hockey IQ

[C.Schneider]

The problem on this board is people keep spewing the word "Hockey IQ" without anyone really providing an explanation to what it actually is.  Therefore, those who don't know what "Hockey IQ" is are left guessing what this entity is, and usually end up ignoring it thinking it is some made up word formulated to fuel hate on their precious Canucks' prospects (ie Jake Virtanen).

"Hockey IQ" isn't something that just exist in hockey.  It is something a person is born with, exactly like a fighter's instinct; you either have it or you don't.  The reason why people keep using the exact term "Hockey IQ" is for the obvious reason, we are talking about hockey after all.  This IQ is more closely related to instinctive thinking, and the ability to analyse and process your thought into the most optimal action given your immediate surrounding.  

This IQ has nothing to do with how well a person can perform academically (some immediately associate IQ with academic grades).  As we know, academic grades rely on not how smart a person is, but really how much time a person invests and how determined the person is to achieve success in that given field.  

Instinctive IQ, or "Hockey IQ" doesn't rely on the generosity of abundant time.  It is the ability for your brain to take in all significant factors from your environment and for your brain to translate that into a beneficial action in that split second.  

Now having the "gifted" physical attribute to successfully translate that into action is a whole different story.  As for Jake Virtanen, he definitely does have that physicalness ready.  What people are saying is that he lacks that instinctive IQ for his brain to properly assess the situation in a specific instance.

The reason why people value "Hockey IQ" so much is because hockey is a quick paced sport, probably one of the most if not the most.  Your situation (surrounding / environment) changes every second, and you need to be able to adapt right away in order to be successful in this game.

Think of a player like Johnny Gaudreau.  So many thought he would not succeed at the NHL because of his lack of "physical" stature.  Well, he is an example of a player with a gifted "Hockey IQ".  This allows him to survive and succeed at the NHL, even through his liability, simply by being able to think the game one step ahead of his opponents.

I'm not saying Jake lacks, or has the hockey IQ.  I'm just trying to provide some explanation as to why people keep utilizing this term.

[Alflives]

Just now, C.Schneider said:

The problem on this board is people keep spewing the word "Hockey IQ" without anyone really providing an explanation to what it actually is.  Therefore, those who don't know what "Hockey IQ" is are left guessing what this entity is, and usually end up ignoring it thinking it is some made up word formulated to fuel hate on their precious Canucks' prospects (ie Jake Virtanen).

"Hockey IQ" isn't something that just exist in hockey.  It is something a person is born with, exactly like a fighter's instinct; you either have it or you don't.  The reason why people keep using the exact term "Hockey IQ" is for the obvious reason, we are talking about hockey after all.  This IQ is more closely related to instinctive thinking, and the ability to analyse and process your thought into the most optimal action given your immediate surrounding.  

This IQ has nothing to do with how well a person can perform academically (some immediately associate IQ with academic grades).  As we know, academic grades rely on not how smart a person is, but really how much time a person invests and how determined the person is to achieve success in that given field.  

Instinctive IQ, or "Hockey IQ" doesn't rely on the generosity of abundant time.  It is the ability for your brain to take in all significant factors from your environment and for your brain to translate that into a beneficial action in that split second.  

Now having the "gifted" physical attribute to successfully translate that into action is a whole different story.  As for Jake Virtanen, he definitely does have that physicalness ready.  What people are saying is that he lacks that instinctive IQ for his brain to properly assess the situation in a specific instance.

The reason why people value "Hockey IQ" so much is because hockey is a quick paced sport, probably one of the most if not the most.  Your situation (surrounding / environment) changes every second, and you need to be able to adapt right away in order to be successful in this game.

Think of a player like Johnny Gaudreau.  So many thought he would not succeed at the NHL because of his lack of "physical" stature.  Well, he is an example of a player with a gifted "Hockey IQ".  This allows him to survive and succeed at the NHL, even through his liability, simply by being able to think the game one step ahead of his opponents.

I'm not saying Jake lacks, or has the hockey IQ.  I'm just trying to provide some explanation as to why people keep utilizing this term.

Hockey IQ definately goes up with players who can control the puck with their head up at high speed.  That is a skill, that can be practiced and improved.  

[LuckyLuciano]

You either have it or you don't! Nah mean breh?

[Alflives]

18 minutes ago, The 5th Line said:

.

I agree 100%

[Crabcakes]

The Theory of Multiple Intelligences basically says that there are 9 types of intelligence. It says that everyone has a blend of cognitive abilities that are unique to them.  Hockey IQ would be a blend that was high in types of intelligence required to play hockey like Visual-Spatial, Bodily (Athletic) etc.  The 9 types of intelligence are:

• logical-Mathematical
• linguistic
• bodily
• musical
• naturalist
• interpersonal
• intra-personal
• spacial
• existential

 

[brownky]

Gretzky was small, not a fast skater, not a particularly hard shooter, definitely not physical...

 

...but he was the smartest guy on the ice every single time he stepped onto it. 

 

The speed of thought to adjust on the ice is more important than any one physical attribute. The most gifted athlete who is dumb as a post won't get anywhere.

Lidstrom was another guy who didn't have any particularly standout physical abilities... but we all know how good he wound up being based on brains.

The problem is, it's often harder to scout for brains. Especially in that 16-20 range where everybody is a complete idiot. So guys take a flyer on the 'physical' side and hope that by the time they leave their teens behind they start to have some brain functions.

 

Virtanen is 19 years old. He's a long way from 'bust' territory. He's been largely disappointing at this level, for sure. And his WJC game was not on point... but he's 19. Give him time. Look at our other prospects; our best two guys "started" pro at 22 - and came from College. 

 

Personally I'd rather he be 'bad' now, get his bad habits out of his system and he can come back and be a real hockey player in a few years. He's got the tools, if his jello mush brain starts to form into something reasonable - which it can - in a few years he'll be a real force.

 

Stamkos was looking at getting traded in his second year, if you remember. He was "disappointing". Tavares too. 19 is a tough time.

[-DLC-]

Quote

 It is the ability for your brain to take in all significant factors from your environment and for your brain to translate that into a beneficial action in that split second.  

But a point can be made that someone starting out is in a new environment and so may react out of panic moreso than someone acclimatized and familiar who has seen players on a regular basis and can then base their reaction on past experience.

Someone who is new on the job won't have the tools (yet) to react instinctively like someone who's been around awhile and doesn't have to process it all at a beginner level.  A beginner is bound to be a bit struck by it all and will take awhile to settle in. So we shouldn't really determine hockey IQ until we have a good sample size.  In my view. 

[TimberWolf]

 

 

 

[Toews]

4 hours ago, debluvscanucks said:

But a point can be made that someone starting out is in a new environment and so may react out of panic moreso than someone acclimatized and familiar who has seen players on a regular basis and can then base their reaction on past experience.

Someone who is new on the job won't have the tools (yet) to react instinccively like someone who's been around awhile and doesn't have to process it all at a beginner level.  A beginner is bound to be a bit struck by it all and will take awhile to settle in. So we shouldn't really determine hockey IQ until we have a good sample size.  In my view. 

In Virtanen's case though the problem of hockey IQ was well known before his play in the NHL. By that I mean there was a decent enough sample size in junior to make some sort of judgment.

[Crabcakes]

I'm by-ing what Pierre McGuire said on 1040 today.  Hockey IQ is evident between the ages of 7 and 14.  If it isn't clear by then, it never will be. 

JV has to reinvent his style of play.  Until now, he has been so dominant physically, that he could just overpower most players.  Not so any more.  He has never had to develop his IQ before.  He'll have to work at it.  He'll have to figure out other ways to get the job done.  If he goes back to junior, he'll just go back to his old habits.  If he stays up, he'll have to solve something.  The sooner he faces this challenge the better.

[Apple Juice]

9 hours ago, Crabcakes said:

I'm by-ing what Pierre McGuire said on 1040 today.  Hockey IQ is evident between the ages of 7 and 14.  If it isn't clear by then, it never will be. 

JV has to reinvent his style of play.  Until now, he has been so dominant physically, that he could just overpower most players.  Not so any more.  He has never had to develop his IQ before.  He'll have to work at it.  He'll have to figure out other ways to get the job done.  If he goes back to junior, he'll just go back to his old habits.  If he stays up, he'll have to solve something.  The sooner he faces this challenge the better.

Ray Ferraro was on TSN 1040 few days ago and he mentioned that with Jake Virtanen, he's so used to being able to overpower his defenders in junior that he could skate around them, use his size to blow past them and score goals. That's not the case in the NHL and certainly wasn't the case in the World Juniors so Virtanen has to find a way to skate without the puck to get open and use his size to make space for himself without the puck. 

 

There's only one true power forward in the league that can overpower his defenders and skate by them and score a crazy amount of goals and that is Alexander Ovechkin. Nobody else in the league comes close to what Ovechkin can do with his physicality. 

[babych]

I think (and this is just my opinion), that what people refer to as "Hockey IQ" is what used to be called "vision" and "the ability to slow the game down", and is a combination of a players innate talent and experience.

[Crabcakes]

37 minutes ago, Apple Juice said:

Ray Ferraro was on TSN 1040 few days ago and he mentioned that with Jake Virtanen, he's so used to being able to overpower his defenders in junior that he could skate around them, use his size to blow past them and score goals. That's not the case in the NHL and certainly wasn't the case in the World Juniors so Virtanen has to find a way to skate without the puck to get open and use his size to make space for himself without the puck. 

 

There's only one true power forward in the league that can overpower his defenders and skate by them and score a crazy amount of goals and that is Alexander Ovechkin. Nobody else in the league comes close to what Ovechkin can do with his physicality. 

Yes, and my point was that if Jake has never been forced to be creative, use other players, work give and go's etc can he still learn to do it?   To hear him speak in interviews, he's not stupid.  He must have some vision and hockey intelligence.  He's going to have to learn to tap into it or else become the next Yannick Hansen. 

Mind you, Hansen is a 3RW+ with great speed and hands of stone who pots 15 goals a year and can play up and down the line up.  Add Virtanen's size and better shot to the mix and you have a one man wrecking crew who scores 20.  That's not a bad thing.

[-DLC-]

On 2016-01-09 at 10:51 PM, Toews said:

In Virtanen's case though the problem of hockey IQ was well known before his play in the NHL. By that I mean there was a decent enough sample size in junior to make some sort of judgment.

Except these are still very young players with their entire career in front of them to develop some extra knowledge and experience.  And the fine tuning and honing in on him in the big league is part of that.  Again, not finished products at this age and IQ can be affected if he has people who show him things from a different angle than he's seen.  Or provide some extra tools that help him analyze things out there so that he's better equipped.

[Toews]

27 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said:

Except these are still very young players with their entire career in front of them to develop some extra knowledge and experience.  And the fine tuning and honing in on him in the big league is part of that.  Again, not finished products at this age and IQ can be affected if he has people who show him things from a different angle than he's seen.  Or provide some extra tools that help him analyze things out there so that he's better equipped.

I definitely agree with you that things aren't set in stone. What I meant was, you have enough of a sample size in junior to make a fair projection. These projections obviously won't end up being 100% accurate.