| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Guest0482
( )
|
 Posted - 12/31/2009 : 13:30:06
|
| I don't like this team at all only line that will see sucess is if they play together is the Heatley Thorton Marleau line . Green being cut was huge mistake best breakout passer in the world. patrice over savard? would have liked to see martin st louis make team. I see us choking bad and maybe if lucky make it bronze medal game |
 |
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 15:28:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
How are my comments disingenuous and yours are not??? I don't get that. You say that 2 games between Bouwmeester and Weber and one game between Doughty and Phaneuf and that tells the tale of who should play and who should stay home?? I know that you watch a ton of Flames hockey but have you watched the same amount of Nashville or Kings hockey??
I completely agree that the Canadian MO has always been big and strong. But intimidating??? What??? I have never understood that. Do you think that any of these players in the Olympics are intimidated by another player??
I can't see Ovechkin(or any other hockey player) is sitting at home right now looking over the Canadian roster going,' Geez, glad that Phenuef isn't playing. He's intimidating!!"
Now I believe if we are talking about pure physical play, where is Canada lacking?? Are we forgetting about Chris Pronger?? Possibly the meanest SOB in the game??
With all due respect, Phaneuf and Green are in the same boat. Both brilliant at the thing they are good at but not stand out in the other things defensemen should do. Is Phaneuf a better hitter than the other Canadian d-man. Ya, I could agree with that. But does he bring anything else to the table that you could say is better than any other Canadian d-men??? More importantly, can one not quite easily say that Phaneuf would be at the bottom of this group defensively???
I think that Yzerman and the group were very clear in their picks that they did not want anyone viewed as a potential liabiity to the team. Steady and solid across the board. Their defensive group averages 6'3" and 210 lbs.
Personally, I would rather have 6-7 great all around defensemen than 5-6 great all around defensemen and a couple singular specialists.
And that is why I think Bouwmeester should have been on this team but have no issue with Phanuef not being there.
It was disingenuous when you stated that Neidermayer won at every level without being intimidating physically. Insinuating that he was solely responsible for the team winning and that the team had no other players who were intimidating. Both untrue.
If you don't think Phaneuf is intimidating to play against you're fooling yourself.
I've seen 4 of Nashville's games this season. Not a large sample size but spread out over 3 months time if a player seems to play the same in each game it should be an indication that it isn't just a bad game he's having. Weber is no better in his own end than Phaneuf. It grows tiring to constantly hear the Phaneuf detractors spew the same malignant diatribe. If it were at least current deficiencies used as reasons to knock him I would certainly acknowledge it.
This defence lacks dynamics. Phaneuf is a dynamic player. He brings a package that no one else does while being very solid defensively. He is as good as anyone on the powerplay. Heavy shot. Is very good at keeping the puck in the offensive end. Add in his hits that make guys think twice and what he brings is more valuable than Doughty, Weber, Seabrook and Boyle.
You think Boyle is great in his own end? You need to watch more closely if that's the case. He is an offensive defenceman who has as many points as he does because he has the number one line in the NHL playing in front of him.
I would also put Green on the team. Yzerman stated in an interview after the announcement that he thought building this team was no different than building a team for a Stanley Cup run. Well those teams always have specialists or guys who have very strong points in their game. Defensive guys, offensive guys, hard hitting guys. These defencemen will be playing roles in this Olympic team. They aren't all going to play 30 minutes a game. That said, there were better role playing defencemen to choose. Green being one.
Seabrook does not belong in this group at all. This needing proven chemistry because it's a short tournament business is a crock. I've watched Bouwmeester play with every defencemen Calgary has and hasn't missed a beat. Great hockey players can play with anyone. Seabrook is a wasted spot. Yes he and Keith play well together but imagine how great a pairing a better player with Keith could be. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 12/31/2009 : 15:34:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I agree with Willus about Doughty over Bouwmeester, that to me is a huge error in judgement. And he makes a fair point about Phaneuf over Weber, one I can't comment on too much as I don't stay up late enough to watch very much of Phaneuf, and I never see Nashville obviously. But the point about Canada only having one intimidating defenceman is a fair point, Pronger is indeed the only one to be wary of. I think we needed another big body in Bouwmeester, one who is very skilled and experienced, and we needed a Green to help qb the power play and finish off those rushes with your skilled forwards.
See bolded above.
This is why it bothers me that everyone thinks Weber should be on the team. No one sees him play. If he played in a major market he would have as many detractors as Green and Phaneuf do. Maybe more.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 07:51:20
|
Willus, I am glad you agree with me about Green, and you really have me thinking about these guys I don't watch a lot of - Weber in particular. Honestly, I've only watch Weber play maybe one or two times in two or three years . . . and one of those times may have been the all-star game. I am going to make a point of watching a few Nashvill games next chance I get.
On the other hand, I have watched quite a few Calgary games . . . and I can't argue too much with your points about Phaneuf either, although I am not quite as high on him as you are. But you bring up good points about dynamics.
Looking at Bean's post about past year Olympic line-ups made me remember how in the past, Canada always had some intimidating presences . . . physically, and in terms of offence.
Rob Blake and Al Macinnis on offence . . . heck, you could argue that many were afraid of Al's slapshot every time he wound up, and it changed things. People would key in on him, leaving a man open, and more opportunities would result.
Pronger, and in the past Stevens and Jovocop, were intimidating physical presences . . . but Pronger has diminished value at this time (although he's clearly still on my team) and it would have been nice to have a Scott Stevens type player on the team, but they don't grow on trees. Phaneuf is in a different mold than Stevens was, but they do have one thing in common: they can incite fear.
If you were on the ice with them, you knew you had better keep your head up. And that makes the opposition play differently . . . just like the opposition played differently with a Rob Blake type player on the ice who was like a 4th forward - you could not ever forget about him.
To me, the Doughty selection is over-managing, trying to somehow pick out the future when we have better players in the present. And while team Canada could do well without all of our best defencemen on the team and still win, the competition has never been tougher. When facing a powerhouse offence like the Russians, or a red-hot ace goalie like Miller for the US, we absolutely needed to put every single best weapon on this team.
To leave off an experienced and poised Bouwmeester who has very good all-around skill is a mistake. To leave off the greatest offensive defenceman since Blake or Leetch is a mistake (Green).
Hopefully it doesn't cost us a medal.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 12:36:21
|
So it's looks like people don't like opinions so they start throwing personal shots. I have not thrown a single shot at anyone but have had lobs thrown by both of my moderating partners because they have a different opinion than mine?? Calling a poster things such as naive or hypocritically, regardless of what words are used to replace those is not warranted or appreciated.
C'mon, you guys are both way too smart and knowledgeable about hockey to have to make it personal. If you want to dance on my argument, go ahead, but I would appreciate if you stopped trying to dance on me personally.
Now, to a couple of points:
I never stated or insinuated that Scott Neidermayer is solely responsible for the success his teams have had. But, he has always been a very successful player without being physically intimidating. Further to that point, one must admit that since NHL players have been in the Olympics, the success has been found by other countries. Specifically Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the Chech Republic. Who are their 'intimidating" players?? Is it that Team Canada missed the boat by not having the 'intimidating' Dion Phaneuf on the roster or is it that maybe the 'intimidating' defense is not as successful as the balanced defensive core a la Sweden???
I stand by my Al MacInnis as a PP specialist. At that point in his career(39 years old), he was rarely called upon to do much outside of fire shots from the point and not make mistakes in the back end. If it was 1992 I would have agreed that MacInnis was more than a PP specialist. In 2002, he was just that.
I also don't see how my point about the most successful team in the past 3 Olympics being balanced without any players being even average defensively says anything about bringing a very specialized offensive player to the Olympics.
And finally, please help me understand how a player like Drew Doughty is a bad pick considering what he does on the ice for a team that almost everyone did not have doing nearly as well as they have. He sits in the top 5 in most offensive catagories and is very strong in his own end.
I agree with anyone who says that Jay Bouwmeester should be on this team. I also completely agree with Steve Yzerman's comments that Doughty made the team specifically over Mike Green on being a more complete player. And I also agree with anyone who says that Dion Phaneuf does not belong on this team.
I think specifically the 2002 Olympic Teams and the 2006 Olympic Teams guided the Canadian Management on picking this defensive group. The 2002 team was very balanced with none of the player really pure specialists in anything and more balanced in everything. That won a Gold Medal. The 2006 team had a mixed group and some very speciallized players and they finished 7th.
In the end, we will all know in 6 weeks. If Canada wins, the decision was correct. If they tank, then people will have the 'no Mike Green" arguement. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 13:55:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
So it's looks like people don't like opinions so they start throwing personal shots. I have not thrown a single shot at anyone but have had lobs thrown by both of my moderating partners because they have a different opinion than mine?? Calling a poster things such as naive or hypocritically, regardless of what words are used to replace those is not warranted or appreciated.
C'mon, you guys are both way too smart and knowledgeable about hockey to have to make it personal. If you want to dance on my argument, go ahead, but I would appreciate if you stopped trying to dance on me personally.
Now, to a couple of points:
I never stated or insinuated that Scott Neidermayer is solely responsible for the success his teams have had. But, he has always been a very successful player without being physically intimidating. Further to that point, one must admit that since NHL players have been in the Olympics, the success has been found by other countries. Specifically Finland, Sweden, Russia, and the Chech Republic. Who are their 'intimidating" players?? Is it that Team Canada missed the boat by not having the 'intimidating' Dion Phaneuf on the roster or is it that maybe the 'intimidating' defense is not as successful as the balanced defensive core a la Sweden???
I stand by my Al MacInnis as a PP specialist. At that point in his career(39 years old), he was rarely called upon to do much outside of fire shots from the point and not make mistakes in the back end. If it was 1992 I would have agreed that MacInnis was more than a PP specialist. In 2002, he was just that.
I also don't see how my point about the most successful team in the past 3 Olympics being balanced without any players being even average defensively says anything about bringing a very specialized offensive player to the Olympics.
And finally, please help me understand how a player like Drew Doughty is a bad pick considering what he does on the ice for a team that almost everyone did not have doing nearly as well as they have. He sits in the top 5 in most offensive catagories and is very strong in his own end.
I agree with anyone who says that Jay Bouwmeester should be on this team. I also completely agree with Steve Yzerman's comments that Doughty made the team specifically over Mike Green on being a more complete player. And I also agree with anyone who says that Dion Phaneuf does not belong on this team.
I think specifically the 2002 Olympic Teams and the 2006 Olympic Teams guided the Canadian Management on picking this defensive group. The 2002 team was very balanced with none of the player really pure specialists in anything and more balanced in everything. That won a Gold Medal. The 2006 team had a mixed group and some very speciallized players and they finished 7th.
In the end, we will all know in 6 weeks. If Canada wins, the decision was correct. If they tank, then people will have the 'no Mike Green" arguement.
I certainly didn't intend to take a shot at you Beans. After reading it again I still don't think I did. You may be being a little sensitive.
About Neidermayer, again, he succeeded many times without being intimidating but without taking his teammates into account it's a borderline strawman argument.
Physically intimidating players at past Olympics.
1998 - No medal
Blake
Foote
Pronger
Stevens
2002 - Gold medal
Foote
Pronger
Blake
Jovanovski
All these guys were intimidating physically and could hit hard. Foote in particular was a mean SOB.
2006 - No medal
Funny thing, those same 4 players were there again plus Regehr.
It appears the the success or failure didn't hinge on the defence as the same core players were there for both success and failure. But the physically intimidating type of players have always been there.
As for Doughty, he does have offensive ability, but in his own end I have seen him be average to poor.
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 14:14:10
|
Alrighy, if I am being sensative, I appoligize, however I don't agree. This last post seems to be significantly more geared towards the arguement and not personal which I do appreciate.
So let's look at this again. On the 1998, 2002, and 2006 teams there were physical players there. Definately there is the MO which we both agreed on that the team will be tough on the back end and always has that physical component. I guess what I am asking is two things. Specifically about Phaneuf.
Are you saying that team Canada today lacks physical defensemen?? I personally think that Weber, Keith, Pronger, and Seabrook bring a ton of physical play to this squad.
If we take Doughty out of the mix and look at the other 6 players (Pronger, Neidermayer, Weber, Keith, Seabrook, and Boyle). Who do you take out for Phaneuf and is the team significantly better with Phaneuf over one of these 6.
I can see the point, slightly. You watched a Doughty game where you were not impressed. I watched one where he was standout. Repectfully, have you watched many Kings games?? I have watched about 5 and I like what I have watched. If you have watched more, what is it specifically that Doughty has done to out the bad taste in your mouth??
As I have said or eluded to, I really like the balance and skill level on the current team. Top to bottom, I don't see any holes and although Phaneuf and Green both bring something to the table in a specific area that the current players may not be as good at, I don't see the defense taking a huge leap forward with one or both of these guys on the squad.
If Steve Y grows to regret anything, it will be not having the versatility, skating, and overall brilliant thinking player in Jay Bouwmeester. As much as I like the Doughty pick, today Bouwmeester is a better and more reliable player all over the ice.
For any who want it (and not like I am a Wikipedia fan) here is a link to all the Olympic rosters including the US team announced today.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_at_the_2010_Winter_Olympics_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_team_rosters
|
|
|
|
Leafs81
PickupHockey Pro
735 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 14:57:29
|
talking about toughness Team USA looks scary.
And also have you guys seen Doughty's hit last night. I wonder if he's trying to make a statement. Pretty good.
And about the Phaneuf vs Weber debate, I was one who would have like to see Phaneuf on the team. But I don't see enough game for both of them so I trust Yzerman for his expertise.
As for Bouwmeester over Doughty, I agree. Bouwmeester has experience and he's a very solid all around player which is what you need for a 7th defenseman because he steps up in case of an injury so this guy should be ready to take any role.
And about Mike Green I think it was between him and Boyle and they took Boyle to run the pp with the SJ line out front. So this left no room for Mike Green. But I truly agree with Slozo when he said it would have been nice to see Green on a powerplay with like 5 minutes left and Canada is trailing 2 to 1. (or something like that)
And Beans I understand your comment saying they went for versatility over role, like Boyle over Green and Weber over Phaneuf. And I kind of agree on this one, but I think what Slozo and Willus are saying is that if at a moment you do need a big hit or a big time pp goal. Green or Phaneuf would have come in handy. But for the game as a whole yeah Weber and Boyle (in Yzerman point of view) are more solid players.
I also like the point that Willus (I think it was him) did about Seabrook should have been left off. To make a team just because of chemistry is weird. Like you said, a guy like Bouwmeester would have found great chemistry with a guy like Keith because their level of talent is so high. |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 15:01:58
|
Beans,
You could take out Weber or Seabrook without a negative effect while getting a positive effect. I would probably drop Seabrook and Doughty. I think a Weber, Phaneuf duo would be fantastic. Especially with Weber being a right hand shot and seemingly more of a submissive partner(basing this on watching him with Suter) where Phaneuf would be the dominant.
It doesn't have to be a huge leap forward either. The little things are going to make the difference here. Phaneuf's presence on the ice changes the complexion of the game the same way Steven's presence used to. Every player on the opposing team is aware of what he can do. If it results in even the slightest reservation from opposing players that is a huge plus. There is no one on the team now who offers that.
When Atlanta played the Flames recently it was Phaneuf against Kovalchuk as the Regehr/Phaneuf pairing got the assignment. Phaneuf being right D and Kovalchuk left wing saw them go head to head. You could visibly see that Kovalchuk was leary of coming down that wing and he ended up with no goals and only one shot on goal that game.
Keith by the way is not a physical player. He is from the Lidstrom mold.
I have seen 3 or 4 games from Doughty this season. As I said before, he has great offensive instincts but also has lapses in judgment that young players are prone to. I even listed the glaring errors in an earlier post from one game.
Not sure what else to say really. I've given examples for everything.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/01/2010 : 16:57:19
|
I'm a little shocked at how upset some are over these picks. Also, it's not fair to say that if this team tanks, so and so should have been picked! Regardless of who likes this team and who doesn't, this team is easily good enough on paper to win gold. It's now up to the players. If they come up with a 5th place finish, Yzerman gets 0 blame in my books!
I'm also totally shocked at those who are surprised at the Weber pick. I mean, he's been considered an absolute lock for this team for the past year and a half. I too don't see a ton of Preds games but c'mon, like them or not, the so called "experts" have had this guy pegged since the start. How can anyone really argue this selection? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/02/2010 : 23:47:39
|
I'll say this, Alex116: If this team loses to Russia or Sweden in the final, it might be because we are missing that Green slapshot from the point on the powerplay or on the rush to provide a juicy rebound. I might be because Doughty misses an assignment on a last minute scramble instead of Bouwmeester blocking the pass and outmuscling his opponent. And it could be that we miss getting a goal to tie it, missing one from a Carter wrist shot on the rush, or a Brad Richards pass for the easy tip in.
Or, we could just get outplayed, and get stonewalled by a goalie. After all, on any given day, most of these teams can beat Canada given the right circumstances.
But you want your team to choose the very best players . . . to give yourself the absolute best odds of that gold medal happening. And it makes me as a hockey fan, and a Canadian, pretty pissed off when really obvious players get left off.
It makes me pissed, because I'm passionate about hockey . . . yeah, I care, Alex. And if you are on this site, challenging my views on this guy or that guy - great, bring it, and we'll argue over it. But don't ask me why I am here arguing about it or getting a tad emotional, because I only have three words for you:
I. AM. CANADIAN.
And yes, it is a beer commercial . . . but I don't drink Canadian or Blue. I am, however, drinking a beer at 2:47am, and that is the truth.
slozo out.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Bozonator
Top Prospect
57 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 00:22:42
|
Wow, when the team was first unveiled I thought it was a great team. Loved it, I had chosen a team and had St.Louis over Bergeron and Bouwmeester over Doughty and the rest was the same, but after reading all your posts, I just don't know what to think anymore. I am actually worried for Canada.
But I would love to see the Getzlaf, Nash, Iginla line from world championships, or the Perry, Crosby, Bergeron line from the World Juniors.
Also, it's impossible to make everyone happy. If Canada wins, Mr. Y looks like a genius. If Canada loses, then we have lots of angry Canadians and it would be the same if Green, St.Louis or the other players we believe should be on this team were there and we lost. We would argue about other players.
Who is to say that Green won't jump in on the Powerplay and cause a shorthanded goal due to one of his mistakes or any other player makes a mistake and causes the downfall of Canada.
Should be really interesting to watch. |
Edited by - Bozonator on 01/03/2010 00:30:04 |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 13:43:12
|
quote:
Originally posted by slozo
I'll say this, Alex116: If this team loses to Russia or Sweden in the final, it might be because we are missing that Green slapshot from the point on the powerplay or on the rush to provide a juicy rebound. I might be because Doughty misses an assignment on a last minute scramble instead of Bouwmeester blocking the pass and outmuscling his opponent. And it could be that we miss getting a goal to tie it, missing one from a Carter wrist shot on the rush, or a Brad Richards pass for the easy tip in.
Or, we could just get outplayed, and get stonewalled by a goalie. After all, on any given day, most of these teams can beat Canada given the right circumstances.
But you want your team to choose the very best players . . . to give yourself the absolute best odds of that gold medal happening. And it makes me as a hockey fan, and a Canadian, pretty pissed off when really obvious players get left off.
It makes me pissed, because I'm passionate about hockey . . . yeah, I care, Alex. And if you are on this site, challenging my views on this guy or that guy - great, bring it, and we'll argue over it. But don't ask me why I am here arguing about it or getting a tad emotional, because I only have three words for you:
I. AM. CANADIAN.
And yes, it is a beer commercial . . . but I don't drink Canadian or Blue. I am, however, drinking a beer at 2:47am, and that is the truth.
slozo out.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug
Slozo.... Yup, if we don't win gold, you and anyone else for that matter, can blame Yzerman and claim it was cuz Green was missing, or JBo was missing, or, etc etc..... As Bozonator said, Stevie Y looks like a genius if we win gold, otherwise, there's gonna be questions. BUT, that's not to say that they would have done any better with any different players. Yzerman was asked to put together the team he and his helpers felt would give Canada the best chance to win. He just did that. I don't agree with all the picks, but i'm certainly not upset over any of them either. I feel they have a team that can win. It's now up to the players to do just that.
Here's what i don't get.... You claim that "really obvious players get (got)t left off". Okay, so what you're saying is, not only Yzerman, but all the others who helped assess the talent and make the picks, ALL missed on Mike Green? I just can't figure out why YOU weren't involved in the selections?
BTW, reread your last post, which i take with a grain of salt due to the time and the beers involved, and reread my last one. I certainly wasn't trying to call anyone out, you included. I was simply stating that i was shocked at how upset some were over the selections? Is there anything wrong with me being shocked? |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4809 Posts |
Posted - 01/03/2010 : 21:11:16
|
Well, hard to read tone sometimes in a post on the internet, Alex . . . your first comment sounded a bit like "hey everyone, just relax, it's just a hockey team!" kind of comment, that's all. I didn't really take offense so much as get riled up about the fact that no, it's a lot more to that . . .
. . . it could be our '72 series.
Seriously, this could be the defining moment . . . if Canada faces a stacked Russian squad and comes back to win in o/t for the gold medal, would that not top them all - winning that gold medal in Canada? Because to me, what's possibly at stake (and I may be reading into it) is a defining sports and cultural moment that we all may remember for a very long time.
whew. I hope THAT doesn't put any added pressure on the athletes who may read this site, lol!
As to your points about who to blame . . . I find that position immature, sorry. If Canada wins, I will say it's despite the picks by Yzerman and his advisors. If Canada loses, I will point to it as a definite factor potentially . . . in the end, it's a game, and chance has a big part in it. So blame, no - I disagree with some of the decisions Yzerman made, and wil continue to do so whether Canada wins gold, silver, bronze, or gets eliminated in the first round. That opinion could change with the play of the players selected or left off . . . but probably not by much.
As to the comment about me being so much smarter than Yzerman and everyone smart agreeing with him: uh, no. Yzerman is most assuredly a smarter hockey guy than I am . . . but being a manager and picking a team takes more than just that. It means removing all prejudices, even if you only recently left the game . . . and choosing the best players for the team you want. And it is about strategy and planning what kind of team that will be . . . and I won't always agree with what are considered some of the best hockey minds around.
I don't quite agree with Yzerman's strategy and personnel management . . . not his hockey knowledge - that's all. In fact, I think he's overthinking and over-utilising his hockey knowledge to his team's own detriment. And that means I strongly disagree with a few of his picks.
"Take off, eh?" - Bob and Doug |
|
|
|
Guest0854
( )
|
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 20:55:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sensfan101
quote:
Originally posted by Alex
So, everyone was talking about the Nash-Crosby-Iginla line, but with Bergeron on the team, it seems like he and Crosby are going to be paired. Does anyone else really want to see the Heatley-Getzlaf-Nash combination reunited?
Finally someone else agrees with me I have been talking about that line the whole time
You miss 100 percent of the shots you don't take Wayne Gretzky
Well there goes the Bergeron with Sid experiment. Iggy replaces Berggy and scores a hat trick. Patrice may have just played himself into the 13th forward position. |
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 21:43:59
|
| So, wondering something here...... i noticed that Fleury was the only one to not dress? Is that to be expected going forward? The reason i ask is i heard on the radio this morning that Toews and Doughty wouldn't dress tonight? If you can dress all of them, why wouldn't they every game?? |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 22:05:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
So, wondering something here...... i noticed that Fleury was the only one to not dress? Is that to be expected going forward? The reason i ask is i heard on the radio this morning that Toews and Doughty wouldn't dress tonight? If you can dress all of them, why wouldn't they every game??
Well Fleury is obvious, but they are probably going to dress everyone until they find the good lines with chemistry and such. Btw Bergeron=FAIL. Not saying he played bad but what were they thinking with Iginla on the 4th line with Bergeron on the 1st? Trying to re-ignite chemistry from ages ago from the juniors, Please. |
Edited by - Axey on 02/16/2010 22:07:14 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 22:27:43
|
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
So, wondering something here...... i noticed that Fleury was the only one to not dress? Is that to be expected going forward? The reason i ask is i heard on the radio this morning that Toews and Doughty wouldn't dress tonight? If you can dress all of them, why wouldn't they every game??
Well Fleury is obvious, but they are probably going to dress everyone until they find the good lines with chemistry and such. Btw Bergeron=FAIL. Not saying he played bad but what were they thinking with Iginla on the 4th line with Bergeron on the 1st? Trying to re-ignite chemistry from ages ago from the juniors, Please.
Really?? If Bergeron= Fail, so does Toews and Morrow. Actually, I thought Bergeron was one of the best players on the ice. Tenacious forecheck, threw the body, killed penalties like a demon.
The assists on Richards near shortie was icing on the cake.
Don't get me wrong, that Crosby, Nash, Iginla line looked sick once they got going, but I think that this game really shows why Bergeron has a place on this team. He played well in every area of the ice and in every situation.
A really strong game by Canada once they stopped playing pitch and catch all over the ice. Luongo looked sharp when he had to.
|
|
|
|
Alex116
PickupHockey Legend
6113 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2010 : 23:24:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
Well Fleury is obvious, but they are probably going to dress everyone until they find the good lines with chemistry and such. Btw Bergeron=FAIL. Not saying he played bad but what were they thinking with Iginla on the 4th line with Bergeron on the 1st? Trying to re-ignite chemistry from ages ago from the juniors, Please.
I kinda get what you're saying about finding chemistry, but are you saying once they do, they won't dress a couple of guys? If you can dress them all, i'd have to assume they'd continue to do so just in case of injury? I mean, why wouldn't you?
As for Bergeron, i thought he was okay. Def didn't get a ton of time to click with the top line but looked just fine playing the role he ended up in. |
|
|
|
Canucks Man
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1547 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 00:40:15
|
Canada looked pretty good out there, I thought everyone did a pretty good job, Doughty looked great IMO, and as Beans said so did Bergeron. This could very well be the fact that Norway was clearly out classed in every aspect of the game, the true test will be Sunday vs USA, who IMO looked very good against a strong Swiss team, I thought Hiller was excellent in the Swiss net. How about Russia though, I was expecting a huge W vs Latvia, and they really didn't look that dominate and Latvia scored twice to boot. I think the lesser defence really showed and that what you need to win the Gold Medal.
CANUCKS RULE!!!
|
|
|
|
ryan93
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
996 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 05:28:13
|
| I actually though Bergeron played pretty good. And no, i don't know what radio station you were listening to, but it was dead wrong. Everyone with the exception of the 3rd goaltender (and poor Jeff Carter who i see stuck around & was sitting with Fleury) dresses. |
|
|
|
Axey
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
877 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2010 : 00:39:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
quote:
Originally posted by Axey
quote:
Originally posted by Alex116
So, wondering something here...... i noticed that Fleury was the only one to not dress? Is that to be expected going forward? The reason i ask is i heard on the radio this morning that Toews and Doughty wouldn't dress tonight? If you can dress all of them, why wouldn't they every game??
Well Fleury is obvious, but they are probably going to dress everyone until they find the good lines with chemistry and such. Btw Bergeron=FAIL. Not saying he played bad but what were they thinking with Iginla on the 4th line with Bergeron on the 1st? Trying to re-ignite chemistry from ages ago from the juniors, Please.
Really?? If Bergeron= Fail, so does Toews and Morrow. Actually, I thought Bergeron was one of the best players on the ice. Tenacious forecheck, threw the body, killed penalties like a demon.
The assists on Richards near shortie was icing on the cake.
Don't get me wrong, that Crosby, Nash, Iginla line looked sick once they got going, but I think that this game really shows why Bergeron has a place on this team. He played well in every area of the ice and in every situation.
A really strong game by Canada once they stopped playing pitch and catch all over the ice. Luongo looked sharp when he had to.
You're not getting what I'm actually meaning. As I said, he didn't play bad but there was no way Iggy was staying on that fourth line. Bergeron is a complimentary player to have in the 4th line role, he knows how to play it well. The first line of Team Canada, however, I disagree. |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 02/18/2010 : 07:47:52
|
It depends. If it's a physical game, Bergeron with Nash and Crosby is fine.
The thing about Bergeron that put him on the team is that he can play every position on any line. He (along with M. Richards and Morrow) are Canada's most versatile players.
Is Bergeron going to be Canada’s leading scorer?? No. Is or should he be on the 1st line?? More than likely not. Could he play there if he had to and be effective? Yes.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Team Canada 2010 Roster Announced 
