Gonchar on Crosby

[Crosbyfan]

Crosby should not have because despite Thornton playing like crap, he has been one of the best players in the league this season. Going down the middle, if you went with Lecavalier, Sakic, Staal, Thornton and Spezza, you can't go wrong with that. As good as all 5 of them were playing going into the break, that would have been.

Crosby might own Ovechkin in head to head action, but who cares? That's the NHL. An NHL where Ovechkin is the only legtimate scoring threat on the team. Team Russia had 3 #1 lines to throw out there and the line with Malkin on it was also spactacular. The Olympics are not the NHL, and as we have seen teams with player who aren't even in the NHL have played rather large roles on their respective teams.


The WJC's and Memorial Cup are not the Olympics. To go on top of that, Pat Quinn would have stuck Crosby on the 4th line anyways, and if you think he has been disciplined this season...wrong answer

For every forward you name before Crosby, Staal, or Spezza you need to use a different argument to justify it.

Thornton has a proven record of "playing like crap" when it matters. No surprise he did it again.

As for Crosby/Ovechkin you're right it's not relevant.

More relevant is that Ovechkin, had he been Canadian, would probably have been left off the team due to "lack of experience", probably put on the "Taxi Squad".

Gretzky and company picked the team like they were afraid to make a mistake.

They "choked", plain and simple, when they picked the team. Then they wished Lemieux and Yzerman were there to hold the hands of the "experienced" players they picked.

 

[davemess]

He is the most agessive hard working player Canada has. He leaves nothing on the ice but blood ,sweat ,and tears.( I was astonished at how accepting the Canadians seemed to be of losing).

I think Staal and Spezza should have been ahead of him at Centre but those are the reasons i would have taken Crosby to play wing.

Give him a 4th line spot and use him as an energy spark-plug type..... similar to the role that Theo Fleury had in 2002.


Hard to critise the Canada roster to much, there is a load of talent there they just didnt have it for some reason or another. I think the biggest issue was the problems on the blueline, losing the guys they did before and playing others who where hurt just seemed to totally weeken what should have been Canadas biggest strength.

 

[Jaded-Fan]

The only reason that Crosby should have been on that team was to get him some experience for the next 3 or even 4 Olympics that he will be playing for them. Certainly one player could have gone to have gotten him that experience and he would not be that huge a drop-off in value to the team playing even on the checking line - which he can do quite well I might add. It was an opportunity lost to get the future of the team some experience, but in the end was not that big a deal.

 

[Genghis Keon]

Adding one player wouldn't have made the difference

I disagree. The team played pretty uninspired hockey (I think most, if not all, would agree with that), so if you brought in one guy who played with passion and always attacked the net, he might've been the spark that got the rest of the team going. You can have 350 hemi engine that can put out all the power and torque you'd ever need, and so long as it's running, it'll run through anything, but if it's stopped, it needs a spark to get going. Even taking away his offensive skillset, Crosby's game is suited to be a spark. Maybe he wouldn't have made the difference on his own, but he definitely had the potential to be the spark that would get Canada's offensive machine going. If St. Loius played the type of game he played in 2003-04, he could have been the spark. If Iginla played his balls to the walls crash the net style that he's played in recently memory, he could have been the spark. All the team needed, imo, was a spark to get the rest of the team going, and they never got it. One player, just one player, could've been the spark and changed everything around.

 

[Corto]

They "choked", plain and simple, when they picked the team. Then they wished Lemieux and Yzerman were there to hold the hands of the "experienced" players they picked.

I don't buy that... Sakic.... You head to pick, he was the projected leader.
Thornton... top-3 forward this season, with Jagr and Alfie.
Richards, playoff MVP.
Lecavalier... deserved to be there, IMO.

If anybody should carry a grudge over not being selected, it's Staal. Not Crosby.

 

[kingsfan25]

I disagree. The team played pretty uninspired hockey (I think most, if not all, would agree with that), so if you brought in one guy who played with passion and always attacked the net, he might've been the spark that got the rest of the team going. You can have 350 hemi engine that can put out all the power and torque you'd ever need, and so long as it's running, it'll run through anything, but if it's stopped, it needs a spark to get going. Even taking away his offensive skillset, Crosby's game is suited to be a spark. Maybe he wouldn't have made the difference on his own, but he definitely had the potential to be the spark that would get Canada's offensive machine going. If St. Loius played the type of game he played in 2003-04, he could have been the spark. If Iginla played his balls to the walls crash the net style that he's played in recently memory, he could have been the spark. All the team needed, imo, was a spark to get the rest of the team going, and they never got it. One player, just one player, could've been the spark and changed everything around.

The Canadians had players who played well in specific games, but what it comes down to is that adding one different player wouldn' t have changed the outcome. Crosby's not a difference-maker at the highest level yet, and the only way his addition to the team would have helped anything is with a different a group of largely different players that would've...I don't know...been hungrier, gelled better...

 

[Crosbyfan]

I don't buy that... Sakic.... You head to pick, he was the projected leader.
Thornton... top-3 forward this season, with Jagr and Alfie.
Richards, playoff MVP.
Lecavalier... deserved to be there, IMO.

If anybody should carry a grudge over not being selected, it's Staal. Not Crosby.

Noone is claiming Staal shouldn't have been there. Noone is that stupid.

Absolutely noone.

 

[Corto]

Noone is claiming Staal shouldn't have been there. Noone is that stupid.

Absolutely noone.

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal?

 

[Crosbyfan]

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal?

I would have named him as a RW possibly moving him to center after watching the "inspired" play of Thorton and Lecavalier.

Staal would be a top 6 before even starting to fill in role players. Sakic would have been captain but not necessarily top 6.
Richards top 6 but not necessarily center.

 

[Rover*]

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal?

I would have kicked vinny....and st. louis...and doan...and draper...and iginla..staal, spezza, crosby and phaneuf all should have been on the team instead of the struggling vets with "experience."

 

[futurcorerock]

Ofcourse he says Crosby should've been there....

.... more liability for Team Canada, thus a 3 or 4-0 shutout of Canada in the quarters.

 

[MOGiLNY]

Ovechkin didn't make a difference. He scored the game winning goal, but the team won, not Ovechkin.

No disrespect for Ovechkin though, of course. He played a great game, it's just that it was a team effort.

 

[Miller Time]

One player wouldn't have made a difference, but several would have.

IN: Spezza, Staal, Crosby, Kariya, Shanahan, Phaneuf, Boyle

OUT: Lecavalier, St. Louis, Nash, Bertuzzi, Draper, Foote, Regehr

*these two sets of players have similar levels of international experience, in fact, the first group probably has more.

That's the thing. I don't agree with Bob MacKenzie that you leave the players that were there off the hook by questioning the selections. To the contrary, they chose great players that were having bad seasons or that don't have skill sets that translate well to international ice.

Regehr??? Did you watch any games? Regehr was probably our best d-man in our own end!

 

[Crosbyfan]

Ovechkin didn't make a difference. He scored the game winning goal, but the team won, not Ovechkin.

No disrespect for Ovechkin though, of course. He played a great game, it's just that it was a team effort.

Look "difference" up in the dictionary one more time.

 

[Accord]

Ovechkin was spectacular throughout the entire Olympics.

Crosby wasn't even there.

/end

 

[WhiskeyYerTheDevils]

i would take crosby ahead of sakic, richards, lecavalier, spezza, and staal. Thornton is the only center that has been playing better hockey than crosby.

 

[MOGiLNY]

Look "difference" up in the dictionary one more time.

If Ovechkin didn't score that goal, somebody else would have.

 

[Crosbyfan]

If Ovechkin didn't score that goal, somebody else would have.

Adam Foote?

 

[MOGiLNY]

Adam Foote?

Chris Pronger

 

[Legolas]

The problem with all these "if only" scenarios is that it assumes that everyone who you would sub in would be playing amazing whereas the guys they are replacing played badly...and that just is not supported by any evidence whatsoever.

I thougth Staal and Crosby should have been there too (not so much Spezza) but if the entire roster played this badly, why does anyone assume that Staal and Crosby would play amazing? The same malaise and lack of intensity that beset Iginla, Richards, Lecavalier, Sakic, Gagne, Nash, etc. etc. could have very easily affected anyone you put into the roster. Team Canada's problem was that it was not playing together as a unit and guys were trying to do too much individually. Remember when Heatley tried to take it coast-to-coast all by himself on that solo rush?

The only way you can argue that Crosby and Staal would have really made a difference is if you believe they would have been able, as rookies, to inspire their teammates to raise their collective play. I love Sid and I love AO, but neither of them makes their teammates that much better, they are just individually amazing players. The way this team played, even Ovechkin would not have made a difference.

 

[Slitty]

Imagine... Crosby on team Canada and they still loose. Just imagine the outcry of negativity, especially if he wouldn't have preformed well, he might have as well retired right there an then as he would have never heard the end of it. Same goes to Gretzky in such a scenario, and Quinn for playing him too much.

 

[HellsBells]

Regehr??? Did you watch any games? Regehr was probably our best d-man in our own end!

I was just thinking the same thing.

Robyn Regehr was not outstanding by any stretch of the imagination but IMO he was the best defender on Team Canada.

Perhaps being an Oilers fan clouded Hemsky4PM's judgement because if we went by performance alone, Robyn Regehr was much better than Chris Pronger.

 

[deathbear]

IN: Spezza, Staal, Crosby, Kariya, Shanahan, Phaneuf, Boyle

OUT: Lecavalier, St. Louis, Nash, Bertuzzi, Draper, Foote, Regehr

i'm pretty sure i disagree with absolutely everything here.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

Okay. So who would have you kicked out in favor of Crosby..... Supposing Staal is ahead of him on the depth chart...

Sakic, Thornton, Richards, Lecavalier, Staal?

Considering Crosby can play the wing, there would easily have been room.

 

[Namso]

lol you guys think Crosby would have stayed disciplined???

Whenever the going gets tough, Crosby is the first one to end up in the penalty box. He would have probably cost us a few goals. Crosby is just not ready yet. A bad experience could go a long way to possibly halting his development somewhat.

Gretzky made a good decision not taking crosby, he was too young, inexperienced, undisplined...

Staal on the otherhand....