2014 Olympics Thread (2/12-2/23)

[major major]

Not a representative photo. They're obviously finishing a line change. Canada had one or two forwards up on the play every rush for the U.S., and the Canadians pressed the play into the U.S. zone for much of the third. In other words, it was a solid, respectable defence.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

I think the hockey has been thrilling. I love the big ice. The stretch passes, the room to dance while attempting to gain the line, flip side-to-side no-look passing behind the paint, etc.

What I really love more than anything is that Bob didn't get injured and now we can get back to what matters most; Jackets Hockey.

I think I heard someone say that average goals per game on Olympic ice were actually1 goal less per game than North American ice.

Whoever made the comment reasoned that while the big ice creates more space in the neutral zone, you still ultimately need to get between the face off dots to score most of your goals. I can sort of se the reasoning behind it. I don't really follow soccer too much but outdoor is obviously a low scoring game while it seems that indoor soccer games are very high scoring. It creates more battles but essentially more scoring opportunities

 

[Nanabijou]

I think I heard someone say that average goals per game on Olympic ice were actually1 goal less per game than North American ice.

Whoever made the comment reasoned that while the big ice creates more space in the neutral zone, you still ultimately need to get between the face off dots to score most of your goals. I can sort of se the reasoning behind it. I don't really follow soccer too much but outdoor is obviously a low scoring game while it seems that indoor soccer games are very high scoring. It creates more battles but essentially more scoring opportunities

Good analogy. I was thinking while watching the Canada-USA game that it was more 'soccer-like' than NHL hockey. It's more of a chess match while teams try to figure out a way to get the puck into the scoring zone. The comparison of scoring in outdoor soccer versus indoor soccer is a reasonable way to think about it.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

USA Certainly needs anyone who can score a goal right now. I'm feeling a shut out for 2 consecutive days.

 

[Samkow]

Despite all the injuries this Olympics, the NHL would be fools to skip 2018. Even with the lousy game times, this tournament generates a national buzz (in both the US and Canada) for hockey that won't come out of the World Cup.

The players like it, NBC likes it, and more importantly, most of the fans like it. Hope the owners don't shoot themselves in the foot.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Despite all the injuries this Olympics, the NHL would be fools to skip 2018. Even with the lousy game times, this tournament generates a national buzz (in both the US and Canada) for hockey that won't come out of the World Cup.

The players like it, NBC likes it, and more importantly, most of the fans like it. Hope the owners don't shoot themselves in the foot.

Who is paying for insurance and salaries for players injured now? I know that was a negotiated point for this Olympics because the owners didn't want to pay for it themselves. Do the players like it enought to potentially give up large sums of money in order to do it?

NBC just likes money. It only makes sense to introduce the World Cup of Hockey back in. You can hold it in the summer so it doesn't conflict with the seasons. The NHL can partner with other leagues around the world to make it a money maker for them and not the IOC. NBC can get the USA TV rights. It can work but you need the European leagues to buy in the be a part of it. If the KHL buys in, the others will follow.

 

[cbjfan]

Team USA = Epic Failure

 

[Samkow]

I hope JJ is smiling. Captain America probably could have prevented the US from looking like the best team in the tournament to looking like they probably wouldn't beat Austria.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

Team USA = Epic Failure

Tied with Finland for the most goals in the preliminary rounds and ZERO goals in the games it matters most. There needs to be some soul searching from these coaches and players on how to never allow this to happen again.

 

[Mayor Bee]

I don't know if Bobby Ryan can spell "intense", but I'd be willing to bet he doesn't know how to spell "shut out in consecutive games".

All I can deduce is that the powers-that-be with Team USA looked at the amount of talent that they had to work with and were paralyzed with it. There was a time when a guy like Joel Otto would be up the middle on the third line not because that's what he was and was good at it, but because there wasn't enough depth to keep him away....or Steve Konowalchuk, or Bryan Smolinski, or Brian Rolson, or Shawn Chambers.

And yet everything here seems to have been geared on facing Canada for the gold, with no real backup for how to handle if any part of that didn't happen. There seems to have been an assumption that not only would it happen, but that the game would go a certain way: needing to protect a one-goal lead in the third period. I wonder if, in all of his dreams and spirit visions, Brian Burke ever dreamed that perhaps the USA would not be facing Canada, and not for a medal.

But hey, who needs offense from the back end when Brooks Orpik is out there?

 

[skimp]

David Poile hockey is Team USA hockey.

 

[Iron Balls McGinty]

I'll also point out that the USA yet again fails to medal in an Olympics not held in North America. Not looking good for USA Hockey in the 2018 games if the NHL Participates again.

 

[cbjfaninmo]

In a couple of days at CBJ practice....

JJ: Hi Coach Richards, welcome back....
Coach Richards: Hi JJ, what's up with that silly smirk?

 

[CBJ103]

It's one thing to lose a hard-played, well-played game against a very good Finnish team.

It's something else entirely to put a team out there which doesn't care enough to put out a credible effort in an Olympic bronze medal game.

USA Hockey needs a big flush from the top down.

 

[Double-Shift Lasse]

I think only part of it was the makeup of the Team USA roster. Dan Bylsma has proven that he has difficulty coming up with a secondary plan when what he goes into a game with isn't working. (No, he is not alone in that, but it contributes to these kinds of situations.) I don't know whether to be concerned that HCTR was part of the staff that didn't have a solution.

Today's game is also on the leadership within the players. Sure, there is a tremendous level of disappoi ntment at not playing for gold, but this game had a medal on the line, and the guys didn't persevere.

 

[bester vaive]

In a couple of days at CBJ practice....

JJ: Hi Coach Richards, welcome back....
Coach Richards: Hi JJ, what's up with that silly smirk?

Hopefully JJ is wearing his silver medal when this interaction occurs.

 

[EspenK]

I don't know if Bobby Ryan can spell "intense", but I'd be willing to bet he doesn't know how to spell "shut out in consecutive games".

All I can deduce is that the powers-that-be with Team USA looked at the amount of talent that they had to work with and were paralyzed with it. There was a time when a guy like Joel Otto would be up the middle on the third line not because that's what he was and was good at it, but because there wasn't enough depth to keep him away....or Steve Konowalchuk, or Bryan Smolinski, or Brian Rolson, or Shawn Chambers.

And yet everything here seems to have been geared on facing Canada for the gold, with no real backup for how to handle if any part of that didn't happen. There seems to have been an assumption that not only would it happen, but that the game would go a certain way: needing to protect a one-goal lead in the third period. I wonder if, in all of his dreams and spirit visions, Brian Burke ever dreamed that perhaps the USA would not be facing Canada, and not for a medal.

But hey, who needs offense from the back end when Brooks Orpik is out there?

While your arguments make logical sense most of the time, I think this one misses the mark. Unless you mean that if yesterday's game was for a medal, the US would have played better and won?

 

[Mayor Bee]

While your arguments make logical sense most of the time, I think this one misses the mark. Unless you mean that if yesterday's game was for a medal, the US would have played better and won?

Back in 1996, potential players and coaches for the World Cup team were asked, "If you had a 1-goal lead against Canada with the championship on the line, what would you do to finish the job?" I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that even in tournaments since, this is still brought up.

To me, it seems that USA Hockey has been stuck in this type of mode ever since. There's an expectation that each best-on-best team needs to be constructed a certain way not to maximize versatility for any of a number of scenarios that could be faced during the span of an entire tournament, but to oppose Canada and only Canada. High-octane offensive players are shelved in favor of "grit" and "heart", which only makes sense when opposing a tight-checking game (Canada) or one with a soft and positionally-poor defense (no one else). Slow and immobile defensemen are trotted out there not to contain fast offensively creative players (everyone else), but someone with a mashing grind-it-out offense (Canada only). That makes a bit of sense on the smaller ice, where the adjustment curve is literally zero compared to other non-Canadian teams, but on the big ice it completely defies logic.

But I think that the USA expected to play Canada for the gold medal, and that the team itself was constructed to that end. And if Canada had been bounced early, there would likely still not have been a medal. USA could handle a poor team or one that couldn't get out of its own way, but against anyone else it wasn't going to end well. They'd have lost to the Czechs if Salak had gotten the start instead of Pavelec, they'd have had a hell of a time with Russia in the medal round, and a loss against Sweden and Finland just seemed to be inevitable. If US and Canada had played in the first game of the medal round, the US wouldn't have medaled even after a win.

 

[Wendy Clear]

The US was doomed before they left for Russia. I think most people knew that and expressed it in their thoughts on the decisions to leave guys like JJ and Ryan off while taking statues or plugs like Orpik and Brown.

The ESPN article on the selection process was fascinating, but what I took out of it is how big a mistake it is for one guy to have ultimate say over the roster. Yeah, others consulted, but that's all. The guys banging the table for JJ or Ryan... yeah, they were ignored by the end of it. And, whaddya know, they were right -- just like the average fan.

I think their performance most of all showed what a mistake it is to play it safe. You don't win anything by playing it safe. It's like constantly hitting for singles instead of HRs. You really gonna win many games 1-0? Canada made many of the same mistakes (Kunitz has been, as almost unanimously expected, terrible), but they're fortunate enough to have the depth to get away with it.

Well, longer than necessary first post, so here's to the TLDR: you should've taken JJ, idiots!

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Yeah, leaving off JJ and Bobby Ryan for Dustin Brown and Brooks Orpik was a big mistake.

Also, wish Zach Parise and Patrick Kane would have been as invisible last year as they were in the tourny. We probably would have gotten in the playoffs.

Good for JK.

 

[Socks]

Too bad they can't turn the seats on the plane ride back for Team USA into penalty boxes. Because every one of them needs to sit and feel shame.

 

[CBJWerenski8]

Too bad they can't turn the seats on the plane ride back for Team USA into penalty boxes. Because every one of them needs to sit and feel shame.

Not Johnny Quick

 

[major major]

Which part of JJ's game, exactly, do people think would have made a difference? There's plenty of American defencemen who are better on the Powerplay, plenty (actually most) who can score more 5 on 5, and there's plenty of American defencemen who are better defensively. In no way does losing to Canada prove that JJ should have been on that team.

 

[Wendy Clear]

Which part of JJ's game, exactly, do people think would have made a difference? There's plenty of American defencemen who are better on the Powerplay, plenty (actually most) who can score more 5 on 5, and there's plenty of American defencemen who are better defensively. In no way does losing to Canada prove that JJ should have been on that team.

No one can say for sure, but his skating and outlet passing would've been a real asset, if you ask me. The American defensemen often looked like they were skating in mud, and time after time failed to get the puck to the forwards resulting in long stretches of being hemmed in their own end. I also think his passion might've injected some energy into their lifeless, uninspired play. Most of the team looked like it was going through the motions.

It comes down to risk. The Americans were scared: their selections were risk-averse, their system was passive and reeked of fear of making a mistake, and their play was a reflection of all these things. Frankly, David Poile probably dreamed of "keeping it close and stealing it late." One could argue that some teams need to do that against Canada (read: Finland), I just don't buy that the US is one of them. They're not as talented or deep as Canada, but they're not so far apart that they need to play hockey like a game of chess.

 

[IHeartZherdev*]

Which part of JJ's game, exactly, do people think would have made a difference? There's plenty of American defencemen who are better on the Powerplay, plenty (actually most) who can score more 5 on 5, and there's plenty of American defencemen who are better defensively. In no way does losing to Canada prove that JJ should have been on that team.

Hes better than justin faulk, paul martin, and brooks orpik at hockey. Just about every part. Offensive, defensive, PP and PK