In hindsight, what players would you add or subtract?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Anksun

Registered User
Dec 13, 2002
3,616
1
Montreal
Visit site
kmad said:
That wasn't Team Canada's choice. Florida refused to release him to play in the tournament.

It's not exactly true. Florida said they would release Horton for the (approx dates) 19th december while Canada was asking to have all players for the 11th. Florida said no to this request, so Canada said "we are good enought and we want a team, keep him".

Horton could have been add.
 

not quite yoda

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
3,688
127
Visit site
HabLover said:
replace Dixon with Stefan Meyer

replace Syrvet with Mike Green

replace Ladd with Alex Picard

replace Perry with Nathan Horton

Why not leave theteam as it is? Considering it won gold and couldn't have done much better than it did.

(although Dixon was at a lower level than every other forward).
 

Vic Rattlehead*

Guest
Was Hunwick that bad for the US? I wasn't able to see all the games.
 

sehnsucht

Registered User
Mar 10, 2004
614
0
I don't he was that actively bad, just weak, and he certainly didn't help the U.S.'s defensive woes

man, the Lee treatment still amazes me. They were basically playing with five defenceman the entire tournament, just to give a future guy a few minutes of experience, when they could have played a strong defenceman that could have made a difference
 

zecke26

Registered User
Jan 16, 2003
10,343
53
for germany:

gogulla and gawlik would have been nice additions. both could've played 1st line on that weak team.

in goal i'd kick out greiss and add lukas lang.

i'd love to say more about other good additions, but germany does not have better players than those that were bashed there.
 

leafaholix*

Guest
zecke26 said:
for germany:

gogulla and gawlik would have been nice additions. both could've played 1st line on that weak team.

in goal i'd kick out greiss and add lukas lang.

i'd love to say more about other good additions, but germany does not have better players than those that were bashed there.
Thomas Greiss was good in his showing against Canada.

Not sure how much better Lang is... :dunno:
 

saillias

Registered User
Sep 6, 2004
2,362
0
Calgary
Canada completely steamrolled the competition. Out of the healthy guys there was no need for replacements at all. Seriously. Are you all still bitter that a few of your favourite players weren't chosen?

The only guys I would've replaced in hindsight were Colliton and Barker because they were injured.
 

HiLite

Registered User
Jan 6, 2005
13
0
Sutter and his crew put together a team that steamrolled this tournament like a Hummer nailing a Smart Car. I don't think I would have rather seen anyone on the team, or anyone off.
 

zecke26

Registered User
Jan 16, 2003
10,343
53
Carl O'Steen said:
Thomas Greiss was good in his showing against Canada.

maybe, but ziffzer had the better tournament, therefore i would have kept him in.

Not sure how much better Lang is... :dunno:

he had some great starts in the DEL this season. his stats are amazing for such a young kid. he's a real surprise. and it's not wrong to play a goalie on a hot streak.
 

Bandwagoner

Registered User
Nov 18, 2003
249
0
Canada
Visit site
Replace Fleury with Harding.... j/k

Um not too many I would think, but I would have liked to see maybe a guy like Ryan Stone on team Canada, but I do believe i can see why Sutter picked the team he did.
 

Hunter Gathers

The Crown
Feb 27, 2002
106,463
11,444
parts unknown
God allmighty get Likens out of there. Put Johnson in his place. Matt Lashoff would've been good for maybe Hunwick.

Forward wise, takeo ut Pineault and add Robbie Earl.
 

Plager05

Registered User
Mar 17, 2002
2,483
0
Sewers
Visit site
Seachd said:
Name five American forwards who actually were defensively responsible.

What does it matter? So many people think he dropped way to low and after watching him play a few games I see why he dropped. Other players lack of responsibility shouldn't affect his and if it does then lack of leadership abilities should be another - on his record.
 

Dion Mustard*

Guest
gr8haluschak said:
What are you watching, oh yeah it was his fault he was given fouth liner time, especially since he has proven that he can score against the best in the CHL, but that is right he is not that good.

Actually, it is his fault he was a 4th liner. Maybe if he could play at both ends, he could have seen more ice when the US wasn't behind.

And BTW, Eric Fehr doesn't seem to have a problem scoring in the WHL, yet he was cut from Team Canada. At some point, you kids have to realize what you do in the OHL/WHL/QMJHL has no barring on whether you should make your Country's WJ team, and what role you may fill.

Until you realize that, nobody will take you seriously.

As for my changes to Canada, replace Syrvet with Mike Green, and take Fehr over Perry. And to add some experience for next year, replace Rejean Beauchemin with Devan Dubnyk.
 

gr8haluschak

Registered User
Jul 25, 2004
3,269
111
Dion Mustard said:
Actually, it is his fault he was a 4th liner. Maybe if he could play at both ends, he could have seen more ice when the US wasn't behind.

And BTW, Eric Fehr doesn't seem to have a problem scoring in the WHL, yet he was cut from Team Canada. At some point, you kids have to realize what you do in the OHL/WHL/QMJHL has no barring on whether you should make your Country's WJ team, and what role you may fill.

Until you realize that, nobody will take you seriously.

As for my changes to Canada, replace Syrvet with Mike Green, and take Fehr over Perry. And to add some experience for next year, replace Rejean Beauchemin with Devan Dubnyk.

OK your comments are comical,

I dod not know that the United States had sooo many goal scorers compared to Canada that they could toss aside gifted scorers. Obviously he must not have been a defensive liability if he is a +13 in the OHL right now, as well how could he have been a defensive liabilty if he only had a handful of playing minutes but still managed to be even and being tied for second in goals and third among points. As well I would not be talking about him being a defensive liability if only three players were plus for the tournament.
 

kenabnrmal

Registered User
Feb 28, 2002
4,241
0
the beach or rink
Visit site
Based on his actual play as opposed to his sickness, I can't imagine why someone would want Barker off the team. He played errorless hockey, moved the puck well out of his own end, and was a force on the first power play unit. I don't really see what more he could done, short of laying into more guys to get Pierre excited and get his name heard more.
 

Dion Mustard*

Guest
gr8haluschak said:
OK your comments are comical,

I dod not know that the United States had sooo many goal scorers compared to Canada that they could toss aside gifted scorers. Obviously he must not have been a defensive liability if he is a +13 in the OHL right now,

See, this is where stupidity becomes a handicap for some.

You can't throw out stats at random and expect them to prove your point. Yes, Schremp is +13 this is, but he also has 55 points, and plays for a team that hasn't lost when he has been in the line-up. Why is he only +13 if he has been on the ice when his team scored atleast 55 times? Corey Perry is +31 and Danny Syrvet is +35. Why are those two (guys who played for Canada), so much higher?

gr8haluschak said:
as well how could he have been a defensive liability if he only had a handful of playing minutes .

He only had a handful of minutes because HE IS A defensive liability. You don't put guys out when you are trying to protect a lead if you can't trust them to do this job. When the US was on the power play, Schremp played. When the US was behind and needed to score, Schremp played. When the US was killing a penalty, Schremp sat on the bench. And when the US was ahead and wanted to protect their lead, Schremp sat on the bench. That's why he had so few minutes, because his defence sucks.

gr8haluschak said:
but still managed to be even and being tied for second in goals and third among points.

Maybe because most of his points came on the power play. The fact he had so many points, and yet was a even (or better yet, such a low +/- compared to his teammates in the OHL) should pretty much prove what you are slow at figuring out yourself.

gr8haluschak said:
As well I would not be talking about him being a defensive liability if only three players were plus for the tournament.

Let's see, the US lost as many games as they won, and scored has many goals has they allowed. Players on teams like that usually don't have a great +/-. Plus/minus in a 6 game span isn't something you can use to prove your point. Ice time, when and under what circumstances it came, do. And Schremp's ice time shows his defence sucks.

Listen, Rob Schremp is not a terrible hockey player. Nobody here is saying that. What we are saying is he is not a complete hockey player yet. And allowing a kid to work on that part of the game in a tournament as high profile as this one is, is stupid. Schremp was brought for his scoring. When that wasn't needed, either was he. Giving him more ice time would not have changed the US's fortune's. You can teach and learn how to play defence. You can't teach or learn a scoring touch like the one Schremp has.
 

Dempsey

Mark it zero
Mar 1, 2002
3,298
1,700
Ladner, BC
HabLover said:
replace Dixon with Stefan Meyer

replace Syrvet with Mike Green

replace Ladd with Alex Picard

replace Perry with Nathan Horton

You'd actually go back and change the gold medal winning team this much?

They won gold. I think a smart GM would be happy and leave it at that.
 

Dion Mustard*

Guest
Dempsey said:
You'd actually go back and change the gold medal winning team this much?

They won gold. I think a smart GM would be happy and leave it at that.

Yes, because two of those players made it because of politics, and not their skill. Both, as you know, were the 13th forward and 7th defenceman until injuries bumped them up. The one, was soley responsible for the only even strength goal scored against Canada.

And I thought I explained the goalie situation
 

Dempsey

Mark it zero
Mar 1, 2002
3,298
1,700
Ladner, BC
Dion Mustard said:
Yes, because two of those players made it because of politics, and not their skill. Both, as you know, were the 13th forward and 7th defenceman until injuries bumped them up. The one, was soley responsible for the only even strength goal scored against Canada.

And I thought I explained the goalie situation

Well, all I can say is that I'm glad you're not actually able to go back and change things around.

You can't do any better than gold. The only other thing these changes could do screw things up. Why bother?
 

Dion Mustard*

Guest
Dempsey said:
You can't do any better than gold. The only other thing these changes could do screw things up. Why bother?

Those moves could also make the team better, which is what I think it would. You think they dominated, drop weaker players for better ones, and I believe they'd have an even easier go.

PS, new drinking game for you folks who might catch a Knights game on TV. Every time Corey Perry falls to the ice, take a shot of rye. You should have a nice glow by the mid way mark of the 2nd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->