In hindsight, what players would you add or subtract?

[Dempsey]

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.

So if you could, you'd throw away the gold that they already have and go back in time with a different roster, risking it all in hopes that they could score another goal or two?

 

[gr8haluschak]

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?



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.



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.



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.

It is funny that you are calling me stupid, that is like the munchkin calling the midget short. You talk all you want about being a defensive liability and whatever other garbage you want to spew but the simple fact is most people would want goal scorers on their team, actually all people would want them on their team, except yourself, especially if their team had so few to start with. Find me specific example where he alone was a defensive liability. It is simple when he got out there he produced. What would have happened if he was on the ice more, there is a damn good chance he would have scored more goals and maybe, just maybe, the states would have won more, that is if your goalies didn't stink it out even more. With that being said I am done with this garbage.

 

[pei fan]

GILBERT BRULE!This team was good enough to add "a future star" just so he can
gain experience but Brule was good enough to play a full role.It's very possible
there will be no skaters with wjc experience next year.SO AT THE VERY LEAST---
GILBERT BRULE.

 

[Stefferdoos]

US...

- Brian Lee, Jeff Likens, Adam Pineault
+ Jack Johnson, Robbie Earl, Matt Lashoff

Agreed.

I would also add:
- Schneider
+ Coleman or Brown (were either eligible?)

 

[Juicer]

Replace Brent Seabrook with Mike Green on defense, and replace Rejean Beauchemin with Kevin Nastiuk in net. That's all I can really think of.

Didn't Beauchemin get a shutout in his only start?

 

[LaLaLaprise]

OK you have just diminished any credibility you have by saying such garbage, what non pro league is better than the CHL, humor me.

Let me guess it was his fault that your goalies stunk it out right, no matter how bad the defense was the blame was on your goalie. As well tell me where was all the offense in the semi final game ?

What did Schremp do 5 on 5?? Nothing.

 

[Seachd]

What did Schremp do 5 on 5??

Got as many goals as O'Sullivan and Callahan, and was one back of Stafford, Hensick, and Porter. He was also -2, which, for that team, was respectable.

 

[LaLaLaprise]

Got as many goals as O'Sullivan and Callahan, and was one back of Stafford, Hensick, and Porter. He was also -2, which, for that team, was respectable.

He is still a PP specialist. The kid has immense talents but he never stands out 5 on 5.

 

[Seachd]

He is still a PP specialist. The kid has immense talents but he never stands out 5 on 5.

I wouldn't say he never stands out 5 on 5. Yeah, he gets more power play goals, but he still gets lots of even strength goals too. So far this season, 16 of his 29 goals are PP, along with 17 of his 27 assists. Not surprising that he gets more points on the power play, but he certainly isn't invisible otherwise.

 

[DFF]

I dont know what the hype about Schremp.

Stafford looked much better than him and Stafford is projected to 2nd line at best.

Schremp may make it but he aint going to be a "star". He is just not complete enough. Personally I see him nothing more than a glorified jr scoring star.

 

[Senor Rational]

It is funny that you are calling me stupid, that is like the munchkin calling the midget short. You talk all you want about being a defensive liability and whatever other garbage you want to spew but the simple fact is most people would want goal scorers on their team, actually all people would want them on their team, except yourself, especially if their team had so few to start with. Find me specific example where he alone was a defensive liability. It is simple when he got out there he produced. What would have happened if he was on the ice more, there is a damn good chance he would have scored more goals and maybe, just maybe, the states would have won more, that is if your goalies didn't stink it out even more. With that being said I am done with this garbage.

Schremp was there only to score goals...powerplay goals, clutch goals, etc...

He was not there to lead the USA to gold. He was there to help the USA win the gold and by scoring when he was needed to he helped them get near to the goal.

I didnt get to see him firsthand I saw him the few times on the box. He is very gifted offensively but he wasnt there to kill penalties or to shadow the oppisitions best player he was there to score clutch goals. Why is it bothering people that he didnt get more icetime? He was there for his role and he filled it nicely.